UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Nov 2002

  Nov 1:

   Gravity Waves Analysis Opens 'Completely New Sense' - Stig Agermose
   [91]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [106]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [40]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser - Jim Speiser [31]
   CI: Nighttime Infrared Image of Face Released - Mac Tonnies [51]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Bob Young [62]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates - Robert Gates [52]
   Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy - John Velez [34]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Wendy Connors [41]
   Spain: Underwater Noises Attract Parapsychologists - Scott Corrales
   [25]
   Spain: The Waters Of Mallorca An X-File - Scott Corrales [67]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [15]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - - Joe McGonagle [32]
   SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Stig Agermose [100]
   Dr. Bill Doleman On Roswell Excavations - Stig Agermose [214]
   Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Young - Bob Young [11]
   Security Information Defined - Jan Aldrich [107]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [26]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Pope - Nick Pope [38]
   Earthly Equivalents Of Abuctee Symbols? - Eleanor White [23]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser - Jim Speiser [58]
   Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Randle - Kevin Randle [33]

  Nov 2:

   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Colin Bennett [77]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Young - Bob Young [20]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Speiser - Jim Speiser [21]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [72]
   Control Of Classified Information - Jan Aldrich [22]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [74]
   NASA Fights Back On Moon Landing - Mike Cahill [66]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [80]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [22]
   Victoria, British Columbia Sighting - 11-01-02 - Brian Vike - HBCC UFO
   Research [34]
   NASA 'Conspiracy'? - Geoff Richardson [3]
   Terminology - Wendy Connors [88]
   SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC - Steven Kaeser [32]
   EW: Sagan's 'Cosmos' Pyramids Compared - Kurt Jonach - The Electric
   Warrior [65]
   SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases - Eleanor White [10]

  Nov 3:

   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Jerry Cohen [231]
   Holloman Landing Film Revisited - Grant Cameron [249]
   Re: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing - - John Cussen [112]
   Scientists Debate Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life - Stig Agermose
   [117]
   CCCRN News: Multi-Circle Formation - Kamsack, - Paul Anderson [47]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates - Robert Gates [75]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson - Bruce Hutchinson [209]

  Nov 4:

   Kitwanga, British Columbia Sighting 11-01-02 - Brian Vike - HBCC UFO
   Research [23]
   Fox 23 Albany NY Video - Loren Coleman [28]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bob Young [24]
   Re: SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC - Kenny Young [17]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [124]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [30]
   Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases - - John [33]
   'The Biggest Discovery Of All Time' - Eric Julien [12]
   NUFOS: Disinformation Alert - John Sayer [30]
   Secrecy News -- 11/04/02 - Steven Aftergood [86]
   Archive Top 20 'Reads' - 10-02 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [66]
   Re: Terminology - Jones - Sean Jones [24]
   Mystery Of Area 51 - Grant Cameron [116]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Richard Hall [42]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Hall - Richard Hall" [51]
   Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - Chris Whitlock [23]
   Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases - - Mac Tonnies [34]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [54]
   Re: Terminology - Connors - Wendy Connors [77]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [123]
   Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser - Jim Speiser [34]

  Nov 5:

   New Book Reviews - Mac Tonnies [37]
   Podesta Skeptical About UFOs - Stig Agermose [24]
   MUFON North Carolina: Truth Will Land In 2003 - Stig Agermose [49]
   Bush Says UFO Promise Still On - Grant Cameron [198]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [71]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks - Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>> [78]
   Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times - UFO UpDates - Toronto [26]
   UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - UFO UpDates - Toronto [24]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Eleanor White [28]
   Re: Mystery Of Area 51 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [94]
   Re: Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times - Chalker - Bill Chalker [35]
   Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Ledger - Don Ledger [38]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bob Young [51]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [144]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45 - John Hayes [645]
   Freedom-of-Information Appeal - 11-05-02 - Larry W. Bryant [110]

  Nov 6:

   Have Indian Researchers Found ET Microbes? - - Stig Agermose [31]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Don Ledger [40]
   Best & Worst of Ufology - Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog [8]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - Colin Bennett [162]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Don Ledger [57]
   Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [18]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Printy - Tim Printy [117]
   Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Hebert - Amy Hebert [13]
   Kinross Incident Museum Exhibit - Gord Heath [30]
   Black Projects Come Out - Tim Matthews [72]
   Notice From The Why? Files - Geoff Richardson [5]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Eleanor White [40]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Don Ledger [60]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bruce Maccabee
   [128]
   Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Velez - John Velez [22]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - White - Eleanor White [16]
   Re: Notice From The Why? Files - White - Eleanor White [19]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Velez - John Velez [48]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [21]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Morton - Dave Morton [46]
   Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - George A. Filer [504]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Larry Hatch [53]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [398]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [51]
   Secrecy News -- 11/06/02 - Steven Aftergood [166]
   'Alien George' - Dan Medley [10]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Jones - Sean Jones [37]
   Kecksburg Case Back In Spotlight - UFO UpDates - Toronto [64]
   It's Official - US Did Land On Moon - UFO UpDates - Toronto [42]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Chris Whitlock [14]

  Nov 7:

   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [461]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Rudiak - David Rudiak [44]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [23]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Jim Speiser [61]
   Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Speiser - Jim Speiser [24]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Richard Hall [69]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [31]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Printy - Tim Printy [77]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger - Don Ledger [23]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger - Don Ledger [31]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger - Don Ledger [68]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Morton - Dave Morton [47]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Carey - TCarey1947@aol.com [26]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser - Jim Speiser [16]
   Scientists Intensify Hunt For 'Non-Terrean' Life - Stig Agermose [153]
   Solar System Material Collection - Stig Agermose [112]
   Life Linked To Water From Comets - Stig Agermose [73]
   Details Of ET Microbes - Stig Agermose [52]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [42]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [34]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Larry Hatch [50]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Neil Morris [27]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Eleanor White [52]
   How To Inform The Public of ET? - Frank Warren [13]
   Re: Terminology - Coleman - Loren Coleman [13]
   Pilots Sight UFO Over China - Grant Cameron [19]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Straight - Brian Straight [20]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer - George A. Filer [39]
   Green Fireballs - George A. Filer [26]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Larry Hatch [39]
   Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials - - Bob Young [54]
   FOIA Request - 11-07-02 - Larry W. Bryant [40]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Eleanor White [26]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Eleanor White [39]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Hall - Richard Hall [27]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [28]
   Dorothy Izatt? - Chris Burns [7]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Speiser - Jim Speiser [26]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Printy - Tim Printy [140]

  Nov 8:

   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Bob Young [154]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [52]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [450]
   Re: Green Fireballs - Speiser - Jim Speiser [21]
   Re: Green Fireballs - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [48]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Don Ledger [36]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Dilettoso - Jim Dilettoso [19]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bob Young [68]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bob Young [59]
   Re: Terminology - Connors - Wendy Connors [24]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [29]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [44]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bassett - Steve Bassett [19]
   Re: Green Fireballs - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Terminology - Gates - Robert Gates [33]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bryant - Larry W. Bryant [117]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [16]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Matthews - Tim Matthews [84]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Neil Morris [42]
   Re: Terminology - Coleman - Loren Coleman [22]
   Stonehenge A Magnet For UFOs? - Stig Agermose [114]
   Cluster Of Lights Baffles Yuma Couple - Stig Agermose [49]
   UFO Fever The Wisconsin Way - Stig Agermose [135]
   Starship Memories - UFO UpDates - Toronto [158]
   'Crop Circles' Director Is True Believer - UFO UpDates - Toronto [102]
   Raelian Centre Vandalized - UFO UpDates - Toronto [25]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hanson - Ingrid Hanson [14]
   The Real Tubes On Mars - UFO UpDates - Toronto [2]
   Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You - - Neil Morris [17]
   Previously On Strange Days... Indeed - UFO UpDates - Toronto [7]
   Mysterious Dwarf Causes Concern In Argentina - Scott Corrales [56]
   Argentine Contactee "Tunnel Used by Alien Craft" - Scott Corrales [51]
   Re: Terminology - Connors - Wendy Connors [57]
   Re: The Real Tubes On Mars - Morris - Neil Morris [14]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer - George A. Filer [31]
   Re: Starship Memories - Bueche - Will Bueche [79]
   George Washington University Symposium Report - Richard Hall [86]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Pope - Nick Pope [25]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Novak - John Novak [63]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [129]
   NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - John Cussen [29]
   SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions - Stig Agermose [27]
   Magonia Supplement 42 - John Rimmer [12]
   Addendum On GWU Symposium - Richard Hall [16]
   Re: Terminology - Bueche - Will Bueche [41]
   No Mars Face At Night Weirdness - Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
   [142]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser - Jim Speiser [33]
   Re: Terminology - Speiser - Jim Speiser [33]
   Re: Starship Memories - Speiser - Jim Speiser [13]
   Re: Starship Memories - Jacobson - Eric Jacobson [51]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger - Don Ledger [24]
   Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions - - Steven Kaeser [32]

  Nov 9:

   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser - Jim Speiser [20]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser - Jim Speiser [60]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates - Robert Gates [201]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [23]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch - Larry Hatch [62]
   Re: Starship Memories - Randle - Kevin Randle [62]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [57]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Randle - Kevin Randle [36]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hall - Richard Hall [18]
   Re: Starship Memories - Bueche - Will Bueche [52]
   Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions - - John Velez [70]
   Re: Starship Memories - Velez - John Velez [47]
   Re: Starship Memories - Reason - Catherine Reason [43]
   Re: Starship Memories - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [58]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [598]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates - Robert Gates [29]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rimmer - John Rimmer [44]

  Nov 10:

   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Don Ledger [19]
   Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com [72]
   Re: Terminology - Maltby - Carol Maltby [44]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates - Robert Gates [41]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Colin Bennett [329]
   New Setback In Chilean Humanoid Investigation - Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [44]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser - Jim Speiser [33]
   First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended - Stig Agermose [52]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch - Larry Hatch [94]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates - Robert Gates [66]
   UAVs vs 'Rods' - Amy Hebert [30]

  Nov 11:

   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers - William Sawers [53]
   John Keel? - Gregory Gutierez [11]
   The Fallen - Don Ledger [7]
   Photographer Captures More Than A Helicopter - John Meloney [35]
   Re: John Keel? - Coleman - Loren Coleman [19]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger - Don Ledger [44]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Warren - Frank Warren [46]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rudiak - David Rudiak [38]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Velez - John Velez [44]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [74]
   Dr. Omand Solandt Interview - 06-08-91 - Grant Cameron [193]
   Secrecy News -- 11/11/02 - Steven Aftergood [136]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [20]

  Nov 12:

   Sci-Fi Channel - Richard Hall [26]
   Re: John Keel? - Benson - Tom Benson [15]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers - William Sawers [50]

  Nov 11:

   Re: First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended - - John Velez [79]

  Nov 12:

   Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [230]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger - Don Ledger [62]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Peterborough - Kelly Peterborough
   [68]
   Houston, British Columbia - 08-30-02 - Brian Vike - HBCCUFO [122]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [50]
   SDI Audio On The GWU Symposium - Strange Days... Indeed [19]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert - Amy Hebert [63]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser - Jim Speiser [33]
   Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Heath - Gord Heath [67]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Velez - John Velez [58]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger - Don Ledger [83]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert - Amy Hebert [132]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall - Richard Hall [21]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 46 - John Hayes [550]
   A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey - Erol Erkmen [44]
   E-mail Addresses? - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [12]

  Nov 13:

   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [32]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Larry Hatch [42]
   Sci Fi Channel Support Of UFO Disclosure - Tom Bowden [22]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - UFO UpDates - Toronto [35]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger - Don Ledger [45]
   Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Don Ledger [14]
   Open-Records Request To UNM - Larry W. Bryant [42]
   UFOs Down Planes? - Stig Agermose [118]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [49]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [44]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Case - Edward Case [153]
   PRG Press Release - November 13, 2002 - Stephen Bassett [92]
   One Giant Hoax For Mankind - UFO UpDates - Toronto [75]
   Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [19]
   Mars Rectilinear Surface Patterns - Nathan [46]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Warren - Frank Warren [43]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [51]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger - Don Ledger [28]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger - Don Ledger [26]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger - Don Ledger [42]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Clark - Jerome Clark [32]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledge - Don Ledger [27]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall - Richard Hall [43]
   A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids - Erol Erkmen [19]
   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [32]
   Re: Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO - Don Ledger [29]
   Filer's Filer's #46 -- 2002 - George A. Filer [509]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle - Kevin Randle [117]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Velez - John Velez [63]

  Nov 14:

   Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton - Dave Morton [52]
   Secrecy News -- 11/13/02 - Steven Aftergood [92]
   Nov 1, 2002 UFO Encounter Over Mediterranean - Vicente-Juan Ballester
   Olmos [26]
   8th Maryland Congressional District Results - Paul Kimball [15]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - White - Eleanor White [14]
   Open-Records Request To UNM Response - Larry W. Bryant [24]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser - Jim Speiser [33]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall - Richard Hall [48]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledger - Don Ledger [51]
   Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton - Dave Morton [44]
   CI: New D&M 'Spine' On Night Infrared Image - Mac Tonnies [52]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns - Chris Burns [7]
   Re: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids - Cinde Costello [35]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Zupansic - John Zupansic [43]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates - Robert Gates [55]
   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Gates - Robet Gates [62]
   Italian UFO Conference - Philip Mantle [9]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [16]
   Fireball Over Aberdeen? - Jason McIlvenny [6]

  Nov 6:

   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45 - Velez - John Velez [43]

  Nov 14:

   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [27]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 371 - Edoardo Russo [114]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball - Paul Kimball [17]
   Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer\Young - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [256]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle - Kevin Randle [93]
   Secrecy News -- 11/14/02 - Steven Aftergood [77]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [16]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [26]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Hall - Richard Hall [25]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [24]
   NY Times to Run Alien Encounter Article - Will Bueche [77]

  Nov 15:

   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Bowden - Tom Bowden [42]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [40]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns - Chris Burns [26]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - YoungBob2@aol.com [13]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [88]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Jacobson - Eric Jacobson [39]
   Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer/Young - Gates - Robert Gates [56]
   Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 [was: Re: UFO - Larry Hatch [64]
   Pentagon Superhacker Sought Evidence Of UFO - Stig Agermose [39]
   'Prehistoric Cyborgs' & Modern Man? - Stig Agermose [82]
   First Mothman Festival - Stig Agermose [134]
   Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002] - Stanton Friedman
   [39]
   UFO Seekers Search for Respect At GWU - Grant Cameron [85]
   Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Friedman - Stanton Friedman
   [65]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [37]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - King - Tom King [63]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [19]
   Cydonian Imperative Website Navigation - Mac Tonnies [19]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Colin Bennett [198]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Rimmer - John Rimmer [9]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Hall - Richard Hall [39]
   CCRN News: 'The Prairie Circular' Newsletter Now - Paul Anderson [101]
   Pacaccini & The Varginha Incident - Geoff Richardson [11]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger - Don Ledger [30]

  Nov 16:

   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball - Paul Kimball [60]
   Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [19]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [20]
   Canadians Sent Vannevar Bush Saucer Article - Grant Cameron [164]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser - Jim Speiser [29]
   Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser - Jim Speiser [42]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser - Jim Speiser [31]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Jacobson - Eric Jacobson [52]
   'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [54]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Jones - Sean Jones [42]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [101]
   EW: Ufology Gets Respectable - Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior [102]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Larry Hatch [34]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Hatch - Larry Hatch [52]
   Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel] - Don Ledger [63]
   Re: Laws Of Physics - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [24]
   Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina - Scott Corrales [72]
   UFO Landing in Southern Chile? - Scott Corrales [48]
   Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - - Royce J. Myers III
   - The UFO Watchdog [45]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel] - - Don Ledger [33]
   ET Calls In On Lilydale Victoria Australia - John W. Auchettl [31]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Bob Young [17]
   Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [50]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez - John Velez [78]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - John Rimmer [30]
   Mantell Refereed Paper - Kevin Randle [35]
   Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing - - Larry Hatch [57]
   Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Hall - Richard Hall [45]

  Nov 17:

   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball - Paul Kimball [65]
   Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina - Eric Jacobson [22]
   Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - - Robert Gates [90]
   Pravda On Official Chilean UFO Commission - Stig Agermose [71]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 372 - Edoardo Russo [129]

  Nov 18:

   Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Randle - Kevin Randle [52]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Ledger - Don Ledger [35]
   Oberg's Mis-Statement Regarding Moon Hoax - Lan Fleming [92]
   Bill Spaulding? - Jim Speiser [7]
   GWU Symposium Photo Gallery - John Velez [16]
   Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Eleanor White [57]
   Washington Post, Nov. 18 Excerpt - Richard Hall [17]
   Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - John Velez [128]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Jerry Cohen [331]
   Secrecy News -- 11/18/02 - Steven Aftergood [155]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall - Richard Hall [109]
   Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - - Bruce Hutchinson
   [52]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez - John Velez [103]
   Re: Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 - Velez - John Velez [73]

  Nov 19:

   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [38]
   Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Hall - Richard Hall [22]
   Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - - Steven Kaeser [23]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Myers - Royce J. Myers III - The UFO
   Watchdog [78]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Bob Young [141]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Tom Bowden [36]
   'The Roswell Crash:...' Not Scheduled In UK - Gary Anthony [14]
   MUFON 2002 Paper By Jeff Sainio - Jim Dilettoso [40]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball - Paul Kimball [114]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball - Paul Kimball [119]
   PRG/X-PPAC/D2003 Update - November 18 - Stephen Bassett [117]
   C.A. Honey Hunting The Truth - UFO UpDates - Toronto [81]
   A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [129]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Bob Young [21]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez - John Velez [107]
   Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Velez - John Velez [47]
   11-01-02 Turkish Re-entry Case - Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos [19]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - King - Tom King [121]
   Skyhook, Mantell and Charles B. Moore - Bill Hamilton [191]
   UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Frank Warren [12]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton - Dave Morton [22]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [238]
   Secrecy News -- 11/19/02 - Steven Aftergood [140]

  Nov 20:

   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall - Richard Hall [125]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - White - Eleanor White [22]
   Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball - Paul Kimball [182]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball - Paul Kimball [36]
   Triangle UFO sightings & Air Mobility Command - Colm Kelleher [10]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Young - Bob Young [15]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [55]
   Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Young - Bob Young [14]
   EW: Do Scientists Want to Believe? - Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
   [124]
   Sci-Fi Channel Symposium On Abduction - John Velez [16]
   Abductions & Ufology [was: Media & 'Truth'] - John Velez [128]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [67]
   Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' - - Robert Gates [76]
   Stalin's UFOs - Stig Agermose [88]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - - Joe McGonagle [14]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hale - Scott Hale [27]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Warren - Frank Warren [22]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [222]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser
   [18]
   Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - Wendy Connors [8]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Ledger - Don Ledger [24]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason - Catherine Reason [42]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [207]
   Filer's Files #47 -- 2002 - George A. Filer [510]

  Nov 21:

   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [37]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [20]
   Re: Media & The Truth - King - Tom King [226]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [57]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow - Greg Sandow [46]
   Re: Stalin's UFOs - Eric Jacobson [18]
   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton - Dave Morton [53]
   Vallee's GWU Presentation On-Line - Colm Kelleher [6]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Bob Young [20]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [21]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Washington DC Premiere Of 'TAKEN' - Steven Kaeser [31]
   Cattle Mutilation Book Available Online - Stig Agermose [63]
   'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned? - Bruce Maccabee [16]
   Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Gates - Robert Gates [22]
   Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - - Robert Gates [38]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez - John Velez [103]
   UFO*BC Updates - 11-02 - David Pengilly - UFO*BC [45]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [66]
   NMU Archeological Plan Foster Ranch Project - Larry W. Bryant [78]
   1910: New Jersey Aviator Built Flying Disc - Stig Agermose [84]
   Sci Fi Channel Has Close Encounters - Stig Agermose [76]
   Doleman On Roswell Finds - Stig Agermose [27]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [137]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors - Wendy Connors [32]
   Re: Stalin's UFOs - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [35]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - John Hayes [605]
   Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - - Wendy Connors [39]
   Re: 'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [34]
   Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples - John W. Auchettl [116]
   Re: Stalin's UFOs - Young - Bob Young [21]
   Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - - Frank Warren [55]
   Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - - Steven Kaeser [33]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [40]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger - Don Ledger [99]
   Re: Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples - - Jan Aldrich [154]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser - Jim Speiser [28]
   Re: Stalin's UFOs - Sandow - Greg Sandow [21]
   Re: Secrecy News -- 11/21/02 - Steven Aftergood [165]
   Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball - Paul Kimball [162]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl - Jan Aldrich [88]
   Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty - Loren Coleman [107]

  Nov 22:

   Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball - Paul Kimball [62]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez - John Velez [102]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [71]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Speiser - Jim Speiser [57]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [40]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Speiser - Jim Speiser [62]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser - Jim Speiser [51]
   Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special - - Robert Gates [76]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [113]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [39]
   'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Grant Cameron [448]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Speiser - Jim Speiser [16]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser - Jim Speiser [19]
   Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina - - Royce J. Myers III
   [31]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [46]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Jones - Sean Jones [45]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [161]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Randle - Kevin Randle [50]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - White - Eleanor White [17]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors - Wendy Connors [82]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason - Catherine Reason
   [103]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [34]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: Stalin's UFOs - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [55]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger - Don Ledger [56]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez - John Velez [164]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Ledger - Don Ledger [27]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall - Richard Hall [66]
   Project FOTOCAT News/November 2002 - Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos [48]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [22]
   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser - Jim Speiser [34]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [28]
   Re: Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty - - Josh Goldstein [55]
   Roswell Had Victims? - Trevor Seguin [91]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy - Tim Printy [77]
   Open Letter To Steven Spielberg - Stephen Bassett [67]
   'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Kelly Peterborough [34]
   Two Cents On The Roswell Show - Scott Hale [29]

  Nov 23:

   IUR V27 #2: Summer 2002 - Larry Hatch [54]
   Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger - Don Ledger [29]
   David Rudiak's Roswell Work - Grant Cameron [10]
   Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - - Josh Goldstein [84]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Gates - Robert Gates [18]
   Sci-Fi Channel's Roswell Program - Dave Morton [27]
   The Roswell Show - Not Much New - Brian Vike [17]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak - David Rudiak [85]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert - Amy Hebert [160]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors - Wendy Connors [57]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [38]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Richard Hall [49]
   National Academy Of Sciences Book On UFOs - George Hansen [14]

  Nov 24:

   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden - Tom Bowden [16]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Morton - Dave Morton [118]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden - Tom Bowden [33]
   E-Mail To The Sci Fi Channel - Tom Bowden [38]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger - Don Ledger [19]
   Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Novak - Paul Novak [22]
   UFO Crash Lands In Roswell? - Stig Agermose [25]
   Granisle, British Columbia Sighting - Brian Vike - HBCCUFO [89]
   60%? - Eleanor White [11]

  Nov 25:

   UFO On Chilean Coast - Scott Corrales [17]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [29]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall - Richard Hall [29]
   Frank Kaufman? - Fred Clark [8]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow - Greg Sandow [160]
   Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs - Raymond Fowler [32]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [109]
   Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Gates - Robert Gates [98]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez - John Velez [151]
   New Articles @ Presidents UFO Site - Grant Cameron [22]
   Roswell Dig Report? - Jim Houran [6]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [207]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Pflock - Karl Pflock [79]
   Flying Saucer Reviews For Sale - Andy Roberts [52]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall - Richard Hall [34]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [36]
   Re: Roswell Dig Report? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [21]
   Re: Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs - Hale - Scott Hale [13]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Randle - Kevin Randle [15]
   Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle - Kevin Randle [11]
   Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Burns - Chris Burns [20]
   Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Trevor Seguin [47]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Anthony - Gary Anthony [115]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden - Tom Bowden [39]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden - Tom Bowden [33]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason - Catherine Reason [58]
   Re: More British Columbia Sightings - Vike - Brian Vike - HBCC UFO [81]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak - David Rudiak [369]
   SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings - Larry W. Bryant [50]

  Nov 26:

   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Gates - Robert Gates [31]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert - Amy Hebert [289]
   Request USAF Secretary Undergo Polygraph Exam - Larry W. Bryant [99]
   Kinross Incident - Radar Witnesses & Testimony? - Gord Heath - UFO*BC
   [15]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Houran - Jim Houran [26]
   Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [81]
   Positive Symbol ID - Eleanor White [52]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [23]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Velez - John Velez [119]
   A Case From The Southern Chilean UFO Flap - Scott Corrales [27]
   New Argentine Mutilations Reported - Scott Corrales [42]
   Re: Positive Symbol ID - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: Frank Kaufman? - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [28]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 48 - John Hayes [587]
   Re: Positive Symbol ID - Rimmer - John Rimmer [13]
   Re: SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings - - Bruce Maccabee [20]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [34]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [184]
   Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - - Will Bueche - Center for Psychology &
   Social Change [32]
   Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Brad Sparks [91]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Seguin - Trevor Seguin [26]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall - Richard Hall [196]
   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall - Richard Hall [49]
   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Rudiak - David Rudiak [110]
   Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger - Don Ledger [32]
   Prince Rupert Sightings - 05-18-02 - Brian Vike - HBCC UFO [42]
   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [28]

  Nov 27:

   Randle On 'Coast' - Lester Hahn [8]
   Albany TV Object - Bruce Maccabee [7]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough - Martin Shough [80]
   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hatch - Larry Hatch [53]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [31]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Ledger - Don Ledger [32]
   Filer's Files #48 - 2002 - George A. Filer [521]
   Open-Records Request To UNM - Response - Larry W. Bryant [30]
   Secrecy News -- 11/27/02 - Steven Aftergood [224]
   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall - Richard Hall [49]
   Re: Randle On 'Coast' - Randle - Kevin Randle [23]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle - Kevin Randle [241]
   Re: Thanksgiving - Velez - John Velez [15]
   Looking For That Special Gift? - Steven Kaeser [12]
   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [11]
   Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [38]
   HB Jerome Clark - Loren Coleman [8]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen - Jerry Cohen [389]
   Re: Albany TV Object - Lopez - Edward Lopez [72]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett - Colin Bennett
   [438]

  Nov 28:

   Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Mac Tonnies [15]
   New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - David Rudiak [15]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [34]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [12]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [106]
   CI: New Animation Posted - Mac Tonnies [10]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Morton - Dave Morton [39]
   Articles Wanted - Philip Mantle [24]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [19]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 369 - Edoardo Russo [72]
   Britain To Publish Files On UFO Sightings - - John Zupansic [33]
   Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - Hall - Richard Hall [34]
   Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? - Eleanor White [9]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough - Martin Shough [73]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [48]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [42]
   Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - - Steven Kaeser [51]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Seguin - Trevor Seguin [35]
   Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - - Trevor Seguin [48]
   Albany TV Object & Noise - Bruce Maccabee [5]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [67]
   Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch - Larry Hatch [55]
   Re: Articles Wanted - Hatch - Larry Hatch [36]
   Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? - - Ingrid Hanson [16]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [20]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [43]
   Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [89]

  Nov 29:

   No UFO On Westcoast Today! - Trevor Seguin [7]
   UFO Sightings OZ Files - 11-27-02 - Diane Harrison [767]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Myers - Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog
   [84]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [26]
   'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt. II - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [437]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Friedman - Stan Friedman [35]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [73]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason - Catherine Reason
   [287]
   Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle - Kevin Randle [32]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 373 - Edoardo Russo [80]
   NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate 'Contrails' - Karl Rotstan [32]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Clark - Jerome Clark [41]
   British FOIA Rendlesham File Released - David Clarke [134]
   Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate - Don Ledger [26]
   [canufo] UFO Near Alice Springs, Australia - UFO UpDates - Toronto [28]
   Magonia Supplement 43 - John Rimmer [43]
   Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? - - Nick Balaskas [77]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [63]
   Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman - Stan Friedman [29]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Hall - Richard Hall [58]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Young - Bob Young [18]
   UFO Documents on MOD Website - Nick Pope [27]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [39]

  Nov 30:

   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle - Kevin Randle [90]
   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Shurinov - Boris Shurinov [34]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy - Tim Printy [34]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [114]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young - Bob Young [21]
   Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - Anthony - Gary Anthony [22]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [40]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger - Don Ledger [20]
   Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? - - John Velez [25]
   Re: British FOIA Rendlesham File Released - - Bill Stockstill [46]
   Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [32]
   Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Ledger - Don Ledger [34]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - YoungBob2@aol.com [50]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger - Don Ledger [21]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Clarke - David Clarke [23]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [94]
   Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Rimmer - John Rimmer [31]
   Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt. - Bruce Maccabee [74]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney - John Harney [37]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney - John Harney [162]
   Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall - Richard Hall [64]
   Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate - Nick Balaskas [49]

   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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

             Gravity Waves Analysis Opens 'Completely New Sense'

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 03:51:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:32:59 -0500
Subject: Gravity Waves Analysis Opens 'Completely New Sense'


Source: SpaceDaily

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-02c.html

Stig

***

Gravity Waves Analysis Opens 'Completely New Sense'

St. Louis - Oct 29, 2002

**

Sometime within the next two years, researchers will detect the
first signals of gravity waves - those weak blips from the far
edges of the universe passing through our bodies every second.
Predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity
waves are expected to reveal, ultimately, previously
unattainable mysteries of the universe.

Wai-Mo Suen, Ph.D., professor of physics at Washington
University in St. Louis is collaborating with researchers
nationwide to develop waveform templates to comprehend the
signals to be analyzed. In this manner, researchers will be able
to determine what the data represent - a neutron star
collapsing, for instance, or black holes colliding.

"In the past, whenever we expanded our band width to a different
wavelength region of electromagnetic waves, we found a very
different universe," said Suen. "But now we have a completely
new kind of wave. It's like we have been used to experiencing
the world with our eyes and ears and now we are opening up a
completely new sense."

Suen discussed the observational and theoretical efforts behind
this new branch of astronomy at the 40th annual New Horizons in
Science Briefing, Oct. 27, 2002, at Washington University in St.
Louis. The gathering of national and international science
writers is a function of the Council for the Advancement of
Science Writing.

Gravity waves will provide information about our universe that
is either difficult or impossible to obtain by traditional
means. Our present understanding of the cosmos is based on the
observations of electromagnetic radiation, emitted by individual
electrons, atoms, or molecules, and are easily absorbed,
scattered, and dispersed.

Gravitational waves are produced by the coherent bulk motion of
matter, traveling nearly unscathed through space and time, and
carrying the information of the strong field space-time regions
where they were originally generated, be it the birth of a black
hole or the universe as a whole.

This new branch of astronomy was born this year. The Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) at
Livingston, Louisiana, was on air for the first time last March.
LIGO, together with its European counterparts, VIRGO and GEO600,
and the outer-bspace gravitational wave observatories, LISA and
LAGOS, will open in the next few years a completely new window
to the universe.


Supercomputer runs Einstein equation to get templates

Suen and his collaborators are using supercomputing power from
the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, to do numerical
simulations of Einstein's equations to simulate what happens
when, say, a neutron star plunges into a black hole. From these
simulations, they get waveform templates. The templates can be
superimposed on actual gravity wave signals to see if the signal
has coincidences with the waveform.

"When we get a signal, we want to know what is generating that
signal," Suen explained. "To determine that, we do a numerical
simulation of a system, perhaps a neutron star collapsing, in a
certain configuration, get the waveform and compare it to what
we observe. If it's not a match, we change the configuration a
little bit, do the comparison again and repeat the process until
we can identify which configuration is responsible for the
signal that we observe."

Suen said that intrigue about gravity waves is sky-high in the
astronomy community.

"Think of it: Gravity waves come to us from the edge of the
universe, from the beginning of time, unchanged," he said. "They
carry completely different information than electromagnetic
waves. Perhaps the most exciting thing about them is that we may
well not know what it is we're going to observe. We think black
holes, for sure. But who knows what else we might find?"

Related Links:

SPACE SCIENCE
ESA To Look For The Missing Link In Gravity
Paris - Sep 19, 2002
Although you can never be certain of predicting future
developments in science, there is a good chance of a fundamental
breakthrough in physics soon.


Gravity at WUSTL
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

**

The contents herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain,
are Copyright 1995-2002 - SpaceDaily. AFP Wire Stories are
copyright Agence France-Presse. ESA Portal Reports are copyright
European Space Agency. Additional copyrights may apply in whole
or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply
endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements
or information provided by SpaceDaily on any web page published
or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:7:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:40:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >In reference to the COSMIC TOP SECRET CLEARANCE:

 >I was the PA Petty Officer and Weps Security Petty Officer
 >aboard the USS Darter (SS-576) from '86-'88 and had a very high
 >security clearance. According to the DoD and NSA there are only
 >4 levels of Security

 >TOP SECRET
 >SECRET
 >CONFIDENTIAL
 >and
 >FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 >Along with that clearance one also has to have an official NEED
 >TO KNOW for that particular material. Meaning two people may
 >have a TS clearance but do not have the Need to Know of a
 >certain subject they cannot gain access to that material. In
 >some cases in very sensitive cases an EYES ONLY may also be
 >issued pertaining to certain material. Also having any clearance
 >Secret and above, one be part of and participate willingly or
 >unwillingly in the PREP (Personnel Reliability Program) Which is
 >personality monitoring program.

 >So basically there is not any SUPER TOP SECRET or Extra Top
 >Secret security clearances. They do not, nor have they ever
 >existed. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance can tell
 >you that.


Hi Anthony

Essentially, correct. However, "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) is
not a security clearance, but handling instruction. I could give
a document to an uncleared clerk to type up. The only proviso is
that he lock it up at the end of the day. It does not even need
to locked in a security approved container, a desk drawer is
enough. The four clearances were

Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
Restricted

The US no longer uses Restricted, but treats other countries
Restricted classified documents as Confidential.

The PRP, Personnel Reliability Program is a nuclear weapons
program.

There is indeed nothing above Top Secret. 38 levels above Top
Secret is bull! However, Special Access Programs (SAP) are the
way to make sure that access is only given to a few selected
individuals. As you said the whole concept of the security
program is 'need to know'. SAPs are generally compartmentalized
program in which the 'need to know' is greatly restricted. There
is collateral Top Secret information say, the size, deployment
and mission of enemy forces which large numbers of Top Secret
cleared personnel should know. And then there is Top Secret
Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) which requires
that an individual have a current Top Secret clearance with a
Special Background investigation. Top Secret clearance without
SCI access only requires the less extensive Background
Investigation. Secret and Confidential require the less
extensive ENTNAC, Entrance National Agency Check or NAC National
Agency Check.

NATO data is further restricted and to gain access additional
requirements are required.

A clearance roster which lists the current clearance and the
individuals authorized access might look something like this.

Name/Rank/SSAN/Clearance/Invesigation/Access/Remarks

Doe, John, CPT 115-00-6230, TS/SBI, TS(SCI), PRP/Critical

Capatin Doe has a Top Secret clearance with a current Special
Background Investigation, he has SCI access, although that is
not granted by the clearance roster as he has to be on the
Special Security Officers roster to have SCI access. Captain doe
is also in the Personal Reliability Program and has a Critical
Nuclear Weapons Position, i. e. he can relay nuclear orders to
personnel involved with storage, assembly or firing nuclear
weapons or he holds positions involved with the codes of such,
COMSEC Custodian, etc.

Kay, James T. 1LT 060-59-3300 TS/BI CTSA PRP/Critical

Lt. Kay has a Top Secret clearance with a current Background
Investigation, he has access to Cosmic Top Secret Atomal
material. Cosmic means that it is Top Secret material originated
with NATO or another NATO country. Atomal means NATO nuclear
weapons data. Lt. Kay is in the nuclear weapons program in a
Cortical postion.

Smith, John L. SFC 825-97-4321 TS/BI S/NS PRP/Critical

Sergeant First Class Smith has a Top Secret with a current
background investigation. However, he can only see Secret and
NATO Secret material. He too is in the nuclear weapons program
in a critical position.

Tomkins, Roger W. SGT 771-90-5468 S/NAC S  PRP/Control

Sergeant Tomkins has a Secret Clearance based on a National
Agency Check and has access to Secret information only. He is in
nuclear weapons in a Controlled position - that is, he is
involved with assembly, disassembly or movement of nuclear
weapons.

Williams, Carol M. PFC 998-62-8846 S/ENTNAC S

Private First Class Williams has a secret clearance based on an
Entrance National Agency Check. She can work with Secret
material only.

EYES ONLY is a warning and an order separate from the clearance
program.


Jan Aldrich

Former:
Security Manager
Cosmic Top Secret Control Officer
Top Secret Control Officer
COMSEC Custodian
Nuclear Release Authentication System
Critical Position
etc., 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:43:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >was in use at the time (1954).

No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
Restricted Data (SRD)

The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

One problem in researching at archives is that documents
containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
are involved.

 >In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
reading.

 >Stan Friedman


Jan Aldrich








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:39:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:46:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>In reference to the COSMIC TOP SECRET CLEARANCE:

 >>I was the PA Petty Officer and Weps Security Petty Officer
 >>aboard the USS Darter (SS-576) from '86-'88 and had a very high
 >>security clearance. According to the DoD and NSA there are only
 >>4 levels of Security

 >>TOP SECRET
 >>SECRET
 >>CONFIDENTIAL
 >>and
 >>FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

<snip>

 >I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.


Stan:

Do you know what Bernard Haisch is talking about when he
mentions an "R" clearance?

'Twas good to see you in Scottsdale.

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                CI: Nighttime Infrared Image of Face Released

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:54:21 -0500
Subject: CI: Nighttime Infrared Image of Face Released



10-31-02

Cydonian Imperative
10-31-02

Nighttime Infrared Image of Face Released
by Mac Tonnies

Related links:

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20021031A.html

http://www.electricwarrior.com

A new nighttime image showing the Face on Mars in the infrared
(IR) spectrum fails to provide evidence of underground
structure, although the poor resolution leaves the question of
subterranean architecture open. Although the Face is just barely
visible (below), observers may find correlations between the
bright areas and visible-wavelength images of this ususual
formation.

[image]

Arizona State University's Thermal Imaging System team details
the technical aspects of IR imaging and how theyt come to bear
on geomorphology:

"[The Face] can be seen in the daytime image because of the
temperature differences between the sunlit (warm and bright) and
shadowed (cold and dark) slopes. The temperature in the daytime
scene ranges from -50 =B0C (darkest) to -15 =B0C (brightest). At
night many of the hills and knobs in this region are difficult
to detect because the effects of heating and shadowing on the
slopes are no longer present. The temperatures at night vary
from approximately -90 =B0C (darkest) to -75 =B0C (warmest). The
nighttime temperature differences are due primarily to
differences in the abundance of rocky materials that retain
their heat at night and stay warm. Fine grained dust and sand
cools of more rapidly at night. The circular rims and eject of
many of the craters in this region are warm at night, showing
that rocks are still present on the steep walls inside the
craters and in the ejecta material that was blasted out when the
craters formed. Some craters have cold (dark) material on their
floors in the night IR image, indicating that fine-grained
material is accumulating within the craters. Many knobs and
hills, including the 'face' have rocky (warm at night) material
on their slopes and ridges."

While not mentioned on the ASU site, the Fort and D&M Pyramid
are also seen in the new nighttime image. The latter formation
retains its "starfish" appearance, with relatively warm edges
and cool planes, suggesting a layer of insulating material. This
supposition is verified by high-resolution THEMIS visible-
wavelength image of the D&M, which shows a veneer of
(presumably) windblown material peeling away from the southern
facet.

[image]

Insulating layer on D&M Pyramid. Note unusual rectilinear
"buttresses" at bottom.

-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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                  Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 07:16:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:09:39 -0500
 >Subject: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

 >http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf

 >Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
 >by
 >Leslie Kean

 >A Research Report

 >Commissioned by SCI FI Channel

Friends:

Since Greer's effort just seems to have pettered out, it looks
like this is an attempt to do the same thing, again, just for
publicity.

What a piece of crap. It continues the BS approach of Sturrock
in the "Executive Summary" by not even mentioning the Colorado
Report, except in passing, but then later actually ignores it
again with, "There has been no independent Federally financed
scientific research conducted into these phenomena since 1969".
  Later in the body of the report it does mention the findings
and the NAS endorsement. Of course it does exactly what it
accuses Condon of doing: negative conclusions in the summary
which the press reads, ignoring the full report.

And then, "29 percent of the cases studied in the Condon Report
remain unexplained to this day," citing Sturrock, but mentioning
nothing published by skeptics on these cases since 1969.

When it get to the Sturrock Panel in the Executive Summary, it
also fails to mention its negative conclusion, which was similar
to the Condon Report. Only later in the body of the document is
its negative conclusion about the cases presented given. These
two identical treatments of scientific studies which reached
negative conclusions: mentioning positive statements in the
summary but burying the negative conclusions in the body of this
report certainly suggests a deliberate effort at deception, in
my opinion.

The COMETA group is discussed under the heading, "The French
Government". Of course this group was not a French Government
group, but a private group of UFO enthusiasts.

While mentioning the 1952 DC radar returns as a lead-in to the
Battelle Report #14, it never mentions the CAA study of those
very sightings determined a cause.

A scroll down through the 86 footnotes reveals that the only
skeptics listed anywhere for information in this report were
Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, for UFOs: A Scientific Debate, but
that this actually was for McDonald's paper reprinted from the
symposium. Also Gordon Thayer and William K Hartmann for two of
their Condon Report case studies.

Nobody could write this much about UFOs without running accross
any skeptical writing, unless this was all purged deliberately
in a cynical effort to give out something which most lazy
editors or reporters would take but never check out.

A statement such as, "Ridicule remains the predominant
mainstream media response to the subject, despite the fact that
those dismissing it have not looked at the evidence and are
uninformed," is positively breathtaking in its arrogance,
considering the scope of the information used for this report.

But then, what did I expect. It seems that it's real purpose is
simply to create a phony "campaign" whose purpose is to promote
a TV show.

X-Files Redux. Yawn.

Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:29:17 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 07:41:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates


 >From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500


 >In reference to the COSMIC TOP SECRET CLEARANCE:

 >I was the PA Petty Officer and Weps Security Petty Officer
 >aboard the USS Darter (SS-576) from '86-'88 and had a very high
 >security clearance. According to the DoD and NSA there are only
 >4 levels of Security

 >TOP SECRET
 >SECRET
 >CONFIDENTIAL
 >and
 >FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 >Along with that clearance one also has to have an official NEED
 >TO KNOW for that particular material. Meaning two people may
 >have a TS clearance but do not have the Need to Know of a
 >certain subject they cannot gain access to that material. In
 >some cases in very sensitive cases an EYES ONLY may also be
 >issued pertaining to certain material. Also having any clearance
 >Secret and above, one be part of and participate willingly or
 >unwillingly in the PREP (Personnel Reliability Program) Which is
 >personality monitoring program.

 >So basically there is not any SUPER TOP SECRET or Extra Top
 >Secret security clearances. They do not, nor have they ever
 >existed. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance can tell
 >you that.

The above is true to a point. However its been reported that
above Top Secret are at least 9 categories such as DOD Special
Access programs, DOE Special access programs, DCI Sensitive
Compartmentalized Information, not to mention various
restrictions, limitations and everyting else...all on the basis
of need-to-know.

The above writer points out that there are no "Super Top Secret"
or Extra Top Secret security clearances. There are Top
Secret/Codeword levels of clearances. You could easily have
something like Top Secret/Super or Top Secret/Extra. Even though
a person may have a Top Secret security clearence, he or she may
not be cleared to see, or even know about information in some
other highly classified program. Note the AF public affairs
office was able to deny the existence of the Stealth Fighter for
years and they were not lying, because based upon what they had
knowledge of, knew and understood, there was no such thing. When
the powers that be released it the folks in the public affairs
office could be briefed on the topic and then they could state
that it in fact existed etc etc.

Most if not all of the military public affairs office, will be
the last office on planet earth to be briefed or have knowledge
on some highly classified program. Generally they get told just
before the information goes public.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                  Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 02:11:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 07:45:08 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:07:10 -0800
 >Subject: Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:33:04 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:14:07 -0500
 >>>Subject: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>>http://www.space.com/news/ufo_poll_021025.html

 >>>UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing By Leonard
 >>>David Senior Space Writer

 ><snip>

Hi David,

You wrote:

 >However, claiming one needs to ask every single American to get
 >an accurate gauge of public opinion is utter nonsense. Where do
 >people get such ideas?

Public education?!  ;)

David, _thank_you_ for a lucid and very well written post. It
was educational without being painful. Not an easy trick to pull
off.

You know that list of phrases that you never thought you'd hear
yourself saying? Look out, here comes one...

I enjoyed your primer on statistics!

Excellent response.

Warm regards,

John Velez

Sign the International Petition to the United Nations
for disclosure of information pertaining to UFOs.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                  Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:49:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:36:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 ><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:09:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

 >>http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf

 >>Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
 >>by
 >>Leslie Kean

 >>A Research Report

 >>Commissioned by SCI FI Channel


 >Friends:

Yeah, right. In your dreams.

<snip>

 >A scroll down through the 86 footnotes reveals that the only
 >skeptics listed anywhere for information in this report were
 >Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, for UFOs: A Scientific Debate, but
 >that this actually was for McDonald's paper reprinted from the
 >symposium. Also Gordon Thayer and William K Hartmann for two of
 >their Condon Report case studies.

 >Nobody could write this much about UFOs without running accross
 >any skeptical writing, unless this was all purged deliberately
 >in a cynical effort to give out something which most lazy
 >editors or reporters would take but never check out.


Yeah, Bob. It was all purged deliberately with you in mind. It's
a conspiracy against you personally. So you really believe that
a person or group who takes a pro-UFO stance must indulge the
skeptibunkers?

Since when are you a legitimate element in the study of crypto-
aeronautics? Did you run for office or something? Gosh, I didn't
see you on the last ballot.

The word "busy body" comes to mind when I read skeptics
drivel...you know, the old ladies who sit around drinking tea
and feel they should control everyone else's life in the
neighborhood.

Errol gives everyone on UFO UpDates an inch. You always take the
proverbial whole mile. It's getting really old.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

             Spain: Underwater Noises Attract Parapsychologists

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:16:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:43:00 -0500
Subject: Spain: Underwater Noises Attract Parapsychologists



SOURCE: Diario de Mallorca and Ultima Hora newspapers
DATE: 10/27/2002

Parapsychologists head to Mallorca to study noises from the sea bottom.


(EFE)--The presence of underwater flying saucer bases is one of
the hypotheses to be confirmed or dispelled by a team from the
Sociedad Espa=F1ola de Investigaciones Parapsicologicas (SEIP--
Spanish Society for Parapsychological Research) on its way to
Mallorca. For months, strange noises have troubled the
tranquility of the waters north of the island.

"All possibilities are open, ranging from the presence of UFO
bases to the existence of an underwater volcanic area or
tectonic-plate displacement," said Jose Castro, SEIP's
coordinator and a member--along with Javier Rodriguez, of the
expedition which will study the noises until tomorrow.

Since Friday afternoon, researchers have worked in the area
located between the island of Dragonera and Cape Formentor,
where experts in undersea fishing claimed having heard noises of
unknown origin which are apparently audible from the sufrace on
calm days, and whose strength and intensity vary as a function
of depth.

=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

Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales IHU
Special thanks to Jordi Ardanuy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                   Spain: The Waters Of Mallorca An X-File

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:34:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:46:44 -0500
Subject: Spain: The Waters Of Mallorca An X-File



SOURCE: Diario de Mallorca
DATE: 10/28/02

An X-File in the Waters of Mallorca

A team of parapsychologists looks into the unknown sounds which
could be produced by "UFOs, sleeping sharks or submarines."

Gabriel Rodas. Palma.

"All possibilities are open, ranging from the existence of an
alleged submarine UFO base to military maneuvers with
submarines, including sleeping sharks or phenomena having a
natural explanation." The phrase, while seemingly drawn from a
sci-fi novel, is the set of hypotheses juggled by the Sociedad
Espanola de Investigaciones Parapsicologicas (SEIP) which has
visited Mallorca in an effort to discover the source of the
strange sounds which have disturbed the tranquility of the
waters north of the island.

These sounds, which have been heard by renowned scuba divers
like Pep Amengual, "have no similarity with any other sounds
detected so far." The expedition's challenge is to record them
on the sea bottom and contrast them with other recordings made
on the surface a few weeks ago by Pedro Amoros, SEIP's
president, the organization headquartered in Alicante which has
operated for some 15 years and which is experienced in such
paranormal phenomena such as the "faces of Belmez", the Zaragoza
goblin and the fraudulent spirits of the Linares Palace.

Made up of four scuba divers and headed by technician Javier
Rodrigurez and SEIP's coordinator, Jose Castro, researchers
began their dives on Saturday at Cala Tuent. "We chose this area
because it was here, from his boat, that Amoros was able to hear
a sort of explosion fo bubbles twenty days ago--a sound that
appeared to have a metallic origin, with a fixed frequency."

In order to destermine their causes, and having discarded the
hypothesis that their source was "oil prospecting on the coasts
of Tarragona or the presence of an underwater volcanic area,"
the submariners' made a 3-hour dive at a depth of 21 meters,
some 300 meters from the northern shore.

"We placed a conventional microphone in the water to search for
any interesting sound, but we found nothing strange. A first we
did think we'd come across something, but we finally realized it
was a ship passing over us. Sounds are very confusing
underwater," apologizes Castro. The team regrets the high cost
of this type of research. "We would like to have a hydrophone,
but they are very expensive and are only manufactured for the
military. The truth is that we have had other problems with
conventional mikes, since water has gotten into them and they're
worth a lot of money."

Without allowing disillusionment to grip the expedition, Castro
and his team headed to Soller yesterday looking for persons who
could provide them with clues. "National Geographic [teams] take
a month to find a fish, so we know that we aren't going to solve
this mystery in two days."

"This is like a legend. Many people tell you that they've heard
talk about these sounds, but you can never find anyone who can
talk about them," complains Javier Rodriguez. "In Soller, we
spoke to a girl who dives three times a day six months a year.
She has never heard anything unusual," adds Fernando Ponce, a
scuba diver. In any event, and guided by their curiosity, [the
group's] Zodiac headed for Sa Cova del Moro, near Port de
Soller. "It's still too soon to draw conclusions. We must
contrast evidence, perform interviews, listen to recordings,
analyze their sound and clean it up, which will take us some 20
days. Within weeks, SEIP hopes to have the cooperation of the
Special Sub-Aquatinc Activyt Group of the Guardia Civil to
pursue the recordings and take soil samples in order to solve an
enigma which due to its "sporadic, ephemeral and spontaneous
nature" merits classification as a "paranormal phenomenon".

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

Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales IHU
Special thanks to Jordi Ardanuy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:54:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:49:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Maccabee


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:25 UT
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41


 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:05:02 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

<snip>

 >Has anyone suggested a better word than "Flying Saucer" since
 >many are not saucers and probably do not fly in the usual sense
 >of the word (i.e. supported by air pressure differentials).

I have suggested  AFI  - Alien Flying Craft - for the objects
and OI - Other intelligences or NHI - Non-Human Intelligence for
the Creatures/Entities/Beings.....







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                  Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:34:19 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:53:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate


 >Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:49:33 -0700
 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

<snip>

 >>A scroll down through the 86 footnotes reveals that the only
 >>skeptics listed anywhere for information in this report were
 >>Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, for UFOs: A Scientific Debate, but
 >>that this actually was for McDonald's paper reprinted from the
 >>symposium. Also Gordon Thayer and William K Hartmann for two of
 >>their Condon Report case studies.

 >>Nobody could write this much about UFOs without running accross
 >>any skeptical writing, unless this was all purged deliberately
 >>in a cynical effort to give out something which most lazy
 >>editors or reporters would take but never check out.

 >Yeah, Bob. It was all purged deliberately with you in mind.

Hi, Wendy:

As usual, you miss the entire point. It is a deliberate,
cynical, crude attempt at create a publicity stunt, aimed at
promoting the SCI FI Channel's programming. Balance has nothing
to do with it, or real information, it's about cash.

Well, maybe I'll take that back a little. A search on the author
of this propaganda piece will reveal where she's coming from.
Greer redux.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                 Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:41:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:55:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate -


Hi, Folks,

Sorry for my lack of participation recently, I have had (and am
still having!) serious technical trouble with my ageing
computer.

In the light of recent comments on-list, I would like to say
that the SCI-FI project, though essentially a commercial and
publicity seeking operation seems to me to have much more chance
of making progress than that of the Disclosure Project.

Although the article written by Kean has been criticised for
ommissions, and not being sufficiently sceptical, it is
essentially based on facts and not hype, speculation, or deluded
rantings.

Most of you will know that I lean (slightly) away from the ETH,
but I still consider it a possibility, and if every article was
of the same standard as the one currently under discussion, I
would probably pay more attention to the hypothesis. It is when
spurious material is included, as has occured with the DP, that
I switch off completely.

Although perhaps not an ideal sponsor for disclosure, the SCI-FI
project gets my vote as currently being the one with the
greatest chance of success. It was also interesting to see Dr.
Greer's response to it, spitting teeth and accusing it of being
stage-managed by the mysterious powers that be in order to taint
the reputation of the nice, friendly aliens. If they do inded
exist, and are so friendly, why do they violate people as they
do? (Oh, I forgot, it's the military who are behind the
abductions, not the nice friendly aliens.....). I wonder if his
umbrage is at all related to the possibility that financial
backing for the DP is likely to dry up now that there is a new
kid on the block with a more realistic approach?


Regards,

Joe








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                     SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:14:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:06:12 -0500
Subject: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site


Source: Business Wire

http://library.northernlight.com/FD20021029160000089.html?cb=0&dx=1006≻=0

Stig

***

SCI FI Channel Sponsors Landmark Archeological Excavation At
1947 Roswell Crash Site -- Groundbreaking Scientific
Investigation To Be Chronicled In SCI FI Documentary "THE
ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE" Hosted By Bryant Gumbel
on November 22

Story Filed: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:26 AM EST

**

NEW YORK, Oct 29, 2002 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- As part of SCI FI
Channel's recently announced advocacy initiative to help bring
scientific, congressional and media attention to the UFO
phenomenon, the Channel turns to the tools of modern science to
help unravel the decades-old mystery of the 'Roswell Incident'.

Utilizing state-of-the-art remote sensing technologies and
modern archeological forensic science under the supervision of
the University of New Mexico, SCI FI announces its coordination
and sponsorship of a landmark scientific excavation of the 1947
crash site. Working under top secret conditions, skilled
archeologists set out to unearth conclusive physical evidence to
help prove or disprove what some claim is science fiction - the
crash of an extraterrestrial craft.

Considered by many as the 'Holy Grail' of all UFO stories, the
"Roswell Incident" has captured the imagination of the public
for years. Did an actual UFO crash outside of Roswell, N.M., in
July 1947? Out of those Americans who know of the "Roswell
Incident," less than three in ten (28%) believe the "official"
government story of a weather balloon crash at that site,
according to a 2002 national Roper poll commissioned by SCI FI.

To chronicle this groundbreaking archeological investigation,
SCI FI sent its documentary cameras into the deserts of New
Mexico for THE ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE, hosted by
Bryant Gumbel (CBS's The Early Show, NBC's Today Show).
Premiering on Friday, November 22 as part of a full night of
special programming beginning at 8PM (ET/PT), this new two-hour
SCI FI documentary of the 'Roswell Incident' includes all-new
eyewitness interviews and up-to- the minute late-breaking
revelations. From the initial headlines of a "disk" being
recovered in the desert in 1947 to SCI FI's latest 'smoking gun'
bombshell, this new examination of the 'Roswell Incident' offers
the definitive account of what may be the most important event
of the modern age.

THE ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE is directed and
executive produced by Melissa Jo Peltier of MPH Entertainment
(My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt). James
Romanovich of Platinum Media, Inc. also serves as executive
producer.

In support of THE ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE, SCI FI
Channel's award-winning website SCIFI.COM, will offer exclusive
background resources on this historic archeological project, as
well as the "Roswell Incident" itself (users can log on directly
through http://www.SCIFI.COM/UFO):

  - SCI FI LIVE CHAT - Wednesday, October 30 at 9PM (ET)/6PM (PT)
    UNM's lead principal archeologist William Doleman, Ph.D. will
    discuss aspects of the top secret excavation.

  - SCI FI ROSWELL DIG DIARY - Starting November 13, a complete
    day-to-day diary that documents the entire groundbreaking
    ten-day event will be posted. These daily entries will detail
    the project from various points of view including those of
    Doleman, veteran Roswell investigators Tom Carey and Don
    Schmitt; and SCI FI Channel's senior vice president of
    programming, Thomas Vitale, among others.

  - SCI FI LIVE CHAT - Friday, November 22 at 10PM (ET)/7PM (PT)
    Carey and Schmitt will discuss the investigation of the
    "Roswell Incident" itself.

  - THE ROSWELL REPORT - Dedicated to informing those who desire
    to know the truth behind an extraordinary event that occurred
    more than 50 years ago, this ongoing column offers up new
    information stemming from Carey and Schmitt's
    still-continuing, intensive investigation into this remarkable
    case of apparent extraterrestrial visitation.

THE ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE is an MPH
Entertainment production for SCI FI. Launched in 1996, MPH has
produced over 130 hours of primetime television programming and
two independent feature films, including co-producing the 2002
smash hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Notable among MPH's many
television projects are cable's The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt,
Founding Fathers, Discovery Channel's Eco-Challenge Australia,
SCI FI Channel's Martian Mania: The True Story of the War of the
Worlds, Las Vegas: Gamble in the Desert and Sea Tales.

The national opinion poll on The Roswell Incident was conducted
by RoperASW among a representative sample of 1,033 adults ages
18 and over. The telephone interviews were conducted from
September 6th through September 8th, 2002. The margin of error
for the total sample is +/- 3%.

SCI FI Channel transmits fantastic images to 79 million human
homes. Launched in 1992, SCI FI features a continuous stream of
cinematic hits, new and original series, and special events, as
well as classic sci-fi, fantasy, and horror programming. Check
out SCIFI.COM(R), the SCI FI Channel's award-winning Web site,
at www.scifi.com. SCI FI Channel is a program service of
Universal Television ( www.universalstudios.com), a division of
Vivendi UNIVERSAL Entertainment (VUE), the U.S.- based film,
television and recreation entity of Vivendi Universal, a global
media and communications company.

CONTACT:  Kat Stein, 212/413-5890

http://www.businesswire.com

Today's News On The Net - Business Wire's full file on the
Internet with Hyperlinks to your home page.

Copyright (C) 2002 Business Wire. 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                   Dr. Bill Doleman On Roswell Excavations

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:22:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:47:53 -0500
Subject: Dr. Bill Doleman On Roswell Excavations


Source: SciFi Channel. Transcript of 'Chat' with Dr. Bill Doleman

October 30, 2002

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2002/bdoleman10.30.html

Stig

***

UFOlogy Chat with Dr. Bill Doleman

**

ChatMod: Hi everyone, thanks for joining us here. I'm Ben
Trumble for SCIFI. Tonight we're pleased to welcome Dr. Bill
Doleman Principal Investigator for the University of New
Mexico's Office of Contract Archeology.

Dr. Doleman's research specialties include environmental
analysis, prehistoric hunter-gatherers, geoarcheology, and
computer database design and statistical analysis. Tonight we're
going to discuss the ongoing archeological examination of the
"Roswell Site" Mecca to those who believe we are not alone.

Brief word about the drill. This is a moderated chat -- please
send your questions for our guests to ChatMod, as private
messages. (To send a private message, either double-click on
ChatMod or type "/msg ChatMod" on the command line - only
without the quotes.)...Then hit Enter (or Return on a Mac.)

Let's start with some basic information. What is the Office of
Contract Archeology?

BillDoleman: The OCA is a unit of the University that sells a
service to clients. Generally known as cultural; resource
management. It's the archeological equvalent of an
envirvirnmental impact.

We determine if anything of archeological significance is found
on a given site.

ChatMod: As the Principal Investigator for Contract Archeology
what's your job?

BillDoleman: My job is to prepare proposals for projects, deal
with contracts, and oversee fieldwork and report preparation

ChatMod: How did you and your office become involved in the
examination of sites around Roswell?

BillDoleman: We were contacted by SCIFI and others in the summer
of 1999. The director of the office, Dick Chapman, discussed a
variety of options and gave them a budget to supervise volunteer
ecavators. Just the sort of site survey we eventually conducted.

There were six volunteers involved in the site at Roswell - the
initial impact site also known as the Skip Site or the debris
field

ChatMod: What's the Skip site about?

BillDoleman: The debris field is thought to consist of an impact
mark, and originally an expanse of debris. The impacting craft
skipped and ended up somewhere else - thus the name.

The site is located between Corona and Roswell on BLM land and
as part of the project we filled a standard archeological plan
with the BLM and the State .

BillDoleman: The plan stated clearly what we were up to and why.

There were fewer raised eyebrows than I expected - in fact, all
archeological investigations are archived in Satna Fe. And
although the site is uncertain, the State assigned the Roswell
site the number 1000000. And a code for alien cultures has been
instituted.

The whole Roswell Phenomenon is definitely important here in
New Mexico like the souvenir shops in Roswell.

<andyajenny>: There are a number of photographs of the impact
site and actual debris doing its rounds would you consider these
to be real or fake?

BillDoleman: Having not seen them I can't render judgement. But
one spot on the landscape looks an awful lot like another. If
the photo has yuccas and grass it could be Roswell, or any
number of other places.

I did confirm the location with a photo of the debris field in
the 1994 book and confirmed we were in the same place.

<ZO>: Derrel Sims, Cheif investigator at Saber Enterprises owns
a peice of the Roswell crash, are you aware of that?

BillDoleman: Not at all. Sorry.

<scramm>: Wasn't there two crash sites involved at Roswell?

BillDoleman: I'm not a real expert on the story as it has been
presented by various people. I get the impression there is the
Initial Impact site (Skip) and the final crash site where the
vessel ended up with bodies.

The location of that is generally speaking to the east of the
skip site, 15 to 25 miles away. Again, I'm the observer, not a
Ufologist.

That raises an important point.

This project is the first to my knowledge to cross over from
using heresay and anecdotal evidence to support the notion of a
crash in '47 and to search for actual evidence

BThat belongs in flashing letters.

I would note that the volunteers were all very UFO savvy. We
instituted a number of methods that were novel about the project
to make sure that any evidence we found could not be tainted.

Our dig was thuis credible on every level.

<andyajenny>: During your archeologcal digs did you find any
evidence to detemine if there was a UFO incident at Roswell?

BillDoleman: I am definitely not allowed to say anything about
that, and you definitely should watch the show on November 22nd

I can say I was surprised by some of the results...

ChatMod: Has you work at Roswell changed your mind on the
subject of UFOs?

Well, it's expanded my perspective in many ways. As a middle and
high school student I read every scifi book I could get my hands
on and I'm an an avid star watcher.

I do belive there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe
and I think this project was exactly the right thing to do
because only physical evidence is going to convince scientists
like myself and most of the public for that matter.


<scramm>: After 55 years what kind of evidence is left? How
intact is the site?

ChatMod: Most of us think of archeology as a science devoted to
examining a past dating back hundreds if not thousands of years.
In examining such a recent site or series of sites as Roswell is
your work largely forensic?

BillDoleman: Archeology is the forensic science of the past. In
many cases archeologists succeed in learning something about
events in the past through the application of forensic methods,
including looking at the subtle evidence the average person
would not see. So in many respects a site, to an archeologist --
is just a very old crime scene.

We have to take the estimated age of the site into our account
and we have a slew of methods for that. When we know something
about the age of a site, we can use the knowledge that we have,
of natural and human agents, and how they alter any site over
time.

That was a real big question this investigation.

There has been an awful lot of grazing by sheep and cows over 5
years. So we looked at the surface and at the profiles of the
subsurface to understand what natural processing could have
altered the site and bured physical evidence and the kind of
evidence we were looking for was both debris and the impact mark

Just a reminder. We're chatting Dr. Bill Doleman Principal
Investigator for the University of New Mexico's Office of Contract
Archeology. Tonight we're discussing the ongoing archeological examination
of the "Roswell Site"

<ZO>: There is much ancient archeaological data to support the
theory that the 'space aliens' have been here longer that we
think, what is your view on that?

BillDoleman: Most of the so called 'data', in fact, is people
interupting actual archeological facts.

The so called Mayan Astronaut is a Mayan Glyph. The fact that it
can be argued to look like an astronaut in a capsule doesn't mean
that it is an astronaut in a capsule.

Similarly the drawing or lines in Nazca Peru are thought to be
too complicated and too big to have been produced by humans.
That's really insulting to us humans

Finally, I know of no professional archeologist who claims to have any
evidence of alien visitation of Earth.

<AikidoKa>: What about all the numerous paintings from the
middle-ages, including religious depictions, that clearly show
round vessels hovering aiborne in the background?

BillDoleman: I'm afraid I don't know them. But I'd be dubious of
"clearly". There are an awful lot of round things in the world.

I guess I would offer the distinction between a fact like a
painting and how we view its content.

ChatMod: What can you tell us about the methodology of the Roswell
examination?

BillDoleman: Lots. That's where this is really important. An
original step in UFO investigation - seeking clear physical
evidence.

Forensic Psychology evaluates heresay and eyewitness evidence,
and is fully aware of its limitations. There is nothing like
hard physical evidence.

The goal was to go to the skip site and look for two things.

First evidence of an impact mark that is no longer visible on
the surface as far as anybody knows -- that's pretty important.

Second to look for any debris that might have been missed by
people who reportedly came out and picked it all up - ie The
Government.

Today, there is no evidence of an impact mark nor has anybody
claimed to see any debris there now. So any mark or debris must
now be buried. Given that we used techical advice from UFO
researchers to tell us where to look and we then used state of
the art geophysical prospecting techniques.

We were looking for buried features and debris.

The specific methods were electromagnetic conductivity and a
metal detection system much more sensative than than a hand held
metal detector. The conductivity survey had the goal of finding
subtle variations in soil characteristics that might indicate
the presence of a buried feature like an impact mark that had
been obscured by 55 years of natural erosion.

The metal detection survey was, for obvious reasons, looking for
buried debris that might be metallic in nature. We also targeted
areas of animal burrowing since animals burrows are one way that
missed debris might become buried.

We also inspected aerial photographes from 1946 and 1954 to look
for evidence of an impact ring

One other thing we did, was to use backhoe trenches to look for
evidence of the impact mark.

ChatMod: Did any of your colleagues look at you askance when you
started work on Roswell?

BillDoleman: Not really. I think we all recognise the importance
of putting the pudding to the test and tasting it

<ZO>: Have you ever wondered if the 'aliens' purposefully
crashed that ship in Roswell, for other purposes?

BillDoleman: Not really. But given that there is an alien beer
brewed in the area which is very good... maybe it was a DWI, or
FWI crash. Nobody crashes on purpose.

<andyajenny>: According to reports where the actual craft was
found, some miles from the actual debris field, isn't it safe to
assume there wasn't much of a impact to find?

BillDoleman: First, we were directed to the location of the
project by people who know way more than we do and they said
this was the best place to look for debris and a mark. If the
stories are true about a 'clean-up', maybe a mark is the best
place to look

Secondly if you look at the stories of what the debris was like,
then you look at modern materials science is doing these days,
we're in no position to speculate on the nature of a craft, it's
construction or any debris.

But that's an archeologist, not a Ufologist speaking.....

ChatMod: Bill, our hour is about up

BillDoleman: Thanks.

The Roswell Incident is clearly an important event culturally in
New Mexico, the US, and around the world. While the story has a
life of its own, there is probably a grain of truth, whatever it
might be, at the heart of what anthropologists would call "an oral
tradition".

The techniques of forensic science can be applied equally to
the search for evidence that is physical, as well as understanding the
complex story that has evoloved over the last 55 years since 1947.

My pleasure to have talked with you. I'm sorry that I could tell
you everything.

Watch the show - your eyes will be opened wide.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:34:07 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:17:08 -0500
Subject: Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Young


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:14:57 +0100
 >Subject: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site

Which of the several claimed sites did they choose?

Sort of an interesting way to do it, "reality archeology". Do we
get to vote weekly on which archologist will be allowed to die
in the desert?  Or which site we will elliminate this week?

Inquiring minds want to know.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Security Information Defined

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:3:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:18:44 -0500
Subject: Security Information Defined


Greetings List,

I have excerpted some security terms from a Department of Energy
(DOE) site as this is about the simplest explanations of the
terms involved. Obviously, the terms are used in relation to DOE
activities. Military personnel are no longer required to have L
or Q clearances. However, at the formation of the USAF in 1947
these special access items were required for viewing nuclear
weapons data. The requirement for military personnel was dropped
in 1955 and the military developed its own program.

Some abbreviations used below for example are:

CFRD Confidential Formerly Restricted Data
FRD Formerly Restricted Data
RD Restricted Data
TS Top Secret
TSRD Top Secret Restricted Data
etc., etc., etc.

Note: National Security Information (NSI) is ordinary classified
information, but DOE uses special identification due to the
large about of nuclear data they deal with so there will be no
misunderstandings.

Note: Other agencies designate "Official Use Only" as For
Official Use Only (FOUO)

Security Terms as defined by Department of
Energy in a draft security guide.


http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/
guidline/pubgf.html#ZZ68

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) - A five-member commission and
supporting organization established by the AEA of 1946 to manage
the U.S. civil and military nuclear energy programs. Succeeded
by the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) and the
separate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)) in 1974 and then
by the current Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977.

Classification - The determination by an authorized official
that information requires protection under the provisions of an
Executive order (for NSI) or that a document or material
contains classified information for NSI, RD, or FRD.

Confidential (C) - Currently the lowest classification level;
applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure could
reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security.

Declassification - A determination by appropriate authority in
accordance with approved classification policy that information
is no longer classified or that a document or other material no
longer contains classified information.

Executive Order (EO) - Formal Presidential order mandating
activities of the Executive Branch. As used here, Executive
orders concern the identification and protection of classified
national security information, such as the current Executive
Order 12356.

Formerly Restricted Data - Classified information jointly
determined by DOE and DOD to be related primarily to the
military utilization of atomic weapons and removed by DOE from
the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 142d. of the
Atomic Energy Act. FRD is protected as NSI except for the
purpose of foreign dissemination, where it is treated as RD.

L-Clearance - DOE or NRC clearance for access to CRD, SFRD, or
SNSI.

National Security Information (NSI) - Information that has been
determined pursuant to Executive Order 12356 or any predecessor
order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and
that is so designated. Note that only DOE uses "NSI" markings on
documents.

Need-To-Know - A determination by a person having responsibility
for classified information or material that a proposed
recipient's access to such classified information or matter is
necessary in the performance of official or contractual duties
of employment.

Official Use Only (OUO) - A designation identifying certain
unclassified but sensitive DOE information that may be exempt
from public release under the FOIA.

Q-Clearance - DOE or NRC clearance for SRD, TSFRD, or TSNSI.

Restricted Data (RD) - A category of classified information
defined by the AEA, sec 11.y.: "The term 'Restricted Data' means
all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of
atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material;
or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of
energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from
the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 142"

Secret (S) - The classification level between Confidential and
Top Secret; applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure
could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the
national security.

Security - The protection of valuable matter, including
classified material and information.

Security Clearance - Official determination that access by an
individual to classified information will not be inimical to
national security; e.g., in DOE (and NRC) "L-" and "Q"-
  clearances for RD, FRD and NSI, and "S" and "TS" clearances for
NSI only. "C", "S", and "TS" clearances are used in other
agencies for NSI.

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) - Classified
information concerning or derived from intelligence sources,
methods, or analytical processes, which is required to be
handled within formal access control systems established by the
Director of Central Intelligence.

Top Secret (TS) - The highest classification level; applied to
information whose unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be
expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national
security.

Unclassified - The designation for information, a document, or
material that has been determined not to be classified or that
has been declassified by proper authority.





Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

              Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:09:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:20:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Kaeser


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:41:13 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

<snip>

 >Although perhaps not an ideal sponsor for disclosure, the SCI-FI
 >project gets my vote as currently being the one with the
 >greatest chance of success. It was also interesting to see Dr.
 >Greer's response to it, spitting teeth and accusing it of being
 >stage-managed by the mysterious powers that be in order to taint
 >the reputation of the nice, friendly aliens. If they do inded
 >exist, and are so friendly, why do they violate people as they
 >do? (Oh, I forgot, it's the military who are behind the
 >abductions, not the nice friendly aliens.....). I wonder if his
 >umbrage is at all related to the possibility that financial
 >backing for the DP is likely to dry up now that there is a new
 >kid on the block with a more realistic approach?

One point that Dr. Greer had correct is the fact that any major
effort of this type will take money and expertise. None of the
major UFO research organizations (in the U.S.) have the funding
to take this type of project on and I really don't care if the
SciFi Channel is able to gain some advantage due to it's
backing.

Complaining about the involvement of the SciFi Channel would
seem to be premature at this point.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:45:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:22:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Pope


 >From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >In reference to the COSMIC TOP SECRET CLEARANCE:
 >I was the PA Petty Officer and Weps Security Petty Officer
 >aboard the USS Darter (SS-576) from '86-'88 and had a very high
 >security clearance. According to the DoD and NSA there are only
 >4 levels of Security

 >TOP SECRET
 >SECRET
 >CONFIDENTIAL
 >and
 >FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Anthony and List,

A Parliamentary Question on the term "Cosmic" was asked last
year in Britain. The Question and Answer were recorded in
Hansard (the formal record of UK parliamentary proceedings) on
April 30 2001. The question is from a Member of Parliament and
the response from one of the Defence Ministers. They are as
follows:

Mr Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will
list the types of information covered by the COSMIC security
classification.

Mr Spellar: The term COSMIC is not a classification but a
qualifying marking used by NATO. It signifies that the
information is the property of NATO and remains the property of
the originator and may not be passed outside NATO without the
originator's consent. This qualifying marking is used only with
top secret information, the unauthorised disclosure of which
would result in exceptionally grave damage to NATO. "COSMIC top
secret" is the highest classification marking in NATO and it is
equivalent to "UK top secret".

Check out the link at:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010430/
text/10430w01.htm

or search for the term "cosmic security classification" on Google.


Best wishes,

Nick Pope








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                   Earthly Equivalents Of Abuctee Symbols?

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:47:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:24:16 -0500
Subject: Earthly Equivalents Of Abuctee Symbols?


Hi -

My contacts haven't yet turned up rigorous documentation linking
John's three abductee symbols to Earthly look-alikes.

However, one contact suggested two interesting sources which
might be of interest to someone who knows the full set (or is
well versed) in abductee symbols.

The first is a graphic symbol "encyclopedia", which can be
examined at this web site:

http://www.symbols.com

The second is a book I will try to find time to look at:

Liungman, Carl G.
Dictionary of Symbols
ABC-CLIO. 1991.
ISBN 0-87436-610-0

I'm still looking around the web, a bit at a time, trying to
find an expert in symbols who might be able to give us a
mainstream, dependable opinion.

Two additional psycho-electronic mind weapon targets have stated
they have seen the symbols - both not sure where (technology
allows subconscious insertion). I am keeping the source of those
symbols confidential until and unless a mainstream source can
verify Earthly equivalents.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

             Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:33:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:46:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified
 >Aerial Phenomena

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:09:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

 >>http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf

 >Friends:

 >Since Greer's effort just seems to have pettered out, it looks
 >like this is an attempt to do the same thing, again, just for
 >publicity.

 >What a piece of crap. It continues the BS approach of Sturrock
 >in the "Executive Summary" by not even mentioning the Colorado
 >Report, except in passing, but then later actually ignores it
 >again with, "There has been no independent Federally financed
 >scientific research conducted into these phenomena since 1969".
 >Later in the body of the report it does mention the findings
 >and the NAS endorsement. Of course it does exactly what it
 >accuses Condon of doing: negative conclusions in the summary
 >which the press reads, ignoring the full report.

 >And then, "29 percent of the cases studied in the Condon Report
 >remain unexplained to this day," citing Sturrock, but mentioning
 >nothing published by skeptics on these cases since 1969.

Has it occurred to you, Bob, that the skeptical writings on UFOs
have been considered and largely discarded? To include all the
skeptical answers in such a report would cloud the issue. The
fact that we recognize that 80-90% of UFO cases are explainable
is due largely to the work of skeptics - both within and outside
of the UFO movement (yes, some of us in here are skeptics as
well!) The report isn't ABOUT those cases... it's about the ones
the debunkers have failed to explain - yes, including the
Washington Invasion, which no one in their right mind believes
was a temperature inversion.

And about this charge of "crass commercialism"...extraordinary
claims demand extraordinary proof. Extraordinary proof demands
extraordinary research, which demands time, which demands
extraordinary infusions of cash. Up until recently, that cash
has been hard to come by. We thought we saw a light at the end
of the tunnel when a few eccentric millionaires started joining
the fray; alas, they had their own wacko agendas, and the money
was largely wasted. Finally, we have a deep pockets interested
in the subject, that has taken a more-or-less mainstream stance
in a public venue. That it has commercial underpinnings is,
well, the way of the world. You would deny us this opportunity
because it comes to us by way of "crass commercialism"? You have
no idea whether the Sci-Fi channel sees that as simply another
avenue to be exploited only for the purpose of lining their
pockets, or whether someone at Sci-Fi has a genuine interest in
this subject and is using the company's public and financial
standing to make some inroads into solving the mystery.

Look at it this way, Bob. If there's really nothing to the UFO
question, all this publicity will blow over, the CFI will fade
away quietly, and all your bluster will be wasted breath. You
have nothing to fear.


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 1

              Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:56:08 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:48:17 -0500
Subject: Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site - Randle


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:34:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site


 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:14:57 +0100
 >>Subject: SCI FI Sponsors Dig At Roswell Site

 >Which of the several claimed sites did they choose?



Good Afternoon, Bob, List -

They used the debris field that has been identified by quite a
few of the 'real' witnesses from Bill Brazel, to Bud Payne, to
Sheridan Cavitt. I think you'll be surprised at the results of
this because they were very careful staying away from all the
nonsense over on the Plains of San Agustin (and all four of
Gerald Anderson's sites) and away from Boy Scout Mountain (the
second Jim Ragsdale site) and from the Hub Corn (Frank Kaufmann
site), and the Jack Rodden (over near the Pecos river site) and
even the sites that have been suggested South of the base.

In other words, they choose the site that nearly everyone
accepts as the debris field, and even noted that the western end
of it was too far west... and this would be the site where the
Mogul balloon fell, if such was the answer to this.

 >Sort of an interesting way to do it, "reality archeology". Do
 >we get to vote weekly on which archologist will be allowed to
 >die in the desert?  Or which site we will elliminate this week?

 >Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems to me that this was a very good way to do science. Look at
the one accepted site and try to find something that will yield
a precise answer whether it is an artifact from an alien craft
or a bit of balloon.

Hope this answers those inquiring minds.


KRandle







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 05:16:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 21:52:24 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


Hello List,

As if acknowledging that science must join the entertainment
system or die as a culture, NASA has now become a commercial
publisher.

 From the Fortean point of view, James Oberg's coming book
commissioned by NASA looks as if we now have emerging a new
branch of science. We might call it the Science of Reinforced
Virtualities. Science, looking increasingly lonely without
Communism, and nervous of its "image" as a young starlet, is now
it appears quite desperate to re-advertise itself. Oberg will
find the hard way that the "real" as a shadow on Plato's cave
wall is an approximation. Of course, no matter how hard he
tries, his critics will find his inevitable approximations and
accuse him of falsehoods.

Given Oberg's daunting project as a start, in the future, it may
not be required to prove that an event is "real" or "true" so
much that it happened at all. Now's there's a new paradigm
indeed! As foretold by Charles Fort, the first postmodern
philosopher, we shall soon have performances and cultural
advertisements replacing old industrial "solid" facts. Solidity
being an industrial metaphor if ever there was, it is nowhere
sufficient to "explain" anything at all in our modern media
society, with our "reality" being so made up of lies,
confusions, and conspiracies and deceptions et al (whether alien
or not), that a foot can easily be put through the
advertisements of its "solidity" and "factual truth". Perhaps
the idea of performances and cartoons bouncing against one
another is far more creative, and "truthful" as an art form than
molecules, electrons, and atoms. In any case, these things
themselves are dating in turn as all concept of objective
materiality fades before chaos and fuzzy games, fit for last
year's boxed CD game and little else.

In order to try and make science intellectually erotic enough to
enter the gaming system poper scientists make statements that
could be spouted from the back of a Rube Goldberg covered wagon:

"Some cosmologists envisage universes sprouting from one another
in an endless geometric progress, like mushrooms upon mushrooms,
or baby universes hatched inside black holes."

And Melville's riverboat con men are not very far away: "Dr.
Tegmark has posited at least four different levels of universes,
ranging from the familiar (impossibly distant zones of our own
universe) to the strange (space-times in which the fundamental
laws of physics are different)."

The physicist George Smoot in particular is a constant provider
of such entertainment: "At a ten-millionth of a trillionth of a
millionth of a second after the big bang - the earliest moment
about which we can sensibly talk, and then only with some
suspension of disbelief - all the universe we can observe today
was the tiniest fraction of a proton.

Space and time had only just begun. Remember, the universe did
not expand into existing space after the big bang: it expanded
as it went."

After George Smoot, let there be no more accusations of
eccentricity. The question Forteans might ask is why don't the
skeptics have a go at these macaroons? They are at least as
funny as Streiber, Greer, or Moseley, and they contribute just
as much to the Web itself, now acknowledged to be the great
metaphysical comedy of our Age, before which traditional Theatre
looks positively pre-electric, with its iron-age politics and
decadent whimsicality of a form that hardly reached the steam
age. Both Jonson and Kafka would have loved our millions of web
monkeys and their millions of typewriters mixed with the instant
online bonus of videos of implants, ghosts, and alien ships
shooting through the sky. There was never an art form like this.
It pushes Roswell, say, into a category quite beyond fact or
fiction, which are in Fortean terms, as I have said, only
approximations in any case. The Roswell event has now become
star-stuff, the only material fit for the age we are moving
into. The feeding frenzy of belief-claims and the automated
schedules of believe-denials alone beat any dated spectacle in
the media world. These things make the Web is a massive brain
made of super-texts that "reasons" by hallucination, virtuality,
and like George Adamski, it was built for that complex imposture
called prophecy.

With Oberg now moving center stage, what better entertainment
could we have than all these mirrors reflecting one another?


Colin Bennett









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

              Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:13:31 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:01:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Young


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:33:36 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified
 >>Aerial Phenomena

<snip>

 >Has it occurred to you, Bob, that the skeptical writings on UFOs
 >have been considered and largely discarded?

Jim:

By the believers, yes. In this puff piece to promote another TV
series about UFO "mysteries" they have been deliberately
ignored, not "largely" as you state but completely.

 >To include all the skeptical answers in such a report would
 >cloud the issue.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:21:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:03:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Speiser


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:54:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:25 UT
 >>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:05:02 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 ><snip>

 >>Has anyone suggested a better word than "Flying Saucer" since
 >>many are not saucers and probably do not fly in the usual sense
 >>of the word (i.e. supported by air pressure differentials).

 >I have suggested  AFI  - Alien Flying Craft - for the objects
 >and OI - Other intelligences or NHI - Non-Human Intelligence for
 >the Creatures/Entities/Beings.....

I'm kinda partial to WALITS - Weird-Ass Lights-In-The-Sky...


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:0:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:16:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:45:16 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>In reference to the COSMIC TOP SECRET CLEARANCE:
 >>I was the PA Petty Officer and Weps Security Petty Officer
 >>aboard the USS Darter (SS-576) from '86-'88 and had a very high
 >>security clearance. According to the DoD and NSA there are only
 >>4 levels of Security

 >>TOP SECRET
 >>SECRET
 >>CONFIDENTIAL
 >>and
 >>FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 >Anthony and List,

 >A Parliamentary Question on the term "Cosmic" was asked last
 >year in Britain. The Question and Answer were recorded in
 >Hansard (the formal record of UK parliamentary proceedings) on
 >April 30 2001. The question is from a Member of Parliament and
 >the response from one of the Defence Ministers. They are as
 >follows:

 >Mr Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will
 >list the types of information covered by the COSMIC security
 >classification.

 >Mr Spellar: The term COSMIC is not a classification but a
 >qualifying marking used by NATO. It signifies that the
 >information is the property of NATO and remains the property of
 >the originator and may not be passed outside NATO without the
 >originator's consent. This qualifying marking is used only with
 >top secret information, the unauthorised disclosure of which
 >would result in exceptionally grave damage to NATO. "COSMIC top
 >secret" is the highest classification marking in NATO and it is
 >equivalent to "UK top secret".

 >Check out the link at:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010430/
text/10430w01.htm

 >or search for the term "cosmic security classification" on Google.

Of course, I have been saying this since 1994 without effect
apparently since much of what passes for ufology has nothing at
all to do with research. It is about entertaining stories with a
James Bond undercurrent.

Here is a civilian briefing form on NATO classified information

http://www.unm.edu/~isd/sec_briefings/nato/nato_01.htm

NOAA NATO Briefing Statement

http://www.wasc.noaa.gov/wrso/briefings/NATO%20BRIEFING%20CERTIFICATE.pdf

Los Alamos USA-UK clearance comparisons

http://badge.lanl.gov/uk-usa_classification.shtml

Another COSMIC Top Secret Control Officer speaks

http://yarchive.net/mil/secret_classifications.html

I could go on, but what is the point. Now look at all the
misagosh that has been written about COSMIC TOP SECRET by
self-appointed UFO insiders on website with returns from a
"COSMIC TOP SECRET" search. Who falls for this junk? Well there
must at least be the website promoters of bull.

That people in Ufology continue to talk about 28 levels above
Top Secret or a Q clearance as half way between Secret and Top
Secret shows the shallowness of research in this field.

It is unfortunate. However, here is probably one reason that
serious folk won't look at UFOs. There so many proponents are
not only ignorant, they glory in their ignorance! There is
nothing wrong with ignorance--no one can know everything--but it
is wanting to stay ignorant when knowledge is readily available
that is a sin!

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Control Of Classified Information

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 21:1:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:21:12 -0500
Subject: Control Of Classified Information


While doing a web search I found this NASA document. Unlike most
military documents on the subject is simple and nearly devoid of
jargon. In this document the procedures for handling Top Secret
information are described. It has generally been the same since
1946 although each agency involved has its own little twists. Of
all the agencies, the White House itself seems to be the one
that did not follow Executive Orders on the subject.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/other/16203C_B.htm

The latest version of Army Regulation 380-5, The Army
Information Security Program is available at

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r380_5.pdf

All other Services have basically the same thing.

Of course, if people understand how classified security works,
then some of the UFO pontificators and self-styled insiders
would have a more difficult time in putting one over on the UFO
community. Have a great read!


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:19:00 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:38:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

<snip>

 >>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

<snip>

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-003.shtml


Hi list,

Just reading the post on this subject and some are full of
problems.


What Jan said is wrong, in fact Stan is correct.


I have no problems with the data in the posts, and the
corrections. For example "Unclassified" is an important level
usually missed by people who don't understand the complexity of
the system.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-018.shtml


However, the inexperienced always leave out the levels in the
structure, I have no idea why. I think it's because most see it
as a 'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a
'human restriction system' (human lock).

The problem is that everyone thinks that the Classification
defines the security, but it does not!

Some facts to remember:

[1]. Levels of Protection are always above Classification
      of Protection.

[2]. Humans move the data, not paper.

[3]. You can always move down the levels, sometime across the
      levels but definitely NOT up the levels.

The top dog in the 'Levels of Protection' is the OS - "Official
Secrets" level.

This is the Official Secrets Act stamp and is a "lifetime duty
of confidentiality" or a 'Black Hole' stamp or lock.

If you sign this form, then you have in fact in a very odd way
cut out all other levels. The force of this protection will only
come into action if the authorities hit you with the OS stamp.
Even Stan cannot get out of this one if I hit him with a OS!

Nothing moves, down sideway or up - you're a dead duck.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

Nick Pope post is an important post and needs to be understood.
"COSMIC top secret" is the highest classification marking in
NATO and it is equivalent to "UK top secret".

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-020.shtml

So in fact Stan Friedman is correct, he was between S and TS. It
is not a simple 4 level stamp and it would take some time to
work it out if you have no idea how the system is structured,
that's another post another day.


Regards to all,

UBIQUE

John W. AUCHETTL


   OS - Lifetime Confidential   <--- The Head dog
  CTS - Cosmic
   TS - DoD SAP
   TS - SCI
   TS - BIGOT LIST
   NS - NATO
    S - DoD SAP                  <--- Stans Level (?)
    S - SCI
    S - BIGOT LIST
    C - DoD SAP
    C - SCI
    C - BIGOT LIST
    R - BIGOT LIST               <--- Non USA
    E - EMBARGO                  <--- Non USA
   EO - EYES ONLY
   UC - UNCLASSIFIED

(above list is not accurate - sample only)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      NASA Fights Back On Moon Landing

From: Mike Cahill <cfans@attcanada.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:41:47 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:53:46 -0500
Subject: NASA Fights Back On Moon Landing


I generally turn the page when I see this stuff, but the
following is the text of the post Oberg put out on
alt.conspiracy announcing this whole exercise.  Not my first
choice of venue.

Cheers,


Mike Cahill


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oberg" <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.space.history
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:20 AM
Subject: NASA fighting back to confirm that U.S. really flew to moon


NASA fighting back to confirm that U.S. really flew to moon BY
SETH BORENSTEIN, Knight Ridder News Service  // October 30, 2002
sborenstein@krwashington.com

WASHINGTON - More than 33 years after the United States landed
men on the moon, NASA is spending more than $15,000 to convince
people that it really did happen and that the space agency
didn't make it all up.

Stubborn conspiracy theorists claim that NASA's six Apollo-
program moon landings were faked. After decades of belittling
and ignoring them, NASA has decided to fight back. It hired
James Oberg, a Houston-based former aerospace engineer and
award-winning author of 10 books on space, to confront skeptics
point by point. Many scientists already have done that on the
Internet, but skeptics remain unconvinced.

"Ignoring it only fans the flames of people who are naturally
suspicious," Oberg said Tuesday in an interview.

Last year, Fox television twice broadcast a show entitled
Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?, and NBC's
Today show staged a debate on the topic. Last month, Buzz
Aldrin, the second man on the moon, punched a conspiracy
theorist who had been pestering him to swear on a stack of
Bibles that the landing was real.

After the Fox show first aired, NASA put out a one-paragraph
press release titled Apollo: Yes, We Did.

Yet a 1999 poll found that 11 percent of the American public
doubted the moon landing happened, and Fox officials said such
skepticism increased to about 20 percent after their show, which
was seen by about 15 million viewers.

Stephen Garber, NASA's acting chief historian, said Oberg's 10-
chapter, 30,000-word monograph 'is not going to convince the
people who believe in these myths. Hopefully, it'll speak to
other people who are broad-minded."

The book will expose "space myths writ large [and will] look at
some of these broader issues of how these myths get initiated
and promulgated," Garber said.

Oberg "has got one hell of a job ahead of him," said skeptic
Ralph Rene, a New Jersey carpenter who said he is self-taught in
physics and has self-published two books. One book claims the
moon landing didn't happen; the other criticizes Isaac Newton's
grasp of physics. 'I could care less what they do."

"It's a real shame that it has to be done," said Sonoma State
University astronomy Professor Phil Plait. He runs the
badastronomy.com website, which debunks space myths, including
the moon-hoax theory.

"It's beneath NASA's dignity to give these twinkies the time of
day," Plait said. 'The problem is, if you ignore a problem, it
doesn't go away.'"

But confronting conspiracy theorists usually doesn't convince
them either, said historian Gregory Camp, author of Selling
Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. "The true
believers in that kind of thing already have the answers - at
least in their eyes," Camp said.

"It's incredible that a book like that has to be written," he
said.

------

Oberg can be reached at joberg@houston.rr.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:47:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:56:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Friedman


 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>was in use at the time (1954).

 >No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

Sorry Jan. What I said was quite correct. I am very familiar
with Secret Restricted data as I wrote many such documents. As I
noted in my MUFON 2000 paper, , the exact quote  is "Date:
December 7, 1994, Ms. Laura Jackson and I reviewed records
pertaining to the Air Forces atomic energy projects and certain
mission and weapons requirements. These files were Calssified up
to and including top secret. The period covered by these records
was from 1948 to 1956. There was no mention of the Roswell
Incident. No information pertaining to the assignment was
obtained. In several instances we noticed the classification Top
Secret Restricted, used on several documents. This is mentioned
because in past references to this clas sification (Majestic 12)
we were told that it was not used during this period."

I spoke with the 3 GAO people involved. They could not make
copies of these documents  because they were still classified.
Furthermore as I had noted in my paper I had earlier found a
number of Confidential Resricted and Secret  Restricted
documents. No these were not SRD or CRD.

Please notice the term several. They did not say loads of or a
great many, but several .

 >>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >>RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >>frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
 >Restricted Data (SRD)

Wrong again. Why do you think so??? Can you not read what I
said? They were SR and CR NOT SRD or CRD. Whether we expect it
or like it or not,that is what they were. As noted above I was
very familiar with SRD and CRD documents.

 >The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
 >weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

Of course, but these documents were NOT SRD or CRD or TSRD

 >One problem in researching at archives is that documents
 >containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
 >Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
 >real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
 >are involved.

 >>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

This has been discussed here before. The Q gave me access to non
nuclear data as well. some of it at TOP SECRET level. in certain
circumstances when I had a need to know.

 >Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
 >mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
 >reading.

Jan, you make it sound like every installation follows the same
  set of rules. They don't all follow the same rules. Some
documents have unusual classifications. Check out page 80 of the
big GAO equivalent to FOI volume re Roswell. I suppose I could
dig out some of the SR and CR documents. I believe I mentioned
this in my 1990 Final Report on Operation Majestic 12.

Absence of evidence in your hands is not evidence of absence.
Proclamation is not the same as investigation.

Yes, a little reading would be a good idea. You remind me of Ed
Stewart proclaiming that all TS documents had TS control numbers
on them. FALSE. He also proclaimed that all the documents in RG
341 were TS and all had TS control numbers. FALSE. Yes, a little
reading would have helped him as well.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                    Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:54:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:04:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41 - Friedman


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:54:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:25 UT
 >>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:05:02 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 41

 ><snip>

 >>Has anyone suggested a better word than "Flying Saucer" since
 >>many are not saucers and probably do not fly in the usual sense
 >>of the word (i.e. supported by air pressure differentials).

 >I have suggested  AFI  - Alien Flying Craft - for the objects
 >and OI - Other intelligences or NHI - Non-Human Intelligence for
 >the Creatures/Entities/Beings.....

Years ago I suggested Earth Excursion Modules  EEMs.. but that
never caught on.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               Victoria, British Columbia Sighting - 11-01-02

From: Brian Vike - HBCC UFO Research <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:38:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:17:39 -0500
Subject: Victoria, British Columbia Sighting - 11-01-02


Victoria, British Columbia

Date: November 1, 2002
Time: 3:35 p.m.

I live in Victoria BC, and today at approx 1535 hours I was
outside where I heard a brrrrring of a small plane and turned my
eyes to see it travelling in a North to South direction at
around 4000 to 5000 feet (normal altitude, whatever that is). It
was a small Cessna type aircraft with bright yellow sides and a
red tail section.

Today was a brilliantly clear day so the colors of the plane
were plainly visible.

Suddenly my eyes caught a glimpse of another aircraft flying in
the same direction except, to the west of the other, and much
closer to me.

This second object was a much larger craft than the Cessna; in
fact the nose of it extended much farther forward of the small
swept-back wings than the Cessna. It resembled a DC9 in basic
shape but the wings were very short.

This craft was pure white and did not appear to have windows or
markings of any kind on the body of the craft. It may have been
the time of day but it's wings were kind of indistinct and
shadowy.

But, the whole strange part of this is that the farther away
Cessna was travelling at a much higher rate of speed than the
object. The object continued very slowly on it's Southerly
course until it was out of sight.

I have never seen such a large aircraft fly so slowly. In fact
it seemed impossible for a fixed wing aircraft to do that at
all. There were no contrails or noise from the object.

---

Thank you to the witness for their report.
Brian Vike

HBCC UFO Research
       &
Editor: Canadian Communicator
hbccufo@telus.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                             NASA 'Conspiracy'?

From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:34:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:18:50 -0500
Subject: NASA 'Conspiracy'?


NASA Conspiracy - see The Moon Files

http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk


Geoff Richardson






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                                 Terminology

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:21:52 -0500
Subject: Terminology


Now that Ufology is undergoing a massive campaign through the
SciFi Channel's media arm, it seems apropo to consider changing
the terminology of Ufology to better reflect how Ufology has
evolved over the last 55 years.

There is little doubt that the field of study, commonly referred
to as "Ufology," has become muddied over the decades, as many
Fortean areas have unfairly been assigned to the UFO phenomenon.
As an example: Chupacabras, crop circles, Mothman, spook lights,
etc. have been inserted into the category of Ufology. Although
it is possible that some of these may touch on the phenomena of
UFOs, they are not actual parts of the UFO phenomenon as
conceived by early Ufologists.

Astute researchers realize that Ufology is the study of unknown
aeronautical crafts that defy known aeronautical theories and
rules and the theories of possible origin of these manufactured-
appearing machines, appearing under intelligent control.
However, over the course of 55 years, everything Fortean has
been added to the mix, sparking a lot of redundant discussion
and massive confusion among both researchers and those
interested in the phenomenon.

I believe it is time to rework the terminology for the field of
Ufology. Although it is not certain, enough documentation exists
to suggest that the acronym, "UFOs" was brought to prominence by
Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt during the early Project Blue Book
investigations. At the time the acronym was being used the USAF
was collecting reports of any and all unidentified aerial
objects, including such things as lights in the sky and
astronomical unknowns.

In order to cement the historical base of Ufology that is being
laid, new definitions seem mandatory, thus clearing the way for
the next step in making Ufology a legitimate science. In other
words, scientists, researchers, historians and the general
public needs to agree on what constitutes Ufology.

As many List members know, I have been working on the
terminology issue for a long time. The following terminologies
and acronyms are ones I use to replace the aged terminology of
the early days of Ufology, which leaves much to be desired.

Crypto-Aeronautics: This term removes most astronomical and
Fortean elements from discussion. It denotes that the field of
Crypto-Aeronautics is the study of unknown manufactured craft
that are seen in our atmosphere and in near space. To qualify as
a research case an object must appear to be manufactured, appear
intelligently controlled and exceeds currently known aerodynamic
principles. Crypto-Aeronautics replaces the older term,
"Ufology."

Crypto-Craft (UCC): An unknown flying craft that appears
manufactured, under intelligent control and defies current
aeronautical maneuvers and known propulsion systems. Replaces
the old acronym: "UFO(s)."

Crypto-Aeronautist (CCA): A person who studies, researches and
investigates Crypto-Aeronautics. This term only refers to those
who maintain more than a passing or general interest in the
field of Crypto-Aeronautics by actual research and/or on-site
investigation and follows academic and scientific protocol.
Replaces the term, "Ufologist."

Crypto-Aeronautic Historian (CAH): A person who devotes their
research efforts to document and preserve the history of Crypto-
Aeronautics without prejudice. The CAH maintains Crypto-
Aeronautic archives for the benefit of researchers. Replaces the
old terminology: "UFO Historian."

Crypto-Aeronautic Specialist (CAS): Researchers who specialize
in one area of Crypto-Aeronautics. For example a Crypto-
Aeronautic Trace Specialist would be designated by the acronym
(CAS-T). Photo Analyst (CAS-P), Database Specialist (CAS-D),
etc.

Crypto-Entity(s): CE(s) denote cases involving the appearance of
unknown entites with a crypto-craft (UCC). There are two types:
CBE(s), which denote biological entities and CRE(s), which
appear to be robotic or mechanical in appearance.

In order to update the types of cases first designed by Dr. J.
Allen Hynek, I propose the following types of cases:

CA1: Case involving UCC(s) that are observed in the atmosphere
      or in near space.

CA2: Cases involving witnesses that are within 50 yards of a
      UCC.

CA3: Cases involving witnesses who come into contact or enters a
      UCC.

CA4: Cases involving observation of CBE(s) or CRE(s).

CA5: Cases involving witness(s) who encounter and interact with
      CBE(s) or CRE(s)

CA6: Cases involving people who have been abducted by a UCC and
      their occupants.

CA7: Cases involving UCC(s) that leave evidentuary traces
      behind.

CA8: Cases involving UCC(s) that have been recovered.


Thank You,

Wendy Connors
Faded Discs







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:17:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:24:40 -0500
Subject: SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC


I'm not sure if this was posted previously, but thought some
might find it of interest.

=====================================
A Free UFO Symposium at George Washington University

Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

At this unique symposium eminent scientists and aviation experts
will explore the potential for interstellar travel and the
evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena, sometimes referred to
as UFOs.  Hosted by The George Washington University and
sponsored by SCI FI Channel, this symposium will provide
attendees with a scientific understanding of how interstellar
travel might be possible and highlight the need for a thorough
scientific investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena.

Moderator -
Ray Suarez, Senior Correspondent, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer

Participants -
Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at the City
College at the City University of New York,

Dr. Richard Henry, professor of astrophysics at Johns Hopkins
University,

Dr. Peter Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at
Stanford,

Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist and computer scientist,

Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director for the California Institute for
Physics and Astrophysics,

Ted Roe, Executive Director of the National Aviation Reporting
Center for Anomalous Phenomena,

John Callahan, former Division Chief of Accidents and
Investigations for the FAA

When and Where -
The George Washington University's Marvin Center -- Continental
Ballroom. 800 21st Street. November 8, 2002, from 9:00 AM to
1:00 PM Call Cynthia Determan at (202) 879-9309.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                   EW: Sagan's 'Cosmos' Pyramids Compared

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior <eWarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 21:15:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:39:47 -0500
Subject: EW: Sagan's 'Cosmos' Pyramids Compared


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

The Electric Warrior : Cydonut November 2, 2002
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> SAGAN'S COSMOS PYRAMIDS COMPARED
martian enigmas

image: The Pyramids of Elysium Revisited
http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/ewElysiumPyramidsRevisitedThumb.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) -  It was the late Carl Sagan, a NASA
planetary scientist and beloved science writer, who first
commented about the Pyramids of Elysium.

"They seem eroded and ancient, and are perhaps, only small
mountains, sandblasted for ages. But they warrant, I think, a
careful look."

http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/ewCosmosPyramids.jpg

This image shows Sagan's pyramids as they appeared in his book
'Cosmos' side-by-side with the original Viking photograph. The
photo from the book looks washed-out compared to the Viking
photo below. In the top photo, it looks as if there might be
three or four different pyramids on the left. But, in the bottom
photo it can be seen that these are actually part of a single
mountainous range. It's hard to argue with Sagan, but even the
feature on the right doesn't look very pyramid- like in the
bottom photo. It has a triangular shadow, like the next photo in
this series. But, is that enough to convince us it's really a
pyramid?

http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/ewPyramidalSurface.jpg

This photo shows a mound on the Elysium planes, not far from the
pyramids. Is there anything weird about it? Probably not.
Photographed in 1999 by the MarsGlobal Surveyor spacecraft, the
rounded mound looks like it has been shaped by natural
processes. Notice that the sunlight in this photo casts a
distinctly triangular shadow. It's easy to understand why a
feature like this might look like a pyramid if photographed by a
lower resolution camera.

Sagan's statement evoked images of ancient, lost civilizations
on Mars. But no one, not even Sagan, believed they were real
pyramids.

So, is there any reason to believe that the Elysium pyramids are
artifacts, and that together with the enigmas at Cydonia they
beckon further inquiry into the possibility of ancient,
extraterrestrial intelligence? Probably not. The high resolution
MGS images show seemingly natural geological features.

Recent photographs of the area seen here reveal ordinary looking
  mounds, shaped by the Martian environment. Contemporary Cydonia
researchers ought to revisit the Pyramids of Elysium and ask
whether they add any evidence for the Pyramids at Cydonia.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
November 2, 2002
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
This text is freely distributable for non-commercial
purposes, provided you cite The Electric Warrior.
Web developers should link here...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/ewCydonut0004.htm

Readers are strongly cautioned that The Electric Warrior asserts
it is OK to laugh and have a good time with some of this stuff.
Lighten Up!

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

The Electric Warrior is not responsible for the content of Web
links. Content reproduced here is for informational purposes
only. All copyrights Acknowledged.

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                 SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 07:49:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:49:57 -0500
Subject: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases


Re: John Velez' comment on 'Strange Days... Indeed' #213,
wondering why there is not the same interest in the Moon
artifacts and bases, reportedly photographed by NASA and
described by a Greer Disclosure witness, as there is about the
Mars artifacts.

I'd like to ask a question about this: Have any Moon photos
showing artificial structures been released to the public? If
not, that is probably the reason for the lack of public
interest.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:00:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &



 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:27:08 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:56:05 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:29:30 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:10:09 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>>>This famous IFO was actually the planet Venus, as
 >>>>determined by Robert Sheaffer many years ago and
 >>>>published in The Humanist, July-August 1977, p. 46.

 >>>>The problem was that Carter was mistaken about the
 >>>>date when recounting it years later. Sheaffer got to the
 >>>>bottom of it.
 >
 >>>>Please see:
 >
 >>>>http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

 ><snip>

 >>It is certainly possible for a person to make an error regarding
 >>a date while hastily filling out a form and still be quite
 >>accurate in remembering what he/she saw at a particular moment,
 >>especially if that event imprinted on the mind.

 >Hi, Jerry:

 >The point about the date error was that on the correct date
 >Venus was visible in the direction Carter looked. Also it
 >allowed Sheaffer to locate other people who were also present:
 >they didn't recall seeing anything unusual. This suggests
 >strongly that what Carter saw was not brighter than the Moon or
 >exhibiting the bizarre motions that he reported.

Hi Bob,

Not necessarily. Please see my sighting and how my own wife
reacted to it back in 1967.

http://www.cohenufo.org/Carter_Clark.html#mysighting

She didn't have an answer for it but, since she felt it couldn't
exist, she didn't react to it at all. I'm not trying to convince
you concerning my sighting but rather to note the difference
between my wife's reaction and my own.

 >The argument that any witness is not capable of mistaking Venus
 >for a UFO ignores 50 years of IFOs by "qualified" people who
 >probably also saw Venus many times before.

 >That's why it's so often called an Identified Flying Object.

Yes, no problem. I did understand your point and my argument was
not that Carter could not have made a mistake. My point is that
generalized statements like "....ignores 50 years of IFOs by
'qualified' people who probably also saw Venus many times
before" does not solve our dilemma. A examination and analysis
of each individual case's "specifics" is the only way an honest
solution can be found for that case, and that case alone.

In the course of my own research over the years, I have seen the
"Venus" and certain other celestial object explanations proposed
for no other reason than to attempt to "create" an IFO in cases
where researchers have no other explanation to offer. For this
reason I am not so quick to jump on that bandwagon any more.

Illustration of the above:

I'll use the Illinois 2000 case as one perfect example of what I
mean and I can easily point out others.


[Begin example]

Apparently, witnesses, including police officers, gave an
extremely detailed accounting of a "massive elongated triangle"
seen and one skeptic's retort was to admonish the people who
studied it for not considering the "Venus" explanation. I am
sure you are probably familiar with it, but for those not,
clicking below will take other readers directly to it.

http://www.cohenufo.org/NIDS%20reply%20to%20Klass.htm

This flippant attitude on the part of some people to debunk UFO
sightings "at any cost," including the suspension of rational
analysis, has made me become extremely cautious regarding the
"Venus" explanation.

Incidentally, readers not familiar with same can also view the
abstract of the Illinois case at the NIDS web site by visiting:


http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinois/abstract.html

[End example]


Getting back to Carter's case:

I am not closed-minded to the fact that some sightings are
generated by astronomical objects, etc. However, if David Rudiak
was correct in what he stated about Venus (perhaps you could
help me here if he's not), I believe researchers may have just
cause to think the "Venus" explanation though a little more
carefully.


[Quote]

From: DRudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>[David Rudiak]
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:55:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 03:08:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Pres. Carter

<snip>

c) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the distance.
At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have remained
well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
disappeared.  It fact, it didn't set until about 9:20. You can't
have it both ways, with Venus supposedly being brilliantly
bright and otherwise highly visible (to supposedly account for
the report), yet supposedly disappearing as well.

jc   I have read this is approximately two hours before
it would normally set, if that is correct.

Rudiak continued:
Lesser discrepancies are:

a) Venus was in the southwestern, not western sky
(between 237 and 240 degrees azimuth, not 270).

b) If the time was correct, the elevation was between 21
and 24 degrees, not 30 degrees.

c) According to my planetarium programs, Venus wasn't
even at its brightest on this date, much less an
"unusually bright light." ....snip....

{End quote]


If Rudiak was correct, Venus was not exactly where Carter
claimed he saw the UFO; and it completely disappeared two hours
before Venus should have set.

Then I found myself asking "I wonder who Bob Scheaffer
interviewed? No supporting evidence was given to make it
possible for others to check what he says in this regard.

So I performed a web search to see what else I might find
regarding this case.

Grant Cameron, who has posted a monumental analysis on Carter
and an investigation of his UFO Report on his web site

http://www.presidentialufo.8m.com/jimmy.htm

had the following comments to make:


[Begin quote]

Carter had, in fact, described the UFO sighting many times in
the years since it occurred. In every instance, including the
latest known telling of the story at Emory University in 1997,
Carter has never backed off on the spectacular nature of the
event. He has also never conceded that was he saw was some
misidentification of a natural phenomena.

Carter estimated that the object was three hundred to one
thousand yards away. He estimated that the event had lasted 10
minutes. Then the object disappeared. Carter was so impressed by
what he had seen, he recorded his impressions of the event on a
tape recorder at the time.

Carter's UFO sighting began shortly after dark on a windless
night. Jimmy Carter was standing outside the Lion's Club in
Leary, Georgia, waiting for a meeting to start. Suddenly, he and
ten or more witnesses, sighted a red and blue orb radiating in
the western sky. Carter described an object that "it seemed to
move towards us from a distance, stop, move partially away,
return, then depart. Bluish at first; then reddish - luminous -
  not solid."

In the ensuing years, there has been a great deal of discussion
as to what the UFO had been. Skeptical UFO buffs, such as Robert
Sheaffer, struggled to explain Jimmy Carter's sighting away, by
stating that Carter had viewed the planet Venus. Sheaffer, the
vice-chairman of the UFO subcommittee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, wrote up his guess as
to what the object Carter and the others had seen in the July
1977 Humanist Magazine. Many UFO "researchers" wanting to show
that they, too, can be "discriminating" joined in stating Carter
had viewed the planet Venus."

Others stepped forward quickly to challenge the accuracy of
Shaeffer's claim. Sheaffer's response to these challenges ended
up taking his Venus explanation from the shaky to the bizarre.
For example, Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
conclusions were wrong because they relied on eyewitness
testimony, and eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are,
wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of scientific analysis documenting
unreliability of unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony."
Yet Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the data that he
collected to come to his Venus conclusion.

In a response to a letter written to the Skeptical Inquirer by
Jon Beckjord, published in the Winter 1980-81 Skeptical
Inquirer, Sheaffer cited four books and articles Beckjord could
refer to that would show you "can't take unsubstantiated
testimony at face value."

In the very next sentence of his reply, however, Sheaffer
retreated to eyewitness testimony. "I note that Beckjord fails
to mention," Shaeffer wrote, " that many UFO proponents agree
with me that the Carter UFO sighting is a very poor one and that
another Georgian standing with Carter, as my Humanist piece
makes clear, [was] quite unimpressed with the light they saw in
the sky." Shaeffer's Venus conclusion relied on the assumption
that Carter's eyewitness testimony was inaccurate, but the other
eyewitness accounts were accurate.

In the end, it is safe to conclude that the object was not
Venus, no matter how bad witness testimony might have been. A
review of the evidence would show:

  Venus was in the southwestern sky on January 6, 1969,
  not in the west as claimed by Sheaffer. Carter who had
  spent watches, while in the Navy doing watches in
  cruisers and destroyers, as a navigation officer, taking
  star shots with a sextant, stated the object was in the
  western sky.

  Carter described the object as being the "size of the
  moon" or"slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
  moon." Venus never appears this way.

  Venus at the time was at between 15 and 21 degrees
  over the horizon at 7:15 p.m. Carter, a trained observer
  stated the object was 30 degrees above the horizon, or
  almost double the height of Venus at the time.

  Sheaffer described Venus as "being at it's brightest" on
  the date in question. It wasn't at its brightest.

  The witnesses declared that the object disappeared after
  10 minutes or at 7:25 p.m. Venus, on the evening in
  question, was visible in the clear sky till 9:20 p.m. If it
  had been Venus, it would still have been visible for
  another 115 minutes after the witnesses claimed it had
  disappeared in a clear sky. During these 115 minutes
  the planet Venus would have increased in brightness
  (not disappeared) as it approached the horizon. Venus
  does not disappear, and would have been eliminated as
  a suspect by a grade six astronomy class investigation.

[End quote]


Grant Cameron also mentions:

"Carter who had spent watches, while in the Navy doing watches
in cruisers and destroyers, as a navigation officer, taking star
shots with a sextant, stated the object was in the western sky."


If this is true, I believe Carter would be less likely to make a
mistake in what he reported. He would have to be considered a
trained observer. One can research a little further to check
this and I know I will.

Getting back to what I said in my original post:

With all this in mind, I did not say that the Carter sighting
was an ET, but I did say the facts given by both sides appear to
cancel each other out. We cannot honestly say for sure, one way
or another, what Carter saw. From what has been stated regarding
where the UFO was seen, I, and others, believe there is the
distinct possibility it may not have been Venus which Carter
saw, but we will never know.

We do know, however, that proposing an estimated explanation is
not the same thing as having a solid explanation. The IFO
"proposal" is exactly that, an estimated explanation. Therefore,
it cannot be guaranteed as the correct solution for this
specific case. Readers are free to form their own conclusions.


Respectfully,

Jerry Cohen

http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                       Holloman Landing Film Revisited

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 12:05:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:06:50 -0500
Subject: Holloman Landing Film Revisited


Source: Florida Today

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/indexcox.htm

Network Joins Search For 'Truth'

Sci-Fi digs for UFO info, but is it a hoax for ratings?

By Billy Cox
FLORIDA TODAY
bcox@flatoday.net

It was a marketing strategy every bit as calculating as the
buildup for "The Blair Witch Project." Armed with the latest
Roper Poll numbers indicating 72 percent of Americans believe
the federal government is withholding information about
unidentified flying objects, the Sci-Fi Channel staged a press
conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 22 to declare its
designs on learning the truth.

Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, left,
wants the government to spill the beans on UFOs. Meanwhile,
former Air Force Col. William Coleman, right, who is a
documentary filmmaker and Indian Harbour Beach resident, still
feels bamboozled by the government.

Sci-Fi announced its partnership with a new group called the
Coalition for Freedom of Information, directed by Washington
lobbyist Ed Rothschild. Its leading voice was former Clinton
White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, an avowed "X-Files"
buff whose call "to open the books about the government's
investigation of UFOs" could've come right out of Agent Fox
Mulder's mouth.

Meanwhile, over there in the margins, like an asterisk in fine
print, was Sci-Fi's centerpiece -- a 20-hour miniseries called
"Taken." Set to premiere on Dec. 2, the project concerns alien
abductions, and its executive producer is Steven Spielberg.

If it sounded familiar, perhaps that's because, just a year and
a half ago, the same National Press Club venue was the site of a
similar action by the Disclosure Project. That's when a gallery
of former government witnesses called for open hearings on UFOs
in Congress, so far to no avail.

But there's an even longer view, stretching for decades along
the slippery slopes where show biz and high-level government
intrigues have generated little more than additional layers of
confusing mythology. Decades after his own byzantine encounters
with former Air Force Col. William Coleman, now retired in
Indian Harbour Beach, a documentary filmmaker remains
bamboozled.

"I still don't know what happened, and I was right in the middle
of it," says Robert Emenegger, who now works for a public
television station in Fayetteville, Ark. "It was like being in a
Kafka play. Bill once joked with me, 'One day I'll take you out
on a boat and tell you what it really was, but then afterwards,
I'll have to kill you.' "

The controversy began 30 years ago, when Emenegger and producer
Alan Sandler were approached by a military officer about the
possibility of airing footage of an actual alien spacecraft
landing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Today,
Emenegger's story has become the gold standard as evidence of a
government disinformation program surrounding UFOs.

"Coleman's a fascinating character, a real player," says San
Francisco's Paul Meehan, author of "Saucer Movies" in 1998.
"When I watch 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind,' which
involved a UFO landing at a remote location, recorded in secrecy
by the government, I can't help but wonder if Spielberg was
influenced by what was rumored to have happened at Holloman."

Don Berliner, who chairs the Fund for UFO Research in
Alexandria, Va., has known Coleman since the latter had a
Pentagon office. To him, the USAF's public information chief
from 1971 to '74 remains an enigma.

"Certainly Bill was one of the most objective Pentagon spokesmen
I ever met," says Berliner. "He had to spout the party line, but
I think he tried to be as honest as he could within those
constraints. When it comes to (UFOs), I think he's a conflicted
man."

For his part, Coleman, who worked the Air Force's official study
of UFOs in the 1960s -- called Project Blue Book -- the
Emenegger controversy was always much to do about nothing.
Today, at 78, the survivor of 155 combat missions says the
footage in question never concerned UFOs.

"There was nothing extraordinary on there that I could see,"
Coleman says. "All I know is, we would not release the film
because there were special lenses on the cameras involved, and
we didn't want our technological abilities getting into the
public domain."


Skeptic at first

According to Emenegger, the journey that would lead him to
Coleman began in 1972-73. Emenegger was producing commercial
television ads when he hooked up with Sandler, who was
interested in doing military documentaries.

While discussing ideas on advanced research projects at Norton
Air Force Base outside Bakersfield, Calif., Emenegger says
security officer Paul Shartle, chief of the base audio-visual
department, asked, "What would we think if there had been a
landing of alien craft at Holloman Air Force Base, that they
were met by some of the officers, and that TV camera people had
filmed this landing?

"Well, I was a skeptic. I thought this UFO stuff was a lot of
BS. But Shartle described the film in great detail, descriptions
of the aliens, that it happened in May 1971. But it was all
handled semi-officially. What was so strange to me was, at the
time, he told us this film was unclassified. Shartle said if you
want to pursue this, bury it along with things like laser and
dog training and holography; otherwise, if you ask just about
UFOs, a lot of red flags are going to go up. So that's what we
did."

Emenegger says he and Sandler "went through the motions" of
filming assorted Air Force projects, with the understanding that
they would get exclusive access to the Holloman footage at the
end of the line. In 1973, as a precondition for release of the
film, they met with Coleman, and others, at the Pentagon, to
submit their script (even though they hadn't seen the footage)
for technical accuracy.

By that time, Project Blue Book had been terminated for nearly
four years, after a University of Colorado committee concluded
the phenomenon reflected neither advanced technology nor a
threat to national security. Coleman had joined Blue Book in
1962, following a conversation with Air Force Secretary Gen.
Eugene Zukert.

"Before I took the job, I knew I needed to explain my own
sighting to him," Coleman recalls. "After I told him the story,
he said, 'Good, you're just the guy for the job. You've remained
objective, and that's what we want on the program -- to tell the
truth.' "

Coleman's sighting is now legendary among UFOlogists. In 1955,
while piloting a B-25 over Alabama, he and his four-man crew
attempted to pursue a silvery disc reflecting mid-day sunlight.
The object cast an oval shadow when it dropped to the deck, then
eluded the bomber with a series of evasive maneuvers. Although
Coleman collected and filed individual eyewitness reports from
his men, the account never turned up in the Blue Book archives.

Exactly what happened when Coleman met with Emenegger and
Sandler depends on who you talk to.

"I looked at it just as a commercial venture on their part, a
couple of guys out to make some bucks," says Coleman. "But in
terms of (releasing) the film they were so interested in, I
showed it to my people and they said no. Not because of anything
on the film, but because of the particular camera lenses. They
said they didn't want the Soviets to know our capabilities."


'Bizarre' event

Sandler couldn't be reached for comment, but Emenegger says what
happened next was especially "bizarre," given how they had
already done location shots on-site at Holloman, and even
interviewed eyewitnesses off-camera.

"It wasn't some clandestine adventure. Everyone had been very
cooperative, in terms of allowing us access. We made no secret
of what we were working on. In fact," Emenegger says, "I talked
to the head radar guy there and said, 'I'll bet you were really
amazed in '71 when that thing came down,' and he said, 'You mean
the flying bathtub?' I said, 'Yeah,' and he said, 'You really
don't talk about things like that.'

"So I'm at the Pentagon with Bill, and he's saying how we need
to be careful about certain things because of national security,
blah blah blah. And then he said, 'Let me set you up with George
Weinbrenner,' who was the commander of foreign technology, which
was in this half-underground bunker with all these surveillance
cameras.

"And I asked Weinbrenner about the landing of an alien ship at
Holloman, and instead of saying, 'What the hell are you talking
about?' he started talking about how difficult it was to get
information about Soviet aircraft, and about how easy it was to
get stuff on our planes. Then he starts talking about spying.
And he draws a picture of a MiG on the wall, and I'm thinking,
god, my question was about an alien landing at Holloman, and
Weinbrenner was going on about how the Soviets have developed
weather alteration patterns, and that's where the really big
problem is.

"I thought I was in the Twilight Zone."


Hold the film

The Air Force never released the film. Emenegger says he got
several different explanations from Coleman.

"I love Bill. He can do no wrong in my mind, even though he can
stretch things," says Emenegger. "But one time, he told me it
was because of the camera lenses. Then he told me it was because
the real incident involved the landing of an SR-71, which was
supposedly classified at the time. Once, he even told me it was
because we didn't have diplomatic relations with the
extraterrestrials.

"I'd bet my life that Bill never saw the film. You know how
people sometimes play a role, where you're talking about
something that they don't know about, but they don't want to let
on, so they play along? That's what our conversations were
like."

"The film I saw was made at Vandenberg (AFB)," Coleman says.
"What I saw, I didn't get excited about. Sometimes when you
launch missiles, you'll get a light phenomenon called halations,
which can look like UFOs. They can be seen rising with the
missiles, they can even be seen going in the opposite direction.
This is what we were dealing with. As far as the Holloman stuff,
I'm not sure what they were talking about."


TV exposure

Despite the confusion, the Sandler/Emenegger documentary
nevertheless made it onto the airwaves in 1974. Called "UFOs:
Past, Present and Future," it was narrated by "Twilight Zone"
host Rod Serling. Coleman appeared on-camera, and the feature
earned a Golden Globe nomination. In 1980, an expanded version
called "UFOs: It Has Begun" was released. Supported by stock
footage, the Holloman landing -- which does show the descent of
a curious glowing orb against a desert backdrop that Emenegger
is at a loss to explain -- is presented, according to Serling,
as "an incident that might happen in the future, or perhaps
could've happened already."

In 1988, Shartle would tell his side of the story on national
TV. During a two-hour special called "UFO Coverup: Live,"
Shartle described the 16mm film as having documented the arrival
of "three disc-shaped craft," one of which landed and opened the
door to three "human-size beings" with gray complexions, tight
jumpsuits, and "thin headdresses that appeared to be
communication devices." The ETs were then met by Air Force
officials, who escorted them away.

Additional corroboration Shartle might've provided died with him
last year in a car wreck.

"It's a good metaphor for the UFO situation in general," says
Dr. Colm Kelleher, of the National Institute for Discovery
Science, a Las Vegas research organization. "It's very difficult
to pin down, and unfortunately, we didn't realize just how
important Shartle was until it was too late to interview him."

Coleman says he never met Shartle and doesn't know what to make
of his story.

After leaving the Pentagon, Coleman went on to become an advisor
to "Project UFO," an NBC prime-time series produced by Jack Webb
("Dragnet") that ran from 1977 to '78. Each episode lifted a
page from the Blue Book files and turned it into a dramatization
in which some cases were solved, while others remained
mysteries.

"From the Air Force point of view, we never got close enough to
any technology that would make (further study) worthwhile, to
spend money that way," says Coleman, mindful of renewed calls
for UFO glasnost on Capitol Hill. "You follow me? It wasn't
promising enough. I never saw anything that would get us
excited, and I had all kinds of clearances."

Coleman predicts there will be no earth-shattering documents
recovered through new Freedom of Information Act initiatives,
and that congressional hearings on more recent events will be
unproductive because "we haven't had any interesting cases
involving high-performance aircraft in years."

At the National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, which has been
collecting data since 1974, director Peter Davenport says it
fields some 25 calls a day, the best of which get posted on its
Web Site daily. The most dramatic recent video footage, linked
up at www.nuforc.com, was taped over Albany, N.Y., in October,
and is now reportedly in the possession of the FBI.

"It's a shame," Davenport adds, "that Mr. Coleman wouldn't
consider what happened over Waldorf (Maryland) interesting."

In that early-morning July 26 incident, witnesses reported
seeing F-16s chasing a glowing UFO for more than half an hour
near Washington. But a North American Aerospace Defense Command
spokesman contradicted the civilian witnesses, and reported the
pilots made no visual contact: "Everything was fine, so (the
planes) went home."

"Well, that would put them (military spokesmen) in the position
of lying, and I don't think that happened," Coleman says. "Our
policy was always to find out the correct answer before you
speak. Because if you start ad-libbing too soon, you may damn
well tell a lie and create something you can't stop."












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing -

From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:25:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:17:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing -


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:07:10 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:33:04 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:14:07 -0500
 >>>Subject: UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing

 >>>http://www.space.com/news/ufo_poll_021025.html

 >>>UFOs: Seeking the Truth Through Savvy Marketing By Leonard
 >>>David Senior Space Writer

 ><snip>

 >>>This week, calls for the U.S. government to be more
 >>>forthcoming on what it knows about UFOs increased following
 >>>the release of the poll results. That RoperASW study,
 >>>sponsored by the SCI FI Channel, shows that 72% of Americans
 >>>believe the government is not telling the public everything
 >>>it knows about UFO activity.

 >>Well, I have to say "savvy marketing" because what this poll
 >>actually shows is that the test group from which these
 >>statistics were drawn is incredibly disproportionate to the
 >>actual size of the American population, and therefore without
 >>the justification for the headline-grabbing figures of "72%
 >>think THIS".

 >>The test group was 1,021 people who were contacted by
 >>telephone - let's ignore for now the general response of most
 >>people when they are disturbed by what, for all intents and
 >>purposes, is a telemarketer; namely "Oh yes, I'll give you an
 >>answer that will get you off the phone as quickly as
 >>possible". So, 1,021 people out of a population of around 250
 >>MILLION people.

 >It's called a representative sample. It's done all the time,
 >not only with opinion polls but also in industry for quality
 >control and in every science you can name.

 >>The mathematics show the problem with these kinds of straw
 >>polls, assuming the population of America is 250 million:

 >The mathematics show the problem is with poster probably not
 >having a clue about mathematics.

<snip>

 >I don't know if the above post was intended as a joke or not.
 >But if not, it is typical of the incredibly inane, pseudo-
 >scientific clap-trap that regularly emerges from the British
 >pelicanists. If not a joke, then this guy is badly in need of a
 >basic course in statistics.

 >Sampling is at the heart of statistics and basically says that
 >you can get a very good idea about the nature of any population
 > as a whole by sampling a representative fraction of it. Thus
 >if a drug company wants to get a good idea about the efficacy
 >and safety of a new drug, it isn't necessary to test it on all
 >6 billion human beings on planet Earth. Testing on 1000 to
 >10,000 people will usually be quite sufficient.

<snip>

 >However, claiming one needs to ask every single American to get
 > an accurate gauge of public opinion is utter nonsense. Where
 >do people get such ideas?


Hi David and List,

Thanks for your general refresher on very basic statistics. I
didn't intend my post to hit quite a nerve that it seemed to do
with you, as it's pretty clear that my posting was written with
humour and I hope that you missed this only from my not making
it quite clear enough, rather than from something more severe
than having had a sense of humour bypass. I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt in your less-than-comradely comments about
me, and put them down to something else. ;) (Please note, I've
just used an emoticon to indicate that this was also a good-
natured comment!)

I must confess that I don't know what you mean by suggesting
that my post (if not in humour) is "typical of the incredibly
inane, pseudo-scientific clap-trap that regularly emerges from
the British pelicanists". Am I a pelicanist? I don't know what
that is. I do have more than a basic understanding in
mathematics and statistical analysis, however, including an
understanding of how statistics can be abused for a sales
purpose - which is exactly what this poll is really about.

The point I was making, was that this Roper poll was sponsored
by the SCI FI Channel, and that, to quote the original article
source, the "full poll is to be published next month, just in
time for the science fiction cable network to begin its big
media push for its new show, the Steven Spielberg-produced
TAKEN. The show is set to premiere in December on the SCI FI
Channel". (Full article from SPACE.com at:

http://www.space.com/news/ufo_poll_021025.html

Even the author of this article chose the title "UFOs: Seeking
the Truth Through Savvy Marketing," and I agree with his
implication - that this poll was designed to create interest for
the purpose of selling something. Marketing is notorious for
using the results of polls to influence the prospective consumer
to believe in and then to buy - statistics are massaged to the
seller's advantage. There are numerous cases where this has
happened, and this is unfair because statistical analysis is a
valuable tool.

I didn't intend my post to have been anything more than a
healthily sceptical and good-humoured comment on this very
simple fact. I'm not offended by the fact that the serious
aspects of the UFO and ET subjects were jumped on with the use
of statistics in this way, but it is quite unwise to suggest
that this poll stands up in its own right as a serious
indication of anything other than the fact it was intended to
sell the upcoming broadcast on the SCI FI channel.

If you still hold the view that a poll on 0.0004% of the
population of the US is sufficient to accurately represent the
views of 1 in 3 human beings in terms of beliefs, then you and I
simply disagree on the terms of quantitive and qualititive
analysis techniques, and I can live with that. Different views
always create debate, so long as it stays within respectful and
non-personal boundaries.

Thanks for your input.

John Cussen








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

             Scientists Debate Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 20:39:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:18:58 -0500
Subject: Scientists Debate Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life


Source: The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/307/focus/Lonely_planet+.shtml

Stig

***

Scientists debate the existence of intelligent life beyond
Cambridge

By Jascha Hoffman, 11/3/2002

**

THERE ARE ABOUT 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe,
each with hundreds of billions of stars. What are the chances
that there's any interesting life out there?

In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake proposed a simple answer: We can
assume that some stars have planets, some planets host single-
celled life forms, some of those life forms survive to develop
intelligence, and some intelligent beings leave an
electromagnetic trace before they expire.

Carl Sagan once estimated that in the Milky Way alone there must
be over a million detectable civilizations. Today, Drake sticks
to his original estimate of 10,000.

Peter Ward is sick of these loose overestimates. "You can't turn
on the TV without seeing aliens," the co-author of "Rare Earth:
Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe" (Copernicus Books,
2000) complained to a Cambridge auditorium packed with
astronomers, UFO enthusiasts, and other onlookers last week.
Ward was facing off against Harvard paleontologist Charles
Marshall at a debate hosted by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics. In 1996, Ward and Marshall worked together on
a paper arguing that a major drop in sea level, in addition to
the infamous asteroid, had wiped out the dinosaurs. But when it
comes to the distribution of intelligent life in the universe,
they couldn't agree less.

"Maybe I shouldn't count myself as intelligent life," quipped
Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington.
"The first stop on my book tour was a science fiction
convention. A little girl told me I was the devil for taking the
aliens away." The Australia-born Marshall, for his part, retains
the taste for discovery that propelled him from childhood dino-
mania to a career in evolutionary biology. "Life is capable of
more trajectories than physics or astronomy might predict," he
said. "I don't know if life is teeming out there. But it could
be."

Ward and Marshall agree that the universe is full of microbes.
Recent studies have shown that interstellar clouds can generate
amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Meteors falling to
earth usually contain a variety of organic compounds. And cells
can survive under extremes of temperature, pressure, and pH, and
may be able to travel from planet to planet on comets.

But to flourish, even simple life needs liquid water, and this
limits it to planets in the habitable zone: far enough from a
star not to be boiling, but close enough not to be freezing. And
to get complex life - anything more intricate than a flatworm -
  it seems that you need, first of all, a decent atmosphere.

Here on Earth, it took 3 billion years of steady temperatures to
build up enough oxygen to support animals. The fact that our
planet lies in a habitable zone does not itself guarantee such
steadiness. Ward thinks that plate tectonics also do us a great
service: When one plate slides under another, an updraft of
magma brings carbon dioxide to the surface, eventually warming
up the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. But once the
atmosphere gets warmer, excess carbon dioxide is removed by the
calcium in the magma, and it gets cooler again. "For billions of
years, we've been bouncing around in a very fine temperature
range because of the thermostat of plate tectonics," he said.
"How common is that in the universe? We don't know."

To survive long enough to evolve any complexity, Ward went on,
life must also avoid being destroyed by space debris. Earth is
shielded by Jupiter's gravitational field, which slows down
incoming comets. But in most solar systems, a Jupiter-sized
planet has such an erratic orbit that it will eventually fling
any nearby planet away from the star. We may be uniquely lucky
to live in such a safe neighborhood.

Marshall is unimpressed by scenarios that emphasize life's
fragility. "The question is, how hard is it to sterilize a
planet?" he asked. In the total devastation following the Mount
Saint Helens eruption, biologists were staggered to find plants
protected by animals that fell on them. Even at Hiroshima, a few
people survived at close range to the explosion. "We should
expect such surprises," said Marshall. "Life will find a way."

Life also makes its own way. Take the Cambrian explosion of 445
million years ago, when a host of scuttling sea creatures burst
into a world that hadn't seen much more than worms. What
accounts for such rapid evolutionary change? "If you have a
bunch of plant life, and someone is able to develop a few genes
for jaws, then everyone had better watch out," said Marshall.
It's no surprise that eyes and legs, crucial for hiding from
predators, appeared at the same time. "With an increase in
selective pressures, complexity is bound to arise. You don't
need special conditions."

But Peter Ward was not convinced. "If complexity is inevitable,
then what was going on for the three billion years between the
first cell and the Cambrian explosion?" Just a slow and steady
buildup of oxygen due to the presence of simple life-forms and
liquid water. "Without the thermostat of plate tectonics, the
right conditions just don't last very long," he said.

Of course, there may be more to life than what we can guess now.
"We have some idea of what conditions were necessary for us to
evolve," Marshall said, "but we don't know if they're the only
possible ones." While Ward prefers to limit the discussion to
life as we know it - carbon-based organisms with DNA - Marshall
thinks we should expect the unexpected.

Some audience members found this approach a bit too vague. "One
data point is better than none," one said. "Can you quantify the
problem?"

Many scientists are working on it. Astrobiology, defined broadly
as the study of life in the universe, is now serious science.
NASA and the National Science Foundation invest tens of millions
of dollars every year in it. Astronomers search for new planets,
geologists prospect for evidence of water on already known
planets, and biochemists piece together the origins of life on
earth. Still, it's mostly theory for now. And hitchhiking to the
nearest star still takes 300,000 years.

"The fact that neither of us has any numbers, shows that we're
going on next to nothing," said Marshall. "But my sense of faith
is that the universe is so unimaginably rich that it will turn
out that life is common, and that scientific reasoning, while
powerful, can lock us into a narrow view of what is possible."

**

Jascha Hoffman is a writer based in Boston

This story ran on page D1 of the Boston Globe on 11/3/2002.
=A9 Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                CCCRN News: Multi-Circle Formation - Kamsack,

From: Paul Anderson <psa@look.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:38:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:22:45 -0500
Subject: CCCRN News: Multi-Circle Formation - Kamsack,


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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

November 3, 2002

_____________________________


MULTI-CIRCLE FORMATION - KAMSACK, SASKATCHEWAN

Late report received today of a nine circle formation found on
October 10, near Kamsack, Saskatchewan. In mature wheat,
discovered by a local pilot. Largest circle approximately 16.5
metres (55 feet) diameter. Overall pattern is irregular with
messy lay, with some tracks reported when first seen, going from
a road to the formation. A local grade 6 youth claims to have
made the formation with his cousin, taking two days. Further
details pending.

A preliminary aerial photo has been added to the web site.

For all updates, see the Crop Circles in Canada 2002 page on the
web site:

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

This is the nineteenth report for 2002.


Crop Watch is an annual research project of CCCRN, including
field investigations and studies of formations, aerial
surveillance and awareness initiatives for farmers, the public
and the media, in particular during the prime August / September
'circle season' on the Canadian prairies

____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing e-mail updates with the latest news
and reports on the crop circle phenomenon in Canada, as well as
other information on CCCRN-related projects and events, sent
free to your e-mail.

To subscribe, send an e-mail with Subscribe CCCRN News
in the subject line to:

cccrnnews@look.ca

The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
research organization which has been investigating and
documenting the crop circle phenomenon and other possibly
related phenomena in Canada since 1995, creating a liason
between researchers, farmers, the public, the media and
scientists in trying to solve this ongoing enigma.

Main Office

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

=A9 Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 2002








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                        Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:57:59 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:26:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>was in use at the time (1954).

 >No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

In my research, I have actually seen documents that were marked
with Top Secret Restricted that had absolutly nothing do with so
called "Restricted Data." From documents that I have seen from
the Archives, not to mention photocopys I have seen over the
years many highly classified documents were not stamped
properly, or created exactly as the manual said they should be
created, marked or stamped. This didn't diminish from the fact
that they were highly classified until they were declassified,
just career level govt workers, White House workers and staff
members didn't always "do it by the book."

 >>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >>RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >>frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
 >Restricted Data (SRD)

 >The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
 >weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

 >One problem in researching at archives is that documents
 >containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
 >Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
 >real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
 >are involved.

 >>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

While that may technically be true, List members will recall a
much earlier post from me directly quoting the Congressional
testimony of the director of Sandia Labs. He stated that a Q
clearance was equivilant to a Top Secret and a L clearance was
equivilant to a Secret. Bottom line is these clearences only
apply to nuclear materials and a person with a Q clearance could
not walk over to a DOD project and expect to be given knowledge
about it even if it concerned nuclear materials.

A DOD person shouldn't expect to walk over to DOE HQ and be
given access to weapons material... even though said person may
have TS/Codeword clearances relating to the DOD side of say a
nuclear weapons project.

The DOD person would have to go over to DOE, demonstrate a need-
to-know, be cleared for access and get investigated to get an L
or Q clearence. The DOE person would have to go over to DOD,
demonstrate a need-to-know, be cleared for access and get
investigated to get a clearance into the DOD project.

 >Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
 >mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
 >reading.

Again, in my visits to the archives, I have found that many
documents were not created by the book, nor were they stamped by
the book and in some instances some of them did not have any
kind of TS control number... even though that is required.


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson

From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:33:58 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson


 >From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
 >Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

(Tim asked me to forward this to the List- BH)

IT'S ALL ABOUT MAPS

 >Closest Approach to Roswell: Moore's 1948 map shows
 >the balloon passed 4 miles south of Roswell.

Is Brad being purposely disingenuous here? The map Sparks is
referring to was _not_ made by Prof Moore, but created in 1948
by the NYU Research Group and appeared in the Air Force book
"The Roswell Report". Brad knows that on this map, "Roswell"
refers to the Roswell Army Air Force Base (RAAFB), and not the
town of Roswell. Why doesn't he clarify this? Instead he gives
us the rather deceptive impression that the balloon passed 4
miles south of town. On the NYU map, the actual distance from
the _town_ of Roswell was about 10 miles, since the base was
roughly 6 miles south of town. As for other values Sparks gives,
I used photoshop and the best ruler I could find to try and
determine the exact distances.

 >Moore's 1995 map shows the balloon passed 10 miles
 >south of Roswell.

Photoshop = 10.6 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 10.4 miles to town of Roswell

 >Moore's 1997 map shows the balloon passed 11 miles
 >south of Roswell.

Photoshop = 10.2 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 10.3 miles to town of Roswell

I am not sure how Sparks made the distance INCREASE, when the
distance appears to have DECREASED slightly and agrees with the
1948 values of Roswell town's actual location. Perhaps he can
enlighten everyone with his measurements/calculations, and why
he resorted to misleading everyone about the designation in the
1948 figure.

 >Moore's 1948 map shows the impact point 17 miles
 >east of Roswell.

Again, this is the NYU map, created by the NYU group from the
data obtained at the time, and not Moore's personal plot. In the
NYU graph published in "The Roswell Report", the impact point is
not plotted, but is denoted by a dotted line running off the
map. It is important to note is that there is no longitude and
latitude given for this location, as was the case on flight #6.
Flight #6, and #7, have a bulls eye for the location of their
landing sites.  In contrast, flight #5 has some odd designator
that seems to be an arrow pointing towards a small line (or
maybe an odd shaped "X"). If they knew the exact location, I am
sure they would have created a plot similar to those in flights
#6 and #7. Based on this information, the value in the plot
appears to be an estimate at best.

 >Moore's 1995 map shows the impact point 30 miles
 >east of Roswell.

Photoshop = 31.4 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 31.3 miles to town of Roswell

 >Moore's 1997 map shows the impact point 34 miles
 >east of Roswell.

Photoshop = 30.7 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 30.8 miles to town of Roswell

I tried to figure several ways Sparks could measure 34 miles but
just couldn't. Why would Sparks make such an incredible error?
Maybe he can answer that one. Most important to note is the
distance again decreased (although by a distance that seems to
be within the range of error on the size pictures that are being
used). Based on this information, I have a hard time taking
Sparks comments and accusations seriously.

 >Moore in 2002 now claims the impact point was 26
 >miles east of Roswell. (Moore email to Pflock, June
 >20, 2002.)

It might help to know in which context this was made. Albert
Crary, who was the Project Manager for the NYU flights in June
1947 noted in his journal for June 5, 1947 "- recovered
equipment some 25 mi east of Roswell." Therefore this statement
agrees with the journal. However, I am also aware that they had
to detour off the main road to get to the site. Topographic maps
show that the most likely route for this exit is about 25-26
miles east of Roswell.

 >Moore of course has a reason to want to make it seem
 >that the Flight 5 balloon pass much farther away
 >from Roswell base than it actually did.

"Of course"? Can Sparks or Rudiak produce one quote or
indication that the proximity of Flight #5 to Roswell or RAAFB
was of concern to Moore? Can Sparks or Rudiak produce ONE report
anecdotal (made before 1994), or otherwise, that states base
personnel had seen this balloon flight? No they can't. Yet, they
want all to believe that everyone on base could easily see
flight #5 as it drifted past; even though it was extremely high
in the air (about 4-5 miles or greater making the straight line
distance 5-6 miles) and very small (the balloons were only about
15 feet across at maximum size)! Since they refuse to admit that
it was likely that nobody noticed the flight, they resort to
this map altering theory to help bolster their case.

IS IT REALLY FIFTY MILES?

 >I'll just say that if they are corrected the balloon >lands
almost 50 miles too far to the NE of the >Foster Ranch debris
field.

(As a word of explanation here, Brad was referring to a table
created by Prof. Moore to demonstrate a possible flight path for
NYU Flight #4. This table, and the plot he created from it, was
published in his co-authored book "UFO Crash at Roswell" (Saler,
Ziegler, Moore: 1997 Smithsonian Institution Press), and used
surviving wind data charts from a nearby weather station
(Oregrande, NM) and national weather maps for June 4, 5,6 1947.)

To bolster his claim, Sparks lists some 19 calculation errors in
altitude, and produced yet another new landing site- one of the
many that Sparks/Rudiak have come up with over the course of
this latest barrage. However, he does not show how he reached
the value of 50 miles (Rudiak originally stated this error was
17 miles in his plot). Using Moore's assumed values of ascent
and descent listed in the table, I recomputed the times to reach
these levels.  A brief synopsis is below:

Moore's Table Recomputed

Time to 53,700 ft  125.5 min      126.5 min
Time to 58,000 ft  317.3 min      289   min
Time to 60,750 ft  396   min      472.4 min
Time to ground    466.2  min      551.1 min

The only major error is the time it takes to reach the peak
altitude after 58,000 feet. The extra 84.9 minutes seems large
but its effect is not significant if one sticks to the original
time line. This is because the wind speeds and directions are
essentially the same at these altitudes. Assuming the original
timeline (where the descent begins at 396 minutes), the peak
altitude reached is around 59,500 feet (vs. 60,750) before the
descent begins.

Other than this large increase in time in the stratosphere, most
of Moore's errors listed during ascent and descent effectively
cancel out. The descent time has increased by about 8 minutes
but this can not explain the additional 33 miles Sparks claims.
Perhaps Sparks can explain how he computed his 33-mile increase?
Were there "behind the scenes" manipulations of the data? I
could be wrong but based on what I calculated and considering
the problems Sparks had with measuring distances on a map, I
question this value without any supporting information.

WHEN ONE ERROR BECOMES FOUR:

Brad notes an error in an earlier statement I had
made:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

(Excerpts from the Glossery: "u= eastward-directed component of
the wind at the indicated level; "v"= northward-directed
component of the wind at the indicated level; "HDO" Horizontal
Distance Out from the launch site in the North Area of the
Alamogordo Army Air Field)

 >Tim Printy's desperate suggestion that Moore goofed
 >and used the 9 mph wind velocity from the prior row
 >instead of 12 mph on the same row is easily refuted
 >by looking at Moore's north and east, or "u" and
 >"v," velocity vector components which are 9.9 mph
 >and 6.7 mph, the first of which is already obviously
 >larger than the 9 mph value, and they agree with the
 >236 degree and direction, not the 9 mph wind's 197
 >degree direction. Vector combination of the "u" and
 >"v" values using the simple Pythagorean theorem
 >yields 12.0 mph exactly as it should, not the 9 mph
 >figure.

Sparks, after "easily refuting" my suggestion with the
Pythagorean theorem and the listed wind speed vectors, now notes
the HDO, X and Y distances (errors 20-22) don't match these same
vectors! If these vectors are not matching the distances
computed, how can they "easily refute" my suggestion? This is
strange logic indeed.

My error was stating the 197-degree value was used. Looking back
on my spreadsheet, I see that I actually used the 236-degree
value with the 9-mph wind speed to get Moore's values of HDO, X,
and Y. Sparks refers to the explanation as "desperate". I am not
sure how he figures this was the case since I was only trying to
show them how Moore arrived at his plot. Contrast this to Sparks
obvious mistakes with measuring distances on maps and Rudiak's
(and apparently Sparks) ludicrous, and easily refuted, "secret
shift of five data points" theory to explain Moore's plot. One
wonders which persons are truly "desperate"?

Since Sparks still can't seem to figure this all out, I will go
the extra step for him to show how Moore made his mistake on the
first line. If one uses the 9mph with the 236 degree bearing we
get the following distances in HDO, X and Y:

0.42 HDO
0.235 X
0.348 Y

Compare these to Moore's values

0.4 HDO
0.2 X
0.3 Y

The 0.4 mile HDO fits with the 9mph value (2.7min*9mi/hr
*1hr/60min = 0.42 miles). The ratio of X and Y agree with a 236-
degree bearing. So it was Moore's error in using the 9-mph vice
12-mph wind speed that is in play here and not a multitude of
errors as suggested by Sparks. I can only assume that Sparks was
more interested in "padding" his list than trying to determine
the root cause of the values in question.

Sparks compounds his ignorance by creating Error 23. If one adds
the 0.348 value to the 0.32 value of Y for the next step (if you
use the original values and not the rounded one used by Sparks,
this computes to 0.34 miles), we get 0.668, which rounds to 0.7
miles (thus giving the 0.4-mile difference).

WHO IS WRONG AND WHO IS RIGHT?

Sparks and Rudiak can criticize the methodology Moore used to
compute his flight path and his mathematical errors. However, I
should point out that neither Sparks, Rudiak nor myself are
trained Atmospheric Physicists, and a critique of Moore's
assumptions and his computations might best be left to one so
trained. Never-the-less, the efforts Rudiak/Sparks have taken to
suggest that Moore has purposefully altered data and maps just
don't wash when closely examined.

Their efforts appear "desperate" and hypocritical. Examine
Sparks's obvious errors in measuring the distances on the 1997
map and then presenting them as facts. Were these errors done
purposefully or simply because Sparks just couldn't use a
measuring instrument correctly? Then examine their "desperate"
efforts to jury-rig Moore's data and concoct their "secret
shift" of 5 data points.

You be the judge.


Tim Printy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                Kitwanga, British Columbia Sighting 11-01-02

From: Brian Vike - HBCC UFO Research <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:59:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:40:37 -0500
Subject: Kitwanga, British Columbia Sighting 11-01-02


Kitwanga, British Columbia

Date: November 1, 2002
Time: 6:30 p.m.

A fellow telephoned me tonight (November 3, 2002) to tell me
what it was that he and three other witnesses watched while on
their way home from their work place. They were approx: 22
kilometers outside of Kitwanga on the mitt-in-main forestry road
when they saw a bright, yellowish/white light with a "beam"
coming from the bottom of it. (The witness I talked with said
the beam of light was like if you were holding a flashlight and
shinning it in a fog). The witness said they saw it for approx:
3 seconds before it disappeared.

I asked what direction the light was moving in before it
disappeared The witness said it did not move, but stayed in the
one position and then just disappeared. At the distance they
were at, they said the light was small in size.

I asked if I would be able to telephone the other three
witnesses who saw this event, so he is going to contact each of
them in hopes I can get their reports.

Brian Vike
HBCC UFO Research
       &
Editor: Canadian Communicator
hbccufo@telus.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                           Fox 23 Albany NY Video

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:11:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:44:31 -0500
Subject: Fox 23 Albany NY Video


For those ufologists interested in the unfolding melodrama
concerning the Fox 23 -WXXA, Albany, New York - videotape of an
unknown object, I want to send along the following.

To clarify some questions that came to mind regarding the
background and motives for taking the video, I directly
contacted Fox 23, the alleged employer of Brandon Mowry, the
photographer. I verified that he is indeed employed by WXXA-TV
as a videographer and is not a freelancer. Additionally, I
received the following communication from Karen Meyers of
ClearChannel.com (which is a division of Fox 23), on November 4,
2002, regarding some other questions I asked:

"It was a fluke that Brandon captured this. He was shooting a
weather shot at the airport and didn't even know about this
strange object until he returned to the station 30 minutes later
and was looking through the tape. The FBI quizzed him at
length...and determined he was telling the truth and that the
tape was not doctored. Brandon has done several national
interviews on his video but has not received a dime for them."

I am not interested in pursuing this matter any further, and so
wish to share this info with those who may want to follow up.

At this time, I remain open-mindedly skeptical of this whole
"rods" as "space animals" angle (as too many "sizes" appear to
exist depending on who is taking the pictures). But I have no
reason to dismiss Mr. Mowry's tape, yet.


Respectfully,

Loren Coleman

Author, Cryptozoologist, Documentary Consultant
http://www.lorencoleman.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:34:25 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 05:16:42 -0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >Hello List,

 >As if acknowledging that science must join the entertainment
 >system or die as a culture, NASA has now become a commercial
 >publisher.

NASA has always been a publisher of books and other educational
materials disseminating the fundings of space research. Who do
you think wrote those books? Authors.

 >From the Fortean point of view, James Oberg's coming book
 >commissioned by NASA looks as if we now have emerging a new
 >branch of science. We might call it the Science of Reinforced
 >Virtualities. Science, looking increasingly lonely without
 >Communism, and nervous of its "image" as a young starlet, is now
 >it appears quite desperate to re-advertise itself.

Tell me, Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent
astronauts to the Moon, or not?

Outside of Western Europe, North America and probably Australia,
New Zealand and Japan, most of the people in the World do not.

On which side of reality do you sit?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

             Re: SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:53:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:38:01 -0500
Subject: Re: SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:17:26 -0500
 >Subject: SciFi Panel Discussion 11-08-02 Washington, DC

 >I'm not sure if this was posted previously, but thought some
 >might find it of interest.

 >=====================================
 >A Free UFO Symposium at George Washington University

 >Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

 >When and Where -
 >The George Washington University's Marvin Center -- Continental
 >Ballroom. 800 21st Street. November 8, 2002, from 9:00 AM to
 >1:00 PM Call Cynthia Determan at (202) 879-9309.

Steve;

Thanks for this info. I wonder if the SCI-FI channel will be
televising this? It seems they most likely would given their
recent public relations efforts


Kenny








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:29:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:40:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:57:59 EST
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

Hi Robert,

I appreciate the chance to answer your objections. Your comments
are thoughtful, but I have some objections of my own.

 >>>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>>was in use at the time (1954).

 >>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >In my research, I have actually seen documents that were marked
 >with Top Secret Restricted that had absolutly nothing do with so
 >called "Restricted Data." From documents that I have seen from
 >the Archives, not to mention photocopys I have seen over the
 >years many highly classified documents were not stamped
 >properly, or created exactly as the manual said they should be
 >created, marked or stamped. This didn't diminish from the fact
 >that they were highly classified until they were declassified,
 >just career level govt workers, White House workers and staff
 >members didn't always "do it by the book."

Please note the challenge at the bottom of this page. Please
produce one such document.

 >>>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >>>RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >>>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >>>frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >>>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >>Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
 >>Restricted Data (SRD)

 >>The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
 >>weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

 >>One problem in researching at archives is that documents
 >>containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
 >>Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
 >>real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
 >>are involved.

 >>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 >While that may technically be true, List members will recall a
 >much earlier post from me directly quoting the Congressional
 >testimony of the director of Sandia Labs. He stated that a Q
 >clearance was equivilant to a Top Secret and a L clearance was
 >equivilant to a Secret. Bottom line is these clearences only
 >apply to nuclear materials and a person with a Q clearance could
 >not walk over to a DOD project and expect to be given knowledge
 >about it even if it concerned nuclear materials.

And that is a mis-statement. A Q-clearance and a TS clearance
will get you access to TS nuclear information. One goes with the
other.

 >A DOD person shouldn't expect to walk over to DOE HQ and be
 >given access to weapons material... even though said person may
 >have TS/Codeword clearances relating to the DOD side of say a
 >nuclear weapons project.

 >The DOD person would have to go over to DOE, demonstrate a need-
 >to-know, be cleared for access and get investigated to get an L
 >or Q Clarence. The DOE person would have to go over to DOD,
 >demonstrate a need-to-know, be cleared for access and get
 >investigated to get a clearance into the DOD project.

If you had not cut the portion of my message out that pertained
to military personnel, we could now see where I said that
military personnel are no longer (after 1955) required to have Q
or L clearance. They are in the Personnel Reliability Program
which allows them access to nuclear data/weapons. There is
another Special Access Program, Critical Nuclear Design
Information - off the top of my head CNWIDI which doesn't look
correct - is the program.

Your assertion that DOD personnel have to go to DOE to
demonstrate a "need to know" is incorrect. They have to
demonstrate such only to their superiors.

 >>Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
 >>mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
 >>reading.

 >Again, in my visits to the archives, I have found that many
 >documents were not created by the book, nor were they stamped by
 >the book and in some instances some of them did not have any
 >kind of TS control number... even though that is required.

I didn't get my information from visits to archives although I
have discover nearly one hundred formerly Top Secret documents
there dealing with foo-fighters, ghost rockets and UFOs. I
lived and breathed security for over seven years. I think there
is a little difference in the experience level here.

Robert, please send me a photocopy of just one Top Secret
Restricted document from 1954 or before and the source
information. I continue to doubt that such exist, but I can be
convinced otherwise. During the last 50+ years marking and
procedures have changed and each agency has some leeway in the
marking and controlling their documents.

As for document found at the Archives without everything in
order, I have answer this objection about a dozen time. In
preparing document for the public many time the declassification
personnel might remove or change marking, coversheets, and
control #s, etc.

As applied to supposed "leaked" documents that are from current
sources, this argument holds no water with me, it is an
indication that the fabricators, I repeat here, the fabricators
don't know any better. Neither do many of the so called vaulted
"researchers."

Best regards,

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:33:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:46:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gehrman


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>was in use at the time (1954).

 >No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

Jan, Anthony, Stan,

I'm totally confused about the "restricted' classification.

In a letter to the Command General, Air Material Command, on the
subject 'flying Disks', dated 30,December,1947, General L.C
Craigie assigned the security classification of "restricted" to
project Sign. Why was that the case if 'Restricted' wasn't a
common classification and only used with nuclear research? Can
any of you comment on that fact?

Ed







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

              Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases -

From: John <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:27:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:51:28 -0500
Subject: Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 07:49:23 -0500
 >Subject: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases

 >Re: John Velez' comment on 'Strange Days... Indeed' #213,
 >wondering why there is not the same interest in the Moon
 >artifacts and bases, reportedly photographed by NASA and
 >described by a Greer Disclosure witness, as there is about the
 >Mars artifacts.

 >I'd like to ask a question about this: Have any Moon photos
 >showing artificial structures been released to the public? If
 >not, that is probably the reason for the lack of public
 >interest.


Hi Eleanor,

I believe I saw some 'structures on the Moon' photos posted at
Richard Hoagland's 'Enterprise Mission' website some time ago.
I'm not certain if they are still available. If you do a Google
search for 'Lunar anomalies' you'll turn up a bunch more.

As an amateur astronomer I was instantly interested in the
subject of 'anomalous structures' on the Moon. Anybody who has
ever used a telescope has cut their 'astronomical teeth' by
observing the Moon - first, before attempting to acquire just
about any other celestial object in the eyepiece. It is usually
the first space object that astronomers become intimately
familiar with. An 'old friend' to anyone who regularly trains a
telescope on the night sky.

You'll find many of these anomaly photos posted right on the
Web. However, I cannot vouch for their authenticity. All I can
say about the ones I did see is that they were very compelling -
  if they are genuine. Please be sure to let us all know what you
turn up in your own search.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                     'The Biggest Discovery Of All Time'

From: Eric Julien <Eric.Julien5@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:59:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:05:34 -0500
Subject: 'The Biggest Discovery Of All Time'


I invite you to read The Biggest Discovery Of All Time, an
article written after an CE5 experience. It explains the ET
technologies and the new space-time paradigm. Probably a
revolution for the future.....

http://marcogee.free.fr/news/ej1_gb.htm

After reading, it is possible to save it.

http://marcogee.free.fr/pdf/ej1_gb.pdf

Please be aware that its a a 1.3 Mb file

Let me know what you think about it on-List or by private
email.


Best regards,

Eric Julien








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                         NUFOS: Disinformation Alert

From: John Sayer <john23@sayer.abel.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:43:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:09:02 -0500
Subject: NUFOS: Disinformation Alert


Hi, All!

The NORFOLK UFO SOCIETY (NUFOS) is very much alive and well.

But please note that we are NOT represented by:

(a) anyone using the address "33 Cromer Road, Hevingham,
     Norfolk";

(b) anyone using any combination of names of:

Jac/Jak/Jack/Jakk/Steve/ Solomon/Lasiter/Sheridan; or

(c) anyone connected with "Anglia Earth Mysteries" (which, as
far as we are aware, is a "front name" for an individual's
private commercial enterprise promoting public talks).

The only bona fide contact points for NUFOS are:

Mick Hardy, 42 Haslips Close, Norwich, Norfolk NR2 4PX
John Sayer, 17 Spindle Road, Norwich, Norfolk NR6 6JR
john23@sayer.abel.co.uk)

For anyone interested in further details, go to:

http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/aemnufos.html

We are aware that approaches are being made by one or more
individuals, claiming to represent either the "Norwich UFO
Group" or "Norfolk UFO Group" or even "Norwich UFO Society" in
what appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people into
thinking they are dealing with NUFOS. (It may be possible that
the above-mentioned names are of real groups, but we at NUFOS
have no evidence for this at present).

Please be on your guard about this situation - and please e-mail
me if you think an attempt has already been made to deceive you
into thinking you have been contacted by NUFOS.

Cheers,
John Sayer



Global Circles/The Cereologist:
http://www.sayer.abel.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                          Secrecy News -- 11/04/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:43:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:11:13 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/04/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 110
November 4, 2002


**      NSA CELEBRATES ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
**      MORE ON SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED


NSA CELEBRATES ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The National Security Agency observed its fiftieth anniversary
last weekend in a characteristically low key manner.

("How you can tell an extrovert from an introvert at NSA?  In
the elevators, the extroverts look at the OTHER guy's shoes."
  Or rather, the NSA extroverts are the ones that were telling
that joke last weekend.)

NSA, the nation's codemaking, codebreaking and signals
intelligence organization, was established on October 24, 1952
by President Harry S. Truman in a top secret, 8-page
presidential memorandum.  Formal announcement of the new agency
was delayed until November 4, 1952 -- Election Day -- in order
to keep the creation of the Agency out of the news, according to
NSA.

Speaking at a November 1 anniversary ceremony at NSA
headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, historian David Kahn
offered his thoughts on "the death of cryptanalysis."

Kahn, author of The Codebreakers and other pioneering histories
of cryptography, noted the technological challenges confronting
NSA and observed that it is far from the omniscient, omnipotent
entity that outsiders sometimes imagine.

"NSA doesn't know or control everything, as shown by public-key
cryptography and the beating NSA took on key escrow and the fact
that U.S. Navy submarines use Microsoft Windows," he said.

See David Kahn's invited remarks here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/kahn.html

President Truman's 1952 memorandum establishing the NSA is
available on the website of the National Security Archive here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/02-01.htm

A January 2001 Congressional Research Service report entitled
"The National Security Agency: Issues for Congress" by Richard
A. Best Jr. may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30740.pdf


MORE ON SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

"It is not the intention of the [Bush] administration to create
a new category of sensitive but unclassified [information],"
said White House science advisor John H. Marburger III last
week.

"But the fact is that even at the present time, federal agencies
do have information that they don't generally release to the
public, like law enforcement information and lists of
vulnerabilities of certain types that are simply not made
public, but they're not classified," Dr. Marburger said.  He
spoke on the National Public Radio program "Talk of the Nation"
on November 1.

However, Dr. Marburger's assurances did not immediately relieve
concerns among other scientists about the impact of the
"sensitive but unclassified" designation.

"Despite what's been said, my sense is the administration has
gone well beyond the kinds of controls that are fairly
innocuous," said Dr. Steven M. Block of Stanford University.

The archived audio of their conversation can be heard here:

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/20021101.totn.01.ram

Since there will always be some disagreement about what official
information should and should not be disclosed, the process for
making that determination should be as open and as equitable as
possible.

"Crafting a new policy that responds to sometimes competing
interests in security and public access should not be an
extraordinarily difficult task."

See my article "Making Sense of Government Information
Restrictions" in the Summer 2002 edition of "Issues in Science
and Technology" here:

http://bob.nap.edu/issues/18.4/stalk.htm



_______________________________________________

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                       Archive Top 20 'Reads' - 10-02

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:35:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:35:22 -0500
Subject: Archive Top 20 'Reads' - 10-02

This list compiled from stats generated by Analog 5.22 website
log analyser - the [numbers] represent reads.....

   1 Bob Lazar - True or False?
     Glenn Campbell - [2108]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m22-012.shtml

   2 Roswell Rods On NBC Show
     Stig Agermose - [534]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m16-001.shtml

   3 Of Flying Wings & Hover Cars
     ebk - [506]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/aug/m03-008.shtml

   4 Re: Greer Vs. Spielberg
     Bill Stockstill [454]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m27-004.shtml

   5 Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy
     Alfred Lehmberg - [375]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m07-003.shtml

   6 UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
     Jim Mortellaro [328]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m30-005.shtml

   7 FBI 'Scrambling' To Investigate UFO Over Albany
     Kenny Young [296]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m22-002.shtml

   8 Tom Lykis' Radio Show Attacks Art Bell
     Erik Beckjord [246]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/mar/m30-010.shtml

   9 Clinton Chief of Staff To Speak On UFO Disclosure
     Grant Cameron [245]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m21-007.shtml

  10 EW: Carlotto Finds Possible Ruins on Mars
     Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior [244]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m10-013.shtml

  11 Boeing Unveils Bird of Prey Stealth Demonstrator
     ebk [232]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m19-017.shtml

  12 FBI Investigates UFO Video Now 'Bug Frequency'?
     Kenny Young [232]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m23-008.shtml

  13 Weekly Filer's Files - #10-2002
     George A. Filer [228]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/mar/m06-023.shtml

  14 More By 'Jane's' Editor On Nazi Anti-Gravity
     Stig Agermose [223]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/aug/m06-012.shtml

  15 Official Peruvian UFO Investigator: "ET Craft Real"
     Stig Agermose [221]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m01-009.shtml

  16 Large Object Falls In Siberia
     Kelly Peterborough [216]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m04-006.shtml

  17 Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
     Dave Ledger [215]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m29-012.shtml

  18 Greer Vs. Spielberg
     Grant Cameron [214]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m25-023.shtml

  19 France: Strange UFO Photo
     Scott Corrales [199]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m25-008.shtml

  20 Crisis At CUFOS
     Jerome Clark [198]
     http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m10-018.shtml


     ..... and this month, for good measure, interesting 'Servers & Hits'
     for October 2002:

     1585:  .gov (USA Government)
     1667:  .mil (USA Military)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                           Re: Terminology - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:59:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:37:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Jones


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
 >Subject: Terminology

Good Evening Wendy, all,

With all due respects I don't think you have a snowball's chance
in hell of getting people to change from UFO, Flying Saucer, &
etc to UCC, CA1 & etc, For many a year Joe Q Public has been
brainwashed by the media of what UFO's are all about.

I think it is the people involved in the field of research who
have muddied the field with bigfoot, crop circles, Chupacabra,
and the Mothman & etc.

Being a hard core UFO only nut, I ditch without even reading
anything not related to directly UFO's. I spent time looking at
crop circles as there *might* have been a connection, But I
can't see that it is worth wasting my time researching
Chupacabra's as I cannot see how they can be from UFO's _full
stop_

With all due respect to someone as qualified as you in this
field Wendy, your (our) best bet is to clear the waters of the
unassociated gumpth and keep Forteana separate from main stream
Ufology. Then perhaps then, things can be moved forward.


Warmest Regards

Sean Jones







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                             Mystery Of Area 51

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:39:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:40:40 -0500
Subject: Mystery Of Area 51


Source: Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/04/39112.html


Mystery of Area 51

Let's get something straight from the very beginning: I don't
insist at all that the below-mentioned facts are the absolute
truth. Many of them cannot be verified. At the same time, I
won't argue with those who say that a civilization of dormant
stones exists on Earth parallel to our civilization; also, I
discuss the question of the existence of life on Mars. Agreed?
If so, let's proceed.

Accident in Roswell

The whole story with alien beings began long ago, on July 3,
1947. Publications about flying objects had been disturbing
people for several years already; however, no direct contact
with aliens were yet established. Once, an engineer from Roswell
(New Mexico) came across debris of a huge steel disk right in
the open countryside; dead bodies of some mysterious creatures
were among the debris. However, five minutes after the crash,
local farmers and US Army officials began inspecting to the
accident site. They loaded the debris and dead bodies of the
aliens onto trucks and took them away; nobody knew where the
debris were removed to; moreover, the witnesses were ordered to
hold their tongues about the accident for the sake of national
security.

However, the silence didn't last long. Already the next day,
newspapers of the whole world, with the exception of those of
the Soviet Union, talked about the main sensation of the 20th
century. Yet, Washington was actively denying everything:
spokesmen for the US State Department said that it had been an
ordinary meteorological balloon that crashed in Roswell, not an
UFO. However, the newspapers wouldn't calm down: journalists
were especially suspicious about the fact that right after "the
ordinary accident," President Harry Truman had immediately
informed his WWII allies about the details of the mysterious
accident.

They say that right after that accident, Soviet leader Joseph
Stalin summoned the chief designer of rocket and space
engineering, Academician Sergey Korolev, and asked his opinion
about the accident. Sergey Korolev told Stalin that if UFOs
actually existed, they are on no account the products of some
defense technologies, and consequently they pose no threat to
the Soviet Union. Stalin seemed quite satisfied with Korolev's
answer, but very soon, all materials about UFO became classified
in the USSR. Some time later, a similar decision was made in the
USA as well.

Therefore, the Roswell accident became a kind of a reference
point. Right after that accident, the whole of the humanity
realized perfectly well that some important facts were being
concealed. A year passed since the accident, and ufologists
marked a place near Area 51 on their maps. Area 51 is place in
Nevada, 120 km from Las Vegas, where ufologists say Americans
are still hiding the world's only spaceship from curious eyes.


Flying Over Nevada

Starting with 1947, 40 million instances have been registered
when people saw UFO. In other cases, witnesses said they saw
UFOs crash. About 1,000 people believe that they were kidnapped
by aliens. However, there is still no material evidence of
contacts with extraterrestrials. For instance, specialists say
that a very popular black-and-white film, which was said to be a
documentary demonstrating a dissection of an allegedly real
extraterrestrial, was in fact a mere fake. In most cases,
witnesses and those who claim that they have contacted
extraterrestrials turn out to be weird and sometimes mentally
diseased people. To tell the truth, even the very fact that an
aviation base exists in Nevada was dubious until now. Earlier,
government officials assured the public that there was only a
stony desert in the mentioned area of Nevada and nothing more.

By chance, recently, six black-and-white photos taken by a
Russian spy satellite in the sky over Nevada were published on
the Internet. The photos revealed the legendary aviation base
known as the Area 51.

American government officials quite naturally started dodging
the question once again. This time, they admit the obvious fact
that there is a secret military base in Nevada not far from Las
Vegas. However, they say this base has nothing to do with aliens
and that there are no UFOs there; only Stealth planes are tested
there.

This explanation doesn't sound very convincing by the way. Who
will trust the American government when it has been pulling the
wool over our eyes for 50 years? And as for Stealth aircraft,
have you ever seen one? It looks very much like an UFO.

Chief UFO Specialist

The majority of ufologists mistrust the recent refutations made
by the USA, with the exception of Russian Professor Vladimir
Azhazha, a UFO expert. He says: "I personally never asserted
that an UFO was hidden in Nevada. Moreover, I am perfectly sure
that there is none at all. There is no doubt that other
civilizations do exist, but we can't prove it yet.

Indeed, who was the first to say that Aliens are humanoids, and
why should they look like us? Nothing of the kind! It is just
easier for people to imagine aliens looking like humanoids; that
is how bubble-eyed dwarfs appeared. In fact, extraterrestrials
can be some intellectual plasma without any form and even color.
The same concerns UFO. Soviet cosmonaut Grechko recently
mentioned that he actually believes in extraterrestrials and,
being an engineer himself, would like to have a look at their
rockets. At that, rockets were known in Ancient China already;
today's space technology is just an improvements of these
rockets. Does anybody actually think that galactic beings will
visit the Earth in such primitive machines?

On the whole, Russian Professor Azhazha is sure that the search
for UFOs is just like chasing for ghosts that don't exist and
never did at all. It would be more correct to move science in a
different direction and find out why aliens kidnap people.

According to Vladimir Azhazha, every tenth man on Earth is
kidnapped by extraterrestrials; these kidnappings are most
frequent when people are asleep. This means that human bodies
remain in beds and only their consciousness, or souls, travel
together with extraterrestrials. People kidnapped this way
remember nothing at all about their strange travels, as all
information about it is erased from their minds. Sometimes,
children draw mysterious pictures after being kidnapped by
aliens. Scientists try to understand that these children are
trying to show in their drawings.

Translated by Maria Gousseva

Russian UFO Portal


--







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:19:39 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 05:16:42 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>Hello List,

 >>As if acknowledging that science must join the entertainment
 >>system or die as a culture, NASA has now become a commercial
 >>publisher.

 >NASA has always been a publisher of books and other educational
 >materials disseminating the fundings of space research. Who do
 >you think wrote those books? Authors.

 >>From the Fortean point of view, James Oberg's coming book
 >>commissioned by NASA looks as if we now have emerging a new
 >>branch of science. We might call it the Science of Reinforced
 >>Virtualities. Science, looking increasingly lonely without
 >>Communism, and nervous of its "image" as a young starlet, is now
 >>it appears quite desperate to re-advertise itself.

 >Tell me, Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent
 >astronauts to the Moon, or not?

 >Outside of Western Europe, North America and probably Australia,
 >New Zealand and Japan, most of the people in the World do not.

 >On which side of reality do you sit?

 >Bob Young

Bob,

I assume by "fundings" you meant to say "findings," but please
give me the title of one (1) (uno) BOOK that NASA (as an
organization; not some past NASA employee) authored. Technical
reports, sure (I am a past technical editor of many U.S.
Government reports). But to the best of my knowledge, not books
and especially not on controversial subjects.

Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right
up there with Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense. Colin
Bennett is a Fortean disciple, and apparently a good one (unlike
many who underatke to rant against science as a method in a
totally irrational fashion rather than to criticize its conceits
and excesses). You do not seem to be aware of Charles Fort and
his writings and world view. Are you?


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                        Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Hall

From: Richard Hall"<hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:50:09 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:21:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Hall


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:33:07 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>>was in use at the time (1954).

 >>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >Jan, Anthony, Stan,

 >I'm totally confused about the "restricted' classification.

 >In a letter to the Command General, Air Material Command, on the
 >subject 'flying Disks', dated 30,December,1947, General L.C
 >Craigie assigned the security classification of "restricted" to
 >project Sign. Why was that the case if 'Restricted' wasn't a
 >common classification and only used with nuclear research? Can
 >any of you comment on that fact?


Ed,

Even I, as a non-military person, can comment on that.

"Restricted" was a common and very low-level classification
during and after WWII, but it was a stand-alone classification,
not combined with other terms such as TOP SECRET.

As a teenager I was delighted when my cousin's husband, who was
a Naval officer during WWII and an aircraft recognition officer
as one of his duties, used to give me official Navy aircraft
recognition journals with RESTRICTED on the cover, and also the
black, hard rubber military aircraft models used in his
profession; a set of them is now on display in the Smithsonian
facility in Maryland.

Other than codeword stuff which I think came later, the basic
classifications in that era were TOP SECRET, SECRET,
CONFIDENTIAL, and RESTRICTED.

Jan Aldrich and others can tell you when the lesser categories
were removed or downgraded, or the definitions were changed.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                 Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:28:47 +0000 (GMT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:24:52 -0500
Subject: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You


Anti-Gravity flying triangles coming soon to a store near you!

Buy your own 3 Ft triangular anti-gravity disc can take off and
land vertically, it can hover, tilt and bank in mid-air and land
again.

The anti gravity disc runs on 12 volts DC which is used to power
a high voltage power supply. This power supply produces
approximately 20,000 volts DC and is identical to our #HIDZ
unit. The primary means of lift is ion propulsion. High energy
ions are ejected from the bottom of the craft which interact
with surrounding air molecules to produce thrust

Future Horizons claims they are the only company in the world to
offer a working antigravity craft for sale.

This plus loads of other anti-gravity craft are available on
their site for sale. It makes for a wonderful insight into this
proposed form of propulsion.

I'm going to wait till they produce some satisfying video clips
and maybe a warranty for before I part with my cash.


http://www.futurehorizons.net/grav.htm


Regards

Chris Whitlock
http://www.ufology.org.uk

=====

HULL WEB DESIGN

http://www.hullweb.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

              Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:26:36 -0500
Subject: Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases -


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:27:42 -0500
 >Subject: Re: SDI #213 John Velez On Moon Artifacts/Bases

<snip>

 >I believe I saw some 'structures on the Moon' photos posted at
 >Richard Hoagland's 'Enterprise Mission' website some time ago.
 >I'm not certain if they are still available.

Hoagland still has a "Moon Artifacts" section. I disagree with
his interpretation of images taken at the Apollo landing sites,
but there are some very interesting large-scale features that
deserve a close look. A few can be seen at:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com

(I'm not exactly endorsing this site, but it addresses a few
intriguing formations.)

I'm reasonably certain there are extraterrestrial structures on
Mars, so it would seem logical to expect installations of some
sort on the Moon (assuming the civilization that constructed the
Martian artifacts was spacefaring).

The main difference to keep in mind is that while Mars was (and
still is) a dynamic environment, the Moon is airless, and not
subject to erosion. But the lack of atmosphere makes it
vulnerable to meteorite impacts, which will have undoubtedly
taken a toll.

Dr. Mark Carlotto's "New Frontiers in Science" has an entire
thread about lunar anomalies and efforts to detect them using
computer analysis:

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com

My own site features a decent introduction to possible Martian
structures:

http://mactonnies.com/cydonia.html



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:8:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:28:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:33:07 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >Jan, Anthony, Stan,

 >I'm totally confused about the "restricted' classification.

 >In a letter to the Command General, Air Material Command, on the
 >subject 'flying Disks', dated 30,December,1947, General L.C
 >Craigie assigned the security classification of "restricted" to
 >project Sign. Why was that the case if 'Restricted' wasn't a
 >common classification and only used with nuclear research? Can
 >any of you comment on that fact?

Ed,

The 'Retricted' classification no longer exists in the US
classified system. It was done away with in 1953 by the
Eisenhower administration. It was the lowest category of
classified information up to that time. Foreign governments
still have such a classifications.

See page 37 of Army Regulation 380-5

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r380_5.pdf

which states

4-55 Equivalent U. S. Classification Designations

"Foreign classification designations generally parallel U. S.
classification designations. The exceptions is that many foreign
governments have a forth (lowest) classification designation
called "RESTRICTED." A table of equivalent of foreign and pact
organizations security classifications is contain in section
VIII."

There are further discussions of the Restricted category of
security information on page 37 and after. Again, it applies to
foreign governments' classified systems.

Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data is not related to
the old obsolete security classification RESTRICTED, but
reference to documents contain nuclear data designated by the
old Atomic Energy Act as vital to US interests.

Okay, those who contend that is a Secret Restricted or Top
Secret Restricted (not Secret Restricted Data and Top Secret
Restricted Data) find the relevant paragraph describing it in
Army Regulation 380-5 as cited above.

I look forwards to your answers.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                          Re: Terminology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:06:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:32:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Connors


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:59:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
 >>Subject: Terminology

<snip>

 >Good Evening Wendy, all,

 >With all due respects I don't think you have a snowball's chance
 >in hell of getting people to change from UFO, Flying Saucer, &
 >etc to UCC, CA1 & etc, For many a year Joe Q Public has been
 >brainwashed by the media of what UFO's are all about.

 >I think it is the people involved in the field of research who
 >have muddied the field with bigfoot, crop circles, Chupacabra,
 >and the Mothman & etc.

 >Being a hard core UFO only nut, I ditch without even reading
 >anything not related to directly UFO's. I spent time looking at
 >crop circles as there *might* have been a connection, But I
 >can't see that it is worth wasting my time researching
 >Chupacabra's as I cannot see how they can be from UFOs _full
 >stop_


 >With all due respect to someone as qualified as you in this
 >field Wendy, your (our) best bet is to clear the waters of the
 >unassociated gumpth and keep Forteana separate from main stream
 >Ufology. Then perhaps then, things can be moved forward.



Hi Sean,

Thank you for the kind words. However, I think my suggestion for
terminology change adequately reflects your desire to remove
Fortean areas from the field of Crypto-Aeronautics and gives a
basis on how that can be accomplished.

I believe we are in a unique position to legitimize Crypto-
Aeronautics into a scientific discipline. Groundwork to do so
has been laid since 1999 to accomplish this goal. It is a simple
methodology, but one that takes time.

All scientific disciplines came about due to maverick
researchers unabated by naysayers to their quest for knowledge
and understanding. The first step is to preserve and prepare the
history of Crypto-Aeronautics. That is being accomplished and
succeeding by a handful of very astute, knowledgable and
dedicated people, who have joined forces to specialize in
various aspects and ensure that the new science has a solid
history.

The second step isn't quite so easy, but can be accomplished.
That step is to entice the academic and scientific communities
to actually learn about this new science and what challenges it
really has to offer in almost all scientific dimensions. By
laying the history base it gives a comfortable bridge for
scientists and academics to cross and peruse.

There are other steps, such as defining what a Crypto-
Aeronautist actually is. You see, good researchers are not born
in this field. A person cannot read a few books or have a theory
and call themselves a Crypto-Aeronautist (Ufologist). We are at
that stage all other disciplines arrived at, which is to teach
Crypto-Aeronautics and expect expertise.

Medical Science evolved slowly from Shamanism and Pharmacists
evolved from herbalists who used to sell snake oil from the back
of constoga wagons. Now they are schooled and credentialed. That
science was always legitimate, much like current crypto-
aeronautics, is a bunch of hooey. Scientific disciplines all
evolved from the geeks and radicals of centuries past. Some
scientists are very astute and realize that dismissing crypto-
aeronautics is not good science because there is an unknown
phenomena that has been with us for thousands of years and needs
definition, investigation and resolution.

Put basically? People who naysay that crypto-aeronautics is a
thing of the past or is dying, don't have a clue to the
wonderful things really going on in the research field. Hell,
crypto-aeronautics is stronger than ever. It just lost a few
unnecessary ding bats that infiltrated it for far to long and
this includes the skeptics and the skeptibunkers. Let these
types rave all they want. They contribute nothing but static and
hot air to the knowledge base of humanity. They are vampires
that try to suck the life out of intelligence, common sense,
creativity and the dreams of humankind.

Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:18:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:35:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:19:00 EST
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 ><snip>

 >>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 ><snip>

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-003.shtml

 >Hi list,

 >Just reading the post on this subject and some are full of
 >problems.

 >What Jan said is wrong, in fact Stan is correct.

 >I have no problems with the data in the posts, and the
 >corrections. For example "Unclassified" is an important level
 >usually missed by people who don't understand the complexity of
 >the system.

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-018.shtml

 >However, the inexperienced always leave out the levels in the
 >structure, I have no idea why. I think it's because most see it
 >as a 'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a
 >'human restriction system' (human lock).

 >The problem is that everyone thinks that the Classification
 >defines the security, but it does not!

 >Some facts to remember:

 >[1]. Levels of Protection are always above Classification
 >of Protection.

 >[2]. Humans move the data, not paper.

 >[3]. You can always move down the levels, sometime across the
 >levels but definitely NOT up the levels.

 >The top dog in the 'Levels of Protection' is the OS - "Official
 >Secrets" level.

 >This is the Official Secrets Act stamp and is a "lifetime duty
 >of confidentiality" or a 'Black Hole' stamp or lock.

 >If you sign this form, then you have in fact in a very odd way
 >cut out all other levels. The force of this protection will only
 >come into action if the authorities hit you with the OS stamp.
 >Even Stan cannot get out of this one if I hit him with a OS!

 >Nothing moves, down sideway or up - you're a dead duck.

 >http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

 >Nick Pope post is an important post and needs to be understood.
 >"COSMIC top secret" is the highest classification marking in
 >NATO and it is equivalent to "UK top secret".

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-020.shtml

 >So in fact Stan Friedman is correct, he was between S and TS. It
 >is not a simple 4 level stamp and it would take some time to
 >work it out if you have no idea how the system is structured,
 >that's another post another day.

 >Regards to all,

 >UBIQUE

 >John W. AUCHETTL

 >OS - Lifetime Confidential <--- The Head dog
 >CTS - Cosmic
 >TS - DoD SAP
 >TS - SCI
 >TS - BIGOT LIST
 >NS - NATO
 >S - DoD SAP     <--- Stans Level (?)
 >S - SCI
 >S - BIGOT LIST
 >C - DoD SAP
 >C - SCI
 >C - BIGOT LIST
 >R - BIGOT LIST    <--- Non USA
 >E - EMBARGO     <--- Non USA
 >EO - EYES ONLY
 >UC - UNCLASSIFIED

 >(above list is not accurate - sample only)

John,

All that I can say is your post is nonsense. If by SCI you mean
Sensitive Compartmentalized Information which is the US mean of
the abbreviation, such material only existed at the Top Secret
level.

If by SAP you mean, Special Access Program, the US meaning of
the abbreviation, then such programs are set up for special
application where the 'need to know' is limited to a certain
designated group of people. The Personnel Reliability Program is
an example, personnel who are authorized or in training to
either work on nuclear weapons, deliver nuclear orders, or
handle the nuclear codes and key are designated on written
orders. These are the only ones allowed to deal with the
specific material even though others may indeed have a higher
level clearance.

If you will review the Department of Energy Definitions and
Army Regulation 380-5. You will see there is no half
way point between Secret and Top Secret. A Q clearance gives
access to material and data especially limited under the
Atomic Energy Act. It is not between anything.

NATO classified material is not a level it parallels the US,
UK, French, German, etc., etc. It is pact organization
classified designation.

COSMIC TOP SECRET simply means NATO Top Secret. Again, simply
review Section VIII of AR 380-5.

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r380_5.pdf

Eyes Only is not a classification, but an order. It is no
regulatory designation. Marshall and Hap Arnold use to
correspond with one another on Arnold's health. Arnold
classified his letters as Secret and added an Eyes Only for
General Marshall as he did not his health problems spread around
either his or Marshall's staff.

My access during my stay in Europe was NCSA, Cosmic Top Secret
Atonal. I did not have a COSMIC Top Secret Clearance a la Robert
Dean. This is quite incorrect! During my stay I was authorized
to see COSMIC Top Secret information relevant to my duties. My
clearance was Top Secret, when I left Europe my access to COSMIC
Top Secret information ended, but my Top Secret clearance
continued. Again, see AR 380-5.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 4

             Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:20:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:37:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate - Speiser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:13:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:33:36 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:37:55 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified
 >>>Aerial Phenomena

 ><snip>

 >>Has it occurred to you, Bob, that the skeptical writings on UFOs
 >>have been considered and largely discarded?

 >Jim:

 >By the believers, yes.

But recall, Bob, that every believer was once a non-believer.
You have to admit that there's an awful lot of intelligent,
savvy people out there who are believers, even after considering
the skeptical side - I would venture to say more so than with
almost any other "paranormal" enigma. So when I say, the
skeptical writings have been discarded, and you say, yes, by the
believers, well, I say, that's an awful lot of discarding by an
awful lot of intelligent folks.

 >In this puff piece to promote another TV
 >series about UFO "mysteries" they have been deliberately
 >ignored, not "largely" as you state but completely.

A press conference is a venue for getting a certain point of
view across. The opposing camp is free to hold its own press
conferences. I don't see anything intellectually dishonest with
stating to the press that UFOs are real, without qualification..

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                              New Book Reviews

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:25:27 -0500
Subject: New Book Reviews


Two new UFO book reviews...

--Mac


WITHOUT CONSENT Carl Nagaitis and Philip Mantle

'Without Consent', newly reissued by Beyond Publications, is a
laudable study for readers wishing to understand the alien
abduction phenomenon. Plainly presented, 'Without Consent'
neither indulges in unfettered speculation nor subjective
interpretation; the cases it presents stand as representative
enigmas from the annals of British ufology. The authors approach
the abduction enigma as a challenge to conventional thought,
leaving the verdict to the reader. 'Without Consent' is a short,
sensible primer that shines a much-needed light on the state of
UFO research in the UK.

More: http://mactonnies.com/ufobooks.html


THE GODS OF EDEN William Bramley

'The Gods of Eden', once excavated from its ufological
pretensions, is essentially a brief history of the role of
secret societies from ancient Sumeria to the present day. As
such, it's reasonably informative. But Bramley's thesis--that
beings from UFOs are responsible for corrupting human politics
in order to keep us occupied with endless Orwellian conflict--is
so weak as to be laughable; I personally suspect the
sensationalistic ET angle was suggested by the book's publishers
and grafted into the text at the last minute. Bramley's book is
annoying in several other respects. He ceaselessly condescends
and pretends to the role of 'spiritual mentor', matter-of-factly
criticizing world religions and how they fail to address humans
as "spiritual beings." 'The Gods of Eden' is so thoroughly
soaked in Bramley's own belief system that it sometimes reads as
conspiratorial self-parody, complete with seldom-seen alien
invaders as cosmic scapegoats for humanity's every failing. Toss
in CIA mind-control, scheming international bankers, the
alternative archaeology of Zechariah Sitchin, and near-death
experiences, and 'The Gods of Eden' achieves a certain rambling
charm. Read Bramley's self-congratulatory tome with the biggest
salt-shaker you can lift.

More: http://mactonnies.com/ufobooks.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                        Podesta Skeptical About UFOs

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 05:33:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:27:18 -0500
Subject: Podesta Skeptical About UFOs


Source: Government Executive Magazine

http://207.27.3.29/dailyfed/1102/110402nj1.htm

Stig

***

Daily Briefing

November 4, 2002

Clinton White House official lobbies agencies to release UFO
data

 From National Journal

**

Former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta is now a lobbyist
who most notably has been representing opponents of the proposed
nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, northwest of Las
Vegas. He has said that his experience in government convinced
him of the value of pruning back overly broad government-secrecy
classifications.

Now he has a rather unusual partner.

On Oct. 22, Podesta appeared at a news conference with a
coalition backed by cable TV's Sci-Fi Channel. The group's
mission: opening secret government archives so that any
evidence, pro or con, about unidentified flying objects can be
aired in public.

Podesta told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he was personally
skeptical about UFOs, but added, "I think it's time to open the
books on questions that have remained in the dark."

Brought to you by GovExec.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                MUFON North Carolina: Truth Will Land In 2003

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 05:47:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:29:26 -0500
Subject: MUFON North Carolina: Truth Will Land In 2003


Source: The Charlotte Observer, North Carolina,

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/4438752.htm

Stig

***

Posted on Mon, Nov. 04, 2002

UFO group: Truth will land in 2003

N.C. chapter suggests evidence will force government to 'fess up'

HOWIE PAUL HARTNETT
Staff Writer

**

SALISBURY - Even with some prompting, the crowd couldn't sing
"Happy Birthday" in unison.

Everyone gathered around the cake mumbled the group's odd name.

Even after 13 years of documenting UFO sightings in North
Carolina, many people still don't believe the mission of the
Mutual UFO Network or MUFON.

But believers will have their day - and soon, if George Fawcett
is correct.

"By the end of the year, you will see something," said the
Lincolnton resident and self-described UFO researcher. "Most
times we make a prophecy, it never happens. (But) I've never
seen so much happen in one year."

Many of the 37 people - almost all older adults - who gathered
at a Rowan County recreation center Sunday nodded solemnly.

Every three months, network members from across the state meet
to discuss UFO conventions, trade information about the latest
government coverups and talk about the day when the rest of the
world will have its eyes opened.

"We try to open up to the public to make them aware that it's
not a joke," said network State Director George Lund.

Fawcett and about a dozen others founded the N.C. chapter in
1989. The group now has about 70 members.

So why is 2003 going to be the year?

With all the sightings and information available on the
Internet, the government won't be able to hide the truth much
longer, network members say.

But can the average American middle-class consumer, soccer mom,
suburbanite handle the truth?

Those in the so-called military-industrial complex don't think
so, say network members. That's why despite more than 50 years
of what they cite as evidence -- from the Roswell, N.M., crash
of a UFO and the alleged recovery of aliens from it to crop
circles -- aliens remain only in the movies.

"It could cause mass hysteria depending on how it's revealed,"
said Charlie Aites, from Statesville.

Sound a little nutty? You're not seeing the big picture, Lund
said.

"If (people) think it's nuts, why does the highest level of
clearance in the U.S. government deal with UFOs and aliens?"
asked Lund, who served in the Army.

**

=A9 2001 observer and wire service sources. 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                       Bush Says UFO Promise Still On

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:35:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:49:01 -0500
Subject: Bush Says UFO Promise Still On


Bush Says UFO Promise Still On

Vice-President Dick Cheney recently returned to the UFO capitol
of the world - Roswell, New Mexico. It was his first trip there
since a visit there during the waning days of the 2000
Presidential campaign.

During his first Roswell visit in late October 2000, newspapers
reported, "Cheney was greeted by a sign that depicted a little
green man with a heart and the name 'Cheney'_as in 'Space Aliens
Love Cheney.'" Because Cheney had been a former Secretary of
Defense, many within the UFO community speculated that the visit
might have been a hint at an upcoming UFO disclosure. Even the
October 26, 2000 New York Times noted the extraterrestrial
significance of the Cheney stopover with its headline "The Alien
Factor: And Out in Roswell."

Another reason for the Ufological optimism was that the 2000
Roswell visit by Cheney occurred shortly after the now infamous
meeting between presidential candidate George W. Bush and
Arkansas native Charles Huffer. It was during that July 2000
campaign encounter that Huffer asked George Bush if he were
elected President would he disclose "the truth about UFOs." Bush
in reply stated "Sure. I will . . . It will be the first thing
he (pointing to Cheney) will do. He'll get right on it."

Therefore, when Cheney arrived in Roswell a few months later,
many thought it was a sign of positive things to come. Cheney,
to the disappointment of many UFO watchers, simply made his
speech with no mention of E.T.s or anything remotely close, and
flew on to Wyoming. Disclosure didn't come, but the UFO hopefuls
still remained optimistic.

The latest October 2002 visit by Cheney to Roswell also came
with signs that this too could be a nod and a wink to the UFO
community. Instead of speaking at the town hall as he had in
2000, Cheney chose to speak to the 3,000 faithful inside Hanger
32 at the Roswell Industrial Air Center. (Formally Roswell Army
Air Field) This hanger, of course, is just a hop and a skip down
the tarmac from Hanger 84 where the Roswell alien bodies were
rumored to have been stored following the now famous 1947
Roswell weather balloon crash.

The most recent visit to the old Roswell Air Base also closely
mimicked the visit a fellow Republican, and former president,
Ronald Reagan made to the base for a campaign speech for then
Senator Harrison Schmitt in 1982. Like Cheney, Reagan made a
short stopover Roswell speech in late October, just prior to the
mid-term election.

Like the Cheney visits, the Reagan visit to the Roswell Air Base
also stirred up the UFO community, occurring only months after
Steven Spielberg had visited the White House and had given a
private screening of "E.T.: The Extraterrestrial" for Reagan and
three dozen of his close friends and colleagues. While giving
his Roswell speech, Reagan always prepared to play to the
audience, even mentioned the popular "E.T." in his speech.

That's the good news. Now for the bad news.

 >From the beginning of the Bush administration, the promise made
to Charles Huffer for UFO disclosure appeared to quickly fade to
a distant memory. Once in office the President Bush did not make
UFOs the first thing "Cheney would do." In fact, all evidence
pointed to the fact that the Bush White House did nothing on the
UFO front. Worse in fact, in light of perceived threats from
every direction, the Bush administration made new riveting cold-
war style secrecy the order of the day. This new secrecy was not
exactly amenable to UFO disclosure.

Moreover, Dick Cheney was asked during an April 2001 Washington
D.C. open line show, "If he had ever been briefed on the
subjects of UFOs, and if so what had he been told." His reply
seemed to put out the final embers of the UFO disclosure fire.
"If I had been briefed on UFOs," replied Cheney, "it probably
would have been classified, and I wouldn't be talking about it."

So it was that when Cheney arrived at the Roswell Air Base last
month, where in 1947 pieces of the first recovered flying saucer
were loaded on planes for Wright-Patterson AFB, his only
objectives appeared to be the same as they were in when he
visited in October 2000 -- votes and money.

The Cheney agenda while in Roswell turned out to be one that
would make any extraterrestrial grimace. His 15-minute prepared
speech centered on war and the latest international boogieman
Saddam Hussein, issues that have elevated the Republicans high
in the polls. (Likewise Saddam Hussein playing the same game -
  has a popularity rating in his own country in the high
nineties) "Saddam Hussein must disarm," stated Cheney, "or, for
the sake of peace, the United States will disarm him."

The second item on the Cheney Roswell itinerary was oil and
money. In support of Steve Pearce, 2nd Congressional District
Candidate, Cheney was a featured guest at the home of Roswell
oilman George Yates, chairman and chief executive officer of
HEYCO Energy Group. About 250 guests each shelling out $250
attended. Cheney, who had spent many days in the past year
hiding at an unknown location, was now freely visible and
available for photo sessions with couples that were willing to
put up $1,000. And so it was for the Cheney visit to Roswell.

And so it is for elections, and the campaign visits that precede
them. They are in the end about votes, and how to get them. It
is the person with the most votes who wins - not the candidate
with the best plan to save the world.

Opinion polls that measure the "what can you do for me factor"
in the electorate, are important despite the words of former
Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker who reportedly said,
"Dogs know what to do with polls."

Getting the most votes takes convincing the people that you best
represent the opinions reflected in the latest pole. It then
takes money to get that image to the voters with advertising, TV
commercials, and the like. ($80.00 per voter is being spent in
South Dakota) It also takes the proper strategy such as sending
in your big guns into close races at exactly the right time to
win the marginal vote, as both parties are doing at the closing
bell.

A few years back former President of Penn State University, Dr.
Eric Walker, hinted in interviews that he knew quite a bit about
the UFO situation at the highest level. In addition, he hinted
that he had been there in 1947, as policies were being developed
to deal with the UFO situation.

Dr. Walker was asked who made up the group that controlled UFO
policy. His reply spoke of "invited" rather than "elected."
"They are a group of elite," he stated. "If you were invited
into this group I would know."

In eight years of contact with various researchers Dr. Walker
never indicated that politicians were involved. He stated that
the group was international in nature, and that one would need
the "mind of Einstein" to understand it. Perhaps as Walker
hinted, politicians are not, and have never been a part of the
UFO cover-up. They may simply be pawns like the rest of us.

Politicians, after all are people doing a job. That job involves
following the polls to attract the greatest number of votes,
because re-election, and thereby continued power and influence,
is the name of the game. Find out what people want for
Christmas, and then promise to buy it for them with their own
money.

These are items that find no parallel in UFO research.
Consequently, public support has never materialized for UFOs,
because the public does not yet see any financial or security
gain coming from disclosure. UFOs do not yet look like a
Christmas present.

UFOs would not be in the top hundred concerns in opinion polls,
as they do not yet represent an economic or security concern
such as the items that now dominate the polls.

In addition, the UFO disclosure movement suffers from the fact
that there are very few financial backers to finance a 21st
century UFO political campaign. This is because the money behind
many present day politicians (oil industry, military, legal
firms, business, and big stock holders) is tied into the "old
economy" -- the one the UFO technology will leave behind. People
are motivated by self-interest --surprise, surprise!

Politicians are transitory figures who come and go. The
president, for example, has a term of no more than eight years.
The UFO phenomenon, by all indications, is a long-term problem
faced by those who hold the reins. It is therefore not logically
a problem that would ever been handed over to a bunch of short-
term politicians who are here today and gone tomorrow. It is
also hardly the type of problem that could be dealt with by
referring to opinion polls for guidance.

Wilbert Smith, who directed the Canadian government's classified
UFO study from 1950-1954, described the politician's UFO dilemma
in a paper he wrote to describe why the government covered up
the UFO phenomena.

"Politicians have two interests in life; first to win an
election, and second, to do as good a job as possible of
representing their constituency. Neither of these could be
considered as embracing flying saucer investigations. True, a
member of the house may ask questions about flying saucers,
suggest that something might be done about their study, or even
introduce a bill to take definite action, but without strong
public support the result is only so much more wordage in the
official record. Furthermore, because of the type of publicity
from which the whole flying saucer subject has suffered,
politicians who are naturally very sensitive to public reaction
are reluctant to stick their necks out. In light of the
foregoing reasoning I feel that we need not expect any
significant statement with respect to flying saucers by any
government agency."

This is the true signal that should be perceived from the recent
Cheney visit to the holiest of all UFO shrines. Like Reagan
before him, Cheney was a simply a politician doing his job. That
job was to come to the aid of a congressional seat that was
close and therefore winnable. Furthermore, being a prominent
figure he used his prominence to help gather the millions in
campaign funds needed to win elections and gain political power.

Once gas tops $20.00/gal., or once pollution creates major damage to
the U.S. economy, UFOs might move onto the electors "Christmas wish
list." The election of 2002 is, however, still dominated by the
oil-generated economy and short-term public concerns.

The future, however, is not all bleak. Disclosure is not dead yet.
Today as President George Bush made a last minute swing through the
American Midwest stumping for Republican candidates, he ran across
the man who started it all -- UFO researcher Charles Huffer.

As Bush headed for Air Force One Huffer stuck out his hand and
reminded him of the July 2000 promise to release "the truth on
UFOs." Huffer asked him if the promise still held. Bush's answer
was "Yes."

In an E-mail to this author Huffer stated the following,

"Today as This afternoon, 4 November 2002, President George W.
Bush attended a Republican Campaign Rally at the Northwest
Regional Airport (XNA) in Northwest Arkansas.  After the rally
was over, while on the way to Air Force One, President Bush
shook hands with some of the people at the rally.  My hand was
one of those.  I took the opportunity to remind President Bush
that he had promised ME over two years ago that he would tell us
the truth about UFOs.  I then asked if he intended to keep that
promise.  He answered:  'Yes'".

"Unfortunately, this time I did not have my recorder with me so
this report is no better than hearsay.  But it did happen."


--






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:42:06 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:20:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:18:42 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

 >>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:19:00 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 >>What Jan said is wrong, in fact Stan is correct.

<snip>

 >John

 >All that I can say is your post is nonsense.

<snip>

 >My access during my stay in Europe was NCSA, Cosmic Top Secret
 >Atonal. I did not have a COSMIC Top Secret Clearance a la Robert
 >Dean. This is quite incorrect! During my stay I was authorized
 >to see COSMIC Top Secret information relevant to my duties. My
 >clearance was Top Secret, when I left Europe my access to COSMIC
 >Top Secret information ended, but my Top Secret clearance
 >continued. Again, see AR 380-5.


Hi Jan, EBK & List,

Jan, not bad for Sergeant (Fd Arty Meteorology). Your OMPF at
NARA must be very impressive. But I digress.

The realisation that when you departed the European Theatre and
you assess to that, stopped, must give some idea that you went
down or across a level (human lock). Well I hope it did?

Let's beg to differ on this Jan.

I think I will stay with what I know. And I would advise others
to do the same.

However, it looks as if a lot of new data, levels, departments &
corrections etc are coming from you, as you search the Web and
discover other crown acts, executives, governments, groups,
compartments, projects, departments, countries - it's a
nightmare and under constant review! The system is a little more
complex than first thought.

That is why you have posted 3 new supplements on the subject!

General Define:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-002.shtml


Security Information Defined:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-018.shtml


Control Of Classified Information:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m02-005.shtml


Let me again repeat:

The inexperienced always leave out the levels in the structure,
I have no idea why. I think it's because most see it as a
'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a 'human
restriction system' (human lock).

The problem is that everyone thinks that the Classification
defines the security, but it does not!

It is a little more complex than a black rubber stamp on a
document in the archives, and takes a bit of research to grasp.


On this matter, Stan still has my vote!


Regards to you,


UBIQUE


John W. AUCHETTL



OMPF - Official Military Personnel Files
NPRC - National Personnel Records Center
             Military Personnel Records
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                       Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:41:06 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:25:26 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson


 >>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
 >>Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

 >(Tim asked me to forward this to the List- BH)


I am not even going to bother quoting this long tirade from math
challenged Tim Printy, who made a grave mistake taking me on
when he doesn't know what he is talking about. See my original
post on Oct. 26:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m26-016.shtml

I simply measured the distances from what C. B. Moore himself
labeled as "Roswell" on his maps, so any confusion as to what
location that meant is entirely due to Moore who certainly is
capable of labeling a map properly if he chooses to.  Printy's
phony map "measurements" with all the bogus decimals are
deceptively done on PRINTY's MAP locations rather than on
MOORE's MAP locations, and are completely invalid and irrelevant
to my measurements on Moore's maps.  Just take your rulers out
folks and make the measurements on Moore's maps and see if I am
right.  Post your results here.

Printy does not explain why, if my 10-11-mile distance
measurements on Moore's false maps are supposedly misleading,
does Moore say in 2002 that the balloon passed 15-20 MILES FROM
ROSWELL BASE????  No matter how you stack it, that is a lot
farther away than the 4 miles from Roswell base that Moore marks
in his 1948 map, or the 10-11 miles I measured on Moore's 1995/7
maps.

The map falsification issue is simple:  Contrary to Printy who
doesn't even know the basic facts about authorship of the
reports in question, C. B. Moore was lead author of the 1948 NYU
report and in 1995 and 1997 Moore falsely claimed to "REPRODUCE"
a map from the 1948 report "WITHOUT CHANGE."  Of course, it
doesn't matter who wrote the earlier report if Moore comes along
later and says he faithfully and accurately reproduced it.
  These statements are false as among other things he has moved
"Roswell" or falsified its designation without telling the
reader.  That 1948 report has a map Figure 32 for balloon Flight
5 where there is a label for the following site:

"Roswell"

That turns out to be the now famous Roswell BASE as the 1948 map
co-ordinates are easily measured and it is indeed Roswell Army
Air Field.  In 1995 and 1997 Moore CHANGES the location of this
dot to Roswell TOWN on the map that he falsely purports to have
"REPRODUCED" "WITHOUT CHANGE" from the 1948 map -- in order to
move it farther away from the track of the balloon flight.

Moore could not possibly have traced the "Roswell" dot from the
old map or photocopied the dot's location, he actually MOVED the
dot's location.  Think about that.  Think about all the mental
manipulation that went into that decision on Moore's part.  If
it was some kind of "CORRECTION" then MOORE SHOULD HAVE SAID SO
-- as he did on the Flight 6 balloon map where he openly said he
made "CORRECTIONS."  Instead of misleading readers by falsely
stating he "REPRODUCED" the old map "WITHOUT CHANGE."

Moore, you see, claims that Roswell base personnel did not know
about his balloon flights and therefore were "mystified" when
the alleged balloon debris was later discovered by rancher Mack
Brazel.  So Moore has to falsify map evidence to make it seem
unlikely that Roswell tower personnel saw the 657-foot balloon
in the bright morning sun with a B-17 bomber chasing it weeks
before Brazel's find.

Moore had numerous opportunities with multiple revisions of his
1995 report and in 1997 with his book chapter to have done what
Printy claims he wants so much -- provide CLARIFICATION as to
which was which:  Which was Roswell TOWN and which was Roswell
BASE.  He could easily have marked his maps in 1995 and 1997
with BOTH "Roswell" and "Roswell AAF" as he did back in 1948 on
the Flight 11 balloon launch.  Why didn't Moore simply mark both
the town and the base?  Why did Moore mislead and say he had
"REPRODUCED" the map "WITHOUT CHANGE"?  What part of
"REPRODUCED" "WITHOUT CHANGE" does Moore and Printy his flunky
apologist not understand?

The rest of Printy's math falsehoods will be dealt with later.
  This is sufficient for now.


Brad Sparks







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                     Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:18:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:18:00 -0500
Subject: Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times

Ciar Byrne
Monday November 4, 2002

Fortean Times

The joint editors of the Fortean Times, the "journal of strange
phenomena", have decided to step down after 30 years at the
helm.

Founder Bob Rickard and his co-editor, Paul Sieveking, will
still play an important role at the offbeat magazine but are
handing over the day-to-day running to the managing editor,
David Sutton.

Their departure comes as the magazine, whose pages are routinely
filled with tales of UFOs, crop circles and apparitions of the
Virgin Mary, celebrates its 30th birthday.

Sutton has promised to "introduce more readers to the Fortean
Times' unique mix of weird world news, in-depth reporting and
research into the more outlandish corners of human experience".

Sieveking will continue to oversee the "avalanche of incoming
news", while Rickard is moving into a more advisory role,
extending the magazine's website and working on its archives.

The Fortean Times was founded in 1973 to carry on the work of
Charles Fort, a paranormal investigator who died in 1932, and
now has a circulation of more than 29,000 copies.

The Fortean Times and Bizarre made up part of the package when
John Brown Publishing sold Viz to I Feel Good, the publishing
company run by former Loaded editor James Brown in May 2001.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                     UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:35:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:35:32 -0500
Subject: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/have_your_say/news/ufo.shtml

UFO footage sparks fresh ET debate

Monday 4 November, 2002

 From lights in the sky to flying saucers - UFOs come in various
guises. But are they the product of alien life, natural
phenomena or just a vivid imagination?

Many people say they have seen "something strange" and some
claim that what they saw was a spaceship. Others say they have
met aliens.

Nonetheless, scientists remain mostly unmoved. They say that
although some UFO cases merit investigation, it is not because
they could be alien craft.

The images captured over the south coast were filmed by a police
helicopter. The UFO was spotted travelling across the coast and
was followed for about 10 miles.

None of the crew members on board the helicopter had seen
anything like it before or since.

The footage has aroused the interest of UFO enthusiasts. So what
could it be? Well, some people think it could be a balloon or
some other simple explanation... What do you think?

-----

Watch actual footage taken by Brighton Police over the Sussex
skies...  click here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:36:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:59:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:28:47 +0000 (GMT)
 >Subject: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

<snip>

 >Anti-Gravity flying triangles coming soon to a store near you!
 >The primary means of lift is ion propulsion. High energy
 >ions are ejected from the bottom of the craft which interact
 >with surrounding air molecules to produce thrust

<snip>

First I've heard that the electrostatic lift demonstrated by
experimenter Townsend Brown is caused by "ions ejected". This
could be demonstrated as untrue by enclosing the entire flying
triangle in a very thin polyethylene bag, which would prevent
downwards ejection of ions, and as long as the bag is very
light, the unit should still lift off.

Charging a capacitor, once the charging is complete, does not
result in a stream of ions.  If it did, an air or vacuum
dielectric capacitor would not be able to hold a charge, and air
or vacuum capacitors can hold charge.

The phrase "interact with surrounding aire molecules to produce
thrust" phrase shows that someone is unaware of how even the
conventional rocket works.  Ejecting matter at high speed
requires no interaction with anything to produce thrust.

These claims smack of more disinformation, to prevent the public
from understanding that this is genuinely revolutionary
technology, and not some sort of 'ion rocket'.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Mystery Of Area 51 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:13:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:02:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Mystery Of Area 51 - Maccabee


 >From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:39:29 -0500
 >Subject: Mystery Of Area 51

 >Source: Pravda

 >http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/04/39112.html


 >Mystery of Area 51

 >Let's get something straight from the very beginning: I don't
 >insist at all that the below-mentioned facts are the absolute
 >truth. Many of them cannot be verified. At the same time, I
 >won't argue with those who say that a civilization of dormant
 >stones exists on Earth parallel to our civilization; also, I
 >discuss the question of the existence of life on Mars. Agreed?
 >If so, let's proceed.

 >Accident in Roswell

<snip>

 >American government officials quite naturally started dodging
 >the question once again. This time, they admit the obvious fact
 >that there is a secret military base in Nevada not far from Las
 >Vegas. However, they say this base has nothing to do with aliens
 >and that there are no UFOs there; only Stealth planes are tested
 >there.

 >This explanation doesn't sound very convincing by the way. Who
 >will trust the American government when it has been pulling the
 >wool over our eyes for 50 years? And as for Stealth aircraft,
 >have you ever seen one? It looks very much like an UFO.

 >Chief UFO Specialist

 >The majority of ufologists mistrust the recent refutations made
 >by the USA, with the exception of Russian Professor Vladimir
 >Azhazha, a UFO expert. He says: "I personally never asserted
 >that an UFO was hidden in Nevada. Moreover, I am perfectly sure
 >that there is none at all. There is no doubt that other
 >civilizations do exist, but we can't prove it yet.

<snip>

 >On the whole, Russian Professor Azhazha is sure that the search
 >for UFOs is just like chasing for ghosts that don't exist and
 >never did at all. It would be more correct to move science in a
 >different direction and find out why aliens kidnap people.

 >According to Vladimir Azhazha, every tenth man on Earth is
 >kidnapped by extraterrestrials; these kidnappings are most
 >frequent when people are asleep. This means that human bodies
 >remain in beds and only their consciousness, or souls, travel
 >together with extraterrestrials. People kidnapped this way
 >remember nothing at all about their strange travels, as all
 >information about it is erased from their minds. Sometimes,
 >children draw mysterious pictures after being kidnapped by
 >aliens. Scientists try to understand that these children are
 >trying to show in their drawings.

Translated by Maria Gousseva

Amusing Russian writer's perspective on the UFO situation
regarding Roswell, Area 51, etc. But what has caught my interest
is the mention of Azhazha. I met Vladimir at a UFO conference in
Japan (Hakui City) almost 12 years ago.  I could speak about 25
words of Russian and he knew several hundred of English.   By
combining marginal conversation with pictorial illustrations he
managed to convey to me that he had been, in the 50's and 60's,
a submarine captain and he commanded the first Russian nuclear
sub to travel under the north pole.  (The Americans had done it
first with the Nautilus in '57, '58 or '59, if I recall
correctly).  He didn't tell me what year that was, but probably
in the same time frame.

The ufo connection is this:   in the early 1970's (73?) he was
asked by a Russian Navy officer to take on the UFO problem.
  This was because there had been sightings by the Russian Navy,
including one bizarre case involving a Navy sub in the Pacific.
  According to Azhazha (and my recollection of his story), a sub
was performing routine maneuvers somewhere in the Pacific when
the sonar crew became aware of a "contact" not too far away that
seemed to be pacing the sub.  The captain ordered maneuvers to
"shake" the intruder, thinking it was a US sub playing a typical
cat and mounse game.   They could not get rid of this sonar
contact, so the captain decided to surface, assuming that the US
sub would also surface and then they could see what was going
on.  So they surfaced and got up on the sail of the sub and
looked around and saw nothing until......

a large "Craft" came up out of the water and took off!!!

(Last I heard, subs don't fly!)

Azhazha said that that Navy captain was now (1980's) an Admiral.
He would not tell me who it was, but I think he said the man's
name started with K.

Anyway, that sub incident occured years before the early 1970's
but I don't recal when.

Then he told me another story, this involved a sub "base" or
what we might call a sub tender in the north Atlantic somehwere.
  Again, while performing normal maneuvers, this "base" was
subjected to a flyover by a number of "flying saucers"....
objects not airplanes.

Azhazha became publicly known in the middle 1970's when he gave
a lecture on UFOs in Russia.   If I recall correctly, the MUFON
Journal has as article about him in some issue from the 1970's.

In the 1980's (late) he founded the SOYUZUFOTSENTR (Unified UFO
Center) with some level of official authorization.   I don't
know whether or not that is still active.

Bottom line: Azhazha knows UFOs are real....








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              Re: Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times - Chalker

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:22:29 +1100
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:14:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times - Chalker


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:18:00 -0500
 >Subject: Rickard, Sieveking & Fortean Times

 >Ciar Byrne
 >Monday November 4, 2002

 >Fortean Times

 >The joint editors of the Fortean Times, the "journal of strange
 >phenomena", have decided to step down after 30 years at the
 >helm.

 >Founder Bob Rickard and his co-editor, Paul Sieveking, will
 >still play an important role at the offbeat magazine but are
 >handing over the day-to-day running to the managing editor,
 >David Sutton.

I had a delightful luncheon with Bob Rickard near the British
Museum on October 9th during which he acquainted me with these
developments. Bob was upbeat and optimistic about FT's content
direction in a turbulent and challenging magazine environment.
He indicated that the November, 2002 (FT 164) had David Sutton's
full stamp, so the signs are good for the continuance of FT's
grand traditions.

Charles Fort wrote:"I do not know how to find out anything new
without being offensive".

I hope FT continues to irritate, surprise, inform, educate and
entertain.

I wish Bob and Paul well in their 'retirements'.  I reckon that
you won't see them go off quitely into the Fortean night. I hope
Bob's plans come to full realisation.

Best wishes to Bob, Paul and to David Sutton on the future of
Fortean Times.


Regards,

Bill Chalker
Sydney, Australia
www.theozfiles.com
www.bananatv.com (The UFO Show)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:15:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:17:56 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Ledger


 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:35:32 -0500
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate


 >Source: BBC Kent

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/have_your_say/news/ufo.shtml

 >UFO footage sparks fresh ET debate

 >Monday 4 November, 2002

 >>From lights in the sky to flying saucers - UFOs come in various
 >guises. But are they the product of alien life, natural
 >phenomena or just a vivid imagination?

 >Many people say they have seen "something strange" and some
 >claim that what they saw was a spaceship. Others say they have
 >met aliens.

 >Nonetheless, scientists remain mostly unmoved. They say that
 >although some UFO cases merit investigation, it is not because
 >they could be alien craft.

 >The images captured over the south coast were filmed by a police
 >helicopter. The UFO was spotted travelling across the coast and
 >was followed for about 10 miles.

 >None of the crew members on board the helicopter had seen
 >anything like it before or since.

 >The footage has aroused the interest of UFO enthusiasts. So what
 >could it be? Well, some people think it could be a balloon or
 >some other simple explanation... What do you think?

 >-----

 >Watch actual footage taken by Brighton Police over the Sussex
 >skies...  click here:

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram

 >[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]

I was under the impression that this was deemed to be a
"weather balloon". However chasing a weather balloon ten miles
in three minutes suggests speeds of up to 3.3 miles per minute,
or 200 miles/334 kms per hour. That's unusually fast for a
weather balloon-unless of course the south coast was in the grip
of a major, history-making hurricane-which of course it wasn't.
Of course helicopters don't fly in 200 mph hurricanes either. I
guess I should have viewed this earlier.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:58 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:20:15 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

<snip>

 >>NASA has always been a publisher of books and other educational
 >>materials disseminating the fundings of space research. Who do
 >>you think wrote those books? Authors.

 >I assume by "fundings" you meant to say "findings,"

Dick,

Yes, sorry, my index finger just twitched.

 >but please give me the title of one (1) (uno) BOOK that NASA (as an
 >organization; not some past NASA employee) authored.

I believe that I said, "publisher", and that "authors" wrote
them.

 >Technical reports, sure (I am a past technical editor of many U.S.
 >Government reports). But to the best of my knowledge, not books

Well, I just grabbed one off of my shelf, "On Mars - Exploration
of the Red Planet 1958-1978", published by NASA as part of the
NASA History Series. It's authors are Edward Clinton Ezell and
Linda Neuman Ezell, the former a curator at the Smithsonian and
the latter a Graduate student at George Washington Univ., at the
time of publication. Edward Ezell had been historian at the
Johnson Space Flight Center beginning in 1980.

The work is a hefty 535 page paperback, which certainly
qualifies as a "book" as far as I can tell. On the last page is
a list of 22 other books published in the series.

 >and especially not on controversial subjects.

Well, it covered the issue of whether the Viking science
experiments really found evidence of life or just chemistry,
citing Gil Levin for the latter and other participants for the
consensus.

One can't get much more controversy than that - in science that
is. "Did the experiment find life or didn't it?"

<snip>

 >You do not seem to be aware of Charles Fort and
 >his writings and world view. Are you?

I am familiar with the genre. One of the NASA history series, on
NASA sounding rockets, was authored by William R. Corliss. I've
got a couple of his forteana-packed volumes. They make good
bookends for my shelf of UFOria authored by people like the
late, great Donald Menzel, Uncle Phil, Bob Sheaffer, Ray Craig,
Allan Hendry, Otto Bilig, Sagan, Ol' Doc Condon - my, my they
just goes on and on.

Clear skies,

Bob Young
M.I.B.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:12:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:25:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:42:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:18:42 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

 >>>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:19:00 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>>>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>>>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 >>>What Jan said is wrong, in fact Stan is correct.

 ><snip>

 >>John

 >>All that I can say is your post is nonsense.

 ><snip>

 >>My access during my stay in Europe was NCSA, Cosmic Top Secret
 >>Atonal. I did not have a COSMIC Top Secret Clearance a la Robert
 >>Dean. This is quite incorrect! During my stay I was authorized
 >>to see COSMIC Top Secret information relevant to my duties. My
 >>clearance was Top Secret, when I left Europe my access to COSMIC
 >>Top Secret information ended, but my Top Secret clearance
 >>continued. Again, see AR 380-5.


 >Hi Jan, EBK & List,

 >Jan, not bad for Sergeant (Fd Arty Meteorology). Your OMPF at
 >NARA must be very impressive. But I digress.

 >The realisation that when you departed the European Theatre and
 >you assess to that, stopped, must give some idea that you went
 >down or across a level (human lock). Well I hope it did?

 >Let's beg to differ on this Jan.

 >I think I will stay with what I know. And I would advise others
 >to do the same.

 >However, it looks as if a lot of new data, levels, departments &
 >corrections etc are coming from you, as you search the Web and
 >discover other crown acts, executives, governments, groups,
 >compartments, projects, departments, countries - it's a
 >nightmare and under constant review! The system is a little more
 >complex than first thought.

 >That is why you have posted 3 new supplements on the subject!

 >General Define:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-002.shtml

 >Security Information Defined:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-018.shtml

 >Control Of Classified Information:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m02-005.shtml

 >Let me again repeat:

 >The inexperienced always leave out the levels in the structure,
 >I have no idea why. I think it's because most see it as a
 >'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a 'human
 >restriction system' (human lock).

 >The problem is that everyone thinks that the Classification
 >defines the security, but it does not!

 >It is a little more complex than a black rubber stamp on a
 >document in the archives, and takes a bit of research to grasp.

 >On this matter, Stan still has my vote!


John,

As you say you will stay with what you know. Another way of
saying, "I prefer to remain ignorant." I am posting reference
information so that you or the Update readers who wish to learn
about security clearance and procedures can check what I say
against official information, and not as you characterized them
as new data or corrections. Readers of Updates don't have to
take my word for it; they can read the references!

The security system is actually very simple. Your
characterization a la Bill Spaulding is ridiculous.

As for inexperience, I have initialed over 1000 clearance
investigation from National Agency Checks to Special Background
Investigation. How many have you done, John?

Three time a week I gave oral security briefings to incoming
personnel which involved nuclear weapons, NATO Classified
documents, information security, OPSEC, COMSEC, physical
security, etc., etc. And you, John probably did similar work
that is why you're so knowledgeable and don't need to look at
anything I've posted. You prefer to stick with what you know.

I have been inspected by all levels of command up to and
including the Defense Nuclear Agency. The DNA inspection was
very interesting as they listed several deficiencies, later in a
message to the commander, they retracted all their objections
and stated, "We do not characterize visits with such ratings as
excellent or superior. Your program is superior." An interesting
exception. I am sure your experience is comparable.

I have filled all these positions during my tenure in security
and intelligence among others:

Security Manager
Top Secret Control Officer
Classified Document Custodian
COMSEC Custodian
Critical Nuclear Position
COSMIC Top Secret Control Officer


I was the main trainer for the Nuclear Release Authentication
System in both nuclear capable units I was assigned to in
Europe. That means I trained all assigned nuclear personnel in
all aspects of command and control, two person operations,
security, and codes. As COMSEC Custodian I had overall
responsibility for all code and key material in the unit and for
the nuclear weapons program codes and keys, something close to
900 line items. In both units I served for long periods of time
without an officer because the commanders were confident in my
abilities. So I was also primary staff officer, S-2. And John,
you have, of course, done similar work, correct?

Further, in the absence of my commander, I was assigned to brief
the Southern European Tack Force (SETAF) Chief of Staff. I wrote
letters and directives for the signature of the Commanding
General of SETAF. In addition I have written training material
used Army wide, revising the whole meteorological crewmen's
assigned tasks with evaluations of expected performance. I
prepared the Individual Training portion of the Training Test
Support package and edited the entire package for the new
equipment evaluation of the Meteorological Data System. I was
also appointed as Assistant Adjutant in an organization
commanded by a full colonel, an unusual position for an NCO.

So I am not as your innuendo implies an inexperience sergeant? I
have the expertise to evaluate supposed insider stories on UFOs
and super secret projects.

On the other hand, your ludicrous characterization of the
information security system reveals a lack of understanding.
This is probably why you didn't answer my comments on your
little scheme.

You have completely embarrassed yourself with silliness, and you
should withdraw to avoid further embarrassment.

Oh and BTW, you missed these two typos above NCSA, Cosmic Top
Secret Atonal which should read CTSA, COSMIC Top Secret Atomal.

Your typo "assess" should read access, and important concept in
dealing with classified information and much misunderstood. See
AR 380-5.


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:58:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:29:06 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>

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

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 7, Number 45
November 5, 2002
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


MILKY-WHITE UFO SIGHTED
IN SOUTHERN POLAND

       Last week four witnesses sghted "a milky-white UFO"
hovering over the Beskidy Mountains, near Jordanow in
southern Poland.
       Jordanow is a small town about 60 kilometers (36
miles) south of Krakow. According to Robert K.
Lesniakiewicz, an author and UFO Roundup's correspondent
in Poland, Jordanow was the site of a secret mining
operation carried out by the Nazi SS during World War II.
(Editor's Note: For more on "the Jordanow mystery," see
the following story in this issue.)
       "Four witnesses watched a milky-white UFO seemingly
hovering over the peak of Mount Przykiec (elevation 741
meters or 2,445 feet), near the town of Jordanow.  One of
them made a series of photographs with a Canon EOS 3000
QD camera, using Kodak Gold 200 ASA film.  The camera's
parameters were as follows: t = 30 seconds; H = 5,6; f =
38 and 76 millimeters."
       "The UFO was brighter and darker during the 30-
second cycles.  It disappeared at 8:16 p.m. local time.
Bearings taken" by local ufologists "point to the fact
that the UFO actually hovered above Mount Koskowa Gora,
located 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Jordanow."
       "UFOs have been seen previously in Jordanow and this
region of the Beskidy Mountains," just north of the
border between Poland and Slovakia.  (Many thanks to
Robert K. Lesniakiewicz for this report.)


THE JORDANOW MYSTERY

       The area is known to its residents as Malopolska
(Little Poland--J.T.), and it's the site of one of the
stranger mysteries of World War II.
       Jordanow, the Beskidy Mountains and the entire
region between Krakow and the Alpine-resort community of
Zakopane, on what is now the border between Poland and
Slovakia, fell to the Nazis in the early days of the war.
On September 6, 1939, the German Fourteenth Army, under
Field Marshal Wilhelm von List, captured Zakopane and
Jordanow.  Within a week, for reasons never explained,
the area was placed under the direct control of the SS.
       The area remained under Nazi rule until the arrival
of Soviet Russian forces in January 1945.
       In 1994, Polish author Robert K. Lesniakiewicz
"interviewed former soldiers of the Armia Krajowa (Polish
for Homeland Army--J.T.) who had fought the Germans until
January 1945.  They saw the SS mining for uranium oxide"
in the Beskidy Mountains near Jordanow.
       "The Zarnowka and Grzechynia buildings and bunkers
were built by local peasants and Russian, Ukrainian and
Italian P.O.W.s.  My mother-in-law was a prisoner in
Grzechniya in 1943.  They were guarded at first by SS men
and at the end of the war by Wehrmacht (German Army)
soldiers."
(Editor's Note:  After Benito Mussolini was ousted in
September 1943, Italy turned against her ally, the Third
Reich.  The Italian P.O.W.s at Jordanow were troops loyal
to Marshal Pietro Badoglio.)
       "All of the local people (civilians) were sent to
the concentration camps at Oswiecim and Oswiecim-
Brzezinka (better known by their German names, Auschwitz
and Auschwitz-Birkenau--J.T.), west of Krakow."
       The SS and, in particular their leader,
Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler, took a keen interest in
Jordanow and its environs.  Numerous uranium oxide mines
were opened and worked between April 1940 and November
1944.  Himmler also tested several Nazi "wonder weapons"
in the region.
       "Grzechynia is a village 5 kilometers (3 miles) from
Zawoja," Robert reported, "The Nazis had a base for
developing the V-3, the Tausendfuessler (also known as
Schnelle Elise and the Hochdrueckpumpe), a 152-millimeter
super-cannon which could send 3-meter (10-feet) long
projectiles a distance of 45 or 50 kilometers (27 or 30
miles).  The Germans fired them at a test range at
Przezeck Krowiarki (pass) towards the Tatra Mountains.
Later they wanted to bombard London with these big
cannons from the French village of Mimoyeques.  The
Allies destroyed the V-3 base there."
       The SS secret projects around Jordanow soon drew the
attention of their enemies.  "During World War II, the
Beskidy Mountains were controlled by the rightwing Armia
Krajowa and the leftwing Armia Ludowa (Polish for
People's Army--J.T.)  Also operating there were Soviet
parachute troops of the OSNAZ ( Osobyennoye Naznachenye,
Russian for Special Task Forces) of the NKVD, commanded
by NKVD Captain Alexei Lotov."
       According to the Polish resistance fighters, "They
also observed Russian geologists and NKVD (later the KGB)
officials, who penetrated these mountains in October
1956.  They did not find any uranium ore."
(Editor's Note:  Conventional World War II history
teaches that Hitler's nuclear research program was based
in Norway.  The plant was destroyed in an Allied air raid
in 1943.  Yet here's the SS mining uranium oxide by the
ton in southern Poland throughout the war.  The ore is
vital for the processing of enriched or "weapons-grade"
uranium.  Where did all that uranium "disappear" to?)
       "Himmler visited Zakopane twice, once in the winter
of 1939-1940, when he met there with high-ranking NKVD
officials" and again in 1943.  During his second visit to
the mountain resort city, Himmler "himself led the
extermination of all the Polish and Jewish inhabitants of
the Beskidy Maly area.  All of the local people were sent
to the concentration camps."
       Apparently, Himmler had sent the SS to Jordanow on a
"magickal mission."
       "According to local legend, there is an entrance to
Agharta, or Interterra (also known as the Underground
World--J.T.), placed on the southwestern slope of Mount
Babia Gora (elevation 1,725 meters or 5,692 feet)," just
across the border in Slovakia.
       "Himmler sent several dozen speleological
expeditions to the Tatra Mountains and the Beskidy
Mountains, as well as to the Slovakian, Czech and
Hungarian mountains.  He was especially interested in the
Domica-Baradla Cave in the Slovakian-Hungarian
borderland.  He hoped to find the entrance to Shamballah,
but he did not do it."
       "The SS searched for the entrance to Agharta on
Mount Babia Gora and at the Half Moon Cave in Byelanskye
Tatra."
        However, long before he became the Reichsfuhrer-SS
and the self-styled "Lord of Atlantis," Himmler was
interested in the Jordanow region and those folk tales of
"the Underground World."
       In 1892, the Polish architect Stanislaw Witkiewicz
purchased a summer home in Zakopane, 40 kilometers (25
miles) south of Jordanow, then part of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire.  With his friend, the composer Karol
Szymanowski, Witkiewicz founded a writers' and artists'
colony.  The group, which dabbled in Theosophy, soon
attracted a writer from Vienna, Dr. Friedrich Wichtl.
       Dr. Wichtl was an occultist who specialized in
Masonic lore and "world conspiracy" theories.  He was a
frequent visitor to Villa Koliba, the colony's meeting
place in Zakopane, and to Lake Morskie Oko.  Following
the collapse of Austria-Hungary in 1918, at the end of
World War I, Dr. Wichtl wrote a best-selling book
entitled Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevolution, Weltrepublik
(German for World Freemasonry, World Revolution, World
Republic --J.T.)
       Himmler, then a military cadet convalescing after a
serious stomach illness, read Dr. Wichtl's book in 1919,
and it got him interested in the occult.
       It is possible that Himmler may have met his mentor,
Dr. Wichtl, six years earlier, when he was a young
teenager.  In the summer of 1913, the Reichsfuhrer's
father, Dr. Gebhard Himmler, was appointed vice principal
of the Gymnasium (high school) in Landshut.  The elder
Himmler celebrated this prestigious appointment by taking
his wife and three sons, including 13-year-old Heinrich,
on a tour of Austria-Hungary.  The family spent some time
in Zakopane and, as was their custom, went swimming on
hot August days in Lake Morskie Oko.  Dr. Wichtl was also
in Zakopane at the time.
       Although they both shared a vivid interest in "the
Underground World,"  Himmler's diary makes no mention of
any meeting with Dr. Wichtl.  (See the following books:
Wonderland: Alien Technologies in the Third Reich by Dr.
Milos Jesensky and Robert K. Lesniakiewicz, Usti nad
Larem, Warsaw, 2001; Project Tatra by Robert K.
Lesniakiewicz, Krakow, 2002; Himmler by Peter Padfield,
MJF Books, New York, N.Y. 1990, pages 36 through 51; and
The Occult Roots of Nazism by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke,
New York University Press, New York, N.Y., 1992, page
156.)


TWO UFOs SPOTTED IN
CARACAS, VENEZUELA

       On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 3 a.m., a male
witness "spotted two UFOs over the city of Caracas," the
capital of Venezuela, "performing intricate maneuvers
over Cerro de Avila (hill)."
       "The witness explained that he observed the UFOs
when both objects moved very slowly toward the
mountainous ridge overlooking the city, making pirouette
motions around each other and finally losing themselves
in the eastern horizon."  (See the newsletter NotiOVNI
for October 28, 2002.  Muchas gracias a Daniel Munoz y
Jose Iglesias del Proyecto Orion para eso informe.)


SEIP TEAM HUNTS FOR A USO
NORTH OF MALLORCA

       "The presence of underwater flying saucer bases is
one of the hypotheses to be confirmed or dispelled by a
team from the Sociedad Espanola de Investigaciones
Parapsicologicas (SEIP, or Spanish Society for
Parapsychological Research--S.C.) on its way to
Mallorca."
       Mallorca is the largest of the Balearic Islands in
the Mediterranean Sea.  It is located approximately 160
kilometers (100 miles) south of Barcelona, Spain.
       "For months, strange noises have troubled the
tranquility of the waters north of the island."
       "'All possibilities are open, rangng from the
presence of UFO bases to the existence of an underwater
volcanic area or tectonic-plate displacement,' said Jose
Castro, SEIP coordinator and a member, along with Javier
Rodriguez, of the expedition that will study the noises."
       "These sounds, which have been heard by the
reknowned scuba diver Pepe Amengual 'have no similarity
with any other sounds detected so far.'"
       "The expedition's challenge is to record these on
the sea bottom and contrast them with other recordings
made on the surface a few weeks ago by Pedro Amoros,
SEIP's president."
       SEIP has its headquarters in Alicante, Spain, has
operated for 15 years and has investigated some of
Spain's most notorious paranormal cases, such as "the
faces of Belmez," the Zaragoza Goblin (no relation to
Norman Osborn--J.T.) and the alleged ghosts haunting the
Linares Palace.
       "Made up of four scuba divers and headed by
technician-diver Javier Rodrguez and SEIP coordinator
Jose Castro, the researchers began their dives Saturday,"
October 26, 2002, "at Cala Tuent."
       "'We chose this area because it was here, from his
boat, that Amoros was able to hear a sort of explosion of
bubbles twenty days ago (Tuesday, October 8, 2002)--a
sound that appeared to have a metallic origin, with a
fixed frequency.'"
       "In order to determine the causes, and having
dismissed the hypothesis that the sound was (caused by)
'oil prospecting on the coasts of Tarragona or the
presence of an underwater volcanic area,' the submariners
made a three-hour dive at a depth of 21 meters (69 feet),
some 300 meters (1,000 feet) from the northern shore" of
Mallorca.
       "'We placed a conventional microphone in the water
to search for any interesting sounds, but we found
nothing strange.  At first we thought we'd come across
something, but we finally realized it was just a ship
passing over.  Sounds are very confusing underwater,'"
Castro said.
       "The team regrets the high cost of this type of
research.  'We would like to have a hydrophone, but they
are very expensive and are only manufactured for the
military.  The truth is that we have had other problems
with conventional microphones, since water has gotten
into them, and they're worth a lot of money.'"
       "Without allowing disillusion to grip the
expedition, Castro and his team headed to Soller," a port
town on Mallorca's north shore, "looking for persons who
could provide them with clues.  'National Geographic
(teams) take a month to find a fish, so we know that we
aren't going to solve this mystery in two days.'"
       "'This is like a legend.  Many people tell you that
they've heard talk about these sounds, but you can never
find anyone who can talk (from first-hand experience)
about them,' complained Javier Rodriguez."
       "'In Soller, we spoke to a girl who dives there three times a day, six
months a year.  She has never heard anything unusual,' added Fernando Ponce,
a scuba diver."
       The SEIP vessel is now headed for Cova del Moro,
near Soller, to gather evidence, "perform interviews,
listen to recordings, analyze the sounds, and clean it
up, 'which will take us twenty days.'"  (See the Spanish
newspaper Diario de Mallorca for October 27, 2002,
"Parapsychologists head to Mallorca to study noises from
the sea bottom," and for October 28, 2002, "An X-File in
the waters of Mallorca."  Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales
y Jordi Ardanuy para esos articulos de diario.)


MYSTERY AIRCRAFT SEEN
OVER VICTORIA, B.C.

       On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 3:35 p.m., the
female witness "was outside when I heard the brrrrrring
of a small plane" over Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(population 73,504).  "I turned my head to see it
travelling in a north to south direction at around 4,000
to 5,000 feet (1,200 to 1,500 meters).  It was a small
Cessna-type aircraft with light yellow sides and a red
tail section.  Today was a brilliantly clear day so the
colours of the plane were plainly visible."
       "Suddenly, my eyes caught a glimpse of another
aircraft flying in the same direction, except (it was)
west of the other and much closer to me.  This second
object was a much longer craft than the Cessna.  In fact,
the nose of it extended much farther forward of the
small, swept-back wings than the Cessna.  It resembled a
DC-9 in basic shape, but the wings were very short.  The
craft was pure white and did not appear to have windows
or markings of any kind on the body of the craft."
       "It may have been the time of day, but its wings
were kind of indistinct and shadowy.  But the whole
strange part of this is that the farther-away Cessna was
travelling at a much higher rate of speed than this
object.  This object continued very slowly on its
southerly course.  I have never seen such a large
aircraft fly so slowly.  In fact, it seemed impossible
for a fixed-wing aircraft to do this at all.  There was
no contrail or noise from the object."
       Victoria, B.C. is on the large offshore Vancouver
Island, approximately 200 kilometers (120 miles) south of
the city of Vancouver.  (Many thanks to Canadian
ufologist Brian Vike for this report.)


HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN
NORTHEASTERN BORNEO

       On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 7 p.m., a male
witness in Kota Kinbalu, a port city on the northeastern
tip of the island of Borneo, part of Malaysia's Sabah
province, spotted a UFO hovering over the area.
       The witness reported, "While I was at the factory,
coming out for a smoke, I saw the craft hovering with
lights in the sky.  At first I didn't pay much notice to
it because I thought it would be a helicopter flying
around the area.  Then I realized that the object wasn't
making any sound."
       "It was hovering slowly like a normal helicopter
would do.  But after two minutes looking at the object,
it suddenly disappeared with trails of light following
it.  That is the very last I saw of this object, and that
was when my spine started to shiver."
       "Two days later, the Sabah Express had a front-page
picture of the object."  (See the Sabah Express for
October 10, 2002, "UFO over Kota Kinbalu."  See also
Filer's Files #44 for October 30, 2002.  Many thanks to
George A. Filer for allowing UFO Roundup to reprint this
story.)


ANOTHER MYSTERIOUS WALL
BULGE IN JERUSALEM

       People are calling it "the Armageddon Wall."  That's
because the ancient stone wall that marked the rim of the
Old City of Jerusalem has developed a mysterious
bulge...just like the Wailing Wall a short distance away.
       The Old City wall, located at the foot of the Temple
Mount, had developed "a growing bulge in its structure"
and now "a new bulge has appeared a few dozen meters
away," sparking fears that the wall might collapse and
trigger a landslide on the Temple Mount.
       The Israeli newspaper Ha'aratz quoted archaeologist
Gabriel Barque as saying, "It's only a matter of time.
All you need is a big group up there, and it will cause a
change in the equilibrium" of the Temple Mount.
       "Stones are popping out of the (Old City) wall."
Some Israeli engineers commented that the ancient wall
can no longer support the weight of all the new
construction, plus the stone plaza and the two mosques,
on the Temple Mount.
       Last week, a team of Royal Jordanian engineers
visited the Old City wall to examine both of the bulges.
       This week marks the beginning of the month of
Ramadan, and an estimated 100,000 Muslims are expected to
visit the two mosques located at the top of the Temple
Mount, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
       Barque reportedly told Ha'aratz that a landslide
could damage the mosques "and could be the spark that
causes World War III."
       Occultists have long talked about secret tunnels
inside the Temple Mount itself.  There may be something
to that bit of folklore.
       Long before Joshua and his Hebrews swept out of the
desert and destroyed the ancient indigenous civilization
of Kinanhi (called Canaan in the Bible), Jerusalem was
known as Ursa-limmu.  As opposed to cities like Ai and
Shechem, which were political capitals, Ursa-limmu was
the seat of the Canaanite religion.
       Most of what we know about the traditional religion
of Kinanhi comes from fragmentary clay tablets and
cylinder seals.  We know about the major gods like Baal
and Anath, and minor gods like Gapan, Ugar and Asherah,
and that the sect was ruled by an order of hierophants
who passed on their arcane lore via an oral tradition.
       Between 1930 and 1933, French archaeologists digging
at Ras Shamra-Ugarit in Syria discovered a lengthy epic
written by Elimelech the Shabnite.  He was writing down
verbatim the epic of Baal and Anath, as related by
Attani-puruleni, identified as "Chief of Priests, Lord of
the Temple" in Ursa-limmu.
(Editor's Comment: Although it is not known why Attani-
puruleni chose to share these magickal verses with the
uninitiated.)
       Part of the epic refers to the Temple of the Two
Serpents, which appears to be located inside Jerusalem's
Temple Mount.  The incantation spoken by Attani-puruleni
to the Shabnite scribe sounds a bit like the work of the
Black Circle.


        "If thou smite Lotan, the serpent sinuous,
         Destroy the serpent tortuous,
         Shalyat of the seven heads."

       Later stanzas in the Canaanite epic give directions
to the hidden temple, which appears to be located
underground.

        "With thee Padriya, daughter of Ar;
         With thee, Tatalliya, daughter of Rabb;
         There now, be off on thy way
         Unto the Mount of Kankaniya
         Lift the mount upon thy hands,
         The elevation upon thy palms,
         And descend to the depth of the earth,
         Be of those who descend into earth."

       Somewhere on the Temple Mount is a hidden doorway
that leads to the subterranean Temple of the Two Serpents
built by the Canaanites.  As to the precise location of
the underground temple, no one knows.
       If one or two chambers of the underground Canaanite
temple have collapsed recently, this might explain the
earth shift and resulting bulges in Jerusalem's Old City
wall.  (See the newspaper Ha'aratz for October 30, 2002.
Also the book The goddess Anath by Charles Virolleaud,
Paris, 1938, pages 91 to 102.  Many thanks to Rick Wiles
and Ayesha al-Khatabi for this news story.)
(Editor's Comment: Interestingly, in Hinduism, the seven-
headed serpent stands for Naga, a symbol of the Creator.
It's kind of a surprise to see the same image venerated
by the ancient Canaanites.)


THE METHUSELAH STAR

       "Astronomers have discovered an ancient star near
the center of our galaxy that may shed light on the
universe's composition shortly after it was blasted into
existence by the Big Bang."
       "This cosmic relic is more than 12 billion years
old--about a billion years younger than the universe
itself.  It also has an extremely low metal content, some
1/200,000th of that found in (our) sun.  That is, twenty
times less metal than the previous low-metal star, found
in 1977."
       "The star's age and composition place it among the
second wave of stars that formed after the universe's
violent creation, its discoverers said.  Researchers had
predicted this type of ultra-low-metal star 25 years ago,
but an example eluded them until now."
       "Michael Bessell, an astronomer at Australia's Mount
Stromlo Observatory, said the newly-discovered star arose
from the debris of a first-generation star, so it
contains only a very small amount of heavy elements."
       "'This really traces things back to the very early
stages of the universe because stars are records of that
time.  This is an indicator of those times,' said
Bessell, the star's co-discoverer."
       "The star is described in the current issue of the
journal Nature."
       "Dubbed HE0107-5240, it is 36,000 light-years from
Earth, near the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and is
about four-fifths (80 percent) the size of (our) sun.  It
is in the constellation Pisces but is too dim to be seen
with the naked eye."
(Editor's Note:  Remember, kids, one light-year equals
5.89 trillion miles.  So how far away is HE0107-5240?
Let's see now...36,000 light-years works out to about
212,040,000,000,000,000,000 miles or
339,264,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers.  In other words,
it ain't exactly around the block!)
       "Scientists believe that after the Big Bang, the
universe was composed only of hydrogen, helium and a
trace of lithium--the lightest elements--and that the
other naturally-occurring elements were forged inside
stars, which are essentially gigantic nuclear furnaces."
       "The first generation of stars that formed from the
gas and dust cast outward by the explosion were massive,
fast-burning and short-lived.  When they exploded as
supernovae, they began tainting the universe with the
first doses of the heavier elements.  This debris formed
the (second-generation) stars like HE0107-5240."
(Editor's Comment: Can't they come up with a catchier
name than HE0107-5240? Since this star is so old, why
don't we call it Methuselah?)
       "'It's clear that these very first stars were very
different from present-day stars,' said Volker Bromm of
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in
Cambridge, Mass."  (See the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune
for November 3, 2002, "Ancient star's discovery might
offer clues to the young universe," page 21A.)


OBERG TAKES ON "NASA
MOON HOAX" THEORISTS

       "More than 33 years after the United States landed
men on the moon, NASA is spending more than $15,000 to
convince people that it really did happen and that the
space agency didn't make it all up."
       "Stubborn conspiracy theorists claim that NASA's six
Apollo-program moon landings were faked.  After decades
of belittling and ignoring them, NASA has decided to
fight back."
       The space agency "hired James E. Oberg, a Houston-
based aerospace engineer and award-winning author of 10
books on space, to confront skeptics point by point.
Many scientists have already done that on the Internet,
but skeptics remain unconvinced."
       "'Ignoring it only fans the flames of people who are
naturally suspicious,' Oberg said."
       "Last year, FOX Television twice broadcast a show
entitled: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the
Moon? and NBC's Today Show staged a debate on the topic."
       "Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, recently
punched a conspiracy theorist who had been pestering him
to swear on a stack of Bibles that the landing was real."
       "After the FOX show first aired, NASA put out a one-
paragraph press release titled, 'Apollo: Yes, We Did.'"
       "Yet a 1999 poll found that 11 percent of the
American public doubted the moon landings happened, and
FOX officials said such skepticism increased to about 20
percent after their show, which was seen by about 15
million viewers."
       "Oberg 'has got one hell of a job ahead of him,'
said skeptic Ralph Rene, a New Jersey carpenter who said
he's self-taught in physics and has self-published two
books.  One book claims that the moon landing didn't
happen; the other criticizes Isaac Newton's grasp of
physics.  'I couldn't care less what they do.'"
       "'It's a real shame that it has to be done,' said
Sonoma State University astronomy professor Phil Plait.
'The problem is, if you ignore a problem, it doesn't go
away.'"
       "But confronting conspiracy theorists usually
doesn't convince them, either, said historian Gregory
Camp, author of Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and
End-Times Paranoia."
       "'The true believers in that kind of thing already
have the answers--at least in their eyes,' Camp said,
'It's incredible that a book like that has to be
written.'"  (See the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
November 3, 2002, "NASA battles moon-landing skeptics,"
page 21A.)


LAST CASUALTIES OF
WORLD WAR ONE...
WE HOPE!

       "A French teenager was killed and two children were
injured Wednesday," October 30, 2002, "by a World War I
mortar shell."
       "The children were playing with the shell in a
courtyard in Wettolsheim," near Colmar in France's
department of Haut-Rhin 90 kilometers (54 miles) south of
Strasbourg, "when it exploded."
       "A 14-year-old boy was killed.  His younger brother
was wounded in the leg, and another child was injured."
       "Residents in the region occasionally find buried
shells from the war, which ended" November 11, 1918,
"eighty-four years ago."  (See the Duluth, Minn. News-
Tribune for October 31, 2002, page 2A.)
(Editor's Note:  Last year, leftover World War I gas
shells threatened to wipe out the town of Vimy in
northern France.  For the whole story, see UFO Roundup,
volume 6, number 16, "Blast from the past: World War One
ammo dump threatens French town," page 5.)


  From the UFO Files...

1755: STRANGE EARTHQUAKE

       Saturday, November 1, 1755, was market day in
Lisboa, the capital of Portugal, as it was throughout
that country.  By 9:30 a.m., the pracas of the Cidade
Baixa (Portuguese for Lower City, i.e. the neighborhoods
along the Rio Tagus and the waterfront--J.T.) were full
of vendors hawking wares, children playing and housewives
buying groceries for the coming week.
       Just then, a terremoto (earthquake) shook the
cobblestoned streets.  Bells rang throughout the city's
Roman Catholic churches, and the church spires and palace
towers vibrated as if struck by an invisible hammer.
       One minute passed.  Then a second devastating tremor
struck.  This time, the streets heaved and bucked, and
buildings weakened by the first shock crumbled in showers
of adobe dust and orange clay tiles.  Screams echoed
throughout Lisboa as the vibration continued for a full
two minutes.
       Another two minutes passed.  And, as people began
digging away in the rubble of shattered house facades for
trapped relatives, a third violent shock set the city
trembling from the hilltop heights of Graca to the church
of Sao Nicolau in the Cidade Baixa.  "And a red cloud of
suffocating dust settled fog-like over the ruins" of the
city.
       "One very important and consoling discovery was that
the catastrophe of 1 November (1755) was not a cruelly
sudden stroke that fell without warning; however wicked
they might have been, the (Portuguese) people thought God
should have given them some advance notice of the
punishment to come in order that there might be an
opportunity for repenting; and, in fact, it was found
that Lisbon had been told of the coming disaster by
prophecies to which insufficient attention had been
paid."
       Indeed, the earthquake had been predicted five years
earlier by Sister Maria Joanna, an elderly nun who lived
at the convent in Lourical.  On a summer day in 1750, at
vespers in the early evening, Sister Maria Joanna was
praying in the olive garden when a man in Middle Eastern
robes approached her.  Looking more closely, the nun
gasped out loud.  How many times had she seen that
bearded face on the crucifix in the chapel?  Her visitor
was none other than Jesus Christ.
       Breathless, her heart pounding in excitement, she
blurted, "My Lord!"
       "Carry my message to the people of Portugal, Maria
Joanna," Jesus said, placing his hands on her shoulders.
"I am deeply offended by their wickedness.  Those who
live in Lisboa are the worst of all.  Your countrymen
have feasted well on the fruits of empire.  The wealth of
Africa, South America and the Indies spills onto the
docks of Lisboa.  But an empire built on greed and murder
and injustice is an abomination in My Father's sight.
Urge them to repent, Maria Joanna, for if they do not,
Lisboa will be destroyed in the near future."
       Jesus made other predictions, as well, including one
which was not fulfilled until the early Twentieth
Century.  "Many miracles will be seen in the mountains.
Out of Aljustrel, smallest of the villages around Ourem,
I will summon my disciples."
(Editor's Comment: The three Fatima seers, Lucia Abobora
dos Santos, Francisco Marto and Jacinta Marto, were all
born in Aljustrel.  The envelope, please.  And the winner
of the 1755 Nostradamus Award is...Sister Maria Joanna do
Lourical.)
       During the earthquake itself, people reported an
apparition of the Blessed Virgin..  "It was said that in
the Hieronymite Church in Belem, the figure of Our Lady
was collapsed on the floor at the foot of the Cross,
overcome with grief at the terrible punishment of the
Lisbon people.  She cried aloud, 'It is enough, My Son.
It is enough!'"
       "In the Igreja da Sa (now Lisboa's Cathedral--J.T.)
a raging fire stopped before the 'holy image of Nossa
Senhora a Grande,' leaving her safe in the background
vestibule."  Neither the statue's robes nor the flower
blossoms in her hands were scorched by the flames, which
suddenly and mysteriously extinguished.
       Such were the strange incidents reported in the
Lisboa earthquake of 1755. (See the book The Lisbon
Earthquake by T.D. Kendrick, J.P. Lippincott Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa., 1955, pages 114 to 121.)

       That's it for this week.  We'll be back in seven
days with more UFO, Fortean and paranormal news from
around the planet Earth, brought to you by "the paper
that goes home--UFO Roundup."  See you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2002 by Masinaigan Productions,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from
UFO Roundup on their Websites or in news groups provided
that they credt the newsletter and its editor by name and
list the date of issue in which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                  Freedom-of-Information Appeal - 11-05-02

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:02:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:33:25 -0500
Subject: Freedom-of-Information Appeal - 11-05-02


TO:  Secretary of the Air Force
      ATTN:  General Counsel
      The Pentagon
      Washington, DC  20330-1000

THROUGH:  Chief, National Guard Bureau
           ATTN:  NGB-SDA (Ms. Rose Bird)
           1411 Jefferson Davis Highway
           Arlington, VA  22202-3231

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  November 5, 2002

Referring to your FOIA staffer Deborah Gilmore's letter to me of
Oct. 25, 2002 (by which she declares her agency's denial of my
FOIA request of July 29, 2002, for access to all records
pertaining to, inter alia, the D.C. Air National Guard's 113th
Wing's jet-interceptor pursuit of a mysterious aerial craft on
July 26, 2002), I hereby appeal that denial via this e-formatted
letter (a signed printout of which I'm snail-mailing to you
shortly).

My rationale for this appeal follows:

(1)  Nowhere in Ms. Gilmore's letter (whose content I quote in
the postscript below) does she specify the exact nature,
quantity, and (putative) classification (CONFIDENTIAL?  SECRET?
  TOP SECRET?) of the sought-for "documents" forwarded to her by
(presumably) Andrews AFB personnel.  Her failure to provide such
particulars puts me at a disadvantage in contesting her agency's
decision.  For example, how am I to determine whether the
"documents" include a copy of the 113th Wing's standing
operating procedure on "scrambling" interceptors to pursue and
challenge such mysterious craft as the one detected/pursued near
Waldorf, Md., on July 26th?  What's more, how many of the
Andrews-relayed "documents" pertain to detection/intercept
missions other than the Waldorf case; and what are the dates,
locations, principals, and outcomes of those missions?  If you
continue to withhold those particulars from me, please note that
they doubtless will be ordered releasable when this case
proceeds to judicial review.

(2)  Judging from testimony supplied by certain ground-based
witnesses in the Waldorf area, the startling performance
characteristics and aerial profile of the craft pursued on July
26th point to its identity as a classic "unidentifed flying
object" (as reportable via Joint Army-Navy-Air Publication No.
146) -- one whose origin might well be extraterrestrial.  If the
craft exhibited no hostile intent or other dangerous contact,
then the "documents" would have little or no sensitivity, right?
  On the other hand, if the craft exhibited hostility or behaved
in a threatening manner, then your agency's documentation of
that fact, too, should be releasable so as to better prepare the
public for future E.T.-craft encounters.  In other words, this
crucial information on such a worldwide public issue (presumably
contained or referred to somewhere in the contested "documents")
must yield to the FOIA doctrine of segregability:  you must take
full, proper, and prompt steps toward segregating the
nonclassified portions from the classified portions -- and the
classifiable portions from the nonclassifiable ones.  My reading
of Ms. Gilmore's letter tells me that no-one in her agency has
taken this doctrine into account.

(3)  If any of the FOIA-requested records contain confirmation
(or even supposition) that the pursued craft originated from an
E.T. source, then the releasability of that fact must be weighed
in favor of the public interest (not in favor of continued
government-mandated suppression), lest the public be arbitrarily
denied its stakeholdership in the related decision-making
process.  Determining (and publishing) the extent of that
confirmation/supposition could derive some impetus from your
immediate, full declassification and disclosure of all the
germane "classified" documents cited by Ms. Gilmore.

On the possibility that you will sustain Ms. Gilmore's denial in
whole or in part, I'm furnishing a copy of this appeal to my
attorney, Mark S. Zaid of Washington, D.C.



LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

   Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs - U. S. Senate

   Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary - U. S. Senate

   Editor, the Internet website of http://www.ufocity.com

P.S.  Here's the content of Ms. Gilmore's denial letter of Oct. 25th:

"Dear Mr. Bryant:

"The District of Columbia National Guard has forwarded us
documents and your electronic Freedom of Information Act
request, dated 29 July 2002. You are seeking information
pertaining to the 113th Wing's jet-interceptor pursuit of a
mysterious aerial craft on 26 July 2002. Additionally, you seek
records pertaining to all other such detection/intercept
missions conducted by the 113th Wing during the past 12 months.

"We have finalized your request (case 02-138).  We have reviewed
the documents and have determined the information should be
withheld in its entirety.  The information is considered
classified as it pertains to a military plan or operation.  The
authority for this exemption is found in the Freedom of
Information Act, Title 5, U.S.C. Sec 552(b)(1).

"This announces a decision on behalf of Major General Raymond F.
Rees, U. S. Army, Acting Chief, National Guard Bureau, who is
the Initial Denial Authority for all Army and Air National Guard
Freedom of Information Act requests.

"The decision to withhold release of this information may be
appealed in writing to the Secretary of the Air Force.  Any
appeal should include the reasons for reconsideration, a copy of
this letter, and should be postmarked no later than 60 days from
the date of this letter.  Please address any appeal through
Chief, National Guard Bureau, NGB-SDA (Ms. Rose Bird), 1411
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA  22202-3231 to the
Secretary of the Air Force.

"If you have any questions, please call Ms. Rose Bird at (703)
607-3195.

"Sincerely, Deborah Gilmore (Chief, Support Services Division
[of the
National Guard Bureau])"








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                Have Indian Researchers Found ET Microbes? -

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:42:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:39:11 -0500
Subject: Have Indian Researchers Found ET Microbes? -


Source: UFO India

http://www.ufoindia.org/news_indianet.htm

Stig

***

Have Indian researchers found E.T.?

Posted on Oct 31, 2002 at 2:40 P.M. IST

**

New Delhi - Indian researchers believe they have discovered
traces of extraterrestrial life in the shape of microbes in
samples they collected outside the earth's atmosphere, the Press
Trust of India reported on Monday.

Jayant Narlikar from the Indian Space Research Organisation
announced during a lecture on "The Search For Extraterrestrial
Life" in Nagpur city in Maharashtra state that they had made the
discovery a few weeks ago, but were double-checking their
findings.

"Micro-organisms resembling coccus, fungal and rod-like bacillus
were discovered in samples collected 41 kilometres above the
earth's surface," said Narlikar.

"Biologists are now trying to verify the origin of the micro-
organisms. Whatever may be the source of life, if biologists
confirm the results, it will prove that extraterrestrial life
does exist," he added.

Narlikar said Indian scientists had used a sophisticated gadget
called a cryosampler to conduct the experiment for life in
space.

"This is only the second experiment of its kind in the world.
The United States had conducted a similar study where some
evidences of life were found. It will open a new line of
challenge for the global scientific community," said Narlikar.

Narlikar observed that their sample could contain "microbial
life coming from debris of comets and other celestial objects".

**

Copyright =A9 Prashant Solomon 1999-2002







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:13:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:16:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:36:40 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:28:47 +0000 (GMT)
 >>Subject: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 ><snip>

 >>Anti-Gravity flying triangles coming soon to a store near you!
 >>The primary means of lift is ion propulsion. High energy
 >>ions are ejected from the bottom of the craft which interact
 >>with surrounding air molecules to produce thrust

 ><snip>

 >First I've heard that the electrostatic lift demonstrated by
 >experimenter Townsend Brown is caused by "ions ejected". This
 >could be demonstrated as untrue by enclosing the entire flying
 >triangle in a very thin polyethylene bag, which would prevent
 >downwards ejection of ions, and as long as the bag is very
 >light, the unit should still lift off.

 >Charging a capacitor, once the charging is complete, does not
 >result in a stream of ions.  If it did, an air or vacuum
 >dielectric capacitor would not be able to hold a charge, and air
 >or vacuum capacitors can hold charge.

 >The phrase "interact with surrounding aire molecules to produce
 >thrust" phrase shows that someone is unaware of how even the
 >conventional rocket works.  Ejecting matter at high speed
 >requires no interaction with anything to produce thrust.

 >These claims smack of more disinformation, to prevent the public
 >from understanding that this is genuinely revolutionary
 >technology, and not some sort of 'ion rocket'.


Hi Eleanor,

You are right. However I believe this technology might have more
to do with ion wind and/or eddy current interaction between the
wire and the tinfoil fence. The interaction creates the
reaction.

But the whole thing is bogus unless it can lift its own power
source. So far, that's not the case.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                           Best & Worst of Ufology

From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:04:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:38:41 -0500
Subject: Best & Worst of Ufology


Hi Folks,

Hope everyone is doing well. I'm sending this out asking for
your input on the 5 best and 5 worst UFO cases out there. If
you'd like to ring in, please e-mail me privately with your
thoughts. Thanks!


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

               Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:42:08 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >Tell me Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent astronauts
 >to the Moon or not? On which side of reality do you sit?

 >>Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right up
 >>there with the Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense.

Hi Bob, Dick, and all good List folk,

The question asked by Bob is like the question have you stopped
beating your wife lately - answer yes or no. That is a leading
question, and is hardly applicable in any court. These hard
differentiations Bob prefers for his version of the real are
largely meaningless in a postmodern age where science is
evolving into a huge cyberspace gaming system rather than being
in pursuit of the old industrial  idea of objective tangible
goals. But then there are still people around who believe that
the world of appearances is totally real:

they believe that doctors cure, policemen protect, politicians
govern, scientists discover things, and priests leads us to God.
Like the skeptics versus believers game, those who oppose the
original moon landing split into hot and cool parts. The hot
believe that the scientists and astronauts were on a Hollywood
set, but I propose a more sophisticated approach based on the
question do the scientists themselves consider that it was real?
They used screens to carve images in one another's head, as did
I.

This making of images is a continuous process industry like the
production of cement, or soap operas, both almost
indistinguishable.

And of course there is no OFF switch. We live in a cultural
fluid whose dynamic structure consists of acts of imagining.
Media being pure mind, we manage mysteries rather than solve
them, In this sense is anything absolutely real? Though
scientists are completely familiar with the idea of absolute
temperature for example, or the limit in the calculus as a kind
of mathematical hoax in order to engineer round and not solve a
particular problem, scientists accept the idea of the objective
real as if it were something that really didn't need any
thinking about. But electricity, magnetism and gravity are
metaphors.

Their absolute nature, like the fire at the back of Plato's
prisoners that they can never see, is ineffable. What science
does deal with far more than its much-vaunted reality is
frequency of phenomena.

The mysteries of electricity, magnetism and gravity are of
course much more stable and predictable than the appearances of
say, the Virgin Mary or the UFO, or even a hollow earth, and
outsider within the octave of appearances if ever there if ever
there was. We may therefore talk of management of mysteries
rather solving them. A thing that occurs more often than another
thing is in scientific terms more true than the second thing.
But rather do we choose those mysteries we can handle than those
we could not, for whatever reason.

Frequency is a far more important concept than reality.
Frequency tells us that levels of reality are part of a ratings
war for the prime-time advertising frames of conscious
realization. In this war the UFO is just beginning to feel its
feet with increased frequency, but the Virgin Mary bless her is
lagging far behind the Loch Ness Monster. Oh yes, eventually we
will get what we really want. The greatest evidence for contact
is that we have appeared as aliens to others. But after the
landing, whatever steps out on the ramp to greet us will of
course have its own agendas, super-suggestions, just as many
automated denial-schedules, and will undoubtedly be stuffed full
of media and advertisements as are we. As John Keel (who wrote
the Foreword to my recent book) said, the aliens are the liars,
not the contactees. In the Cargo Cult sense, we lied to natives
not out of ill-will, but because we had no choice. What could we
do? We still do not understand our own product-social-relations
media equations ourselves, never mind explain them to loincloth
folk.

As I pointed out in a recent article in Philosophy Now,
Faraday's lines of force are conventions we use in order to
engineer our way around mysteries rather than solve them. Does
Bob think that tremendous events have a simple non-anomalous
linear reality? Books could be filled with the multiple
anomalies of the Moon landing, but I will point out just one -
  let Bob consider say, the very strange motion of the LEM before
landing as described by Norman Mailer in A Fire on the Moon.
People and events are actors in a cultural petri-dish, and they
paint on cave walls just as does everyone else. Let Bob read the
chapter The Search for Oswald in my recently published book,
Politics of the Imagination, and he will realize that absolute
reality like absolute temperature is a theoretical possibility
realizable only in the impossible limit.

Being somewhat over twenty one, unlike most believers, I almost-
witnessed the almost-event myself in almost-real time. I say
almost because I did not of course see every single second of
420-line low-definition grainy pixels that were all that was
available to me by means of UHF preamplifiers on an ancient
1960s black and white TV (with a pink screen!) perched on top of
a temperamental cheap refrigerator whose reluctant generator
blew Aldrin and the LEM into smithereens many times. Over thirty
years later this heap of decaying pixels remains in my head as
tremendously significant experience of varying degrees of
reality. What remains of these is smell, touch and atmosphere of
the fabrics and moods and tensions and expectations of this past
era. The moon landing still gives me overwhelming nostalgia for
the baked paxolin smell of old circuit boards I was
experimenting with myself at the time, as a mad young man very
much on the loose. Through intense mystical subjectivities we
enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have
not come across one. Perhaps I only use facts to pull on my
socks in the morning. I certainly do not use them for the higher
inspirations. I am not interested in the weight or bra-size of
the Mona Lisa, or there being no sociology or statistics in
Churchill's History of the English Speaking People - both are
heart-felt mystical appreciations of historical periods through
which a time-system can be entered, and that is as as good a
definition of the first Moon shot as any I have heard. Instead
of being a dirty word for an unclean concept, we should be more
ready to accept product-mysticism as a perfectly valid element
of experience, an example of which is Warhol's Campbell's Soup
tin.

As many famous scientists (see Arthur Koestler's book The
Sleepwalkers), themselves have said, mystical subjective
insights lead us beyond the world of appearances and the bland
PR fronts of science into zeitgeist, into era forces, and into
those elemental conspiracies by means of which all control
cultures are made. Kepler and Copernicus had fantasy-prone
intellects, as and we now know, Newton himself spent more time
in his alchemical laboratory than he did with his calculations.
In vain does science try and propagandize itself as Mr. Clean.
Lift the scientific stone, and we have a modern phantasmagoria
equal to any painting by Hieronymous Bosche.

We surely have to accept that pure unadulterated media is now
the building-stuff of Western culture, for better or for worse.
If we were more honest with ourselves, we would admit that there
is no absolute factual reality, but degrees of experience, both
collective and individual. For instance, I myself could accept
that parts of the first moon landing were almost real. The
hauntingly beautiful impression of the first moon footprint made
technological power into an art form for our age, making spoilt-
brat daubs look absolutely silly. Our architecture proper is
absolutely abysmal, but our science truly amazing. But again,
seen as art form, the reality of scientific discoveries is
irrelevant. In this sense, science can be deconstructed as
profitably as can the faces of Garbo, Dietrich, Robert
Oppenheimer, or even George Bush. We mentally navigate by such
icons, and the facts cannot possibly compete with their emotive
power. Like the media stars, science is not objective, it is our
very gut, mind, and destiny, for better or for worse. My final
answer to both Bob and Dick is this: Both saw a moon landing. I
didn't see a moon landing. For me such a landing didn't happen.
It was a very weak reality. Like Norman Mailer, all I saw was a
WASP cathedral being built. That's what I saw.

The strongest reality always lies in what we are not being told.

In this sense, all consciousness is part imposture. The landing
was a weak reality. Alas, we navigate mentally by such
hallucinatory simulations as "reality" in all its strengths and
weaknesses. The implicit conspiracy (the building of the said
cathedral) is always the closest approximation to the real. The
explicit conspiracy is always a PR front, like the changing of
the Guard at Buckingham Palace.

That tells us just as much about Britain and Royalty as the moon
landing official line tells us about America.


Colin Bennett








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:34:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 ><snip>

 >>>NASA has always been a publisher of books and other educational
 >>>materials disseminating the fundings of space research. Who do
 >>>you think wrote those books? Authors.

 >>I assume by "fundings" you meant to say "findings,"

 >Dick,

 >Yes, sorry, my index finger just twitched.

 >>but please give me the title of one (1) (uno) BOOK that NASA (as an
 >>organization; not some past NASA employee) authored.

 >I believe that I said, "publisher", and that "authors" wrote
 >them.

 >>Technical reports, sure (I am a past technical editor of many U.S.
 >>Government reports). But to the best of my knowledge, not books

 >Well, I just grabbed one off of my shelf, "On Mars - Exploration
 >of the Red Planet 1958-1978", published by NASA as part of the
 >NASA History Series. It's authors are Edward Clinton Ezell and
 >Linda Neuman Ezell, the former a curator at the Smithsonian and
 >the latter a Graduate student at George Washington Univ., at the
 >time of publication. Edward Ezell had been historian at the
 >Johnson Space Flight Center beginning in 1980.

 >The work is a hefty 535 page paperback, which certainly
 >qualifies as a "book" as far as I can tell. On the last page is
 >a list of 22 other books published in the series.

 >>and especially not on controversial subjects.

 >Well, it covered the issue of whether the Viking science
 >experiments really found evidence of life or just chemistry,
 >citing Gil Levin for the latter and other participants for the
 >consensus.

 >One can't get much more controversy than that - in science that
 >is. "Did the experiment find life or didn't it?"

 ><snip>

 >>You do not seem to be aware of Charles Fort and
 >>his writings and world view. Are you?

 >I am familiar with the genre. One of the NASA history series, on
 >NASA sounding rockets, was authored by William R. Corliss. I've
 >got a couple of his forteana-packed volumes. They make good
 >bookends for my shelf of UFOria authored by people like the
 >late, great Donald Menzel, Uncle Phil, Bob Sheaffer, Ray Craig,
 >Allan Hendry, Otto Bilig, Sagan, Ol' Doc Condon - my, my they
 >just goes on and on.


Hi Bob,

There's nothing to it, but I'm not supposed to reach a
conclusion for another year.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:39:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:16:11 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Maccabee



 >Source: BBC Kent

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/have_your_say/news/ufo.shtml

 >UFO footage sparks fresh ET debate

 >Monday 4 November, 2002

 >From lights in the sky to flying saucers - UFOs come in various
 >guises. But are they the product of alien life, natural
 >phenomena or just a vivid imagination?

<snip>

 >The footage has aroused the interest of UFO enthusiasts. So what
 >could it be? Well, some people think it could be a balloon or
 >some other simple explanation... What do you think?

-----

 >Watch actual footage taken by Brighton Police over the Sussex
 >skies... click here:

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram


I looked. Lousiest video I've ever seen. Could barely make out a
few words ("strangest thing I've ever seen" or something like
that). Unless the video can be improved it shows nothing other
than that some light was seen, I guess at night.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                       Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Printy

From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:08:10 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:19:27 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Printy


 >From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:41:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks

 >I am not even going to bother quoting this long
 >tirade from math challenged Tim Printy, who made a
 >grave mistake taking me on when he doesn't know
 >what he is talking about.

I am not sure what you mean by a "grave mistake". Is it because
you felt that you could not be wrong and people should not
challenge your claims? I may be math challenged but I am still
trying to figure out how you measured 34 miles on the 1997
figure (Note: Rudiak lists this value as 31 miles on his
website)?

 >Printy's phony map "measurements" with all the
 >bogus decimals are deceptively done on PRINTY's
 >MAP locations rather than on MOORE's MAP
 >locations, and are completely invalid and irrelevant
 >to my measurements on Moore's maps.

Hmmm... I am not sure what you mean by Printy's map. I
apparently used the same maps as you. That is, the maps
published in Pflock's book, the Moore/Saler/ Ziegler book, and
the 1994 USAF report. Are there others that I am not aware of?
Perhaps you can present them for us to examine. Otherwise, my
values are not invalid or irrelevant until you can show that
they are. Is this rebuttal by declaration? Are you suggesting
that Rudiak's 31 miles is "phony" as well since it disagrees
with your 34 miles?

 >Just take your rulers out folks and make the
 >measurements on Moore's maps and see if I am right.
 >Post your results here.

Please do. I stand by my measurements. Just don't use some ruler
that you take out of a crayon box.

 >Printy does not explain why, if my 10-11-mile distance
 >measurements on Moore's false maps are supposedly
 >misleading, does Moore say in 2002 that the balloon
 >passed 15-20 MILES FROM ROSWELL BASE????

Since you have not stated what the context of this statement was
and since I have not seen a direct quote, I can't make a
comment. If this is what you say he said, how am I to contest
it? What is important is the information that was presented
publicly for all to examine.

 >The map falsification issue is simple: Contrary to
 >Printy who doesn't even know the basic facts about
 >authorship of the reports in question, C. B. Moore was
 >lead author of the 1948 NYU report

Not so simple but you seem to want to think that way.
The report was "prepared" by three individuals, one of
which was Moore. This does not make Moore the
producer of the map. Moore clearly states in his book
that others were creating these plots, which is why he
corrected them. J.R. Smith (one of the three individuals
who is named) seems to be responsible for these plots
based on the 1949 summary of flights paper that he
solely prepared and includes maps/plots.


 >in 1995 and 1997 Moore falsely claimed to
 >"REPRODUCE" a map from the 1948 report
 >"WITHOUT CHANGE."

Hmmm... are you sure it says he reproduced the map? I don't
think so. The actual statement is:

"The plot for Flight #5 was taken without change from figure
32..."

Note the word plot and not map. Some people might uses these in
the same context and others might use them differently. They way
it appears to read is that Moore took the values of the flight
path from figure 32 and transcribed them to his larger scale
chart he was using. You will have to ask him. However, it seems
a reasonable interpretation. Why he would have to include RAAF
on his map is beyond me but you seem to see something nefarious
in this. Was he supposed to include Cloudcroft as well, since it
was also on figure 32?

 >Moore could not possibly have traced the "Roswell"
 >dot from the old map or photocopied the dot's location,
 >he actually MOVED the dot's location.

So you seem to think. Considering that his map shows scales of X
and Y, it would not be hard to transcribe the points for the
flightpath in figure 32 onto his map. For some reason you think
he "traced" these values. Moore seems to have taken a different
path to reproduce the flight path

 >Moore has to falsify map evidence to make it seem
 >unlikely that Roswell tower personnel saw the 657-foot
 >balloon in the bright morning sun with a B-17 bomber
 >chasing it weeks before Brazel's find.

Hmm... is it a fact that people were in the tower that morning?
Were flight operations occurring? Were there designated
personnel for sweeping the skies for unusual aircraft? I am not
sure this was the case. Recall that it is peacetime and 1947. If
I recall correctly, there was no long-range radar (or apparently
any radar) at RAAF at the time. The balloon itself was not 657
feet long or wide. It was a series of balloons, all about 15-
feet in diameter connected by a line. Seeing such a set of small
objects from the distances described, would have been difficult
for a casual observer and also difficult for those in the tower,
who may have been busy doing something else. Speculation that
they must have seen the flight is not evidence that they did and
there is no evidence to suggest that if they saw the flight that
they even reported it to senior base personnel.

 >Why did Moore mislead and say he had
 >REPRODUCED" the map "WITHOUT CHANGE"?

Because he never used the word "map" but I wouldn't expect you
to understand this since you seemed convinced that you are
right. Instead, you are convinced that, before anybody even
mentioned it, Moore figured that he would have to alter his maps
to divert everyone's attention from flight #5's pass near the
base.

 >Printy his flunky apologist...

I thought this was supposed to be a civil debate but here you
are resorting to name-calling.

 >The rest of Printy's math falsehoods will be dealt with
 >later.

Most people refer to mathmatical errors as that and not
falsehoods. Does this mean your measurements, if proven
incorrect, are "falsehoods" instead of mistakes? I make no
claims that my calculations are 100% accurate but I do wonder
how you make claims about certain values without any supporting
documentation.


Tim Printy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

               Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:15:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:21:39 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate - Hebert


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:35 AM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO Footage Sparks Fresh ET Debate


 >Source: BBC Kent

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/have_your_say/news/ufo.shtml

 >UFO footage sparks fresh ET debate

<snip>

 >The footage has aroused the interest of UFO enthusiasts. So what
 >could it be? Well, some people think it could be a balloon or
 >some other simple explanation... What do you think?


Probably a UAV.

A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                       Kinross Incident Museum Exhibit

From: Gord Heath <gwheath@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 23:57:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:24:51 -0500
Subject: Kinross Incident Museum Exhibit


As part of an ongoing investigation into the 'Kinross Incident'
(unsolved dissappearance of F-89 pursueing UFO over Lake
Superior , dispatched from Kinross AFB near Sault Ste. Marie,
Nov. 23rd, 1953), I recently visited Moreauville, Louisiana
which is the hometown of pilot 1st Lt. Felix Eugene Moncla Jr.
(Gene).

I was there to contact his relatives and find out there
remembrance of the pilot involved.

While there I met a Carlos Mayeaux, who is the president of La
Commission de Avoyelles, which is trying to establish a
historical museum in Moreauville. He indicated interest in the
possible inclusion of an exhibit in the proposed museum dealing
with the unsolved dissappearance of Lt. Moncla in the previously
mentioned incident. Lt. Moncla was a native of Moreauville who
resided next door to the proposed museum sire. His memorial
which refers to his unsolved dissappearance while chasing a UFO
over Lake Superior, is located near his mother's grave in Sacred
Heart Cemetery, a short walk down the street.

I have indicated my interest in helping with this effort, and
toward this goal I am soliciting all UFO investigators who have
any relevant material that may help to document this story to
the public.

I am of course particularly interested in any original material
that may be out their in peoples collections/files that relates
to this incident.

I am also continueing my personal investigation of this incident
so I am interested in any information or other material that
might be relevant to this incident.

Please contact me if you feel you may be able to assist in this
venture.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                           Black Projects Come Out

From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:52:50 -0500
Subject: Black Projects Come Out


Dear All,

Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
of production.

We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
seen the light of day.....

Tim Matthews.

-----

Source: The New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992946


TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
By David Windle
New Scientist
October 21, 2002

A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
aviation world by surprise, after a low key unveiling in St
Louis, Missouri. It may look like it flew straight off the
screen of a sci-fi movie, but the Bird of Prey is no flight of
fancy - it could translate into serious business for its makers,
aerospace giant Boeing.

"Here we have an example of a classic 'black' programme: an
aircraft which has been built and flight tested for a number of
years - and no one outside the programme knew about it," says
Nick Cook, aerospace consultant to Janes Defence Weekly. Other
highly classified aircraft that have ultimately been revealed
included the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes and the B-2 stealth
bomber.



The Bird of Prey cost $67 million and is the product of Boeing's
advanced research and development division, the Phantom Works.
It first flew in 1996 and is said to have demonstrated a range
of stealth and production technologies. It is a single seat,
single engine design and with a reported maximum altitude of
6100 metres (20,000 feet). Its top speed is a relatively sedate
480 km/h (300 mph).

The unconventional configuration of the Bird of Prey suggests it
has been designed to be highly agile and stealthy. But even
though the aircraft itself has been revealed to the public, the
stealth systems designed to suppress acoustic, infra-red, radar
and even visual signatures are likely to be as highly classified
as ever. Sources suggest they may include active camouflage
systems to reduce visibility by using panels or coatings that
change colour or luminosity. This could allow safe combat
missions in daylight, rather than being restricted to night
flying. "And that would represent a revolutionary milestone in
aerial warfare," says Cook.

It is known that such technologies have been studied for several
years, most probably at the remote test site in the Nevada
desert near Groom Lake, better known as Area 51. This was also
the probable location for the Bird of Prey's 38 test flights.

A key aspect of the project was that the aircraft would be
inexpensive to build. Phantom Works engineers say they used
disposable tooling and 3-D virtual reality for its design and
assembly.

It has not been confirmed whether the Bird of Prey was
ultimately intended to be manned or unmanned. But the aircraft
has clearly had a major influence in the design of Boeing's
unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator, the X-45. Two
of these pilotless combat planes are currently undergoing test
flights.

Armed UCAVs are among the hottest projects in military aviation,
having the obvious advantage of not risking life, as well as
being cheaper than manned aircraft.

Cook is not surprised that the Bird of Prey was at least
initially a manned aircraft, as this helps gather performance
data. "You may be sure that lessons learned from this programme
will find their way into both manned and unmanned aircraft, not
simply in terms of flight characteristics, but crucially in the
method of design and production," he says. And any company that
steals a lead on its UCAV competitors stands to win very
lucrative development and production contracts in the future.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                         Notice From The Why? Files

From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:21:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:55:31 -0500
Subject: Notice From The Why? Files

Please note that, despite the opinions of some people, 'The
Moon Files' at:

http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

do _not_ support the concept that NASA 'faked' the moon
landings.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:38:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:58:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:13:42 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:36:40 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

<snip>

 >You are right. However I believe this technology might have more
 >to do with ion wind and/or eddy current interaction between the
 >wire and the tinfoil fence. The interaction creates the
 >reaction.

I don't believe that. A capacitor having been fully charged does
_not_ have "ion wind" in the vicinty of its plates. If it did,
an air or vacuum dielectric capacitor would very rapidly
_discharge_.

Furthermore, all the structural elements of the model triangle
are vertical, and as any pilot knows, a vertical surface does
not produce vertical lift even if there were "ion currents"
flowing.

There is a simple way to test this - enclose the device in the
thinnest possible poly bag - depending on how much lift the
device produces, Saran Wrap might do. If it still lifts, then
the lift has nothing at all to with "ion currents". Because air
and vacuum capacitors can hold charge, I'm betting it's not
anything as conventional as "ion currents". I hope someone with
the cash to try this will do so, because if this _is_ a
revolutionary lifting principle, and does not depend on "ion
currents", it would be the _single_ _biggest_boost_to_UFOlogy_
in a very long time!

Such a demonstration of non-dependence on ion currents would
smash any disinformational spin that cover up elements may try
to use.

 >But the whole thing is bogus unless it can lift its own power
 >source. So far, that's not the case.

That's at 20 Kv. Try 20 _M_v using an extremely strong
dielectric, and several alternating layers, with the charge
being applied across each layer.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:31:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:08:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:38:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:13:42 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:36:40 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 ><snip>

 >>You are right. However I believe this technology might have more
 >>to do with ion wind and/or eddy current interaction between the
 >>wire and the tinfoil fence. The interaction creates the
 >>reaction.

 >I don't believe that. A capacitor having been fully charged does
 >_not_ have "ion wind" in the vicinty of its plates. If it did,
 >an air or vacuum dielectric capacitor would very rapidly
 >_discharge_.

 >Furthermore, all the structural elements of the model triangle
 >are vertical, and as any pilot knows, a vertical surface does
 >not produce vertical lift even if there were "ion currents"
 >flowing.

 >There is a simple way to test this - enclose the device in the
 >thinnest possible poly bag - depending on how much lift the
 >device produces, Saran Wrap might do. If it still lifts, then
 >the lift has nothing at all to with "ion currents". Because air
 >and vacuum capacitors can hold charge, I'm betting it's not
 >anything as conventional as "ion currents". I hope someone with
 >the cash to try this will do so, because if this _is_ a
 >revolutionary lifting principle, and does not depend on "ion
 >currents", it would be the _single_ _biggest_boost_to_UFOlogy_
 >in a very long time!

 >Such a demonstration of non-dependence on ion currents would
 >smash any disinformational spin that cover up elements may try
 >to use.

 >>But the whole thing is bogus unless it can lift its own power
 >>source. So far, that's not the case.

 >That's at 20 Kv. Try 20 _M_v using an extremely strong
 >dielectric, and several alternating layers, with the charge
 >being applied across each layer.


Hi Eleanor,

Quickly [and perhaps unclearly] because I've gotta get to
work.....

I don't pretend to be a wizard in electronics or physics. I am a
pilot as a matter of fact. I think we are talking apples and
oranges here. I'm not suggesting that the reaction here is one
that mimics pull or push like a prop or a jet/rocket but pure
reactive forces. The fact that there might be eddy currents or
ion winds created might result in an opposite reaction to the
flow, not as a push or a pull. Capacitive reactance has a charge
and decay time-so there's a neutral point where nothing is
happening.

Again, the process is bogus until you get the power source
aboard-otherwise it's not much more useful than blowing on a
feather. The feather moves but there is a great deal of energy
being wasted to do so and it's a powerful and outside source.

Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:15:45 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000
 >Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>Tell me Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent astronauts
 >>to the Moon or not? On which side of reality do you sit?

 >>>Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right up
 >>>there with the Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense.

 >Hi Bob, Dick, and all good List folk,

 >The question asked by Bob is like the question have you stopped
 >beating your wife lately - answer yes or no. That is a leading
 >question, and is hardly applicable in any court. These hard
 >differentiations Bob prefers for his version of the real are
 >largely meaningless in a postmodern age where science is
 >evolving into a huge cyberspace gaming system rather than being
 >in pursuit of the old industrial idea of objective tangible
 >goals. But then there are still people around who believe that
 >the world of appearances is totally real:

 >they believe that doctors cure, policemen protect, politicians
 >govern, scientists discover things, and priests leads us to God.
 >Like the skeptics versus believers game, those who oppose the
 >original moon landing split into hot and cool parts. The hot
 >believe that the scientists and astronauts were on a Hollywood
 >set, but I propose a more sophisticated approach based on the
 >question do the scientists themselves consider that it was real?
 >They used screens to carve images in one another's head, as did
 >I.

 >This making of images is a continuous process industry like the
 >production of cement, or soap operas, both almost
 >indistinguishable.

 >And of course there is no OFF switch.

Fortunately, there is a delete "switch" so I have removed a lot
of this 'monotribe' or 'word salad' to get to the hard core of
'fact'.- according to Colin.

 > Through intense mystical subjectivities we
 >enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have
 >not come across one.

A delusionary or pseudo - solipsist?

"I think, therefore, I am!"

..... I think.

(But maybe I'm wrong....)"

At any rate, my 'self' is the only thing that exists. All else
is a 'dream'.

<snip>

 >We surely have to accept that pure unadulterated media is now
 >the building-stuff of Western culture, for better or for worse.
 >If we were more honest with ourselves, we would admit that there
 >is no absolute factual reality, but degrees of experience, both
 >collective and individual.

Fine. No absolute reality because each person has experiences...
are experiences real? No, they are only '"experiences'.

Hence I suppose the experience of a moon landing could be as
real as anything else. The question then would be, did any
person whom you would classify as 'reliable', experience the
space program in the 1950s and 60's that included designing
rockets, making them bigger and bigger and including human
passengers along with electronic instruments? Here "reliable"
means that you would experience 'belief' when you experience a
reliable person telling you that he/she experienced events
like... "10,9,8,7... 3,2,1 Lift-Off" after which the person
experienced added weight due to acceleration, experienced seeing
the ground receding from view, experienced seeing the whole disc
of the earth silhouetted against the darkest deep space,
experienced seeing the disc of the moon increase in size,
experienced deceleration and stopping (on the moon), experienced
golf on the moon, and so on... and on... (and experienced the
return to earth)

 >For instance, I myself could accept
 >that parts of the first moon landing were almost real. The
 >hauntingly beautiful impression of the first moon footprint made
 >technological power into an art form for our age, making spoilt-
 >brat daubs look absolutely silly. Our architecture proper is
 >absolutely abysmal, but our science truly amazing. But again,
 >seen as art form, the reality of scientific discoveries is
 >irrelevant. In this sense, science can be deconstructed as
 >profitably as can the faces of Garbo, Dietrich, Robert
 >Oppenheimer, or even George Bush. We mentally navigate by such
 >icons, and the facts cannot possibly compete with their emotive
 >power. Like the media stars, science is not objective, it is our
 >very gut, mind, and destiny, for better or for worse. My final
 >answer to both Bob and Dick is this: Both saw a moon landing. I
 >didn't see a moon landing. For me such a landing didn't happen.
 >It was a very weak reality. Like Norman Mailer, all I saw was a
 >WASP cathedral being built. That's what I saw.

If one were to pursue this to obtain a 'logical' conclusion one
should start with the following question for Colin (and noting
that the subject is the space program and not any other topic),
what, if any part of the space program do you accept as 'real'
in any sense? a) the late 1950's rockets that orbited the
original satellites? b) the initial manned orbit programs in
Russia and the US c) the Gemini program (2 at a time) d) the
Apollo program (before the moon landing)

Or were these all 'fig newtons of the imagination' strongly
supplemented by Hollywood level set construction and acting? (Is
the installation at Cape Canaveral/Kennedy/Canaveral real or
only an "experience."?)


 >The strongest reality always lies in what we are not being told.

You mean you experience the 'idea' that there are things which
others know but they aren't telling you? But isn't this only an
"experience" that you can't prove without knowing what they
won't tell you?

 >In this sense, all consciousness is part imposture. The landing
 >was a weak reality.

Was quite a strong reality... ooops, experience... for those who
actually did it!

 >Alas, we navigate mentally by such
 >hallucinatory simulations as "reality" in all its strengths and
 >weaknesses.

Yes, if it weren't for the hallucinatory internet we wouldn't
all be reading these semi/pseudo-profound thoughts about the
non-reality of anything that isn't experienced.

 >The implicit conspiracy (the building of the said
 >cathedral) is always the closest approximation to the real. The
 >explicit conspiracy is always a PR front, like the changing of
 >the Guard at Buckingham Palace.

 >That tells us just as much about Britain and Royalty as the moon
 >landing official line tells us about America.

Colin argues that the moon landing was a "weak reality." And I
would argue, therefore, that 'proof' of a _non_-landing is an
even weaker '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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                   Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:00:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:19:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Velez


 >From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:21:58 -0000
 >Subject: Notice From The Why? Files

 >Please note that, despite the opinions of some people, 'The
 >Moon Files' at:

 >http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

 >do _not_ support the concept that NASA 'faked' the moon
 >landings.

Hiya Geoff,

The 'Moon Files' at the 'Why Files' website is an entertaining
and informative web presentation. I highly recommend a visit to
all UpDates Listers who may be interested in the current
discussion about Lunar anomalies.

Geoff, anybody who is interpreting the  material you have posted
on your website (the Moon Files) as having anything to do with
supporting all the bluster about the 'faked' Moon landings, is
basically attempting to cram two pounds of baloney into a one
pound bag. Ignore it/blow it off.

Nice job on the website. I enjoyed my visit to your 'Why Files'.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                     Re: Black Projects Come Out - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:01:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:21:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - White


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

<snip>

 >TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >By David Windle
 >New Scientist
 >October 21, 2002

 >A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >aviation world by surprise,

<snip>

Can a "bat winged jet" take off vertically, hover silently, make
right angle turns at supersonic speed, give off all colours of
lights, appear out of nowhere and disappear to nowhere?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                   Re: Notice From The Why? Files - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:02:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:28:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Notice From The Why? Files - White

 >From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:21:58 -0000
 >Subject: Notice From The Why? Files

 >Please note that, despite the opinions of some people, 'The
 >Moon Files' at:

 >http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

 >do _not_ support the concept that NASA 'faked' the moon
 >landings.

The moon is about 30 Earth-diameters away, and has a substantial
gravitational pull, assisting rocket travel.  The feasibility of
space travel has been constantly demonstrated, including amazing
photo visits to the other planets.

Watching the trajectory of the moon dust off the wheels of the
lunar rover vehicles showed all the earmarks of being in a
vacuum, not a desert location in the southwest U.S.

It's hard to imagine that anyone could think travel to the moon
is such a big deal that NASA would fake it.


Eleanor White






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                     Re: Black Projects Come Out - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:10:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:31:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Velez


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....

 >Tim Matthews.

 >-----

 >Source: The New Scientist

 >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992946

 >TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >By David Windle
 >New Scientist
 >October 21, 2002

 >A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >aviation world by surprise, after a low key unveiling in St
 >Louis, Missouri. It may look like it flew straight off the
 >screen of a sci-fi movie, but the Bird of Prey is no flight of
 >fancy - it could translate into serious business for its makers,
 >aerospace giant Boeing.

Hi Tim,

With all due respect... don't you think it's a little 'early' in
the proceedings to break out the confetti and champagne? All
that is being announced here is a 'bat-winged stealth jet.'

Although you 'may be' quite correct in your assumption, I don't
see how this one configuration, even if it is able to hover and
maneuver like a classic 'UFO,' (of which no mention is made)
somehow provides an explanation for, as you say, 'many of the
better UFO sightings.'  (?)

In fact, the only reported sighting of such an object that I can
recall, involved a photograph of a bat-winged object that later
proved to be the result of a focus/lens aberration. I 'think' it
was Bruce who sussed that one out.

Unless many of the 'better' UFO sightings involve a 'bat-winged'
object, I don't see the relevance. Much less, cause to
celebrate. As much as many of us would like it to be otherwise,
- the jury is still out on UFOs.

Save the party-hats and bubbly for a later date. We're still
light-years away from having any solid or reliable answers to
_any_ of this UFO business. Unfortunately for us all.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:32:52 UT
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:35:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Hamilton


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....

How could anyone mistake this for a UFO?

It is a jet airplane like all the ones I have seen tested over
the Antelope Valley (Aerospace Valley) where I live in
California.

If it was big, glowed around the perimeter, and could execute
zig-zag manuevers, instant path reversals, and appear and
disappear... well, then I would have to call it a UFO.


Bill H








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                       Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:45:53 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:38:23 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Morton


 >From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:08:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Printy

 >>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:41:06 EST
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks

 >>I am not even going to bother quoting this long
 >>tirade from math challenged Tim Printy, who made a
 >>grave mistake taking me on when he doesn't know
 >>what he is talking about.

 >I am not sure what you mean by a "grave mistake". Is it because
 >you felt that you could not be wrong and people should not
 >challenge your claims? I may be math challenged but I am still
 >trying to figure out how you measured 34 miles on the 1997
 >figure (Note: Rudiak lists this value as 31 miles on his
 >website)?

 >>Printy's phony map "measurements" with all the
 >>bogus decimals are deceptively done on PRINTY's
 >>MAP locations rather than on MOORE's MAP
 >>locations, and are completely invalid and irrelevant
 >>to my measurements on Moore's maps.

 >Hmmm... I am not sure what you mean by Printy's map. I
 >apparently used the same maps as you. That is, the maps
 >published in Pflock's book, the Moore/Saler/ Ziegler book, and
 >the 1994 USAF report. Are there others that I am not aware of?
 >Perhaps you can present them for us to examine. Otherwise, my
 >values are not invalid or irrelevant until you can show that
 >they are. Is this rebuttal by declaration? Are you suggesting
 >that Rudiak's 31 miles is "phony" as well since it disagrees
 >with your 34 miles?

 >>Just take your rulers out folks and make the
 >>measurements on Moore's maps and see if I am right.
 >>Post your results here.

 >Please do. I stand by my measurements. Just don't use some ruler
 >that you take out of a crayon box.


Could someone just scan the maps, label them (title, author(s),
date, page, figure number), and throw them up on a website?
Remind us again where we're measuring "from" and "to"... Then we
can all print them and take out our rulers and measure. I would
think that measuring within a few tenths of a mile would be
close enough for this issue...

Listing the measurements published or posted for each map by
Moore, Sparks and Printy wouldn't hurt, either.


Dave Morton






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                          Filer's Files #45 - 2002

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:41:30 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


FILER'S FILES #45 -- 2002, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,  Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 6, 2002,  Majorstar@aol.com. Webmaster: Chuck
Warren -- My new website is at  http://www.filersfiles-ufo.com

SIGHTINGS CONTINUE WORLDWIDE

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space.

Features this week are: Colony Earth has traces of
extraterrestrial life, New York UFO video, Connecticut white
flying triangle, Pennsylvania UFO emits beam, Florida UFO
videotaped, Ohio disk, Wisconsin 26 lights, Illinois V shaped
formation of lights, California submarine shaped UFO, Washington
disk, Canadian UFO photos, Scotland cigar, England green lights,
Spain investigates underwater noises, Ukraine circular hovering
disk, Mr. Bassett the First UFO candidate for the House of
Representatives loses.  His campaign represented a milestone in
American politics as the first person to appear on any federal
or gubernatorial, general election ballot who speaks to the fact
of an extraterrestrial presence manifest about the planet.
Announcing our the Grand Opening of our website with 100 stores
for you to choose for all your Holiday shopping at fantastic
prices. FILER.unfranchise.com

COLONY EARTH HAS TRACES OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

NEW DELHI - Indian researchers believe they have discovered
traces of extraterrestrial life in the shape of microbes in
samples they collected outside the earth's atmosphere, the Press
Trust of India reported yesterday.  Jayant Narlikar from the
Indian Space Research Organization announced during a lecture on
"The Search For Extraterrestrial Life" in Nagpur city in
Maharashtra state that they had made the discovery a few weeks
ago, but were double-checking their findings.  "Micro-organisms
resembling coccus, fungal and rod-like bacillus were discovered
in samples collected 41 kilometers above the earth's surface,"
said Narlikar.  "Biologists are now trying to verify the origin
of the micro-organisms. Whatever may be the source of life, if
biologists confirm the results, it will prove that
extraterrestrial life does exist," he added.  Narlikar said
Indian scientists had used a sophisticated equipment called a
cryosampler to conduct the experiment for life in space.  "This
is only the second experiment of its kind in the world. The
United States had conducted a similar study where some evidences
of life were found. It will open a new line of challenge for the
global scientific community," said Narlikar.  Narlikar observed
that their sample could contain "microbial life coming from
debris of comets and other celestial objects." Thanks to
Prashant Solomon Copyright 1999-2002

Editor's Note: It is quite possible life is spread throughout
the universe and even space.  With estimated hundreds of
millions of earth like planets circling an estimated 400 billion
stars in our Galaxy, the chances for intelligent life have
increased dramatically, if life can exist outside the
atmosphere.  If life forms can survive in space, some of the
strange objects seen in our skies may be rod like animals,
strange birds, virus or some strange new life form.  These
larger life forms could feed on the smaller ones.  Within our
seas are floating jelly fish, a possible life form lighter than
air may be flying in our skies.  Florida MUFON, Washington's
Annamarie K. Johnstone, Ph.D. and an Albany TV cameraman have
taken photos during October, that appear to show high speed rod
like structures.  These unidentified flying objects change
shapes, similar to an eel in the water that tend to support the
theory of unknown life forms.  There is also the possibility the
objects are made of molecular material that can morph, change
size and shape as needed.  There have been reports of small
basketball size probes entering Earth's atmosphere and after
hovering above a lake, the object expanded in size to become a
huge ship.  Advanced technologies may have the ability to change
size, shape, and be teleported through space.  If a space ship
could reduce its size and mass, much less fuel would be needed
to travel the vast distances between star systems.  We have the
ability to send television images from other planets to Earth.
The next step for humanity is to transport solid objects.
Advanced civilizations may have already discovered this
technology.  Photos at   Filer's Files UFO CENTER PHOTOS

NEW YORK MISSILE OR UFO INVESTIGATION?

ALBANY -- Brandon Mowry, videographer from WXXA-TV, Fox 23, was
shooting a weather story at the Albany International Airport on
October 29, 2002, of aircraft taking off and clouds around 12
noon.  When he reviewed his tapes he first noticed the missile
like object in his film flying at an estimated 4,000 feet.  The
sighting was reported to the National UFO Reporting Center and
the FBI.  Brandon Mowry was interviewed by the FBI, who were
apparently concerned the object could be a surface to air
missile fired to down a commercial aircraft.  The missile like
object had fins on the front and the rear similar to several
types of ground to air, and air to air missiles that could have
been fired from the ground or a passing aircraft.  Missiles of
this type were used in Afghanistan.

A commercial aircraft pilot phoned Peter Davenport expressing
his apprehension. The pilot stated that the Albany video looked
authentic to him, and he expressed concern that no one was
actively pursuing the issue.  He stated that he found it
upsetting that objects like those in the FOX video might be
flying in the skies above our heads, and no one is telling
pilots about it.  He also expressed his sense of disbelief that
FOX is not pursuing the issue more aggressively.  He suggested
that it seems inappropriate that a news agency would have such
dramatic video, and would not be playing the tape, and bringing
the story to the American People in a more aggressive fashion
that FOX has demonstrated in this case.  Some high quality video
cameras can take the flight of a bird or fast moving object and
elongate the scene in such a way as to distort the video.  The
two pairs of fins could actually be wings and the picture is
stretched to appear as a missile.  Tests could be conducted with
the camera to determine if the camera's internal way of scanning
the picture can cause the distortion.  Although this is a
possibility it is unlikely with new high quality video cameras.
See the images at  http://www.filersfiles-ufo.com

CONNECTICUT WHITE TRIANGULAR CRAFT FLYING LOW

MANCHESTER -- On October 24, 2002, the witness was standing on
his deck and heard what sounded like a low flying prop plane. He
stated, "I looked up and saw a low flying triangular shaped
craft. The color being white." I called for my Daughter to come
out and witness this strange craft. I did not believe this to be
an ultralight craft as it was too large and too loud.  There
were no apparent windows, cockpit, landing gear or propellers.
It left no contrail.  The sky was bright blue with few high thin
clouds, none of which were above the said craft.  The craft was
moving fairly slow coming from the west and heading east.  Less
than one minute after the craft passed over my house a military
helicopter followed the same exact flight path but was moving
fast.  I thought this might have been some sort of military
drone but have yet to find any examples that fit the exact shape
of the craft we saw.  Thanks to Peter Davenport  NUFORC

PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

NARBERTH -- The witness was on his back porch talking to a
friend on October 8, 2002, and they were looking at the night
sky on a clear night, like they often do.  Then it happened, for
about two to three seconds a fireball streaked across the sky,
from east to west, and disappeared.  The witnesses report, "I
continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
was a bright star.  It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
was thundering back into space.  The witness said, "I have seen
many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

TYRONE -- Researcher Stan Gordon reports: The witness was hiking
in the woods on Ice Mountain on October 20, 2002, about 7:30 PM,
when he noticed a bright light south of his location, moving
towards him.  The light appeared similar to the brightness of a
normal aircraft light when first observed but suddenly stopped.
It began to pulsate and brighten and then dim.  There was a
faint haze that was orange-red in color that encircled the
object.  The pulsation pattern of the light began to increase
and flicker very rapidly.  Suddenly a thin beam of very bright
blue-white light was emitted from the bottom of the object to
the ground.  The witness stated, "This was no searchlight that
did not defuse with distance, but was a bright beam from top to
bottom."  The man tried to describe the appearance of the beam
with the following statement.  "Imagine a piece of dental floss
held at arms length, and you'll have a good idea of the beam's
apparent width from my location."

The pulsating effect suddenly stopped, and the beam went out.
The object was and oval orange-red object that stopped moving
and began pulsating.  The witness ran 100 yards to his vehicle
to get his Olympus digital camera and took one photograph as the
object hovered, and a second just as the object began to move.
As he tried to take a third picture, the object shot straight up
at fantastic speed and disappeared."  The witness did not detect
any sound, or odd smells.  The light was a 1/4 mile away at
about 1,000 feet in altitude.  The sighting lasted for five
minutes near a large microwave relay tower at the top of the
mountain.  Thanks to Stan Gordon's UFO/Fortean Hotline: 724-838-
7768paufo@westol.com  http://www.westol.com/~paufo

CLARKES SUMMIT INVESTIGATION -- Angie M. writes, "Last weeks
Filer's Files reported on a UFO near Route 81 at the 195 mile
marker that was seen by several witnesses on October 8, 2002,
The object had both a red and blue row of lights.  The object
was moving in a circle.  The object was not rotating, because
the several rows of the lights were very defined as it moved
around the local area.  "I have relatives that live in the
Clarkes Summit that decided to check out the UFO report at the
195 mile marker on Route I-81.  They discovered twinkle lights
hanging on fishing line.  It was a very clever set up that would
fool most people into thinking they were seeing a UFO.  But when
you get off the interstate highway and drove into their back
yard, you can see the UFO lighting system hanging off a very
tall black pole.  Yes, it was impressive enough to stop traffic
on the interstate.  So police had the happy home owner tone down
the display by not allowing so many lights to be lit up.  So
much for the fake UFO.  It was a great gag that was there for
three weeks."  From a faithful reader -- Angie M.

FLORIDA UFO VIDEOTAPED

MIAMI -- Mary Margaret Zimmer Director of Miami MUFON reports
that: "Tony Moreno a busineesman had a UFO sighting above the
airport.  Tony says, "I was in my backyard about 1:15 PM, on
October 22, 2002, getting a sun tan and looking up squinting on
a beautiful bright sunny day."  I saw a sparkle up in the sky,
way, way, up high.  I saw it was like a stick, so I figured it
was a satellite, or a space station or something way up above in
space.  "I saw it move, or twist, or curve and that drew my
attention to several other little objects that were around it."
I thought, maybe it's a bunch of loose kite's or something
strange.  And as I kept looking I noticed it was way to high to
be kites and they were more or less stationary with clouds
moving underneath them and through them.  I jumped into my house
and I grabbed my video camera, but could not find the object
with my naked eye and used the viewfinder to locate the objects.
I saw a triangle shape and some objects moving around.  Others
were morphing.  I saw the candy cane turn into a 'T' then into a
'J,' then into a weird 'S.'" I saw one of the objects underneath
turn into a delta configuration by itself and they disappeared.

Five minutes later, I looked up and saw the sparkle and started
taping.  "The UFOs flew over the flight path of incoming jets to
Miami International Airport.  Tony notified and she drove over
to Tony Moreno's place of business, a music store called "The
Cave" which he owns and manages.  She recorded Tony's statement
and viewed the video and checked with the local airports and
meteorologists, but they had not sent up any objects.  Tony is a
MUFON Field Investigator.  The objects in the video drift in and
out of the base of 4,000 feet clouds.  See video at Mary
Margaret Zimmer's Website: http://www.skyscan.org.

OHIO DISK

ST. CLAIRSVILLE -- The witness reports seeing a craft hovering
above a mall at Exit 2180 on Highway I-70.  The object had
bright headlights flashing different colors at 8:15 PM on
October 22, 2002.  The center of what appeared to be a disk-
shaped object had lights on either side of a panel of colored
lights.  The witness states, "We saw lights with orange-gold
beams that shone from the left and right edges of the craft.
The craft appeared to remain stationary for about 9 minutes,
before it began to rise and move in a southwest direction.  In a
brief time, it had climbed so high we could no longer see it.
NUFORC

WISCONSIN 26 UFOs PASS BY

TREGO -- UFOWisconsin Reports that on October 5, 2002, the
witness was getting ready for bed a little after midnight and
saw a lighted object in the distance.  I closed my eyes and
turned my head sideways with my head down in my pillow but then
I thought to myself "Hmmm, it wasn't moving anywhere and was way
too high up to be a stationary helicopter" so I looked back and
it was still stationary.  I focused my vision even more and I
saw a white and red light illuminating from it.  My eyes must
have been focused on the object for at least 25 minutes trying
to figure out what exactly it could be.  I momentarily went to
get another blanket and  looked out the window again and it was
gone.

Mary B. states, "Both my son and I observed the objects and we
were cognizant -- not to confuse stars with the passing clouds
and counted 26 UFO's pass by."  They looked like round, white
lights bigger than stars.  The strange thing was that they were
in the formation of the little dipper and its surrounding stars
-- yet it was too early for these stars to be overhead.
Furthermore, they moved from over the tree line in front of our
house, over our house and then disappeared over the tree line
behind our house.  This all in a matter of around 35 minutes.
My son grabbed a video camera he had for his video class at high
school and recorded some of it.  He brought the film in and
showed it to his science teacher.  She said that she did not
know what it was, but it definitely wasn't stars.  They seemed
to be above the earth's atmosphere, but lower than stars.  Also,
the star formation they were mimicking came into view at our
house about an hour later.  Thanks to Mary B.

ILLINOIS V. SHAPED FORMATION OF LIGHTS

EAST ST. LOUIS -- On October 15, 2002, at 3:30 PM, motorist
James A. was driving on Missouri Avenue when the lights at the
railroad crossing began to flash and the gate came down.  "While
waiting at the train crossing," Jim reported, "I noticed what I
first thought to be a large object in the sky moving up and down
in a 'spiral motion,' each time taking a different shape.  It
then became obvious that I was not watching one object but many.
I would estimate 100 to 200 lights all moving in sequence."
"When I left the stop light at Centreville, I pulled off Highway
15 and continued to view the object for about ten more minutes.
Suddenly, without hesitation, they broke ranks, with a large
group heading southeast in a V-shaped formation.  A smaller
group headed west, about 15 to 20 of them.  I was trying to
watch both groups in what they were doing."  "Approximately 30
seconds later, two F-15 fighter jets appeared out of the north,
flying towards the objects.  At that very moment, the two groups
of UFOs just disappeared."  Jim, described the UFOs as
"metallic, sun reflecting off objects, round in nature.  "They
were very high, made sequential movements, and were very
precise."  Thanks to UFO Roundup Vol.7, # 43, 10/22/02, Editor:
Joseph Trainor.

CALIFORNIA HUGE SUBMARINE SHAPED CRAFT

TEMECULA -- On October 20, 2002, the witness was driving north
on Ynez Road at around 9:30 PM when two lights appeared.  As it
got closer the object looked like a giant submarine, and turned
north. My friend and I followed it north filled with curiosity
about this object and it turned right over a commercial area.
Eventually the object was directly above us.  Other cars were
also driving slow and the occupants were gazing on up at the
sky. The object got closer and flew above us and it was giant
probably around 300 yards long.  Fear set in and I made a U turn
while the object continued north. During this whole event I
heard a deep low frequency rumbling noise.  The next day, my
friend and I decided to go out and look for it again a little
later and saw lights off in the west shooting from one area to
another with great speed.  We drove around the area for two
hours but failed to see anything else. This is the weirdest and
possibly the most terrifying/exciting event of my life.

SOUTH PASADENA -- The witness saw a very large blue crescent-
shape at 5:45 PM, on October 26, 2002.  At first, it looked like
an escape balloon, but it was too far away and much too large.
It was shaped like one of those dolphin balloons, which gave me
my first clue.  It was wobbling from side to side, and heading
east.  After a little bit, it disappeared behind some trees.
Even after we repositioned ourselves, it was out of sight. It
just disappeared.  Peter Davenport spoke with this witness, and
found him quite credible.

SAN JOSE -- Two witnesses were sitting in the parking lot on
October 28, 2002, after work at 1:10 PM talking when one looked
up and said, "What the?"  They both saw what looked like a very
large distinct spherical brightly lit object flying across the
entire span of the sky.  It flew from the south in a northern
direction, directly over our heads. It flew silently, lower and
faster than any airplane normally would, and slower and longer
than any shooting star I've ever witnessed.  It was bright white
in color with a slight blue tint and a tail behind it; maybe 4
times its own diameter.  Thanks to Peter Davenport  NUFORC

CANADIAN PHOTOS OF UFO

QUEBEC -- On August 20, 2002. at 21:08 hours our member Jean L.
and his wife Lina in Saint-Jean-de-Matha, got an alarm on their
computer.  Jean grabbed his camera and ran outside and took a
photo of a UFO. They saw a white sphere, reddish on the bottom
which passed over his house heading northeast.  The sky was
clear and the moon was visible behind it.  When the object was
above the mountains, it changed direction.  The observation
lasted between 3 and 4 minutes.  About 5 minutes later, Jean and
his wife Lina observed six military aircraft heading in the same
direction.  The camera used is a PRAKTICA, Aperture:2.8. Time
exposure: 1/60 second, Film used: ISO 400.

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- On November 1, 2002, the witness
was outside and heard the purring of a small plane and turned to
see it traveling south at around 4500 feet at 3:35 PM. It was
clear day and a small Cessna aircraft with bright yellow sides
and a red tail section that were plainly visible.  Suddenly my
eyes caught a glimpse of another aircraft flying in the same
direction to the west of the other, but much closer to me.  This
second object was a much larger craft than the Cessna; in fact
the nose of it extended much farther forward of the small swept-
back wings than the Cessna.  It resembled a DC-9 in basic shape
but the wings were very short.  This craft was pure white and
did not appear to have windows or markings of any kind.  Its
wings were kind of indistinct and shadowy.  Strangely the
Cessna, one of the slowest aircraft in the sky, was traveling at
a much higher rate of speed than this object.  This object
continued very slowly on its southerly course until it was out
of sight.  I have never seen such a large aircraft fly so
slowly.  In fact, it seemed impossible for a fixed wing aircraft
to do that at all.

KITWANGA, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- Brian Vike reports four witnesses
watched a UFO while on their way home from their work at 6:30 PM
on November 1, 2002.  They were on the mitt-in-main forestry
road, when they saw a bright, yellowish/white light with a
"beam" coming from the bottom of it.  The beam of light was like
a flashlight shinning in a fog.  The witness said they saw it
for three seconds before it disappeared.  The light did not
move, but stayed in the one position and then just disappeared.
Considering the distance from the object, the light was small in
size.  Thanks to Brian Vike HBCC UFO Research Editor: Canadian
Communicator hbccufo@telus.net

SCOTLAND CIGAR

DUNDEE -- Whilst at work I looked out of the main door on
October 27, 2002, and saw what looked like a cloud in the shape
of a cigar, which was white in color.  The object was at first
stationery at 5 PM, and then began to move from south heading
north quite slowly for about 30 seconds then stopped.  Then a
few seconds later it moved again in the same direction as
mentioned above.  The object stopped again then appeared to move
off to the west and eventually faded away.  The above mentioned
object was around ten miles away from where I was standing.

ENGLAND TWO GREEN LIGHTS

CHELTENHAM -- Glos (Gloucestershire) Echo Newspaper reports that
at 9 PM, October 24, 2002, two strange green lights were seen
chasing each other.  The lights resembled laser lights sighted
about ten miles away above the Cotswold Hills.

SPANISH SCIENTISTS INVESTIGATING STRANGE NOISES

MALLORCA --For months, strange noises have troubled the
tranquility of the waters north of the Island of Mallorca that
has a history of plentiful UFO reports.  The presence of
underwater flying saucer bases is one of the hypotheses to be
confirmed or dispelled by a team from the Sociedad Espa=F1ola de
Investigaciones Parapsicol=F3gicas (SEIP--Spanish Society for
Parapsychological Research) on its way to Mallorca.  "All
possibilities are open, ranging from the presence of UFO bases
to the existence of an underwater volcanic area or tectonic-
plate displacement," said Jos=E9 Castro, SEIP's coordinator--along
with Javier Rodriguez, of the expedition which will study the
noises.  Since Friday afternoon, researchers have worked in the
area located between the island of Dragonera and Cape Formentor,
where experts in undersea fishing claimed having heard noises of
unknown origin which are apparently audible from the surface on
calm days, and whose strength and intensity vary as a function
of depth.  Thanks to Diario de Mallorca and Ultima Hora
(newspapers) 10/27/2002.  Translation (C) 2002. Scott Corrales,

UKRAINE CIRCULAR HOVERING DISK

CRIMEAN PENINSULA -- Anton A. Anfalov writes, "I would like to
report new remarkable UFO observation on October 7, 2002.  My
old friend, Mr. Victor A. Zdorov, was on a business trip driving
his "Lada" vagon car, in the Belogorsk District of the Crimean
Autonomous Republic between 3 to 5 PM.  Suddenly, he noticed a
big circular object no less than 50 meters in diameter, hovering
stationary for more than one hour over the forest covered
mountains five kilometers southwest of the village of
Zemlyanichnoye.  The circular UFO had flat cone-shaped upper
part (something like a Vietnamese or Chinese hat), with a small
cone on top, and a short vertical antenna.  The lower part was
like a big deep saucer, with the upper part wider than the
lower.  It had segmented structure like several vertical and
horizontal sectors, marked by slightly visible lines. The color
of the entire object was dull-grey metallic.  Many local
residents saw the UFO, but there are frequent sightings so many
do not pay much attention to the regularly observed UFOs.  The
local press also often refuses to publish UFO reports, since
they are so common.  I personally interrogated the witness in
the most detailed way and a picture of the craft was drawn.
Thanks to Anton A. Anfalov, Ukrainian UFO Research Association
(UKUFAS) an@crimea.com.

SCI FI CHANNEL GETTING INVOLVED IN UFO RESEARCH

SCI FI Channel, as I suggested in Filer's Files last May, is
sponsoring a landmark archeological excavation at the 1947
Roswell Crash Site.  SCI FI Channel's recently announced an
initiative to bring scientific, congressional and media
attention to the UFO phenomenon.  Remote sensing technologies
from the University of New Mexico, will be used to excavate the
alleged crash site of an alien craft.  Working under top secret
conditions, skilled archeologists will attempt to find physical
evidence of an extraterrestrial craft.  "THE ROSWELL CRASH:
STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE" will be hosted by Bryant Gumbel on
Friday, November 22, beginning at 8 PM (ET/PT).  Sci.Fi.com

MARYLAND 8TH DISTRICT CAMPAIGN OF STEPHEN BASSETT

BETHESDA -- Stephen Bassett lost in his effort to win the 8th
Congressional District candidate for the House of
Representatives.  His campaign represented a milestone in
American politics.  Mr. Bassett will be the first person to
appear on any federal or gubernatorial, general election ballot
who speaks to the fact of an extraterrestrial presence manifest
about the planet.  Although, Steve lost the election, we
congratulate him on a hard fought race.  See
http://www.Disclosure2003.net.

A FREE UFO SYMPOSIUM AT GEO. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL AND UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA -- At this
unique symposium eminent scientists and aviation experts will
explore the potential for interstellar travel and the evidence
of unidentified aerial phenomena, sometimes referred to as UFOs.
Hosted by The George Washington University and sponsored by SCI
FI Channel, this symposium will provide attendees with a
scientific understanding of how interstellar travel might be
possible and highlight the need for a thorough scientific
investigation of UFOs.  Moderator - Ray Suarez, Senior
Correspondent, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,    Dr. Michio Kaku,
professor of theoretical physics at the City College at the City
University of New York, Dr. Richard Henry, professor of
astrophysics at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Peter Sturrock,
emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford, Dr. Jacques
Vallee, astrophysicist, Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director for the
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, Ted Roe,
director of the National Aviation Reporting Center for Anomalous
Phenomena, John Callahan, former Division Chief of Accidents and
Investigations for the FAA: The George Washington University's
Marvin Center -- Continental Ballroom. 800 21st Street.
November 8, 2002, from 9 AM to 1 PM Call Cynthia Determan at
(202) 879-9309.

GET OUR BIG DISCOUNTS SHOP AT 100 STORES ONLINE

SHOP FOR THE HOLIDAYS AS A PREFERRED CUSTOMER from home: Let me
help you get great discounts at some of your favorite stores?
Consider shopping at: FILER.unfranchise.com for your Holiday
gifts.  You can shop on line in over one hundred stores such as
Ashlane Gift Baskets, Books, Brooks Brothers, Diamonds, Disney,
Sweaters from Elizabeth's by Liz Claiborne, Fragrances, Hallmark
cards and flowers, Jewelry, Spiegel, Customatix Shoes and design
your own shoes, Nordstrom, Sony Music, Toy Chest, and Wine.Com.
For your Health and Nutrition Store there are unbelievable
products to feel fitter, and healthier again.  My hair is
growing in darker and I feel younger.  Some experiences claim to
feel much better after taking Isotonix OPC.  Break free from
Allergies,  Contact me directly at  Majorstar@aol.com  There is
a store for your every special need, and you qualify as a
preferred customer by reading these files, and you can qualify
for special discounts.  .  Click: Become a Preferred customer
and pick out your favorite store.  Compare our prices:
FILER.unfranchise.com

FREE RELOCATION SERVICE FOR OUR READERS

If your thinking of moving or buying or selling a home any where
in the United States.  Let my wife and I help you.  Many of the
largest companies use our service.  Just contact us at
Majorstar@aol.com

NASA, AND IT'S SPACE ENCOUNTERS

Jeff Challender has released the new video "What Is the Truth?".
The second video examining NASA and its space encounters with
102 anomalous objects.  These events were culled from 1400+
hours raw footage of ten live Shuttle flight broadcasts between
Oct. 2000 and April 2002.  VHS $25.  Send orders to:  Jeff
Challender 2768 Mendel Way Sacramento, CA 95833-2011

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL.  A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year. To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/.  To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com.  Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2002 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved.  Readers may post the complete files on their Web
Sites if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and
list the date of issue that the item appeared.  These reports
and comments are not necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint.
Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com.  Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name.  Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.  CAUTION, MOST OF THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS
AND REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Regards,

George Filer











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:43:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:13:42 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:36:40 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:28:47 +0000 (GMT)
 >>>Subject: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >><snip>

 >>>Anti-Gravity flying triangles coming soon to a store near you!
 >>>The primary means of lift is ion propulsion. High energy
 >>>ions are ejected from the bottom of the craft which interact
 >>>with surrounding air molecules to produce thrust

 >><snip>

 >>First I've heard that the electrostatic lift demonstrated by
 >>experimenter Townsend Brown is caused by "ions ejected". This
 >>could be demonstrated as untrue by enclosing the entire flying
 >>triangle in a very thin polyethylene bag, which would prevent
 >>downwards ejection of ions, and as long as the bag is very
 >>light, the unit should still lift off.

 >>Charging a capacitor, once the charging is complete, does not
 >>result in a stream of ions. If it did, an air or vacuum
 >>dielectric capacitor would not be able to hold a charge, and air
 >>or vacuum capacitors can hold charge.

 >>The phrase "interact with surrounding aire molecules to produce
 >>thrust" phrase shows that someone is unaware of how even the
 >>conventional rocket works. Ejecting matter at high speed
 >>requires no interaction with anything to produce thrust.

 >>These claims smack of more disinformation, to prevent the public
 >>from understanding that this is genuinely revolutionary
 >>technology, and not some sort of 'ion rocket'.

 >Hi Eleanor,

 >You are right. However I believe this technology might have more
 >to do with ion wind and/or eddy current interaction between the
 >wire and the tinfoil fence. The interaction creates the
 >reaction.

 >But the whole thing is bogus unless it can lift its own power
 >source. So far, that's not the case.

Hello Don, Eleanor:

Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
little flying triangle?

Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

I strongly doubt that some new and revolutionary physics is
being done for a small price at a store near you. There is a
Nobel Prize waiting for the first team to find a useful new
propulsive force, one that will penetrate a thin plastic bag
that is.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson

 >>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
 >>Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

 >(Tim asked me to forward this to the List- BH)

Because of the length, I'm breaking my response to Printy into
two parts. This first part deals with Printy trying to defend
Charles Moore's alterations to the original Mogul Flight #5 map.

The second part deals with Printy trying to defend more of
Moore's flawed mathematics, as pointed out originally by Brad
Sparks. It's a real hoot people, since it reveals just how
incompetent Printy himself is in his mathematics. He also
perpetrates his own little hoax in a desperate attempt to
salvage what little is left of Moore's model.

 >IT'S ALL ABOUT MAPS
 >>Closest Approach to Roswell: Moore's 1948 map shows
 >>the balloon passed 4 miles south of Roswell.

 >Is Brad being purposely disingenuous here? The map Sparks is
 >referring to was _not_ made by Prof Moore, but created in 1948
 >by the NYU Research Group and appeared in the Air Force book
 >"The Roswell Report".

Big deal! The point is the original ground trajectory plot
showed only Roswell base on the ground trajectory plot and
Flight 5 passing about 4 miles south of the base.

It passed very close to the base. That's the point!

What changes did Moore make on his redrawn map of Flight #5
which he claimed "was taken without change" from the 1948 plot?

1. FACT: He removed Roswell base from the plot and replaced it
with Roswell town 6 miles to the north. Now it appeared that
Flight 5 came no closer than 10 miles to "Roswell".

2. FACT: In an e-mail debate between Sparks and Moore mediated
by Karl Pflock, Moore compounded this by claiming that Flight 5
came no closer than 15 - 20 miles of the base.

3. FACT: The original Flight 5 trajectory plot placed the crash
site about 16-17 miles east of the base. Albert Crary's diary
ambiguously placed it 25 miles east of "Roswell". But Moore
placed it about 31 miles east on his plot.

See my detailed discussion of this, including the a scan of the original
Figure 32 of Flight 5, and then Moore's alterations of the plot at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

Instead of dealing head-on with these points, Printy below will try to take
this whole discussion off on numerous tangents, nitpicking over completely
unimportant details.
 >Brad knows that on this map, "Roswell"
 >refers to the Roswell Army Air Force Base (RAAFB), and not the
 >town of Roswell. Why doesn't he clarify this?

Look at who's being "purposely disengenuous" here! That's the
whole point that Brad has been making all along. Moore changed
"Roswells" on us despite saying the map was reproduced "without
change."

What we have here is a typical Printy diversion. The one who
should be making a "clarification" here is Printy (or Moore).
Why did Moore swap "Roswells" on us, replacing the base on the
original plot with the town? Could it be so that it wasn't as
obvious just how close Flight 5 actually passed to the base?

 >Instead he gives
 >us the rather deceptive impression that the balloon passed 4
 >miles south of town.

More lying by Printy. The very point Sparks (and I) have been
making is that the balloons passed 4 miles south of the _base_,
not the town, and Moore's change to the original plot obfuscated
this.

 >On the NYU map, the actual distance from
 >the _town_ of Roswell was about 10 miles, since the base was
 >roughly 6 miles south of town.

Let's get back to the REAL point. Moore removed Roswell base
from the original plot, replaced it with Roswell town, giving
the false impression that the balloons passed 10 miles south of
Roswell base instead of the 4 miles on the original plot.

Why did Moore remove Roswell base from the plot?

 >As for other values Sparks gives,
 >I used photoshop and the best ruler I could find to try and
 >determine the exact distances.

 >>Moore's 1995 map shows the balloon passed 10 miles
 >>south of Roswell.

 >Photoshop = 10.6 miles to town of Roswell
 >Ruler = 10.4 miles to town of Roswell

Why did Moore remove Roswell base from the plot, which showed
Flight 4 passing within about 4 miles. Why is Printy dodging
this point?

Answer: He's setting up one of his usual straw man diversions
from the _real_ point.

 >>Moore's 1997 map shows the balloon passed 11 miles
 >>south of Roswell.

 >Photoshop = 10.2 miles to town of Roswell
 >Ruler = 10.3 miles to town of Roswell

 >I am not sure how Sparks made the distance INCREASE, when the
 >distance appears to have DECREASED slightly and agrees with the
 >1948 values of Roswell town's actual location. Perhaps he can
 >enlighten everyone with his measurements/calculations, and why
 >he resorted to misleading everyone about the designation in the
 >1948 figure.

Who cares? That's not the _real_ issue.

 >>Moore's 1948 map shows the impact point 17 miles
 >>east of Roswell.

 >Again, this is the NYU map, created by the NYU group from the
 >data obtained at the time, and not Moore's personal plot.

Who cares? Again this isn't the point. [And incidentally, Moore
WAS one of the principle authors of the report from which the
plot was taken: ("Prepared by Charles B. Moore, James R. Smith,
and Seymour Goldstein")]

 >In the
 >NYU graph published in "The Roswell Report", the impact point is
 >not plotted, but is denoted by a dotted line running off the map.

Completely false! It doesn't show it "running off the map". The
indicated crash site went outside the boundaries of the printed
circular polar graph lines, but there is NO indication
whatsoever that it was actually off the page, as Printy is
claiming. Again, refer to the original scan:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

If the person who plotted this trajectory map had wanted to
indicate some off-page crash site, he could very easily have
made a small notation to that effect, such as "actual crash site
8 miles further east." Or he could have attached an extension to
the page with some tape.

Instead, all that is noted here is an "X" marks-the-spot crash
site and the words "ON GROUND". Again, look at the original
plot. Printy is flagrantly lying here.

 >It is important to note is that there is no longitude and
 >latitude given for this location, as was the case on flight #6.

It is important to note, since Printy doesn't, that it was
common _not_ to note the latitude and longitude of the crash
site, as was the case with Flights #7, #8, and #11. In other
words, having the latitude/longitude marked at the crash site
was the exception, not the rule. (Again check the above link,
which also has a scan of Flight #11 lacking any mention of
longitude and latitude for the crash site. The same is true for
the trajectory plots of Flights #7 & #8.)

 >Flight #6, and #7, have a bulls eye for the location of their
 >landing sites.

Gee, why doesn't Printy mention that #7 DOESN'T have the
latitude and longitude marked despite having that "bulls-eye"?
This is just Printy again diverting from the main issues by
discussing irrelevancies.

 >In contrast, flight #5 has some odd designator
 >that seems to be an arrow pointing towards a small line (or
 >maybe an odd shaped "X"). If they knew the exact location, I am
 >sure they would have created a plot similar to those in flights
 >#6 and #7. Based on this information, the value in the plot
 >appears to be an estimate at best.

This is another of Printy's strawman arguments. The "bullseye"
has nothing to do with it. Printy's bullshit has everything to
do with it. They also had precise ground tracks and precise
crash sites for #8 and #11 also, and yet no "bullseye". For #5
the draftsman used an "X". For #8, the draftsman used an "*".
For #11, no symbol was used. So what?

 >>Moore's 1995 map shows the impact point 30 miles
 >>east of Roswell.

 >Photoshop = 31.4 miles to town of Roswell
 >Ruler = 31.3 miles to town of Roswell

Again so what? That's not the point. The original plot placed it
16-17 miles east of the base. Crary's diary said 25 miles east
of "Roswell" (ambiguous as to what "Roswell" meant).

But Moore places it about 31 miles east of "Roswell." Moore's
plot doesn't agree with anything in the original records (or
even his own recent e-mail claim of position), despite his
statement that his redrawn plot of #5 "was taken without change"
from the 1948 plot?

When you completely alter the final crash site, you have altered
the trajectory. The ultimate crash site IS an integral part of
the trajectory, and Moore altered it.

Now that's the REAL point!
 >>Moore's 1997 map shows the impact point 34 miles
 >>east of Roswell.

 >Photoshop = 30.7 miles to town of Roswell
 >Ruler = 30.8 miles to town of Roswell.

Again, notice how Printy never addresses the REAL issues, but
always tries to take things off on irrelevant tangents.

Nitpicking over whether Brad Sparks got the misplot mileage
exact isn't important. The _real_ point is that Moore seriously
misplotted the position.

 >I tried to figure several ways Sparks could measure 34 miles but
 >just couldn't. Why would Sparks make such an incredible error?

Who cares? The _real_ issue is that Moore obviously altered the
graphic.

 >Maybe he can answer that one. Most important to note is the
 >distance again decreased (although by a distance that seems to
 >be within the range of error on the size pictures that are being
 >used). Based on this information, I have a hard time taking
 >Sparks comments and accusations seriously.

Based on Printy's obvious dodging of the REAL issues, it is hard to take
his comments and accusations seriously.
 >>Moore in 2002 now claims the impact point was 26
 >>miles east of Roswell. (Moore email to Pflock, June
 >>20, 2002.)

 >It might help to know in which context this was made. Albert
 >Crary, who was the Project Manager for the NYU flights in June
 >1947 noted in his journal for June 5, 1947 "- recovered
 >equipment some 25 mi east of Roswell."

So why does Moore plot it about 31 miles east of Roswell, by
Printy's own measurements? If he were plotting the Crary crash
site, shouldn't it be 25 miles east of Roswell?

That's the REAL issue!

 >Therefore this statement agrees with the journal.

But the _real_ issue is that the PLOT doesn't agree with the
journal. Crary's diary says 25 miles. Moore's revised Mogul
summary in his book (Table 1, p. 79) again says "25 miles east
of Roswell." Moore changes this in his recent e-mail to 26
miles. And after all this, he plots the crash site as 31 miles
east.

With Moore fuzzy math, 25 changes into 31. Believe it or not,
Printy has a highly strained "explanation" for this as well.  If
you go to Printy's Web site at

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

where he devotes most of his space to haranguing me and to
irrelevant, straw man arguments/smoke blowing (just like here),
Printy tries to spin Moore's little "misplot." Here's how he
does it.

You see, it turns out Crary got it wrong too! Yessirree, people.
Not only was the original Mogul trajectory plot wrong, so was
Crary's diary. Moore said the Flight #5 crashed near an oil
derrick, because the chase plane had to "buzz" the drilling crew
who were going after the balloon on the ground.

Then Printy finds two present-day oil wells about 29 miles east
of Roswell, or about 2 miles from where Moore misplotted Flight
#5's crash site.

Printy conveniently provides a topo with the three crash sites
marked on it. Scroll down Printy's present "Rudiak" web page to
near the bottom. There's the 16/17 mile site, the Crary 25 mile
site, and the 31 mile site Moore actually used. (Incidentally,
Printy actually places Moore's crash site about 0.5-1.0 too
close to these wells, Printy apparently having caught a little
more "Mooreitis".)

Then, according to Printy, since there were no oil wells 25
miles east of Roswell near the Crary site, Moore was justified
in putting the crash site where he did.

Now, mind you, Moore never says that's what he's doing. This is
nothing but Printy trying to save Moore's ass by inventing a
justification for Moore's obviously misplotted location. Moore,
in fact, in recent e-mail was still claiming 26 miles east of
the base, not 31 miles.

What Printy _doesn't_ point out to you is that there was yet
another oil well much closer in to Roswell, and very near the
16-17 mile crash site marked on the original graphic. Look real,
real closely a mile west of where Printy has the 16-17 mile site
and you will see the words "Ranch" and "Oil". This particular
oil well was about 15.5 miles east of the base. (On the same
topo, Printy has the crash site about 16.5 miles east of the
base center, which agrees with my measurement from the original
Mogul trajectory plot.)

 >However, I am also aware that they had
 >to detour off the main road to get to the site. Topographic maps
 >show that the most likely route for this exit is about 25-26
 >miles east of Roswell.

All the topo maps show are dirt roads all over the place. How
does Printy determine that "the most likely route" was 25-26
miles east of Roswell? Printy just picks "25-26" miles out of
thin air in a further effort to confuse the issue. Obviously
what he is really doing here is spinning the 25/26-mile
Crary/Moore crash-site figure to where the _turn-off_ to the
crash site was, not where the actual crash site was.

But Crary/Moore aren't talking about a turnoff point. The crash
site itself was in some way 25 miles east of "Roswell." Yet
Moore plots it as 31 miles east. How does that work?

Perhaps what Crary's ambiguous "25 mile" figure really reflected
was the actual total driving distance from Roswell to the crash
site, rather than the air miles east of the base to the 16/17
mile crash site. That would be a very simple way to reconcile
the conflicting crash site figures from Crary's diary and the
original Mogul plot.

Look at Printy's topo and you'll see it would have been about a
16 mile ride out Highway 380 to dirt roads directly north of the
16/17 mile site, then about another 9 miles of driving off the
main highway on these dirt roads. Total is about 25 miles.

That's very straightforward and makes a lot more sense than
Printy's spinning of a crash site distance into an imaginary
turnoff point to the crash site.

Another point is that the 15-mile oil well (the one Printy won't
mention) is actually closer to main roads than Printy's oil
wells. Look at the topo and you'll notice that northwest of the
16/17-mile crash site is "Bottomless Lakes State Park" with a
marked gravel road to it coming off Highway 380 east out of
Roswell town. This road to the park existed in 1947 as well and
would have gotten a recovery crew to within 5 or 6 miles of the
17-mile site There are no comparable developed roads near
Printy's strawman oil derricks now or in 1947.

 >>Moore of course has a reason to want to make it seem that
 >>the Flight 5 balloon pass much farther away from Roswell base
 >>than it actually did.

 >"Of course"? Can Sparks or Rudiak produce one quote or
 >indication that the proximity of Flight #5 to Roswell or RAAFB
 >was of concern to Moore?

Moore, e-mail, July 22, 2002, to Karl Pflock, forwarded to Brad
Sparks, who forwarded it to me: "As far as to whether any one at
Roswell Army Air Field noted NYU Flight #5 as it passed to the
east about 15 or 20 miles south of the airfield at a height of
about 9 miles on June 5, I have no information."

Here Moore has moved the closest approach of #5 to "15 to 20
miles south of the airfield" instead of the 4 miles south of the
base as actually shown on the original Mogul trajectory plot.
Moore seems very intent on concealing just how close #5 actually
came to the base. Moore's statement, in fact, is nothing more
than a flagrant lie.

He then tries to minimize the actual angular extent of the balloons:

   "As far as to whether any one at Roswell Army Air Field noted
NYU Flight #5 as it passed to the east about 15 or 20 miles
south of the airfield at a height of about 9 miles on June 5, I
have no information.  (At a slant range of about 20 miles, the
flight train would have subtended an angle of about 0.3 degrees
at an elevation angle of about 24 degrees.)"


Repeat, in _reality_, the balloons passed only 4 miles south of
the base. The altitude, according to the original Mogul
time/altitude and ground-trajectory plots, was more likely 6-7
miles, not 9 miles, and the slant distance more like 7-8 miles,
not Moore's 20. A 600+ foot length balloon at that distance
would have subtended an angle of about 0.8 - 0.9 degrees, about
3 times greater than what Moore has.  (As a way of comparison
the angular extent of the sun or moon is about 0.5 degrees).

Moore goes on to claim that maybe clouds concealed the balloons
from the men at Roswell, another indication that he is very
concerned about even the possibility that maybe Roswell base
knew about the balloons:

   "I do not remember what clouds developed on that day but it is
likely that there were some cumuli so that the balloon train was
not necessarily  conspicuous as seen from Roswell. In any event,
we had no reports of the train being seen by anyone at Roswell."

However, if you go to the Mogul summary tables, it indicates
that Flight #5 was tracked for "90%" of its flight by theodolite
from Alamogordo. That means they tracked it visually clear to
Roswell, a distance of over 90 miles through haze, "clouds", and
intervening mountain ranges. So why would Moore think than
Roswell base's view would be obscured by "clouds" from only a
few miles away?

 >Can Sparks or Rudiak produce ONE report
 >anecdotal (made before 1994), or otherwise, that states base
 >personnel had seen this balloon flight? No they can't.

This is another "who cares?" diversion.  The _real_ issue here
is Moore and how he has been caught time and time again playing
games with the numbers. His clear-cut alterations of the
original Flight #5 graphic are just one example.

 >Yet, they
 >want all to believe that everyone on base could easily see
 >flight #5 as it drifted past; even though it was extremely high
 >in the air (about 4-5 miles or greater making the straight line
 >distance 5-6 miles)

So why did Moore in a recent e-mail grossly exaggerate the
distance to 20 mile? Please explain to us, oh great Moore
defender, how Moore came up with yet another one of his highly
bogus numbers.

 >and very small (the balloons were only about
 >15 feet across at maximum size)!

Gee, about the width of a commercial jet cabin. And the balloon
trains length was in the neighborhood of 600 feet, 4 times that
of a 737 jet plane. One can _easily_ see a 737 flying overhead
at an altitude of 7 miles. But Printy says you couldn't see one
of these Moguls at the same distance, no siree!

Furthermore, according to the brilliant Printy on his Web site,
Roswell base would have no one observing the skies. Yes, no one.
Everybody at the base was staring at their feet. There were no
control tower operators, no plane spotters, no weather
observers, no flight crews, etc. Somehow nobody was watching and
nobody was capable of seeing the balloon train.

Moore lied about the distance of the balloons from the base and
ignored the fact that they were visible from Alamogordo while
claiming clouds may have obscured the view from Roswell base.
This is on top of how he altered the graphic showing just how
close the balloons came to the base, and further altered the
position of the crash site to push the distance nearly twice as
far away as the actually graphic showed it.

And Printy tries to claim there is no evidence that Moore is
concerned about this.

Printy is also obviously concerned about this, judging by how
hard he tries to ridicule the notion. Note how Printy tries to
pretend the balloons couldn't be seen from the base, trying to
minimize the FACT that they would have been very visible. They
were also being chased by a B-17. That means there would also
have been an unidentified plane in Roswell base airspace. But
according to Printy, everybody at Roswell base was taking a
siesta and totally unconcerned about such matters.

Ironically, one of Moore's own claims is that Mogul people
couldn't get on the base because of the extremely tight
security:

Moore AF interview, 1994 (p. 37): "...We went over and tried to
get into the weather station at Roswell and because of the
atomic bomb security of the 509th, as I remember, we couldn't
even get on the base..."

But in Printy FantasyLand, the same concern for security
apparently didn't extend to their airspace. Nobody was watching
and nobody cared if a strange balloon and an unidentified plane
came within a few miles of the base.

 >Since they refuse to admit that
 >it was likely that nobody noticed the flight, they resort to
 >this map altering theory to help bolster their case.

It's no "theory." It's a simple _fact_. Moore _indisputably_
altered the map, and all these alterations serve to distance the
Flight #5 trajectory from Roswell base. Again people can refer
to scans of the original flight plot vs. how Moore graphed it.
See:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

People, be sure to read Part 2 of this fascinating debate with
the renowned Moore defender Tim Printy. It's a laugh a minute as
Printy fumbles badly with the math and engages in some more big-
time lying in his hapless attempt to defend Moore.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:44:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:52:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....
 >
 >Tim Matthews.

 >-----

 >Source: The New Scientist

 >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992946

 >TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >By David Windle
 >New Scientist
 >October 21, 2002

 >A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >aviation world by surprise, after a low key unveiling in St
 >Louis, Missouri. It may look like it flew straight off the
 >screen of a sci-fi movie, but the Bird of Prey is no flight of
 >fancy - it could translate into serious business for its makers,
 >aerospace giant Boeing.

 >"Here we have an example of a classic 'black' programme: an
 >aircraft which has been built and flight tested for a number of
 >years - and no one outside the programme knew about it," says
 >Nick Cook, aerospace consultant to Janes Defence Weekly. Other
 >highly classified aircraft that have ultimately been revealed
 >included the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes and the B-2 stealth
 >bomber.

 >The Bird of Prey cost $67 million and is the product of Boeing's
 >advanced research and development division, the Phantom Works.
 >It first flew in 1996 and is said to have demonstrated a range
 >of stealth and production technologies. It is a single seat,
 >single engine design and with a reported maximum altitude of
 >6100 metres (20,000 feet). Its top speed is a relatively sedate
 >480 km/h (300 mph).

<snip>

The announcement reinforces the long known conclusion that
secrets can be kept, but hardly suggests that this craft was
mistaken for a high performance  flying saucer... Note top speed
of 300mph, top altitude of 20,000'.It has wings and there is no
indication it can move straight up or down or land in a space
not much larger than itself or hover. Reminds one of the silly
CIA historian's fictional claim that the U-2 and SR-71 spy
planes were responsible for many UFO sightings. One also wonders
about its range.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                          Secrecy News -- 11/06/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:02:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:56:06 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/06/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 111
November 6, 2002


**      FRUS ON VIETNAM, 1968
**      BENTHAM ON SECRECY
**      PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
**      NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TOUTED, DOUBTED
**      BIN LADEN'S "WILL"
**      PROFILES IN GYNECOLOGY
**      IN DEFENSE OF POLITICS


FRUS ON VIETNAM, 1968

United States policy towards Vietnam in 1968, including the
Johnson Administration's fruitless effort to negotiate an end to
the war, is documented in the latest volume of the State
Department's official Foreign Relations of the United States
(FRUS) series, published on November 1.

The issue of whether or not the FRUS volume could acknowledge
covert funding for a grass-roots political party to support
South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu was decided favorably
by an interagency High Level Panel and the relevant
documentation was released "with some excisions," according to
the Preface by Historian of the State Department Marc J. Susser.

About one tenth of one percent of the historical records
originally proposed for publication in the new volume were not
declassified, but no documents were withheld in full.

The full text of "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-
1968, Volume VI, Vietnam, January-August 1968" is now available
here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/vi/


BENTHAM ON SECRECY

The British philosopher and utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) was also an early proponent of "the safety of publicity"
and a critic of "the inutility of secresy," particularly as it
pertains to foreign policy.

"Secresy in the operations of the foreign department in England
ought not to be endured, being altogether useless, and equally
repugnant to the interests of liberty and peace," he wrote in
his Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace.

"Under the present system of secresy, ministers have... every
seduction to lead them into misconduct; while they have no check
to keep them out of it."

"The principle which throws a veil of secresy over the
proceedings of the foreign department of the cabinet is
pernicious in the highest degree, pregnant with mischiefs
superior to everything to which the most perfect absence of all
concealment could possibly give rise."

The text of Bentham's Plan, first published in 1843, may be
found here (thanks to AK in Bologna):

http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/pil/pil.e04.html


PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

Presidential signing statements, issued when the President signs
new legislation into law, are increasingly becoming a vehicle
for the assertion of executive branch prerogatives.

President Bush has been routinely putting Congress on notice
that he regards many mandated new requirements as no more than
"advisory" since they are trumped by the Administration's
understanding of its intrinsic authorities.

Any new requirement involving the disclosure of information to
Congress or the public, in particular, is likely to be deflected
as follows:

"The executive branch shall construe [one recent disclosure
requirement] in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authorities of the President to supervise the unitary executive
branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could
impair foreign relations, the national security, the
deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of
the Executive's constitutional duties."

This and several similar evasions of congressional action can be
found, for example, in the November 4 signing statement
accompanying the "21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act":

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021104-3.html


NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TOUTED, DOUBTED

A new National Academy of Sciences report calls for increased
research and development into so-called non-lethal weapons that
are intended to disable or incapacitate persons without killing
them. See:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309082889?OpenDocument

Non-lethal weapons have long been seen in some quarters as an
attractive option, since they would offer new alternatives short
of lethal force for crowd control, peacekeeping and other
unconventional military missions.

Critics have argued that non-lethal weapons are a misnomer,
since they could easily have lethal consequences, as the use of
fentanyl gas in a crowded Moscow theater illustrated horribly
last week. Moreover, they could have the unintended consequence
of lowering the threshold for violent conflict. And in some
cases, particularly when it comes to chemical and biological
agents, they could threaten the stability of international
agreements.

The Sunshine Project is a public interest group that has been in
the forefront of challenging the current non-lethal weapon
program. The group has assembled a significant collection of
source documents and related resources on its web site here:

http://www.sunshine-project.org/

"Basic political, legal, and strategic questions about the
utility of non-lethal weapons remain unanswered-sometimes even
unasked," according to "The Soft Kill Fallacy," a now somewhat
dated article from the Sept/Oct 1994 issue of the Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1994/so94/so94Aftergood.html


BIN LADEN'S "WILL"

A document purporting to be the last will and testament of Osama
bin Laden was published two weeks ago in London in the Arabic
newspaper Al-Majallah.

The document, whose authenticity has not been proved, is
sometimes pathetic, occasionally ridiculous.

The author laments his cause's reversal of fortune, the
faithlessness of his co-religionists, and the heathen ways of
his enemies, and leavens his remarks with defiance and peculiar
ethical injunctions:

"O women kinsfolk. Do not ever use cosmetics or imitate the
whores and mannish women of the West. Be a school that graduates
men and mujahidin in the cause of Allah, protect your honor and
be a good example for the mothers of the faithful."

See the published excerpts from the "will," translated by the
CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin-will.htm


PROFILES IN GYNECOLOGY

Not particularly related to secrecy, but remarkable nevertheless
is the case of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, a pioneering 19th
century Viennese gynecologist who ultimately saved the lives of
countless infants and mothers through his discovery of one of
the major causes of infant mortality.

Specifically, Semmelweis figured out that the midwives' dirty
fingernails and other poor hygienic practices could cause fatal
infections.

Yet Semmelweis "found it impossible to propagate his discovery
in Vienna because doctors with political influence who were
opposed to his findings saw to it that he was excluded from
positions where he might implement those findings, and
professionally discredited him.

"Semmelweis died in a mental institution some fifteen years
after his life-saving discovery, unable to cope with the
ridicule that had been heaped upon him and his life's work." (A.
Janik and S. Toulmin, "Wittgenstein's Vienna," p. 35)

A capsule biography of Semmelweis (in German) may be found here:

http://www.m-ww.de/persoenlichkeiten/semmelweis.html


IN DEFENSE OF POLITICS

In the aftermath of a dispiriting electoral season, it doesn't
hurt to be reminded that "You are not the prisoners of
impersonal forces," as historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said
in a 1994 commencement address "In Defense of Politics."

"Politics is an exacting discipline, calling for hard thought,
for innovation, for irony, for vision, for daring. Moreover,
politics is great fun."

See Schlesinger's "In Defense of Politics," newly republished on
TomPaine.com, here:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6631


_______________________________________________

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                               'Alien George'

From: Dan Medley <dmedley@cox-internet.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:34:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:10:20 -0500
Subject: 'Alien George'


[Non-Subscriber Post]

Please visit my Web Site:

http://www.ufoaliengeorge.com

to see if it has Alien information that may be of interest to
you. I have monitored and tracked Aliens and Alien Space Ships
constantly visiting our Planet since Dec. 1997 up to this
present date.


Dan Medley
Metallurgical Engr. - Retired
Former Navy Pilot










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                     Re: Black Projects Come Out - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:47:25 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:12:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Jones



 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

Good Evening Tim, Listers

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....

 >Tim Matthews.

I disagree with you about these black projects being "many" of
the better UFO sightings, indeed they are probably some, but to
my _belief_ only _some_.

I remember reading a while back about the South African
government research people deliberately designing stealth craft
to look like UFO's so that people who saw them would not report
seeing them for fear of ridicule.

Also, here is an article from 'The Engineer', October Issue,
Page 4

---

Phantom of the airways is put to rest.

A TOP-SECRET military stealth plane has been revealed for the
first time, six years after its maiden flight. The makers,
Boeing Phantom Works, said that the design ca now be
declassified since may of its features are coming through in
working aircraft such as the X-45A Un-manned Combat Air Vehicle
prototype. Constructed from a single piece of composite
material, the Y-shaped Bird of Prey is 14M long and flies at
about 450km/h. It completed 38 manned missions at a cost of
=A345m. No doubt there are more secret aircraft like it out there
that are yet to be revealed.

----

Regards

Sean








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                      Kecksburg Case Back In Spotlight

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:28:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:28:23 -0500
Subject: Kecksburg Case Back In Spotlight

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_100850.html

UFO Case Back In Spotlight

By Ann Saul Dudurich
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, November 6, 2002

On Dec. 9, 1965, a fiery orange object was observed streaking
across the evening sky. Witnesses in Westmoreland County said
the object appeared to bank and turn before gliding into a
wooded ravine near Kecksburg, Mt. Pleasant Township. Military
personnel arrived a short time later, purportedly keeping
curious onlookers at bay while the area was searched.

Several eyewitnesses stated they saw a large, acorn-shaped
object being removed from the area on a tarp-covered flatbed
truck. Yet the Air Force has never confirmed anything was found.
The official explanation: A meteorite.

Nearly 37 years later, Kecksburg is once again in the national
spotlight.

During a recent news conference, the Sci Fi Channel challenged
government secrecy, calling for declassification of records
concerning unidentified aerial phenomena, commonly known as
UFOs. To help the cause, Sci Fi joined forces with John Podesta,
former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton,
and his public relations firm, PodestaMattoon. Together, they
are backing a Freedom of Information Act initiative aimed at
cases involving the retrieval of objects of unknown origin.

Sci Fi has obtained the services of Lobel, Novins and Lamont, a
Washington, D.C., law firm, and has commissioned California-
based investigative reporter Leslie Kean to document the Freedom
of Information Act request. It has also formed the Coalition for
Freedom of Information to generate public support.

The Kecksburg case is cited in the group's request for documents
through the Freedom of Information Act, the 1966 law that grants
the right to request access to federal agency records or
information.

According to Larry Landsman, Sci Fi's director of special
projects, the cable channel is lending its resources in an
effort to "figure out what's going on in our skies," and, more
specifically, what happened that night in Kecksburg.

"It's a real mystery; a fascinating story," he said. "And we
just want to know what's going on."

On Sci Fi's behalf, Kean made the trip to western Pennsylvania
Tuesday to interview witnesses, and tour the crash site area.

"I know there have been other requests in the past that haven't
gone anywhere," Kean said. "But, this is the first time an
effort is being made which has some resources and legal power
behind it. <#201> There is a consensus here to take this as far
as we possibly can, and really demand and insist that people get
this information because it's their right to have it. And, if
that means going to court, or whatever it takes, we're really
going to go for it."

According to Kean, the Kecksburg case is a "natural," in part
because of a large number of witnesses and the reported recovery
of a physical object.

"Another reason we looked at this case is all the work done by
Stan Gordon," she said. "We're not starting from ground zero
here."

Gordon, a Greensburg resident who was 16 years old in 1965, has
devoted "years and years" to solving the unsolved mystery. His
efforts to obtain top-secret records, however, have failed.

"Will these documents ever be declassified? I have my doubts,"
Gordon said with a smile, "But I am always hopeful. It's very
important that anyone connected with this case come forward now
and tell what they know."

Ann Saul Dudurich can be reached at adudurich@tribweb.com


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                     It's Official - US Did Land On Moon

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:46:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:46:13 -0500
Subject: It's Official - US Did Land On Moon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,834340,00.html


It's Official - US Did Land On Moon

Oliver Burkeman in New York
Wednesday November 6, 2002
The Guardian

The US moon landings, as any good conspiracy theorist knows,
were staged on a movie set by Americans eager to outstrip the
Russians in the space race. You can tell because the flag they
plant there ripples in a gust of wind, because the film-makers
forgot to include stars in the night sky and because Neil
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have never spoken about their lunar
adventures.

But in a move the doubters will surely dismiss as just another
plank in the conspiracy, Nasa has finally been goaded into
responding. The space agency is to launch a publication setting
out the evidence that the 1969 Apollo landing really did take
place, Nasa's former chief historian told the Guardian
yesterday, in response to a flood of questions from school
students and their teachers. "Hardcore conspiracy theorists,"
Roger Launius said, "are not the audience - nobody believes you
can convince them of anything. But teachers are always saying
they were asked in class and want to know how to respond."

The missing stars are easily dealt with: the photographs in
question also show Earth, a huge patch of brightness hard to
combine on the same exposure with dimmer flickering lights.
Awkwardly for those who see evidence of deception, Armstrong and
Aldrin have both spoken of the mission.

The rippling flag is explained as follows: the astronauts had to
twist the flagpole to insert it into the moon's surface, and
doing so caused it to ripple. In the absence of any atmosphere,
the rippling continued long after they had moved away.

Mr Launius said he was of two minds as to whether the monograph
- which will be written by aeronautics engineer James Oberg -
  might end up giving the urban legends more credibility.

Queries surged after the Fox television network ran a programme
last year called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?,
and the issue re-emerged two months ago when the leading
proponent of the theory, filmmaker Bart Sibrel, confronted Mr
Aldrin, 72, at a hotel in Beverly Hills. When he demanded that
the astronaut swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon,
Mr Aldrin opted to punch Mr Sibrel in the face.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (GMT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:04:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

<snip>

Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
little flying triangle?

Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

<snip>



Hi Larry

http://www.futurehorizons.net/grav.htm

Regards

Chris Whitlock
www.ufology.org.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45 - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:50:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:33:50 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45 - Velez


 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:58:17 +0000
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45

 >Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

 ><Masinaigan@aol.com>

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

 >UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 7, Number 45
 >November 5, 2002
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

<snip>

 >HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN
 >NORTHEASTERN BORNEO

 >On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 7 p.m., a male
 >witness in Kota Kinbalu, a port city on the northeastern
 >tip of the island of Borneo, part of Malaysia's Sabah
 >province, spotted a UFO hovering over the area.
 >The witness reported, "While I was at the factory,
 >coming out for a smoke, I saw the craft hovering with
 >lights in the sky.  At first I didn't pay much notice to
 >it because I thought it would be a helicopter flying
 >around the area.  Then I realized that the object wasn't
 >making any sound."

 >"It was hovering slowly like a normal helicopter
 >would do.  But after two minutes looking at the object,
 >it suddenly disappeared with trails of light following
 >it.  That is the very last I saw of this object, and that
 >was when my spine started to shiver."
 >"Two days later, the Sabah Express had a front-page
 >picture of the object."  (See the Sabah Express for
 >October 10, 2002, "UFO over Kota Kinbalu."  See also
 >Filer's Files #44 for October 30, 2002.  Many thanks to
 >George A. Filer for allowing UFO Roundup to reprint this
 >story.)

Hello John & fellow UpDates Listerions,

Anyone who may be interested in reading the news story and
checking out the pictures of this UFO can go to the Sabah
Express website by clicking on the following URL:

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=14205

Interesting stuff.

Enjoy,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:24:45 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak


PART 2:

 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math

 >>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
 >>Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

Remaining true to the thread title, Printy below mercilously
mangles Mogul math beyond all recognition.

 >IS IT _real_LY FIFTY MILES?

 >>I'll just say that if they are corrected the balloon lands
 >>almost 50 miles too far to the NE of the Foster Ranch debris field.
 >(As a word of explanation here, Brad was referring to a table
 >created by Prof. Moore to demonstrate a possible flight path for
 >NYU Flight #4. This table, and the plot he created from it, was
 >published in his co-authored book "UFO Crash at Roswell" (Saler,
 >Ziegler, Moore: 1997 Smithsonian Institution Press), and used
 >surviving wind data charts from a nearby weather station
 >(Oregrande, NM) and national weather maps for June 4, 5,6 1947.)
 >To bolster his claim, Sparks lists some 19 calculation errors in
 >altitude, and produced yet another new landing site- one of the
 >many that Sparks/Rudiak have come up with over the course of
 >this latest barrage.

Printy trying to set up another diversionary straw man. The
_real_ point is Moore made numerous, unexplained math
"mistakes." Remove the math mistakes, and Moore's own model
predicts a sizable miss. Put in reasonable assumptions instead
of the ones Moore incorporates into his model, and you get a
very big miss.

As to the multiple crash sites, that's because there is no "one"
crash site that can be deduced from a model like Moore's. The
trajectory and crash site one gets depends entirely on the
assumptions that go into the model, hence multiple crash sites.
It's very simple really, but apparently not to Printy.

I modeled different trajectories showing the effects on
trajectory of different assumptions, including modeling the
flights based on proper use of math and the assumptions that
actually adhered to Moore's stated assumptions, while he quietly
and secretly used others.

 >However, he does not show how he reached
 >the value of 50 miles (Rudiak originally stated this error was
 >17 miles in his plot).

What Brad Sparks pointed out has nothing to do with what I was
saying. Brad was pointing out that Moore's table for Flight #4
showed rise and fall rates that differed substantially from
about half the ones he _really_ used. This is absolutely
_indisputable_. It's more of Moore's fuzzy math and typical of
how Moore claims to be doing one thing, but does something else
entirely.

I on the other hand was pointing how that the method Moore used
to calculate a trajectory from his own table was totally wrong
and in violation of his own table. I detailed this on Updates
last month:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m09-008.shtml

Printy can't refute a word of this. (In fact, he makes exactly
the same sort of math error below.) All Printy can do is try to
create as many diversions and straw men as he can.

Notice also how Printy tries to _again_ duck the key point
raised by Sparks, namely that Moore's math is incredibly
horrible! Fully half of Moore's 40 rise rates are off by 5% or
more from the ones he claims he is using in his table. A quarter
are off by 40% or more! (If you want to be _real_ picky about it
and give Moore no margin for error, 39 out of 40 of his used
numbers are wrong!) But Printy goes into Moore damage-control
mode once more, and tries to minimize this, resorting to his own
mangled math to do it.

 >Using Moore's assumed values of ascent
 >and descent listed in the table, I recomputed the times to reach
 >these levels. A brief synopsis is below:
 >Moore's Table Recomputed

 >Time to 53,700 ft 125.5 min 126.5 min
 >Time to 58,000 ft 317.3 min 289 min
 >Time to 60,750 ft 396 min 472.4 min
 >Time to ground 466.2 min 551.1 min

There is only one _right_ way to do these calculations. The
calculations are also simple and straightforward: find the
difference in altitude between two _successive_ data points and
divide by Moore's given rise rate to get the elapsed time
between points. Then add this on to the previous time of flight
to get the new time. When you do that, you get the following
corrected times of flight for the altitudes Printy lists above:

            Moore's table  Correct way  "Printy way"
Time to 53,700 ft   125.5 min    112.2     126.5
Time to 58,000 ft   317.3 min    231.8     289
Time to 60,750 ft     396 min    363.9     472.4
Time to ground      466.2 min    444.2     555.1

Naturally Printy totally screwed it up. Just like Moore
improperly pushed all his velocity data back one data point, it
appears Printy decided to push back the rise rate data instead
of carrying it forward from one point to the next, which is the
way the table definitely shows the calculation should be done
(see below). That is seemingly how he gets his first two
"corrected" times.

I can only guess as to how he gets his last two "corrected"
numbers, which are out there in never-never land. I can get
close to his numbers if I alter the rise rates somewhat in the
middle, which Printy has to do with his screwed-up methodology
to get his peak altitude "corrected" time value.

The reason is if you calculate backwards, as Printy seems to
have done to get his first two "recomputed" times, the rise rate
swings negative _before_ the balloons reach their peak altitude.
The balloons are still rising when the rise rate says they
should be falling.

So Printy stuck in some new positive rise rates up there around
the 58,000 foot level until he got to peak altitude. Then he
switched back to Moore's data set, only this time he seems to be
calculating correctly by carrying the calculation forward from
one point to the next. Unfortunately, by the time he gets around
to calculating correctly, the "corrected" times are horribly out
of whack

If you are confused, it is only understandable. Welcome to the
wonderful whacky world of Moore/Printy mangled math.

First of all, why is there only one correct way to do the
calculation? This is because of the way Moore set up his table.
The rise rates can't swing negative until after the balloons
have stopped rising. Otherwise they can't rise. So let's go to
the area of Moore's table near the peak altitude:

Altitude  Rise rate Moore   Rise rate     Printy
       really uses (fpm)  Moore's table  probably uses
53700      19.4       40         40
54500      38.6       40         27
57000      11.7       27         20
58000      38.5       21         20
60600      20.0       20         15
60700       8.1       15         15
60750     -446.4      -300        -300
57000     -600.0      -400        -400
54000     -476.2      -500        -500

This partial table also gives some idea of just how screwed up
Moore's rise rates are, seemingly using one thing while in
reality he uses something else entirely.

Back to the subject at hand. Notice that Moore's rise rates are
positive and the altitudes increase until the peak altitude of
60,750 feet at which point Moore's table (and also the value he
really used) turns negative. That means if the rise rate is
carried _forward_, the next altitude should be _lower_ because
of the negative rise rate. Lo and behold, the next data point of
57,000 feet is indeed lower, so this is obviously the _correct_
way to read the table.

But the backward "Printy way," the rise rate would swing
negative at the 60,700 foot level, before the balloons reach
peak altitude of 60,750 feet. Any fool can see that the
_correct_ way to do the calculation is to carry forward Moore's
rise rates _forward_ throughout the _entire table_. But
apparently not Printy.

However, even Printy is smart enough to realize he can't reach
peak altitude with a negative rise rate. So he inserts an extra
positive rise rate (15 ft/min) into his table. (Also when I
tried to reproduce his "corrected" times, I found that he also
seemingly altered Moore's rise rate of 21 ft/sec to 20 ft/sec.
Printy is changing Moore's table, but he doesn't tell us that.)

Once Printy reaches peak altitude of 60,750, he returns to
Moore's actual table values and stops pushing them back. But by
then it is way too late.

Now let's look again at the "corrected" times of flight the
"Printy way" vs. the right way, and my attempt to reproduce the
"Printy way" with the above table rise rate values.

          Moore's time  Printy's  My Printy  The correct
                 time above calculation  way --calc.
                              forward
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to 53,700 ft  125.5    126.5    126.7     112.2
Time to 58,000 ft  317.3    289      289.3     231.8
Time to 60,750 ft  396      472.4    472.7     363.9
Time to ground     466.2    551.1    552.9     444.2

Now remember, this is my best-guess reconstruction of the
"Printy way." God only knows what the man really did! Like with
Moore's fuzzy math, trying to figure out exactly what was done
leaves one scratching ones head. It is a lot easier to reproduce
correct math instead of incorrect math. It is only painfully
obvious that that something was done terribly _wrong_.

Printy also apparently still can't figure out that Moore also
ran his table wrong by pushing his velocities backwards. It's
almost comical: trying to defend a hoaxer.

 >We are clearly
 >The only major error is the time it takes to reach the peak
 >altitude after 58,000 feet.

Giggle. The _only_ major error?
 >The extra 84.9 minutes seems large
 >but its effect is not significant if one sticks to the original
 >time line.

Notice that Printy is now scrambling to save this big mess.
Printy is also lying big-time here. Printy's extra 84.9 minutes
turns out to be hugely significant.

Now has anybody noticed something else? What happened to the
"corrected" time line? Wasn't the whole point to "correct" the
time line using Moore's actual table rise rates and see what
happened?

So why is Printy now going back to Moore's original time line?
What Printy is trying to CONCEAL here is that his own
"corrected" time line creates a trajectory that misses by a huge
margin. When I run Printy's "corrected" time line complete with
Moore's flawed backwards velocity calculation (that Printy still
claims is correct), you get a trajectory that lands the balloons
almost 20 miles west of the "desired" Moore landing spot on the
Foster Ranch. Can't have that happen, can we?

The big problem is that extra 84.9 minutes, which Printy
disingenuously labels "not significant." A big part of those
extra minutes adds a lot of westward drift mileage to the
trajectory, resulting in the final big miss. By going back to
Moore's original time line, he can lop about 77 of those extra
minutes off of the flight.

But Printy doesn't tell you any of this. Printy is a true
student of the Charles Moore school of secret, back-stage
mathematical manipulation.

Because Printy doesn't want you to know this, he starts
confabulating and hopes he can sneak this by you. Hence
statements that there are no "major errors" and the "effect
isn't signficant" (but with the subtle caveat, only if you go
back to Moore's original time line).

 >This is because the wind speeds and directions are
 >essentially the same at these altitudes. Assuming the original
 >timeline (where the descent begins at 396 minutes), the peak
 >altitude reached is around 59,500 feet (vs. 60,750) before the
 >descent begins.

Notice how Printy is changing Moore's table in a desperate
attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

What we really have here is a tacit admission by Printy that
Moore's math is hopelessly broken. But Printy doesn't have the
integrity to state this. Instead he is still playing apologist
for Moore and trying to save Moore's ass with his own little
hoaxed "corrected" time trajectory.

 >Other than this large increase in time in the stratosphere, most
 >of Moore's errors listed during ascent and descent effectively
 >cancel out. The descent time has increased by about 8 minutes
 >but this can not explain the additional 33 miles Sparks claims.

Again, who the hell cares? The _real_ point is that Moore's math
is completely screwed up and his "calculated" trajectory
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site a very bad joke. To the
list of hopelessly screwed up math we can also add the work of
Tim Printy.

Not that it really matters anymore, but what _really_ happens to
the trajectory when one uses Moore's printed rise rates rather
than the ones he really used and calculate the whole thing
_correctly_ instead of the "Printy way"?

If you do the corrected time calculation together with incorrect
Moore math of running all the velocities backwards (which Printy
still adheres to), the balloons end up about 5 miles south of
where Moore places them. If you use proper math techniques
throughout, the balloons end up about 10 miles east.

(Printy will no doubt try to make an issue that my results don't
agree with Brad Sparks. But this is another "who cares?"
diversion. The _real_ issue is that Moore's math and model are
horrifically in error.)

So what the hell was Moore doing when he said he was using one
set of rise rates but in reality using another? I'm still not
sure, but my best-guess was that he was secretly "fine-tuning"
his trajectory. When he said he was "calculating" a trajectory
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch he meant "exactly", even if that
meant significantly changing half of his rise rates behind
everybody's back.

 >Perhaps Sparks can explain how he computed his 33-mile increase?
 >Were there "behind the scenes" manipulations of the data? I
 >could be wrong but based on what I calculated and considering
 >the problems Sparks had with measuring distances on a map, I
 >question this value without any supporting information.

Again, who the hell cares? Maybe Printy should try staying on
point for a change. The _real_ issue is what _Moore_ did.
Moore's Flight #4 model trajectory is hopelessly broken. It's a
complete and utter fraud.

 >WHEN ONE ERROR BECOMES FOUR:
 >Brad notes an error in an earlier statement I had
 >made:

 >http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

 >(Excerpts from the Glossery: "u= eastward-directed component of
 >the wind at the indicated level; "v"= northward-directed
 >component of the wind at the indicated level; "HDO" Horizontal
 >Distance Out from the launch site in the North Area of the
 >Alamogordo Army Air Field)

 >>Tim Printy's desperate suggestion that Moore goofed
 >>and used the 9 mph wind velocity from the prior row
 >>instead of 12 mph on the same row is easily refuted
 >>by looking at Moore's north and east, or "u" and
 >>"v," velocity vector components which are 9.9 mph
 >>and 6.7 mph, the first of which is already obviously
 >>larger than the 9 mph value, and they agree with the
 >>236 degree and direction, not the 9 mph wind's 197
 >>degree direction. Vector combination of the "u" and
 >>"v" values using the simple Pythagorean theorem
 >>yields 12.0 mph exactly as it should, not the 9 mph
 >>figure.

 >Sparks, after "easily refuting" my suggestion with the
 >Pythagorean theorem and the listed wind speed vectors, now notes
 >the HDO, X and Y distances (errors 20-22) don't match these same
 >vectors! If these vectors are not matching the distances
 >computed, how can they "easily refute" my suggestion? This is
 >strange logic indeed.

 >My error was stating the 197-degree value was used. Looking back
 >on my spreadsheet, I see that I actually used the 236-degree
 >value with the 9-mph wind speed to get Moore's values of HDO, X,
 >and Y. Sparks refers to the explanation as "desperate". I am not
 >sure how he figures this was the case since I was only trying to
 >show them how Moore arrived at his plot.

What is Printy jabbering about here? Let's look at the beginning
of Moore's table:

                       Distances (miles)
Time Altitude   Wind    Wind speed   Moore   Printy
         speed direc. East North   x  y    x  y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  0.0  4069    9  197   2.6  8.6  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0
  2.8  4921   12  236   9.9  6.7  0.3 0.2  0.46 0.31
  5.5  6562   15  242  13.2  7.0  0.9 0.6  1.06 0.63
  8.3  8202   23  247  21.2  9.0  1.8 1.0  2.05 1.05
12.4  9843   17  242  15.0  8.0  2.9 1.5  3.07 1.60
17.8 13123   32  219  20.1 24.9  4.8 3.8  4.89 3.83

The math problem here is Moore's strange initial x & y values
that even Printy couldn't reproduce at first. Moore has the
winds blowing strongly north at time 0, but at time 2.8 minutes,
Moore's first x or East value is greater than his y or North
value.

Printy loves to crow how he was able to reproduce Moore's
trajectory, and the way he did it was to push back every single
wind speed and direction to the previous time. Thus the wind at
time 0 was replaced with the winds at time 2.8', the winds at
2.8 ' replaced with the winds at 5.5', etc., clear through to
the end of the table.

Of course this "technique" throws out the first point and causes
several other far more serious mathematical disasters to the
table that Printy completely ignores.

(Again, I detailed these on Updates a month ago, and notice that
Printy has yet to address a single one of them. The problem is
he can't, since the proofs of error are mathematical in nature
and completely irrefutable. See "Math vs. Moore".)

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m09-008.shtml

All Printy seems to care about is that he reproduced Moore's
trajectory. Never mind that Moore did the math completely
improperly and Printy is merely reproducing bad math. If Moore
said 2 + 2 = 3 and Printy can show how Moore got 2 + 2 = 3, then
pay no attention to the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now back to the initial x/y problem. Note that Printy, even
after improperly pushing back all the wind values, still can't
reproduce Moore's values. Now he says he can. What he does is
takes the 9 mph wind speed at time 0 and mixes it with the 236
degree wind direction at time 2.8 minutes.

Isn't it amazing what one can do when you reinvent math the
Moore/Printy way? Just do anything you damn well please and then
proclaim victory.

Again never mind that this is a total crock. All that seems to
count in Printy's little debunker brain is that he has
reproduced what Moore did, not that Moore did it the least bit
correctly.

 >Contrast this to Sparks
 >obvious mistakes with measuring distances on maps and Rudiak's
 >(and apparently Sparks) ludicrous, and easily refuted, "secret
 >shift of five data points" theory to explain Moore's plot. One
 >wonders which persons are truly "desperate"?

My "shift of five data points" was my attempt to try to
reproduce Moore's obviously incorrect calculation leading to his
completely bogus Flight #4 trajectory. Printy's great "triumph"
was figuring out that Moore shifted all his data points. Printy
apparently doesn't even realize that this is even more damaging
mathematically than just changing 5 points, since it thoroughly
(rather than partly) corrupts the symmetries and correspondences
Moore built into his own table.

But again, never mind. Printy showed how Moore got 2 + 2 = 3,
and in Printy's mind, that's all that counts. He is _still_
either too stupid to realize that this is wrong or too
disingenuous to admit it.

Why won't Printy address the mathematically provable FACT that
Moore's computation using his own table is completely WRONG? The
reason is he can't. Thus he tries to bury us in straw men,
pointless tangents, diversions, rants, and trivia. All this is
very deliberate on his part to try to avoid dealing with the
actual key issues.

 >Since Sparks still can't seem to figure this all out, I will go
 >the extra step for him to show how Moore made his mistake on the
 >first line. If one uses the 9mph with the 236 degree bearing we
 >get the following distances in HDO, X and Y:

Below is a good example of the trivia Printy wants to bog the
discussion down in. It's just one more example of incredibly bad
Moore math, but doesn't affect the final outcome significantly
enough to even bother with.

 >0.42 HDO
 >0.235 X
 >0.348 Y

 >Compare these to Moore's values

 >0.4 HDO
 >0.2 X
 >0.3 Y

 >The 0.4 mile HDO fits with the 9mph value (2.7min*9mi/hr
 >*1hr/60min = 0.42 miles). The ratio of X and Y agree with a 236-
 >degree bearing. So it was Moore's error in using the 9-mph vice
 >12-mph wind speed that is in play here and not a multitude of
 >errors as suggested by Sparks. I can only assume that Sparks was
 >more interested in "padding" his list than trying to determine
 >the root cause of the values in question.

Whoopie-do! Printy figured out how Moore did it _wrong_! Have
you noticed that Printy has been totally unable to show how
Moore did anything right?

 >Sparks compounds his ignorance by creating Error 23. If one adds
 >the 0.348 value to the 0.32 value of Y for the next step (if you
 >use the original values and not the rounded one used by Sparks,
 >this computes to 0.34 miles), we get 0.668, which rounds to 0.7
 >miles (thus giving the 0.4-mile difference).
 >WHO IS WRONG AND WHO IS RIGHT?

TRANSLATION: Moore did the math wrong, Sparks and I point it
out, but in Printy's twisted logic, figuring out how Moore did
it wrong somehow magically makes it right.

 >Sparks and Rudiak can criticize the methodology Moore used to
 >compute his flight path and his mathematical errors. However, I
 >should point out that neither Sparks, Rudiak nor myself are
 >trained Atmospheric Physicists, and a critique of Moore's
 >assumptions and his computations might best be left to one so
 >trained.

This is another tacit admission by Printy that Moore's math is
hopelessly wrong. But Printy obviously doesn't have the guts or
integrity to simply come out and admit this. Instead he resorts
to an old debunking standby namely APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, or if
you prefer, "Father Knows Best."

How dare we criticize Moore's methodology and math errors! Why
Moore is a high and mighty ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST (gasp!!), so if
he says 2 + 2 = 3, who are we mere mortals to question it?

Printy Reality Check: One doesn't need to be an ichthyologist
to know when dead fish smell. Moore's math "mistakes" can be
easily figured out by any smart high school student. No PhD's
are required here. There is also clear-cut method in Moore's
madness. These "mistakes" are not random. Just about all of them
seemed designed to advance Moore's Mogul agenda.

All the math "mistakes" and highly questionable assumptions in
Moore's Flight #4 trajectory recreation are done to take #4
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch. As I tried to show on my Web
site, if Moore had actually done the math right and stuck to his
stated assumptions instead of secretly changing his assumptions
in midstream, the balloons would have missed by dozens of miles
(perhaps as much as 70 - 100 miles given his wind data).

And Moore's _indisputable_ map alterations all seem designed to
conceal just how close Flight #5 came to Roswell base the next
day. This also seems designed to bolster Moore's claim that
Roswell base knew nothing about Mogul and thus somehow were
grossly confused when they came across the debris the following
month.

 >Never-the-less, the efforts Rudiak/Sparks have taken to
 >suggest that Moore has purposefully altered data and maps just
 >don't wash when closely examined.

When closely examined that's exactly what they show. Moore
purposefully altered data and maps. It's frankly irrefutable,
but Printy is using another debunker technique of total DENIAL,
or the BIG LIE technique.

 >Their efforts appear "desperate" and hypocritical.

Psychological projection by Printy.

 >Examine
 >Sparks's obvious errors in measuring the distances on the 1997
 >map and then presenting them as facts. Were these errors done
 >purposefully or simply because Sparks just couldn't use a
 >measuring instrument correctly? Then examine their "desperate"
 >efforts to jury-rig Moore's data and concoct their "secret
 >shift" of 5 data points.

 >You be the judge.

 >Tim Printy

Anybody halfway _competent_ in math can see that what Moore has
done is a complete fraud. Brad Sparks and I are just the
messengers here.

A religious debunking fanatic like Printy may believe he has God
on his side, but Brad Sparks and I have something even better,
namely MATH. Math has provable outcomes and the math tells us
Moore perpetrated a hoax, plain and simple.

I welcome or thorough peer review of Moore's work by _competent_
and _honest_ individuals. I have no doubt as to what the final
judgment will be since the numbers speak for themselves. All of
Tim Printy's desperate spin-doctoring can't save him.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:34:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:28:15 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Rudiak


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:45:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Morton

 >>From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:08:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Printy

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:41:06 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks

 >>Hmmm... I am not sure what you mean by Printy's map. I
 >>apparently used the same maps as you. That is, the maps
 >>published in Pflock's book, the Moore/Saler/ Ziegler book, and
 >>the 1994 USAF report. Are there others that I am not aware of?
 >>Perhaps you can present them for us to examine. Otherwise, my
 >>values are not invalid or irrelevant until you can show that
 >>they are. Is this rebuttal by declaration? Are you suggesting
 >>that Rudiak's 31 miles is "phony" as well since it disagrees
 >>with your 34 miles?

 >Could someone just scan the maps, label them (title, author(s),
 >date, page, figure number), and throw them up on a website?
 >Remind us again where we're measuring "from" and "to"... Then we
 >can all print them and take out our rulers and measure. I would
 >think that measuring within a few tenths of a mile would be
 >close enough for this issue...

 >Dave Morton

Dave,

I've already done this on my Web site:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

Printy is trying, as usual, is trying to take the discussion off
on a tangent.

The real subject is Moore clearly changing the original Flight
#5 graphic, misplotting the crash site as well as making other
changes, such as removing Roswell base from the map.

Printy is trying to divert this into a discussion of whether
Brad Sparks accurately measured Moore's misplotted crash site,
which is hardly the point.

It's the classic slimy lawyer "Plan B" defense, made famous by
the TV show 'The Practice'. When guilt of your client is
overwhelming, attack the prosecution witness and accuse them of
the crime. The whole point is to confuse the jury.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:02:47 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:29:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

 >NARBERTH -- The witness was on his back porch talking to a
 >friend on October 8, 2002, and they were looking at the night
 >sky on a clear night, like they often do.  Then it happened, for
 >about two to three seconds a fireball streaked across the sky,
 >from east to west, and disappeared.  The witnesses report, "I
 >continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >was a bright star.  It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >was thundering back into space.  The witness said, "I have seen
 >many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

George:

As the witness looks up, he obviously sees many shooting stars
and Iridium satellites.

Can you list the things that were done by whomever collected
this "UFO" report to rule out the really obvious?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:42:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:33:12 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000
 >>Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>Tell me Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent astronauts
 >>>to the Moon or not? On which side of reality do you sit?

 >>>>Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right up
 >>>>there with the Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense.

 >>Hi Bob, Dick, and all good List folk,

 >>The question asked by Bob is like the question have you stopped
 >>beating your wife lately - answer yes or no. That is a leading
 >>question, and is hardly applicable in any court. These hard
 >>differentiations Bob prefers for his version of the real are
 >>largely meaningless in a postmodern age where science is
 >>evolving into a huge cyberspace gaming system rather than being
 >>in pursuit of the old industrial idea of objective tangible
 >>goals. But then there are still people around who believe that
 >>the world of appearances is totally real:

 >>they believe that doctors cure, policemen protect, politicians
 >>govern, scientists discover things, and priests leads us to God.
 >>Like the skeptics versus believers game, those who oppose the
 >>original moon landing split into hot and cool parts. The hot
 >>believe that the scientists and astronauts were on a Hollywood
 >>set, but I propose a more sophisticated approach based on the
 >>question do the scientists themselves consider that it was real?
 >>They used screens to carve images in one another's head, as did
 >>I.

 >>This making of images is a continuous process industry like the
 >>production of cement, or soap operas, both almost
 >>indistinguishable.

 >>And of course there is no OFF switch.

 >Fortunately, there is a delete "switch" so I have removed a lot
 >of this 'monotribe' or 'word salad' to get to the hard core of
 >'fact'.- according to Colin.

 >>Through intense mystical subjectivities we
 >>enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have
 >>not come across one.

 >A delusionary or pseudo - solipsist?

 >"I think, therefore, I am!"

 >..... I think.

 >(But maybe I'm wrong....)"

 >At any rate, my 'self' is the only thing that exists. All else
 >is a 'dream'.

 ><snip>

Whew! Thanks, Bruce, I was wondering if I was the only one
whose eyes got crossed reading this. Sounds like what you'd
get if Marshall McLuhan and Robert A. Wilson were locked in
a closet together for nine months....


==JJS==






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:44:08 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:34:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Notice From The Why? Files - Speiser


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:02:20 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Notice From The Why? Files

 >>From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:21:58 -0000
 >>Subject: Notice From The Why? Files

 >>Please note that, despite the opinions of some people, 'The
 >>Moon Files' at:

 >>http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

 >>do _not_ support the concept that NASA 'faked' the moon
 >>landings.

 >The moon is about 30 Earth-diameters away, and has a substantial
 >gravitational pull, assisting rocket travel.  The feasibility of
 >space travel has been constantly demonstrated, including amazing
 >photo visits to the other planets.

 >Watching the trajectory of the moon dust off the wheels of the
 >lunar rover vehicles showed all the earmarks of being in a
 >vacuum, not a desert location in the southwest U.S.

 >It's hard to imagine that anyone could think travel to the moon
 >is such a big deal that NASA would fake it.

I think it would cost more than the $30 billion we spent just to
buy the silence of all the co-conspirators....








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:55:14 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:37:51 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>NASA has always been a publisher of books and other educational
 >>>materials disseminating the fundings of space research. Who do
 >>>you think wrote those books? Authors.

 >>I assume by "fundings" you meant to say "findings,"

 >Yes, sorry, my index finger just twitched.

 >>but please give me the title of one (1) (uno) BOOK that NASA (as an
 >>organization; not some past NASA employee) authored.

 >I believe that I said, "publisher", and that "authors" wrote
 >them.

 >>Technical reports, sure (I am a past technical editor of many U.S.
 >>Government reports). But to the best of my knowledge, not books

 >Well, I just grabbed one off of my shelf, "On Mars - Exploration
 >of the Red Planet 1958-1978", published by NASA as part of the
 >NASA History Series. It's authors are Edward Clinton Ezell and
 >Linda Neuman Ezell, the former a curator at the Smithsonian and
 >the latter a Graduate student at George Washington Univ., at the
 >time of publication. Edward Ezell had been historian at the
 >Johnson Space Flight Center beginning in 1980.

 >The work is a hefty 535 page paperback, which certainly
 >qualifies as a "book" as far as I can tell. On the last page is
 >a list of 22 other books published in the series.

 >>and especially not on controversial subjects.

 >Well, it covered the issue of whether the Viking science
 >experiments really found evidence of life or just chemistry,
 >citing Gil Levin for the latter and other participants for the
 >consensus.

 >One can't get much more controversy than that - in science that
 >is. "Did the experiment find life or didn't it?"

 >>You do not seem to be aware of Charles Fort and
 >>his writings and world view. Are you?

 >I am familiar with the genre. One of the NASA history series, on
 >NASA sounding rockets, was authored by William R. Corliss. I've
 >got a couple of his forteana-packed volumes. They make good
 >bookends for my shelf of UFOria authored by people like the
 >late, great Donald Menzel, Uncle Phil, Bob Sheaffer, Ray Craig,
 >Allan Hendry, Otto Bilig, Sagan, Ol' Doc Condon - my, my they
 >just goes on and on.


Bob,

Okay. But I still think we are talking apples and oranges here.

I believe that the Oberg commissioned book is quite unique and
unprecedented in the history of NASA publishing. And "the genre"
(whatever that means) is not Charles Fort. He had many followers
or "disciples" who did not necessarily adhere to his principles
and his outlook and reasoning.

Colin Bennett does to a certain degree, but I am disappointed to
see his solipsistic (solpisim) response on this List, as Bruce
Maccabee has properly pointed out.

I can easily say that both you and he exist only in my mind, but
where does that get us?

No. As you should realize, I am a strong proponent of the
scientific method, properly applied, not necessarily the way
science is always practiced. I certainly don't agree at all with
Bennett's view that there are no objectively established facts
or truths.

One of those is that we definitely landed craft and
humans on the Moon.

  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:39:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Kaeser


 >From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....


Tim-

I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
sightings were really "Black Project" related? If that's so, I'd
like to see a comparison of test flights and UFO reports to back
it up. That's the problem with a CIA article put out in the mid
90's, which alleged that many UFO reports were actually flights
of the U-2. We now know when those flights took place and they
don't really take place at the same time as many sightings. This
also doesn't explain many of the structured craft descriptions
given by military and police witnesses in the 50's and 60's.

Just as I expect those who allege an ET connection to UFOs to
have definitive evidence, I would also expect that of those who
allegedly have a mundane explanation. Just because one
explanation might be easier to accept shouldn't result in
greater credibility (IMO).

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Printy

From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:03:58 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:41:34 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Printy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800

<snip>

 >What we have here is a typical Printy diversion. The one who
 >should be making a "clarification" here is Printy (or Moore).
 >Why did Moore swap "Roswells" on us, replacing the base on the
 >original plot with the town? Could it be so that it wasn't as
 >obvious just how close Flight 5 actually passed to the base?

Same old tired argument. Moore plotted his map the way he
did. Feel free to ask him some time. I find it interesting that
you seem to think in 1995, he foresaw this argument that you
and Sparks were pushing forward.

 >Instead, all that is noted here is an "X" marks-the-spot crash
 >site and the words "ON GROUND". Again, look at the original
 >plot. Printy is flagrantly lying here.

Is it an "X" or is it an arrow going towards a line? The
notation is somewhat confusing isn't it? I would be interested
in seeing the original and not the photocopy in the RAAF report.

 >Nitpicking over whether Brad Sparks got the misplot mileage
 >exact isn't important. The _real_ point is that Moore seriously
 >misplotted the position.

Actually it is. You and Sparks direct your anger at Moore's
errors and then say it is ok for you to make obviously bogus
mistakes. You also proudly point out mistakes that you feel are
in my arguments/calculations but then it is OK for Sparks to
make obviously wrong and misleading measurements. Sounds
hypocritical to me.

 >Incidentally, Printy actually places Moore's crash site about
 >0.5-1.0 too close to these wells, Printy apparently having
 >caught a little more "Mooreitis".

Actually, I plotted the point based on the values Moore had
listed in his table. I also stated the locations were
"approximate". Examining the values for flight #6's landing site
and RAAF in the NYU plots, it seems that the data team started
their flights at the center of Alamagordo AFB. However, Moore
seems to have used the actual launch point of the north hanger.
This explains why Roswell is about a mile to the west in his
graphic and many of the other landmarks are off if one uses the
center of the base. Moore, apparently unaware of this difference
accurately transcribed the path from figure 32 onto his map. As
a result, the plotted position on his map is now further from
Roswell than it should be. It measures about 30.5 miles but it
really was about 29.5 miles.

 >What Printy _doesn't_ point out to you is that there was yet
 >another oil well much closer in to Roswell, and very near the
 >16-17 mile crash site marked on the original graphic.

Actually I do state the oil well is there. I think you need to
get your eyes checked because I stated in the line directly
below the map:

"Interestingly, the location shown on figure 32 does seem to be
near another oil well making one question both Crary's and
Moore's locations."

 >That means there would also have been an unidentified plane in
 >Roswell base airspace. But according to Printy, everybody at
 >Roswell base was taking a siesta and totally unconcerned about
 >such matters.

Was it in their airspace? Four miles is a long way. Most people
on these bases have their jobs to do. Can you specifically
identify which groups of individuals were assigned to monitor
the skies that day? Those working doing their daily tasks would
not be "skylarking" staring up at the sky.


 >But in Printy FantasyLand, the same concern for security
 >apparently didn't extend to their airspace. Nobody was watching
 >and nobody cared if a strange balloon and an unidentified plane
 >came within a few miles of the base.

You are confusing ground security with air security. There is a
difference you know. How many fighter planes were assigned to
RAAF for air protection? None as best I can tell. Were there an
Anti-Aircraft units assigned/deployed? None as best I can tell.
Was there an assigned observer corps setup on the base? I don't
know. Do you? It seems that there was little effort for air
security. Again, show us which groups (not vague references)
were assigned these tasks. Can you produce one report stating
they did see or report the flight.


Tim Printy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:11:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:43:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:01:23 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 ><snip>

 >>TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >>By David Windle
 >>New Scientist
 >>October 21, 2002

 >>A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >>aviation world by surprise,

 ><snip>

 >Can a "bat winged jet" take off vertically, hover silently, make
 >right angle turns at supersonic speed, give off all colours of
 >lights, appear out of nowhere and disappear to nowhere?


No, and this one can only attain a top speed of 300 mph. Good
points Eleanor.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:19:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:44:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:32:52 UT
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >>Dear All,

 >>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >>of production.

 >>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >>seen the light of day.....

 >How could anyone mistake this for a UFO?

 >It is a jet airplane like all the ones I have seen tested over
 >the Antelope Valley (Aerospace Valley) where I live in
 >California.

 >If it was big, glowed around the perimeter, and could execute
 >zig-zag manuevers, instant path reversals, and appear and
 >disappear... well, then I would have to call it a UFO.


Hi Bill,

And really, they are just another airplane knock-off. A UAV is
not going to be used in any area other than a war zone and the
BoP could be chased around the sky by a homebuilt Lancair 4P and
then run away from the BoP. It's slow and not very nimble.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:39:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:46:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:44:19 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >>Dear All,

 >>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >>of production.

 >>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >>seen the light of day.....

 >>Tim Matthews.

 >>-----

 >>Source: The New Scientist

 >>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992946

 >>TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >>By David Windle
 >>New Scientist
 >>October 21, 2002

 >>A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >>aviation world by surprise, after a low key unveiling in St
 >>Louis, Missouri. It may look like it flew straight off the
 >>screen of a sci-fi movie, but the Bird of Prey is no flight of
 >>fancy - it could translate into serious business for its makers,
 >>aerospace giant Boeing.

 >>"Here we have an example of a classic 'black' programme: an
 >>aircraft which has been built and flight tested for a number of
 >>years - and no one outside the programme knew about it," says
 >>Nick Cook, aerospace consultant to Janes Defence Weekly. Other
 >>highly classified aircraft that have ultimately been revealed
 >>included the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes and the B-2 stealth
 >>bomber.

 >>The Bird of Prey cost $67 million and is the product of Boeing's
 >>advanced research and development division, the Phantom Works.
 >>It first flew in 1996 and is said to have demonstrated a range
 >>of stealth and production technologies. It is a single seat,
 >>single engine design and with a reported maximum altitude of
 >>6100 metres (20,000 feet). Its top speed is a relatively sedate
 >>480 km/h (300 mph).

 ><snip>

 >The announcement reinforces the long known conclusion that
 >secrets can be kept, but hardly suggests that this craft was
 >mistaken for a high performance  flying saucer... Note top speed
 >of 300mph, top altitude of 20,000'.It has wings and there is no
 >indication it can move straight up or down or land in a space
 >not much larger than itself or hover. Reminds one of the silly
 >CIA historian's fictional claim that the U-2 and SR-71 spy
 >planes were responsible for many UFO sightings. One also wonders
 >about its range.


Hi Stan and List,

You know they have to hang radar reflectors on fiberglas yachts
so that ship's radar can pick them up and avoid running them
down at sea.

I've mentioned homebuilts on this list before. There are several
thousands of types built out of aircraft grade plywood and/or
carbon fibers etc that elude radar-without even trying. Many are
very fast and are exotic looking.

Why do we have to get all bent out of shape and hyped by this
latest stealth Bird of Prey. It's just bigger and slower is all.
What's this little pissant going to prey on anyway. It's a
prototype.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:11:30 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:51:15 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Morton


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:50:26 -0500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak


 >>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
 >>>Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

 >>(Tim asked me to forward this to the List- BH)

 >Because of the length, I'm breaking my response to Printy into
 >two parts. This first part deals with Printy trying to defend
 >Charles Moore's alterations to the original Mogul Flight #5 map.
.....

I printed the Mogul maps and text from David Rudiak's website,
via the link he posted.

Based on what I've seen on the maps so far, I would say:

1. Professor Moore rates an F in map drawing.

2. Tim Printy rates an F in map reading.

 From the maps alone (forget the Emails, etc):

Comparing the original "NYU Balloon Project Technical Report #1"
maps with trajectories, to later Moore maps with trajectories
(Figure 17 - 1995, and Figure 6 - 1997):

1. Moore erased Roswell Base (Roswell AAF) beginning in 1995
with Figure 17 (from what book or article?).

2. Moore moved the town of Roswell 2 miles to the west.

3. Moore moved the crash site of Flight #5 13 miles to the east.

4. Moore's statement that "The plot for Flight #5 was taken
without change from Figure 32 in NYU Balloon Project Technical
Report #1..." is apparently true for the plots on Figures 17 and
6 up to the original crash site at about mile 108 from
Alamogordo, but not true for the rest of the plot which has been
extended to about mile 121 from Alamogordo. So this statement is
not true. See old and new plots for comparison.

You can still measure the distance of the balloon track to
Roswell Base, but only if you have an old map to refer to and
draw in the Base yourself.

The distance of the balloon track to the town of Roswell is
irrelevant if one is discussing the distance to the base.

(Rudiak and Sparks have covered many other points, as well).

In summary, I would say Moore's maps and plots beginning in 1995
are worthless, and Printy's comments are a combination of
diversionary garbage and falsehoods, making them even more
worthless than Moore's.


Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Carey

From: TCarey1947@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:14:09 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:56:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Carey


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >SCI FI CHANNEL GETTING INVOLVED IN UFO RESEARCH

 >SCI FI Channel, as I suggested in Filer's Files last May, is
 >sponsoring a landmark archeological excavation at the 1947
 >Roswell Crash Site. SCI FI Channel's recently announced an
 >initiative to bring scientific, congressional and media
 >attention to the UFO phenomenon. Remote sensing technologies
 >from the University of New Mexico, will be used to excavate the
 >alleged crash site of an alien craft. Working under top secret
 >conditions, skilled archeologists will attempt to find physical
 >evidence of an extraterrestrial craft. "THE ROSWELL CRASH:
 >STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE" will be hosted by Bryant Gumbel on
 >Friday, November 22, beginning at 8 PM (ET/PT). Sci.Fi.com



George, List, All:

George Filer leaves the impression that the Roswell
archaeological dig sponsored by the Sci Fi Channel has yet to
happen. Actually, the dig was conducted in September and will be
part of Sci Fi's new, two-hour documentary on Roswell which will
air on Friday evening, November 22nd.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-015.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-016.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m01-023.shtml


Tom Carey







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:20:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:57:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Speiser


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:47:50 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500


I repeat my question to Stan or anywone: Is there an "R"
clearance, and if so, what is it for?

Thanks,

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Scientists Intensify Hunt For 'Non-Terrean' Life

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:00:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:00:31 -0500
Subject: Scientists Intensify Hunt For 'Non-Terrean' Life


Source: The Mercury News via SiliconValley.com

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4445978.htm

Stig

***

SiliconValley.com

Posted on Mon, Nov. 04, 2002

**

The hunt for alien pond scum

By Robert S. Boyd
Mercury News Washington Bureau

**

WASHINGTON - With growing support from the federal government,
scientists are accelerating their hunt for life beyond Earth.

They also are broadening the search to include organisms unlike
any of those on our home planet -- what some researchers call
"weird life." By this, they mean alien forms of life that are
not based on our familiar DNA but on a different genetic code.

In theory, creatures made of unusual biological or chemical
structures might exist on moons or planets that lack liquid
water, a must for life as we know it.

"We are looking for organic life that might be different from
Earth life," said John Baross, a biologist at the University of
Washington in Seattle, and co-chairman of the Committee on the
Origin and Evolution of Life at the National Academy of
Sciences, the nation's premier scientific organization.

According to David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of
California- Santa Cruz, there is "a 50-50 chance" that extra-
terrestrial life would have a different chemistry from life on
Earth.

The genetic code of every earthly creature, from bacteria to
whales, is written in an alphabet of four letters -- A, C, G and
T. Each stands for a chemical compound known as a base. "Weird
life," however, might have different or additional bases and
hence be written in a different alphabet -- say B, C, G and H.

In addition, all proteins -- the building blocks of terrestrial
life -- are assembled from a set of 20 chemical compounds known
as amino acids. But laboratory researchers already have created
deviant proteins using more than 20 amino acids.

If extraterrestrial life turns out to be made of the same
materials as on Earth, scientists don't expect to find "little
green men." The creatures probably will resemble pond scum, a
film or mat of primitive microbes like the cyanobacteria that
colonized our planet nearly 4 billion years ago.

Even that would be a monumental discovery, proving that we are
not alone in the universe.

At the request of Congress, the National Academy committee is
preparing a road map to guide the quest for both Earth-like and
unconventional extra-terrestrial life. The search is known as
astrobiology, a combination of astronomy and biology.

"Astrobiology is no longer a joke. It is serious business," said
Bruce Runegar, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, a
consortium of 11 universities and research institutions that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration established five
years ago to coordinate the search.


Serious study

To ensure that astrobiology is taken seriously, the academy
committee decided at a meeting in Washington earlier this month
to quit using the term "weird life" in its reports because it
sounds too much like science fiction.

Instead, committee members came up with the awkward name, "non-
terrean life," as opposed to "terrean life" here on Earth.

" 'Weird life' was not sophisticated enough" for the National
Academy, Baross explained.

Much of the committee's meeting was spent examining the work of
the Astrobiology Institute, which coordinates the research of
850 scientists and engineers.

Current astrobiology projects include:

  - Collecting meteorites from Mars that might reveal signs of
past or present life. Scientists now doubt that the famous
meteorite that was picked up in Antarctica in 1984 contains the
fossils of ancient microbes, as once was claimed. But they are
adding a third search team to the two that already are hunting
for more Martian rocks.

  - Designing scientific instruments to fly on missions to Mars
and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. NASA is testing robots that
can drill through rock, soil and ice in Antarctica and the
Chilean desert. The first mission to collect Martian soil and
return it to Earth won't be until 2011 at the earliest.

In addition, a space probe will reach Titan, an Earth-sized moon
orbiting Saturn, in 2005. Astrobiologists are interested in
Titan because it may have lakes of liquid hydrocarbons, such as
methane, which might host an alternative form of life.

  - Exploring the capacity of life to survive in extremely
hostile environments on Earth as a guide to what to look for on
other planets. This month, astrobiologists will dive to the
bottom of a frozen lake in a volcano high in the Andes to test
the limits of life as it might be found on Europa, an ice-
covered moon of Jupiter.

"By exploring extreme environments here on Earth, we'll be much
more capable when we get to another planet," said Michael Meyer,
NASA's chief scientist for astrobiology.

  - Doing laboratory experiments to create and study abnormal
life forms so they won't be overlooked. NASA missions designed
to spot only Earth-like microbes might miss bizarre organisms.

For example, Steven Benner, a biochemist at the University of
Florida in Gainesville, has created lifelike molecules with non-
standard DNA codes, and proteins with more than the standard 20
amino acids. His goal is to determine how such alternative
systems might be detected on other worlds.

"These are potential 'bio-signatures' for both terrean-like life
and 'weird life' forms," Benner wrote in a paper describing his
lab's work. He is also helping to design detectors to fly on
NASA missions to Mars.


Search on Earth

The search for clues to extraterrestrial life is even going on
under Earth's oceans.

The Ocean Drilling Program, an international research
partnership, has been studying the geology of the seafloor for
30 years, but it is starting to look for living microbes and
fossils underneath it. Such creatures might have counterparts on
other planets.

James Yoder, an ocean expert at the National Science Foundation,
a federal agency in Arlington, Va., said a drilling ship would
start exploring the "deeply buried biosphere" next year. "The
ODP has just started doing biology," he said.

Victoria Meadows, an astrobiologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, builds computer models of extra-
terrestrial environments to see what forms of life might be
possible on other planets.

One project is to model what Earth would have looked like from
space 2 billion years ago, before its oxygen-rich atmosphere
developed. The models could provide clues to possible evidence
of life, such as methane gas, on an apparently lifeless planet.


Astrobiology work

Future space missions related to astrobiology include:

  - NEWBORN PLANETS: A giant infrared space telescope, SIRTF,
which will be launched in January, will be able to detect disks
of dust and gas around other stars, where new planets are born.
A gap in such a disk, like a hole in a doughnut, is a sign that
a planet is there. One such gap in one disk, around the bright
southern star Fomelhaut, was reported earlier this month.

  - EARTH-SIZE PLANETS: The Space Interferometry Mission, set for
launch in 2009, will be a fleet of three synchronized telescopes
trailing our planet as it revolves around the sun. The mission
will survey 200 nearby stars looking for Earth-size planets.
About 100 extrasolar planets already have been discovered, but
they are too big and hot to be considered habitable.

  - MARTIAN LIFE: A series of Mars landers and orbiters will be
launched every other year starting in 2003 to scout the Red
Planet for sites where biological activity might be found. A
mission to collect a sample of Martian rocks and soil and return
it to Earth is planned for 2011 or 2013.

  - EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE: The Terrestrial Planet Finder, an even
more powerful space telescope that's still being designed, is
planned for launch by 2015. Its mission is to investigate 50
extrasolar planets where conditions might make life possible. It
then will pick 10 of these for closer study, looking for
signposts of primitive life.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Visit the NASA Astrobiology Institute at:

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov

or the Astrobiology Web at

www.astrobiology.com

**

Contact Robert S. Boyd at rboyd@krwashington.com.

=A9 2001 siliconvalley and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.siliconvalley.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Solar System Material Collection

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:05:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:02:57 -0500
Subject: Solar System Material Collection


Source: Casa Grande Dispatch - Arizona,

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5926686&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561
&rfi=6

Stig

***

Spaceship looking for secrets of universe

By ALAN LEVINE, Casa Grande Dispatch
November 02, 2002

**

Gathering dust to seek similarities to Earth

*

Just as this edition of the Dispatch was being printed,
somewhere out in deep space, just beyond the orbit of Mars, a
spaceship had finished gathering in and storing dust particles
from Asteroid 5535.

The 2.5-mile-wide chunk of rock is more affectionately referred
to as asteroid Annefrank, discovered in 1942 by prolific German
asteroid hunter Karl Reinmuth and later named in honor of the
Jewish teenager, whose diary was published by her father in
1947.

This is the first collecting of extraterrestrial material since
the Apollo 17 moon landing in 1972, and it is the first ever to
take place beyond the Earth's moon, but the flyby of Annefrank
is merely a kind of dress rehearsal for the spacecraft.

The seven-year mission, dubbed Stardust, was first launched from
Cape Canaveral, Fla., on Feb. 7, 1999 and is a part of NASA's
Discovery Program of low-cost, highly focused science missions
being managed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL), a division of
California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Stardust's primary mission is to collect particles from comet
Wild-2 (pronounced Vilt), and bring the samples back to Earth in
January of 2006 to help answer fundamental questions about the
origins of the solar system.

The mission's principal investigator is Donald Brownlee,
professor of astronomy at the University of Washington.
"Stardust will come within 100 miles of the core of the comet,
and it will gather a variety of scientific readings and transmit
close- up pictures before returning to Earth with its treasure,
bits of comet dust," he said.

The Stardust spacecraft will take advantage of flying near
Annefrank asteroid to test the many procedures the spacecraft
will use when it encounters Wild-2, Jan. 2, 2004.

"This is an engineering test," said Thomas Duxbury, project
manager for Stardust at JPL. "We have no science goals or
science expectations at Annefrank. It's an opportunity to try
key procedures for the first time before we get to comet Wild-2,
so that we may identify problems that we can address before we
reach our primary target."

Although there are differences in how the spacecraft will
function during the Annefrank flyby and the comet encounter, the
asteroid does present an opportunity to test Stardust's safety
features should it run into trouble. If a serious problem
occurs, the spaceship will go into "safe mode," which entails
turning the spacecraft's solar collectors toward the sun to
protect itself.

"When we have the comet encounter," Brownlee said, "we want as
few first-time events as possible. This fortunate opportunity at
the asteroid increases our probability of success when the
Stardust craft arrives at the comet."

There won't be much in the way of a photo-op for the spacecraft
as it passes Annefrank, because the angle of the encounter
relative to the sun will give the spaceship a view in which only
a thin crescent of the asteroid will be sunlit during the
approach, which will provide an additional challenge for the
optical- navigation system to recognize it as a guiding light.

Aerogel (a glass foam) dust collectors that will gather comet
dust from Wild-2 will stay open for the asteroid flyby. The Max
Planck Institute dust analyzer and the University of Chicago
dust flux monitor also will be operating. However, little to no
dust from the asteroid is anticipated, since the spacecraft will
only get within 1,900 miles of Annefrank.

When the Stardust spacecraft finally encounters Wild-2, it will
fly as close as 75 miles from the comet's main body, close
enough to trap small particles from the coma, the gas-and-dust
envelope surrounding the comet's nucleus. The craft will be
traveling at about 13,400 mph. The main camera, built for NASA's
Voyager program, will transmit the closest-ever comet pictures
back to Earth.

Stardust will collect interstellar particles that more recently
came to our solar system from outside its boundaries. Scientists
believe that they contain heavy chemical elements that
originated in the stars. Since every atom in our bodies came
from inside of the stars, by thoroughly studying this
interstellar dust, scientists hope to learn more about our
cosmic roots.

The dust flux monitor on the Stardust ship will be used to
monitor interstellar dust particle encounters. In addition, the
Cometary and Interstellar Dust Analyzer will intercept and
perform real-time compositional analysis on this dust. The
findings of both instruments will be sent back to Earth for
further analysis.

The Stardust spacecraft will return in January of 2006 and
deliver its precious cargo by parachuting the samples to Earth
to a selected location in the Utah desert, using a clamshell-
  like, low-cost reentry capsule. The canister will then be
transported to the planetary materials curatorial facility at
Johnson Space Center for further analysis.

Just prior to entering the Earth's atmosphere, the spacecraft
will jettison the capsule and then perform a divert maneuver to
avoid entering the atmosphere. The capsule is to free-fall for a
couple of miles before the drogue parachute deploys, with the
main chute deploying several seconds later when the capsule has
reached the 10,000-foot level.

Having been diverted so as not to enter the Earth's atmosphere,
the spacecraft will drift away and continue to orbit the sun.

It is interesting to note that in 1980 renowned scientist Carl
Sagan aired "Cosmos," a 13-hour, Emmy Award-winning TV series on
PBS in which he held 500 million people in 60 countries
spellbound by taking them on a voyage to the stars and
explaining the wonders of the universe. Sagan frequently
reminded his viewing audience that "nearly all of the atoms in
your body were made inside the stars," and he delighted in
referring to us as "star stuff." Within the next 14 to 15
months, Stardust will be gathering the materials that will more
than likely support Sagan's theory.

**

Copyright Casa Grande Valley Newspaper 2002








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Life Linked To Water From Comets

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:22:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:04:03 -0500
Subject: Life Linked To Water From Comets


Source: The New Zealand Herald

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3002978&thesection=news&thesu
bsection=general&reportID=162576

Stig

***

Thursday November 07, 2002

Life linked to icy barrage

07.11.2002 - By SIMON COLLINS

**

Comets have always been a source of wonder. Now scientists
believe that they may also be a major source of the water that
sustains life.

American scientist Dr Martha Hanner, in Auckland to give a
public lecture tonight, says icy comets that hit the Earth in
its first 500 million years may have brought frozen water from
the outer reaches of space.

The ice would have melted when it hit the Earth, but much of it
would have been captured as steam by the Earth's gravity, giving
rise eventually to rain and forming the oceans.

Water was probably also produced from steam spewing out of
volcanoes. But constant bombardment by comets and asteroids
"could have made a significant part of the water on the surface
of the Earth".

Dr Hanner says it was also possible that some of the complex
carbon-based molecules on comets had been brought to Earth to
help form the building- block molecules from which life
developed.

She has worked for 25 years for California's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, a branch of the Californian Institute of Technology
whose main client is the US National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (Nasa).

She is an originator of a small desk-sized robotic spacecraft
called Stardust, which flew close to the asteroid Annefrank this
week on its way to collect dust particles from a comet called
Wild-2 in 2004.

It is due to land in the Utah desert in January 2006 - bringing
back the first extraterrestrial material from beyond the Moon.

"We study rocks with telescopes. That is mainly what I do. But
there is only so much you can learn with a spectrometer," Dr
Hanner said.

"A lot of information is in the structure of the particles on a
micron- sized scale [one-thousandth of a millimetre] - what are
the minerals that are present, how they fit together with each
other, whether there is hydrocarbon material, and what is the
form of the carbon.

"We want to see whether some of the structure is what we have
inferred that interstellar gas should look like, and the crystal
structure to tell us what temperature it was formed at."

The solar system took shape out of a formless cloud of tiny
particles 4.5 billion years ago.

Evidence suggests that the Earth, the Moon and all the planets
continued to be hit by comets and other bits of "leftover
debris" for a further 500 million years. Many bits of debris may
have contained water and complex carbon molecules.

However, literally billions of other comets - small
"planetesimals" typically just 5km to 10km across - stayed away
from the planets, and have continued to circle the sun
independently at spans of up to 50 times the distance between
the sun and the Earth.

"Some of us believe that the material that froze into the comets
was actually material that predated the solar system," Dr Hanner
said.

"So we believe the samples [from Comet Wild-2] will be
interstellar dust, or stardust, that is older than the solar
system - at least 5 billion years old."

If the specks from the Stardust spacecraft turn out to contain
frozen water and complex carbon molecules, they will be the kind
of proof that Dr Hanner needs to show that water - and
eventually life - may have come here, at least in part, from
outer space.

* Dr Hanner gives a free lecture on "a new view of our solar
system" in the McGhie Theatre, Auckland College of Education,
Gate 3, Epsom Ave, at 7.30 tonight.

Further reading
nzherald.co.nz/environment

**

Copyright 2002, NZ Herald







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           Details Of ET Microbes

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:50:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:08:42 -0500
Subject: Details Of ET Microbes


Source: The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=2640301
0

Stig

***

Signs2: Move over M. Night Shyamalan

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2002 12:48:16 AM

**

PUNE: Is there life, other than us, out there in the vast
expanse of the cosmos? Celebrated Hollywood director M.
Shyamalan may have probed the question with his latest thriller
Signs.

But if recent experiments conducted by Indian scientists are
anything to go by, then extraterrestrial life (ET) may very much
turn out to be a reality.

This was revealed on Friday by legendary Indian astrophysicist
Jayant Naralikar, who supervised the experiments last year. He
was delivering a lecture titled 'Searches for extra-terrestrial
life' before a packed auditorium at the Inter University Centre
for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA).

Naralikar said there was indeed circumstantial evidence to
support the idea of life beyond earth. Millimetre wave astronomy
had revealed the existence of both organic and in organic
molecules in space, he added.

Over the decades scientists weighed the options of sending
spaceships and unmanned probes to seek out ET life. "Sending
radio messages (with information about us) turned out to be the
most practical one, but it required immense patience," Naralikar
said.

Fred Hoyle and Wickremasinghe propounded the theory that comets
could have been the carriers which delivered micro organisms in
frozen state on earth. "The Cryosampler Experiment conducted in
collaboration with ISRO last January was a fallout of the
theory", said Naralikar.

Elaborating on the experiment, the ace astrophysicist said a
balloon carrying a cryosampler with 16 sterilised probes was
sent to a height of 41 km into the atmosphere from the TIFR
Balloon facility in Hyderabad.

The probes sucked air at four different heights which were
filtered and later tested at laboratories.

"Some bacteria were found in the air samples. These were not
common contaminants. Nor had they been used in the laboratory
where the test was held.

Moreover, no such growth was found on control membranes that
were not exposed to the air samples," he underlined.

"If these micro organisms are not from earth, had we intercepted
extraterrestrial life?" Narlikar wondered aloud, adding that
further confirmatory work was in progress to help arrive at a
satisfactory answer.

Earlier, Arvind Paranjpye, science and technology officer of the
public outreach programme at IUCAA, welcomed the gathering.
Naralikar's lecture marked the beginning of a monthly series, he
announced.

**

Copyright 2002 Times Internet Limited. 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:21:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:32:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (GMT)
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 ><snip>

 >Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
 >little flying triangle?

 >Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

 ><snip>

==

 >Hi Larry

 >http://www.futurehorizons.net/grav.htm

 >Regards

 >Chris Whitlock
 >www.ufology.org.uk


Thanks Chris:

Its a long download, but most of the "anti-gravity" stuff for
sale, including the triangular craft way down the page, is
simple ion-propulsion. There is one "mag-lev" item, looks like a
toy train.

There's no new rocket science here, nothing to suggest genuinely
revolutionary technology. These are toys. Fun and interesting
yes, but rather pricey! The Nobel Prize Committee will probably
look elsewhere.

I wish somebody could devise some sort of "direct drive" (as
opposed to a jet or propeller), or a way to actually manipulate
gravity, rather than just fight it.

Nothing could make me happier, but I have my doubts. Nature is
really really stubborn about some things. Then again, there are
breakthroughs! Superconductivity is a fine example. The
discovery of SC was done by good hard work in a physics lab
however, not at the toy shop.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 01:30:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:48:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hatch

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:02:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

 >>NARBERTH -- The witness was on his back porch talking to a
 >>friend on October 8, 2002, and they were looking at the night
 >>sky on a clear night, like they often do. Then it happened, for
 >>about two to three seconds a fireball streaked across the sky,
 >>from east to west, and disappeared. The witnesses report, "I
 >>continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >>slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >>was a bright star. It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >>was thundering back into space. The witness said, "I have seen
 >>many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

 >George:

 >As the witness looks up, he obviously sees many shooting stars
 >and Iridium satellites.

 >Can you list the things that were done by whomever collected
 >this "UFO" report to rule out the really obvious?


- - - - -

Hello George, Bob:

If I can add another little peeve of my own:

When a disc is seen, the headings in the weekly newsletters -
Filers, Roundup - are something like "Disk over X-Place".

If its a triangle or maybe a cylinder, the header says that.

So, _why_ are fireballs, nite-lites etc. called "UFOs"?
For example: "PENNSYLVANIA UFOS SPOTTED..."

Whats wrong with "Fireballs (or Night-lights) Seen in PA"?

This would save readers _so_ much time and eyestrain! They could
scan past those reports looking for something more interesting.

Its gotten to the point that I don't even read articles that
start out "UFO seen in Xxxxx" any more. 9 times out of 10 its a
nite lite or fireball. I think its something of a disservice
not to warn readers, right up top, that they are straining their
eyes for nite-lites and fireballs. Time is precious.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:53:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:50:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps


 >From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >Dear All,

 >Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >of production.

 >We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >seen the light of day.....

 >Tim Matthews.

 >-----

 >Source: The New Scientist

 >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992946

 >TOP SECRET STEALTH JET REVEALED
 >By David Windle
 >New Scientist
 >October 21, 2002

 >A formerly top secret, bat-winged stealth jet has taken the
 >aviation world by surprise, after a low key unveiling in St
 >Louis, Missouri. It may look like it flew straight off the
 >screen of a sci-fi movie, but the Bird of Prey is no flight of
 >fancy - it could translate into serious business for its makers,
 >aerospace giant Boeing.
<snip>

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're dead wrong.

And anyone who mistakes these man-made devices for UFOs... are
idiots!

Or they don't know what to look for in real UFOs... if they
think they are seeing some.


Michel M. Deschamps
Multiple-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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:00:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:54:06 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:42:17 -0700
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

<snip>

 >>>This making of images is a continuous process industry like the
 >>>production of cement, or soap operas, both almost
 >>>indistinguishable.

 >>>And of course there is no OFF switch.

 >>Fortunately, there is a delete "switch" so I have removed a lot
 >>of this 'monotribe' or 'word salad' to get to the hard core of
 >>'fact'.- according to Colin.

 >>>Through intense mystical subjectivities we
 >>>enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have
 >>>not come across one.

 >>A delusionary or pseudo - solipsist?

 >>"I think, therefore, I am!"

 >>..... I think.

 >>(But maybe I'm wrong....)"

 >>At any rate, my 'self' is the only thing that exists. All else
 >>is a 'dream'.

 >><snip>

 >Whew! Thanks, Bruce, I was wondering if I was the only one
 >whose eyes got crossed reading this. Sounds like what you'd
 >get if Marshall McLuhan and Robert A. Wilson were locked in
 >a closet together for nine months....


Hello all:

There comes a time for some folks, when escape from reality is
simply not enough; they deny objective reality entirely! Such a
denial, possibly derived from Eastern mysticism, is the ultimate
abdication of human reason in my personal opinion.

Bob asked Colin a very simple question: whether or not Colin
thought the US astronauts actually walked on the Moon. The
response, from anyone else, would be instantly farted off as
totally evasive BS.

In Colin's case however, I think that he is entirely sincere in
his, uh, beliefs? Well, lets say opinions since it is impossible
to get a straight answer some times.

What the heck. I'll ask Bob's question again.

Colin: In your best opinion, did US astronauts land and walk on
the Moon or not? Nobody said anything about beating your wife
etc., did they walk on the Moon or not?

(And failing that) Colin: Is there a Moon, or is that illusory
as well?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:13 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:55:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:21:11 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (GMT)
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >><snip>

 >>Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
 >>little flying triangle?

 >>Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

Larry, All,

This is an interesting site for anyone interested in TTB's
research.

Build your own "Lifter", details on the site or via links
thereon.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

Fascinating what these guy's are doing with tinfoil, drinking
straws, light dimmers and the odd car ignition coil!.

This effect has been tested in, and _does_ work in a vacuum.


Best Regards

Neil










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:55:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:59:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:21:11 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (GMT)
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

<snip>

 >>Hi Larry

 >>http://www.futurehorizons.net/grav.htm


That's not the original item, Chris. The original appeared to be
an open structure, possibly balsa, with small wires on
insulating struts stuck on to the main structure.

The unit on the link above appears to be some sort of enclosed
device, and at $1,250.00 is way beyond me.

The way to test whether ions or something else is
providing the list is to fully enclose the air space around
the craft. I doubt if ions are coming from the metal wires,
so the air is the only other possible source.

If the craft is fully enclosed in a bag, ideally a clear bag
with the charging wires penetrating two holes, and the
bag inflated, any downwards momentum from an ion
stream would react against the bottom of the bag,
preventing the unit from lifting higher than the inside top
of the bag.

The first test would be to see if the craft can lift the bag
when it is not surrounding the craft. Just folded and taped to
the structure would do.

Then the bag would be inflated, wire penetrations sealed, and
tested again.

If the craft cannot lift higher than the bag's roof in the
second sealed and inflated case, then ion currents are providing
upward thrust.

If the craft lifts off the floor with the bag around it, you
then can be certain that the lift is not coming from ion
currents. A helicopter, if it could be surrounded by a bag,
could not fly as the downwash against the bottom of the bag
would cancel its lift.

This is a very important experiment and issue to resolve, if not
by doing the experiment then by locating a documented case where
it was tried. It could, if the lifter can fly off the ground
while inside a bag, blow the lid off the naysayers' chants that
there is no proof that UFO-like lift technology exists.

Simply waving the issue aside by saying no advanced techology
would ever be sold for so little does not serve the search for
UFO truth and disclosure.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       How To Inform The Public of ET?

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:01:53 -0500
Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?


Hello To All,

I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

Here's the scenario:

For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

It has come time to make full disclosure.

You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
be? Opinions please.


Regards,

Frank








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                          Re: Terminology - Coleman

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:27:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
 >Subject: Terminology


'Crypto-' is from the Greek, 'kryptos', for 'hidden'. To move
from 'ufology' to 'Crypto-Aeronautics' and denote the UFOs as
'Crypto-Crafts' is pure silliness. Why would you want to talk
about these as "the hidden science, theory and practice of
aircraft navigation" and why would you be studying 'hidden
craft'? The revealed nature of ufology and the UFOs are what
propels your study, not that they are 'hidden'.


Loren Coleman
http://www.lorencoleman.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                         Pilots Sight UFO Over China

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 08:15:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:30:40 -0500
Subject: Pilots Sight UFO Over China


Source: The Sydney Morning Herald - Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/07/1036308427644.html


November 8 2002


Several airline pilots have reported sighting a shining
unidentified flying object (UFO) near the south-eastern Chinese
city of Nanjing, a newspaper reported yesterday.

The first sighting was reported by a Xiamen Airlines pilot on
Monday, who said he saw a light blue object hovering past his
plane while 80km north of Nanjing, the Wen Wei Po daily
reported.

At the same time, pilots of a Shandong Airline aircraft, which
was some 120km away from the Xiamen airlines plane, also
reported a similar sighting. They described the UFO as being a
white-blue skateboard-shaped craft.

A pilot from another airplane, about 300km away, also reported a
similar sighting to an airport control tower in Tonglu in
Zhejiang province.

In recent years, China has witnessed a surge in UFO sightings.


AFP








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Straight

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:51:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:32:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Straight


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT
 ><Snip>
 >>The witnesses report, "I
 >continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >was a bright star. It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >was thundering back into space. The witness said, "I have seen
 >many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

This is a good description of what is most likely an Iridium
flare. It should be a simple matter to verify this hypothesis by
getting details of the time and direction, as well as
approximate elevation. Checking any of a number of sites of
Iridium flare predictions should throw some light (if you'll
pardon the pun) on this matter.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:13:13 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:37:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:02:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

 >>NARBERTH -- The witness was on his back porch talking to a
 >>friend on October 8, 2002, and they were looking at the night
 >>sky on a clear night, like they often do.  Then it happened, for
 >>about two to three seconds a fireball streaked across the sky,
 >>from east to west, and disappeared.  The witnesses report, "I
 >>continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >>slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >>was a bright star.  It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >>was thundering back into space.  The witness said, "I have seen
 >>many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

 >George:

 >As the witness looks up, he obviously sees many shooting stars
 >and Iridium satellites.

 >Can you list the things that were done by whomever collected
 >this "UFO" report to rule out the really obvious?

The report came form NUFORC, I have no contact with the witness.
Peter Davenport took the report. Its difficult to determine what
he saw since the witness elects to remain totally anonymous.

I thought his description was interesting since it matches some
of the space shuttle photos. NORAD indicates they get
incorrelated targets every day. It doesn't sound like a shooting
star to me.

The witness says:

"I continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
slowly moving. It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
was a bright star. It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
was thundering back into space."


Regards,

George Filer









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                               Green Fireballs

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:36:46 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:42:11 -0500
Subject: Green Fireballs


There is a great deal speculation about the exact nature of
green fireballs.

Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, a respected astronomer from the University of
New Mexico was absolutely convinced that the green fireballs are
not conventional fireballs or meteorites.

Green fireballs were passing over New Mexico on a fairly regular
basis, often followed by a series of UFO reports.

La Paz also ruled out other unconventional types of meteors and
fireballs.

Based on Space Shuttle videos the UFOs may create the green
fireball upon entry into the Earth atmosphere.

Frequently they are sighted above sensitive military
installations.

FBI documents, as outlined in the book, 'Above Top Secret', by
Timothy Good reveal:

"... the matter of Unidentified Aircraft or Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena, otherwise know as Flying Disks, Flying Saucers and
Balls of Fire' is considered to be top secret by Intelligence
Officers of both the Army and the Air Forces." (Page 267).

I suggest that green fireballs may be extraterrestrial probes
entering our atmosphere. They appear to fly horizontal paths
indicating a possible probe rather than a meteorites. The green
color of the glowing gases simply does not agree with what is
known about meteorites.


Regards,

George Filer







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:24:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:46:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:13 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:21:11 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>From: Chris Whitlock <cjwhit@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (GMT)
 >>>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:51:19 -0800
 >>>>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>><snip>

 >>>Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
 >>>little flying triangle?

 >>>Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

 >Larry, All,

 >This is an interesting site for anyone interested in TTB's
 >research.

 >Build your own "Lifter", details on the site or via links
 >thereon.

 >http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

 >Fascinating what these guy's are doing with tinfoil, drinking
 >straws, light dimmers and the odd car ignition coil!.

 >This effect has been tested in, and _does_ work in a vacuum.



Thanks Neil!

I see they are claim a capacitive effect, rather than an "ion
wind". What is surprising is the claim that by using capacitive
plates of different sizes/shapes they can achieve a net force in
one direction that is not entirely canceled in the opposite
direction.

I'm sure there are contrasting opinions. Imagine if you could do
that with rubber bands (chuckle!)


Best

- Larry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

             Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:30:32 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:14:57 -0500
Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials -


Errol:

Please post this response to Jerry Cohen from non-subscriber
Robert Sheaffer.

Thanks.

Bob Young

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

 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

Jerry Cohen reveals how little he has researched the Jimmy
Carter UFO case when he says (Nov. 3),


"Then I found myself asking 'I wonder who Bob Scheaffer
interviewed?' No supporting evidence was given to make it
possible for others to check what he says in this regard."


Had he bothered to read my book 'UFO Sightings' (or its earlier
incarnation, "The UFO Verdict"), he would have found a long
chapter on the Carter UFO, explaining exactly who I interviewed
and what they said.  He might have even spelled my name
correctly. (In fact, I interviewed even more Leary residents
than I mentioned, but to keep a reasonable length I left out
several.) Once again, we find a "serious" UFOlogist arguing
against an analysis he hasn't even read. Jerry, you gotta at
least READ what the people you don't like have to say, if you
want to argue against them without looking like a fool.

So, Carter said that the UFO was in the west, instead of the
southwest? He said it was 30 degrees up instead of 25? Nobody
ever makes errors like this in estimating an object's position,
do they? If Carter had also seen Venus, he could have said, "the
object was just to the left of Venus, and above it,"  and that
would have ruled out Venus as a suspect. But he didn't. In all
probability,  Venus *was* his mysterious UFO.

I invite anyone who thinks this case is so great to look at a
1978 newspaper story on my web page:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

about this case, "Learyites leery of Carter's encounter." It
says, "As it happens, however, there is no one in Leary who
remembers sighting a UFO in company with the future president.
Carter insists that the object's brightness attracted a crowd,
but it appears it only attracted him. Not one resident recalls
anything unusual about that particular January evening.....
Mayor Stanley Shepard says he has talked with everyone who might
have attended the Lions Club meeting on the night in question,
'and nobody remembers anything about flying saucers.' People
recall that Carter's speech was dull - but as for spaceships,
no...". Remember, I didn't write that, a reporter did.

Whatever Carter 'thinks' that he might have seen that evening in
Leary, he's the only one who thought he saw anything out of the
ordinary. If there were truly something amazing flying around
the sky that night, the others with him would surely have
remarked on it, and remembered it.


Robert Sheaffer
robert@debunker.com
Skeptical to the Max!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           FOIA Request - 11-07-02

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:12:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:18:29 -0500
Subject: FOIA Request - 11-07-02


TO:  Freedom of Information Manager
      Headquarters, U. S. Bureau of Land Management
      ATTN:  WO-530 750LS
      1849 C Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC  20240

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  November 7, 2002

Word has come to me that personnel of the Office of Contract
Archeology at the University of New Mexico have won your
bureau's full approval for the "standard archeological plan"
that they submitted some months ago for BLM review/approval
prior to commencement, this past September, of their excavation
of the Roswell UFO-crash-landing debris field (designated as
N.M. site No. 1000000).

Accordingly, under terms of the U. S. Freedom of Information
Act, I hereby request that you send me a copy of all BLM-
generated and BLM-received records pertaining to that "standard
archeological plan" -- said records to include the plan itself;
any related correspondence (whether formatted/transmitted via
snail-mail, facsimile machine, and/or e-mail); minutes of
meetings; BLM staff recommendations and reports; memoranda of
telephone conversations; document-transmittal slips; memoranda
for record; archeological-performance contracts; photographic
survey data on the chosen excavation site; inter-agency and
interdepartmental consultation/coordination documents; legal
opinions; BLM policy decisions; memoranda of understanding;
environmental-impact statements; and public-affairs assessments.

Since I submit this e-formatted request in my capacity as a
columnist for the Internet website of http://www.ufocity.com, I
ask that you waive all records-search fees associated with your
fulfilling it.



                               LARRY W. BRYANT
                               Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
                               Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

   Mark S. Zaid, Esq. (Washington, D.C.)

   Peter Robbins, Editor-in-Chief of UFOcity.com

P.S.:  I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of this request.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:54:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:21:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:13 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:21:11 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

<snip>

 >>Does somebody have the URL for the manufacturers of this new
 >>little flying triangle?

 >>>Then we can see what is and is not being marketed.

 >Larry, All,

 >This is an interesting site for anyone interested in TTB's
 >research.

 >Build your own "Lifter", details on the site or via links
 >thereon.

 >http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

 >Fascinating what these guy's are doing with tinfoil, drinking
 >straws, light dimmers and the odd car ignition coil!.

 >This effect has been tested in, and _does_ work in a vacuum.


Then unless the ions are spewing off the metallic wires, it's
_not_ ion propulsion, is it?

If ions were shooting off the wires in a vacuum, then the wires
would disintegrate.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:26:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:23:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


Here's another idea for testing the "ion thrust" hypothesis of
the electrostatic lifters.

Surround the lifting conductors with light weight hollow plastic
tubing, with a few internal support insulating discs along the
length.  The larger diameter the better.

One material might be to roll the thin plastic paper sleeves for
protecting document pages, or even transparency blanks, around a
broom handle, then tape.  The insulating discs could be made of
balsa.

If lift results from an ion stream, such an enclosure on the
conductors should severely interfere with, and possibly almost
stop, such ion currents from producing lift, for the same reason
the entire craft in a bag would - the momentum of ions leaving a
wire would be cancelled when the ions hit the tubular enclosure.

Another comment:  About the successful test in a vacuum, it
would be very relevant if we knew whether the charging wires
could be removed from the craft without the craft instantly
falling.  (The connection would have to be broken, and not
simply the power supply switched off, as the charge on the craft
would probably be drained quickly through the power supply by
simply switching off the primary power.)

In a vacuum, if the craft's insulation is good, the craft should
remain charged for some measurable amount of time.  There would
be no air molecules to ionize and discharge the craft.

Yes, there are ions to be contended with in the vacuum of a
cathode ray tube, but there you are dealing with a very hot
filament, and current being drawn.  In an insulated
electrostatic lifter, there is neither heat nor a current
flowing in a vacuum as long as the insulation quality is good.

Hearing about the success in a vacuum is very good news for
those of us who hope this is a genuinely new and revolutionary
source of lift.

By the way, there are science gadget vendors who can provide 20
KV power supplies for way less than the $1,250 price tag on the
manufactured craft.

A little balsa and some light gauge wires, the #30 wire used for
digital wire wrap projects could serve to carry the 20 KV to the
craft, and any of us could have our own version to test.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 22:45:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:26:03 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Hall


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >Hello To All,

 >I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.


Frank,

No brainer. Tell them the truth, but present it via a group of
well-informed and respected persons. You don't even include the
visitation scenario, which theoretically could pose some
problems.

If "they" are merely "out there," this could be assimilated very
readily. If it is known that they are visiting here, that would
be another story.

See also the Fund for UFO Research publication (which I edited)
titled 'Extraterrstrial Contact: What Will It Mean for
Humanity?'

  - Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:27:53 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

<snip>

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life
 >throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are
 >aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the
 >world?

Normal news outlets, utilizing science press-conferences. Use
lots of historical background (i.e., SETI efforts, UFO media,
our fascination with "aliens" and all things cosmic, etc.) I'd
like to see scholars and physicists interviewed for their
reactions.

In other words, present this as a logical progression in our
understanding of the universe, not as a big shock.

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.

That totally depends on the nature of the aliens, of which you
haven't given any information. So I honestly can't say.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                               Dorothy Izatt?

From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:05:49 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:42:51 -0500
Subject: Dorothy Izatt?


Hello all,

Well I'm almost afraid of asking this to this particular List,
but has anyone looked into the claims/story/investigation of
Dorothy Izatt?

That's it, sweet and simple.

Thanks,

Chris Burns







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:07:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:45:33 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Speiser


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss)

Frank Sinatra's dead!

 >how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

I know what I _wouldn't_ do. I wouldn't make a big dramatic all-
networks speech about it. I'd start by testing the waters with a
few well-placed leaks, and then possibly let the cat out of the
bag by having a science advisor or something slip it into one of
his speeches as part of some other program. If there was a hue
and cry, I'd take it the next level and have the Press Secretary
address the issue in one of the regularly scheduled press
conferences. Then maybe issue some kind of report.

This approach would serve to minimize the impact, make it seem
"not that big of a deal." When it's obvious that society is not
torn asunder, _then_ I'd do a speech.


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Printy

From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:08:29 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:47:28 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Printy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2

<snip>

 >What Brad Sparks pointed out has nothing to do with what I was
 >saying. Brad was pointing out that Moore's table for Flight #4
 >showed rise and fall rates that differed substantially from
 >about half the ones he _really_ used.

Brad made the statement that these errors pushed the
flight 50 miles to the northeast. I was questioning
how he arrived at this value.

 >Naturally Printy totally screwed it up. Just like Moore
 >improperly pushed all his velocity data back one data point, it
 >appears Printy decided to push back the rise rate data instead
 >of carrying it forward from one point to the next, which is the
 >way the table definitely shows the calculation should be done
 >(see below). That is seemingly how he gets his first two
 >"corrected" times.

I used this method based on several reasons:

1. Moore stated that once the balloons hit the tropopause at
52,000 feet, they lost there rate of rise. If one started with
the 100 ft/min rate of rise, the rate of rise at 52-52.1K would
be 350 ft/min, followed by a still rapid 70 ft/min at 52.1-
53.7K. This is unlikely based on looking at flight #5's
performance where the rates were 50-53 ft/min. It seemed like a
conservative way of plotting the ascent rates.

2. Moore's values of ascent clearly show he intended the rates
of rise to be applied this way.

3. I was not aware of any balloon flights that had a 100ft/min
rise rate for the first 2.8 minutes. It did not conform to known
performance of the flight records.

 >However, even Printy is smart enough to realize he can't reach
 >peak altitude with a negative rise rate. So he inserts an extra
 >positive rise rate (15 ft/min) into his table. (Also when I
 >tried to reproduce his "corrected" times, I found that he also
 >seemingly altered Moore's rise rate of 21 ft/sec to 20 ft/sec.
 >Printy is changing Moore's table, but he doesn't tell us that.)

The spreadsheet I used has 21 ft/sec so there must be an error
somewhere.

 >Now remember, this is my best-guess reconstruction of the
 >"Printy way." God only knows what the man really did!

You are correct that I maintained the 15ft/min value for the one
step. I made a transposition error on the next step in my spread
sheet resulting in the difference between the two values on
descent.

 >So why is Printy now going back to Moore's original time line?
 >What Printy is trying to CONCEAL here is that his own
 >"corrected" time line creates a trajectory that misses by a huge
 >margin. When I run Printy's "corrected" time line complete with
 >Moore's flawed backwards velocity calculation (that Printy still
 >claims is correct), you get a trajectory that lands the balloons
 >almost 20 miles west of the "desired" Moore landing spot on the
 >Foster Ranch. Can't have that happen, can we?

I used the original timeline since it was what Moore assumed to
be the duration of the flight. This is something you contest in
your webpage as being too long. Now you seem to want the flight
to last another 85 minutes?

 >The big problem is that extra 84.9 minutes, which Printy
 >disingenuously labels "not significant." A big part of those
 >extra minutes adds a lot of westward drift mileage to the
 >trajectory, resulting in the final big miss. By going back to
 >Moore's original time line, he can lop about 77 of those extra
 >minutes off of the flight.

It is not significant because the flight's direction/speed is not
affected. Keeping with Moore's assumed duration of flight,
there is no change in direction/speed for this increased time
in the stratosphere. This is what I meant by being "not
significant".

 >But Printy doesn't tell you any of this. Printy is a true
 >student of the Charles Moore school of secret, back-stage
 >mathematical manipulation.

If I had made the flight longer you surely would have protested
that the flight was unrealistically long. Obviously, I could not
get it right either way.

 >Again, who the hell cares? The _real_ point is that Moore's math
 >is completely screwed up and his "calculated" trajectory
 >"exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site a very bad joke.

You missed the point. I was wondering from the "mathematically
challenged" point of view, how Sparks reached his value. Based
on what you have written, it seems one of you also has problems
with their math.

 >(Printy will no doubt try to make an issue that my results don't
 >agree with Brad Sparks. But this is another "who cares?"
 >diversion. The _real_ issue is that Moore's math and model are
 >horrifically in error.)

Of course I would point this out. The whole point of my argument
was not if Moore's model was correct but that the errors noted
did not seem to have a great effect on the times involved and
that Sparks proclamation that it made the flight move 50 miles
further was incorrect.

 >The _real_ issue is what _Moore_ did.
 >Moore's Flight #4 model trajectory is hopelessly broken. It's a
 >complete and utter fraud.

Not exactly. I have stated before, and will state again, that
Moore's flight path in his book was not necessarily THE flight
path that flight number 4 took. You have created many models and
variations on this theme and seemed to have created a
"footprint" to demonstrate that Moore was correct in that the
winds would take the flight in the direction of Foster Ranch.
Any number of variables can shift the location of the landing
site in this "footprint". You even showed one method of the
flight to get to the Foster ranch. There are other variables
that could push it there as well. If you look at what I have
written, I have never stated that your analysis of Moore's math
was wrong. I have never stated Moore's model was accurate. I
have only argued that your interpretation of the meaning of
these errors was wrong.


 >Whoopie-do! Printy figured out how Moore did it _wrong_! Have
 >you noticed that Printy has been totally unable to show how
 >Moore did anything right?

Sparks stated that he could easily refute this suggestion and
then compounded one error to make four. This was not correct.

 >And Moore's _indisputable_ map alterations all seem designed to
 >conceal just how close Flight #5 came to Roswell base the next
 >day. This also seems designed to bolster Moore's claim that
 >Roswell base knew nothing about Mogul and thus somehow were
 >grossly confused when they came across the debris the following
 >month.

Exactly what map alterations are "indisputable"?

His trajectory for flight #5 is accurately represented on the
maps with the exception of the endpoint, which is in dispute.
As I have shown, Sparks attempts to make it look like Moore
was moving the path farther away on each successive
publication is false.

If you are talking about the location of the RAAF not being in
his maps, I can hardly say this was an "alteration". You might
call it an omission but, then again, anything to prop up the
RAAF must have known theory is fair game.

The location of Roswell in his maps can be explained when one
examines the locations of all the landmarks and the locations of
landmarks/fixed points shown in the charts for flights 5 and 6.
  It seems that the NYU used the center of Alamogordo AFB, while
Moore used the launch point from the north end of the field. I
notice you chose to use the position of Roswell and RAAF that
was furthest from Alamogorodo. Why didn't you choose to use the
values for RAAF listed on fig. 32? Since there is a significant
difference, did you try and explore the possibility of which was
correct? I don't think so based on what I measured.


Tim Printy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 05:46:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:27:08 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >However, if David Rudiak was correct in what he stated about
 >Venus (perhaps you could help me here if he's not), I believe
 >researchers may have just cause to think the "Venus"
 >explanation though a little more carefully.

 >[Quote]

 >From: DRudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>[David Rudiak]
 >Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:55:52 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 03:08:22 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Pres. Carter

<snip>

 >c) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the distance.

Jerry:

It would it the witness _interpreted_ Venus's fading to motion
away.

 >At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have remained
 >well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
 >disappeared.

Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO Verdict
- Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books, 1981, pp. 4-12),
states, "When I obtained the weather records from the nearby
Albany airfield, they revealed that the weather was cold and
clear, although a few scattered clouds were present that
evening."

Sheaffer reports that Carter's sighting report filed with Heyden
Hewes' Internation UFO Bureau described the object as, "bluish
at first - then reddish," it "seemed to move toward us from a
distance, stop, move partially away, return then depart."

This could describe the planet gradually fading and brightening
behind clouds.

<snip>

 >Rudiak continued:
 >Lesser discrepancies are:

 >a) Venus was in the southwestern, not western sky
 >(between 237 and 240 degrees azimuth, not 270).

Close enough for a visual report without the aid of a compass.

 >b) If the time was correct, the elevation was between 21
 >and 24 degrees, not 30 degrees.

Three finger widths. Have you actually investigated many UFO
sightings?

 >c) According to my planetarium programs, Venus wasn't
 >even at its brightest on this date, much less an
 >"unusually bright light." ....snip....

[End of quote]

This is ridiculous "armchair" astronomy, but typical for David.
Venus is _always_ the brightest object in the heavens after the
Sun, Moon and very bright meteor fireballs.

According to the JPL Ephemeris Generator:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eph

On January 6, 1969 Venus was at magnitude -4.3 magnitude. The
next brightest object, on the other side of the sky, was Jupiter
at -2.12 magnitude. Venus was nearly 7and a half times brighter
than Jupiter, the next brightest astronomical object in the sky.

<snip>

 >Then I found myself asking "I wonder who Bob Scheaffer
 >interviewed? No supporting evidence was given to make it
 >possible for others to check what he says in this regard.

Try getting his book, or its more recent edition, UFO Sightings
(Prometheus). He names a half dozen others he interviewed.

 >So I performed a web search to see what else I might find
 >regarding this case.

 >Grant Cameron, who has posted a monumental analysis on Carter
 >and an investigation of his UFO Report on his web site

 >http://www.presidentialufo.8m.com/jimmy.htm

 >had the following comments to make:

 >[Begin quote]

 >Carter had, in fact, described the UFO sighting many times in
 >the years since it occurred. In every instance, including the
 >latest known telling of the story at Emory University in 1997,
 >Carter has never backed off on the spectacular nature of the
 >event. He has also never conceded that was he saw was some
 >misidentification of a natural phenomena.

So what? How may UFO sighting witnesses publicly recant an
observation, particularly after citing it at speaking
engagements for many years? Can you name any?

 >Carter estimated that the object was three hundred to one
 >thousand yards away.

It is impossible to estimate the distance of an unkown object
without clues of some sort.

 >Carter described the object as being the "size of the
 >moon" or"slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
 >moon." Venus never appears this way.

And certainly when the Moon wasn't visible at the same time to
make a comparison. By the way, the Moon is only the apparent
size of your little fingernail at arm's length. What does it
mean to be "slightly smaller" that this in one's mind's eye?

 >Venus at the time was at between 15 and 21 degrees
 >over the horizon at 7:15 p.m.

Please explain in detail how this is possible. If it were true
than Venus could be 14 times larger than the Moon.

 >Carter, a trained observer stated the object was 30 degrees
 >above the horizon

Pretty close for a visual observation, but the JPL Ephemeris
gives 25.3 degrees up (from a perfect sea horizon, not taking
into account horizon obstructions near Carter's viewing place).

 >or almost double the height of Venus at the time.

That is, if Venus was actually within your 7 degree "armchair"
guess, which it wasn't.

This bring's a key issue into bright focus (pardon the pun). Why
didn't Jimmy Carter ever report seeing Venus little more than a
hand's width away?

 >Sheaffer described Venus as "being at it's brightest" on
 >the date in question. It wasn't at its brightest.

This is interesting, since you apparently never bothered to find
Sheaffer's work and read it for yourself to find out if he had
interviewed anybody else.

In fact, what Sheaffer said in his 1981 book (p. 10) is,
"nearing its maximum brilliance", and, "at about 25 degrees
elevation".

Jerry, when you use Grant Cameron as a source of technical
information about astronomy you will find yourself off in blue
space, as he is.

<snip>

 >During these 115 minutes the planet Venus would have
 >increased in brightness (not disappeared) as it approached
 >the horizon.

Cameron has got it completely backwards. Atmospheric extinction
_decreases_ the brightness of astronomical objects as they
approach the horizon, not the other way around. Where in the
world did he dream this up?

 >Venus does not disappear, and would have been eliminated as
 >a suspect by a grade six astronomy class investigation.

 >[End quote]

I will modestly refrain, here, from a belly laugh.

 >Grant Cameron also mentions:

 >"Carter who had spent watches, while in the Navy doing watches
 >in cruisers and destroyers, as a navigation officer, taking star
 >shots with a sextant, stated the object was in the western sky."

Yeah, and he never noticed Venus, either. Doesn't this strike
you as odd? Another witness, though, is cited by Sheaffer as
remembering a little blue light, which he thought might have
been a weather balloon, but no UFO. I wonder what that could
have been and why Cameron never mentioned it?

 >We do know, however, that proposing an estimated explanation is
 >not the same thing as having a solid explanation. The IFO
 >"proposal" is exactly that, an estimated explanation.
Therefore, >it cannot be guaranteed as the correct solution for
this >specific case. Readers are free to form their own
conclusions.

And I hope that they do, after reading Sheaffer in his own
words, and trying to come up with their own hypothesis as to why
he didn't see Venus when others present reported a blue light or
a star, but no UFO.

Please see: http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html


Clear skies,

Bob Young






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:07:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 05:49:27 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Kaeser


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.


Frank-

I don't know if this has been discussed on this List or not, but
El Dorado, CA has developed a paper entitled: A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PLANNING GUIDE FOR FIRST CONTACT EVENTS. The 32 page document
begins with the following:

ABSTRACT
As more of the Earth is explored, as well as the planets in our
solar system, there is an increasing possibility of finding that
we are not alone. We may also find that we have not been alone
in the ancient past. Writers of science and science fiction have
posited this scenario for centuries. As of 1996 as much as 50%
of the American public believed that flying saucers, or some
type of Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), did exist and such
devices were visiting the Earth1. If there were an actual
confirmation of alien intelligence announced to the public,
there might be a severe disruption of the public psyche. This
would depend on the type and scope of the discovery. The results
could lead to political instability, financial volatility in the
marketplaces, and disruption in the fabric of civil authority.
If the verification of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) does
occur in our near future, emergency planners in local government
(counties, boroughs, parishes, and cities) need a basic planning
guide for developing response strategies. Federal agencies and
nationally acclaimed think tanks have helped developed federal
policies for such an event. Initials impacts will be on local
government, but there are no guidelines for managing these
impacts at the local level. This paper provides a summary of
related past occurrences with relevance to possible future
public response. The paper proposes a set of event scenarios
that are weighted by intensity and impact. A local government
strategy checklist is provided for planning initial response for
impacts due to an ETI verification announcement.

==============end of abstract==============

I think it's important to note that this paper was created to
prepare the local emergency planning group for the possibility
of confirmed ET contact. It does not deal with current reports
of UFOs or anecdotal stories of ET visitation.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:55:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 05:55:05 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak


 >From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:03:58 EST
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:41:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Printy

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800

<snip>

 >>What we have here is a typical Printy diversion. The one who
 >>should be making a "clarification" here is Printy (or Moore).
 >>Why did Moore swap "Roswells" on us, replacing the base on the
 >>original plot with the town? Could it be so that it wasn't as
 >>obvious just how close Flight 5 actually passed to the base?

 >Same old tired argument. Moore plotted his map the way he
 >did. Feel free to ask him some time. I find it interesting that
 >you seem to think in 1995, he foresaw this argument that you
 >and Sparks were pushing forward.

FACT: Moore in 1995 claimed he was reproducing the Mogul summary
Figure 32 of Flight #5 "without change".

FACT: But Moore removed Roswell base from the Figure 32 plot and
replaced it with Roswell town 6 miles further to the north. Now
it appeared that Flight #5 came no closer than 10 miles to
"Roswell". Why do that?

FACT: Moore completely relocated the crash site position from
Figure 32, which was 16-17 miles east of the base, to a site
about 31 miles east that doesn't correspond with anything in
Mogul records. What possible justification did Moore have for
that?

FACT: Brad Sparks _did_ recently ask Moore through e-mail about
the changes he made in the plot, and Moore came back with the
garbage that Flight #5 passed no closer than 15 to 20 miles from
the base. He further tried to raise a smokescreen that maybe
clouds concealed the balloons from base personnel, when he knew
full well they were still tracking Flight #5 visually through
theodolite over 90 miles away from Alamogordo.

Moore's contemporary "defensiveness" on the issue indicates he
is _still_ very much concerned with how close the balloons
passed to Roswell base and even the possibility that the base
knew full well about the balloon launches over a month before
the so- called Roswell incident.

It is also pretty clear by how strongly Printy still tries to
ridicule this that he too is a bit touchy about the close
proximity of Flight #5 to the base.

All in all, I think there is a very strong circumstantial case
for Moore's 1995 and 1997 plot changes _not_ being accidental or
innocent but very deliberate, all designed to remove the Flight
#5 trajectory as far from the base as he perhaps thought he
could get away with. (It would also go hand in hand with the
shameful way in which deliberately deceived the public in 1997
with his hoaxed Flight #4 trajectory.)

People can go to my website and examine scans of Moore's maps
vs. the original Mogul Figure 32 to see that Brad Sparks and I
aren't making this up

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

Also compare this to my own graphic showing all the various plot
changes and crash sites for Flight #5 on my home page critizing
Moore's hoaxing of the Flight #4 trajectory. Go to the first
addendum titled "More Moore Mischief" to view the graphic and
further discussion of it:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

Instead, all that is noted here is an "X" marks-the-spot crash
site and the words "ON GROUND". Again, look at the original
plot. Printy is flagrantly lying here.

 >Is it an "X" or is it an arrow going towards a line? The
 >notation is somewhat confusing isn't it?

Definitely looks like an "X" to me and definitely has "ON
GROUND" written right next do it, doesn't it?

 >I would be interested
 >in seeing the original and not the photocopy in the RAAF report.

It's not going to change anything. It's still going to say "ON
GROUND" and have an "X" for the crash location. There are no
other notations indicating in any way that the crash location
was really somewhere else off the page, such as "real crash site
** miles further east."

 >Nitpicking over whether Brad Sparks got the misplot mileage
 >exact isn't important. The _real_ point is that Moore seriously
 >misplotted the position.

 >Actually it is.

No it's not. Brad Sparks and I didn't claim we were replotting
Flight #5 "without change" and then make changes like Moore did.
Moore's graphic, among other things, completely misplotted the
Flight #5 crash location and thus altered the end part of the
Flight #5 trajectory.

Whether Moore misplotted the crash site as 31 miles east of
Roswell or 32 or 34 miles doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
He misplotted it, period. It doesn't remotely correspond with a
single thing in Mogul records, not the original Figure 32
graphic or Crary's diary

 >You and Sparks direct your anger at Moore's
 >errors and then say it is ok for you to make obviously bogus
 >mistakes.

And my "bogus mistakes" were what exactly? I haven't seen you
refuting any one of my arguments that Moore falsified his Flight
#4 trajectory. The math is hopelessly "botched" and Moore
contradicted his own stated assumptions in setting up the math.

Your big "triumph" is figuring out how Moore ran his
"calculation."  I couldn't completely figure it out. I could see
that Moore was getting 2 + 2 = 3 and figured out how he might
have gotten 2 + 2 = 3.1. You figured out how he got 2 + 2 = 3.
Whoopie do!

The problem is, debunker boy, 2 + 2 = 4. Moore did the
calculation WRONG. It's _provable_ mathematically. You
apparently either don't have the brains to see that or the
integrity to admit it. Again, here are the basic mathematical
arguments that remain unrefuted (because they are irrefutable):

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m09-008.shtml

The fact that I couldn't completely figure out how Moore did his
math WRONG in your delusionary world somehow becomes a "bogus
mistake" on my part and somehow makes Moore right. This is logic
turned upside down, right out of Alice in Wonderland. Right is
Wrong and Wrong becomes Right.

 >You also proudly point out mistakes that you feel are
 >in my arguments/calculations but then it is OK for Sparks to
 >make obviously wrong and misleading measurements. Sounds
 >hypocritical to me.

What a bunch of sanctimonious piffle. Neither Sparks or I
altered a graphic or promoted a hoax like Moore did and then
tried to sell it to the public using the reputation of the
Smithsonian Press. Whatever truly minor mistakes Sparks or I
might make along the way in pointing this out do not excuse or
change the irrefutable guilt of Moore.

 >Incidentally, Printy actually places Moore's crash site about
 >0.5-1.0 too close to these wells, Printy apparently having
 >caught a little more "Mooreitis".

 >Actually, I plotted the point based on the values Moore had
 >listed in his table.

Thanks for the clarification. However, this just happened to
move Moore's crash site closer to those oil wells that you want
people to fixate on, than had you used Moore's graphic crash
site, right? Instead of 1.5 - 2 miles away (graphic crash site),
now you have the crash site slightly closer than a mile (table
crash site).

This also points out that Moore actually has two different
_false_ landing sites for Flight #5, one in his table and one is
his graphic, just one more indication of how "sloppy" Moore is.

 >>I also stated the locations were "approximate".

Printy is right here -- he did. However, of the two Moore
landing sites, he deliberately chose the one that he thought
best advanced his argument, and never mentioned the other one
further from the oil wells.

 >Examining the values for flight #6's landing site
 >and RAAF in the NYU plots, it seems that the data team started
 >their flights at the center of Alamagordo AFB. However, Moore
 >seems to have used the actual launch point of the north hanger.
 >This explains why Roswell is about a mile to the west in his
 >graphic and many of the other landmarks are off if one uses the
 >center of the base.

And off we go with more Printy spin about Moore's altered Flight
#5 graphic. Notice closely in the following discussion how
Printy talks out of both sides of his mouth on this subject.
Here we have him trying to justify why Moore moves the location
of Roswell town west from where it was marked on the actual
Mogul plots. (This is in addition to Moore removing the original
Roswell base from the Flight #5 graphic and substituting the
town of Roswell in its place 6 miles further to the north and 6
miles more removed from the close approach of #5 south of the
base.)

Printy, doing a little mind-reading, claims Moore used a
different location at the base for the launch site, apparently
closer to "Roswell". Therefore, he moves "Roswell" (i.e., the
town), slightly closer to the launch location. This is supposed
to explain the mislocated "Roswell" slightly west of where the
Mogul draftsmen plotted it on their maps.

OK, but even if we grant Printy this, isn't the _logical_ thing
to assume that Moore would "correct" everything on the map in
the same way, i.e. move _everything_ on the map slightly closer
by the _exact same amount in the exact same direction_? That
would include the crash site as well, right?

Wrong! You and I are thinking _logically_ here. Obviously you
just don't understand PrintyThink.

 >Moore, apparently unaware of this difference
 >accurately transcribed the path from figure 32 onto his map. As
 >a result, the plotted position on his map is now further from
 >Roswell than it should be. It measures about 30.5 miles but it
 >really was about 29.5 miles.

Ha, ha, ha! What a riot! Moore, supposedly aware that the
original graphic with its landmarks is plotted "improperly",
moves these a mile or two or so west. But somehow he is
"unaware" of this for the crash site and fails to make the same
"correction."

Even if you buy this line of baloney, if you are again
_logical_, this would mean the "unaware" Moore would leave the
crash site at the exact same "wrong" place on the map, right? In
other words, Moore moves "Roswell" a mile or two west, thus
increasing the distance from Roswell to the "crash site" by one
or two miles.

So if we are dealing with the "crash site " on the original
Figure 32 Mogul graphic about 16 miles east of the base, it's
distance would increase to 17-18 miles. If we were dealing with
the ambiguous "25 miles east of Roswell" from the Crary diary,
the distance from "Roswell" would increase to 26 - 27 miles."

But Moore plots the crash site about 31 miles east of Roswell!!
Or in other words, the supposedly "unaware" Moore doesn't just
passively leave the crash site at the same place on the map. He
_actively_ moves it in the _opposite_ direction from the so-
called "correction" to the Roswell position and by a _different
amount_.

He moves "Roswell" 1 or 2 miles west, but he moves the crash
site 4 or 5 miles east, relative to the Crary position, or about
13-14 miles east relative to the original Flight #5 graphic
crash site. Again refer to my web links above to see this for
yourself.

Printy is either too dumb to realize his argument makes no
sense, or is just trying to slip this by everybody. He uses the
exact same boneheaded, self-contradictory argument on his
Website.

 >What Printy _doesn't_ point out to you is that there was yet
 >another oil well much closer in to Roswell, and very near the
 >16-17 mile crash site marked on the original graphic.

 >Actually I do state the oil well is there. I think you need to
 >get your eyes checked because I stated in the line directly
 >below the map:

 >"Interestingly, the location shown on figure 32 does seem to be
 >near another oil well making one question both Crary's and
 >Moore's locations."

Indeed he does say this on his revised "Rudiak" web page. My
apologies. See:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

In my defense, about the time when Printy originally threw up
his "Rudiak" page defending Moore and attacking me, I was
forwarded a Printy e-mail on Sept. 24, 2002. In this e-mail, he
called attention only to his 2 oil wells shown on a Terraserver
topo map near Moore's falsified #5 crash site.  He made no
mention of any other oil wells in the area, even though the oil
well very near the 16-mile site would have made shambles of his
argument. (It was also only a click away on the Terraserver
website. All he had to do to see it was go west one click
towards Roswell.)

Instead he advanced the straw man argument that the Crary 25-
mile site had no oil wells near it, whereas he found 2 oil wells
near Moore's 31-mile crash site. (Note: But no mention of him
looking for oil wells near the 16-mile site.) This somehow
justified Moore placing the site there at 31 miles, even though
it had _zero_ basis from either the Crary diary or the original
Figure 32 Flight #5 plot. (Also, I might note, Moore himself
never makes this argument, always talking about the Crary 25-
mile site, even though he plots it as 31 miles.)

Possibly Printy simply overlooked the closer-in oil site only
about a mile west of the 16 mile crash site. He now notes it on
his revised Web page and includes a nice topo graphic with all
three crash sites marked on it. In a rare moment of clarity,
even he acknowledges that this oil well gives him pause and
might very well make one question both the Crary and Moore
locations. Even he realizes that there is now a well that
conforms exactly with Moore's story of the chase plane buzzing
an oil rig crew near the originally plotted crash site. (It also
conforms well with Moore's original memory of where they went --
  see below.)

But that would mean admitting that Moore's plotted location was
obviously wrong, even deliberately falsified. Instead of
following this to its logical conclusion (Moore wrong/hoaxer),
Printy goes back into spin mode. Immediately after his quote
above:


    "However, recall what Moore stated about the NYU plot and how
the balloon altitude plots could not match the horizontal plot.
If figure 32 were accurate, the balloons would only have drifted
about 24 miles in 84 minutes. This means that the winds would
only have been blowing at 17 mph in contrast with wind speeds on
the ascent that were 30-50 mph. As Moore pointed out, this was
unlikely. We also have the fact that Moore was at the recovery
location meaning that he could substantiate the location."


So, in other words, Printy chooses to simply ignore the actual
data (Figure 32 crash site location near oil well on topo map),
instead falling back on his typical "appeal to authority"
argument. Moore was there, we weren't.

But what did Moore originally have to see about this? In his
1994 Air Force interview (before he began playing games with the
graphic in 1995), p. 34, he said the following:

    "On one of the early flights we went out east of Roswell, and
I remember _beyond the Bottomless Lakes_, going out in oil well
country, picking up one of our flights that had come down."

The key here would be Moore mentioning them going "beyond
Bottomless Lakes" into oil country. Go look at Printy's nice
topo map again and you'll see that Bottomless Lakes State Park
is about 10/11 miles east of Roswell base. There is an actual
developed road off the main highway that goes there both now and
in 1947, and the 16/17-mile crash-site with oil well nearby lies
about 5-6 miles southeast of this. (Contrast this with the
Moore/Printy site being another 15 miles or so further east of
this.)

All the pieces of evidence for the actual Flight #5 crash site
being the 16-mile site fit together nicely here There's the
hard-data original Mogul plot showing the 16/17 mile crash site,
a developed road out there to Bottomless Lakes that would have
gotten them close (Moore said they were directed out to the
crash site by radio from the chase plane), and even a nearby oil
well that conforms with Moore's original account of them buzzing
off an oil crew.

Even Crary's seemingly incongruous "25 miles east of Roswell"
would work if Crary was referring to driving miles from Roswell
instead of actual air distance from the base. The 16/17 mile
site would be about 16 driving miles east of Roswell out the
main highway and then another 8/9 driving miles south of the
main highway.

The other argument about the winds being too strong earlier
during ascent for the crash site to be as close as the Mogul
graphic indicated after the balloon made its descent makes
superficial sense, but is hardly the point. The actual data from
the original Flight #5 graphic indicates that the winds _did_
die down considerably near Roswell. Even Moore's bogus 31-mile
site would require the winds to be blowing less strongly during
descent.

(For the math wonks, Flight #5's rise time to stratospheric turn
was 135 minutes or 2.25 hours during which time it traversed
about 98 miles. Avg. speed was 43.5 mph. Descent time from
stratospheric turn was 96 minutes or 1.6 hours. Descent distance
to the 16/17 mile site about 27 miles or average speed about 17
mph. Descent distance to Moore's 31-mile site about 40 miles, or
average air speed of about 25 mph. The closer site requires the
winds to drop off by about 60% during descent compared to
ascent, whereas Moore's site still requires about a 40% dropoff.

I likewise pointed out on my Web site that a similar thing
happened to Flight #11 the following month (see the 4th addendum
to my Flight 4 page, about the reliability of predicting
trajectories from wind data:)

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

In this case, as the balloons approached Roswell, starting about
3-1/2 hours into flight and about the same time of day as when
Flight #5 started to descend, average air speed similarly
dropped by about 40%.)

But as is often the case with Moore and Printy, if the data is
inconvenient they simply ignore it. If Moore had chosen to place
the crash site 25 miles east of the base at the ambiguous Crary
25-mile site, I would have only minimal quarrel with him on this
point, since one could legitimately argue either way. But Moore
invents an entirely new crash site 31 miles away completely out
of thin air. There is no justification for it, and the only
seeming rationale, along with his other graphic alterations,
seems to be to distance Flight #5 as much as possible from
Roswell base.

 >>That means there would also have been an unidentified plane in
 >>Roswell base airspace. But according to Printy, everybody at
 >>Roswell base was taking a siesta and totally unconcerned about
 >>such matters.

 >Was it in their airspace? Four miles is a long way.

Not to a military base as security conscious as Roswell, the one
and only atomic bomber base in the world at the time. Four miles
is nothing all for a spy with a telephoto lens.

If nothing else, an unidentified plane and large unknown object
only 4 miles away constitute potential flight hazards to planes
approaching or leaving Roswell. 4 miles is only 1 minute of
typical flight time for a B-29. Flight control would very
definitely want to know what the hell was going on. They would
have no problem at all seeing both the B-17 chase plane and
balloon at that distance, and even further.

A point that Printy probably is not aware of is even Charles
Moore recently acknowledging that the B-17 chase plane probably
would have been in communication with the control tower at
Roswell. Again, this is from the e-mail I received July 22,
2002:


"The B-17 was not unidentified; it operated under a flight
plan out of Alamogordo Army Air Field and undoubtedly was in
communication with the control tower at Roswell."


But according to Printy, nobody at he base would have the
responsibility of observing the skies -- nobody. Nobody would
know of either the plane or balloon. His inane remark on this
point in his e-mail last month was: "Prior to the UFO wave later
that month, there would not have been a reason [for observers]
(unless of course, they were worried about the Mexican AF
attacking RAAF)."

I should also like to point out that Flight #5 lingered a dozen
miles or closer to the base for approximately 2 hours, between
about 8:15 am and 10:15 am. It would have been a busy time of
day. It wasn't the middle of the night and there was a lot of
time for flight crews, plane spotters, control tower operators,
etc. to have caught sight of it.

My graphic with the Flight #5 trajectory near the base and time
of flights noted on it can be seen at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

See the first addendum: "More Moore Mischief"

 >Most people
 >on these bases have their jobs to do. Can you specifically
 >identify which groups of individuals were assigned to monitor
 >the skies that day? Those working doing their daily tasks would
 >not be "skylarking" staring up at the sky.

Flight operations including control tower operators, plane
spotters, weather observers, flight crews would all routinely be
observing the sky. The control tower people and plane spotters
and any planes airborne at the time (including the approximately
2 hours when the balloons were within a dozen miles of the base)
would be the most likely ones to spot the balloon and the
unknown circling plane following it.

 >>But in Printy FantasyLand, the same concern for security
 >>apparently didn't extend to their airspace. Nobody was watching
 >>and nobody cared if a strange balloon and an unidentified plane
 >>came within a few miles of the base.

 >You are confusing ground security with air security. There is a
 >difference you know. How many fighter planes were assigned to
 >RAAF for air protection? None as best I can tell. Were there an
 >Anti-Aircraft units assigned/deployed? None as best I can tell.
 >Was there an assigned observer corps setup on the base? I don't
 >know. Do you? It seems that there was little effort for air
 >security. Again, show us which groups (not vague references)
 >were assigned these tasks.

Planes would be going in and out, flight operations would be
manning the control tower, plane spotters would routinely be
observing the flights and the skies, and so would weather
observers feeding the latest weather information to flight
operations to be relayed to flight crews.

Even Moore has recently acknowledged that the B-17 chase plane
would have been in communication with the control tower at some
time. The control tower would no doubt want to know their
location and would be keeping track of it. Wouldn't want a mid-
air collision, would we, with some plane going in or out of
Roswell base? One of the whole points of having things like a
control tower and plane spotters is to keep planes from flying
into one another.

Of course, in the same direction as the plane, and directly
above it, would be the strange Flight #5, 600+ feet long vs. 75
feet for the B-17. One would think it would be rather hard NOT
to notice. No doubt, the B-17 crew would have to come up with
some sort of story to explain it and their circling flight path,
such as "following a cosmic ray experiment out of Alamogordo" or
something like that.

But the point is, it is _very_ likely that some personnel at
Roswell base would have been aware of the balloon flights in
early June 1947 because of the proximity of Flight #5 and its
chase plane to the base. Why Printy finds this so unlikely or
disturbing I don't know, but apparently he does, and so
apparently does Charles Moore, judging by how desperately he has
been trying to distance Flight #5 from the base.

Now how far up the chain of command this information might go I
can't say. Would the information have been confined to flight
operations, flight crews, etc., or would something have been
reported to higher-ups, such as base commander Blanchard, base
intelligence and security (Marcel, Cavitt), etc.? Routine I
think would call for it being reported, but I can't prove it.

 >Can you produce one report stating
 >they did see or report the flight.

No I can't. Can you produce far more significant reports that
nobody can find, such as the explanations that must have been
forthcoming from Roswell base for the supposed misidentification
of a balloon and subsequent embarrassing press release? That I
would like to see. How about documentation from Project Mogul
records about how one of their balloons was found by a rancher
and misidentified as a flying saucer, including the actual crash
location? I'd like to see that too. I'd also like to see those
missing base communications that the GAO discovered were
destroyed without authorization.

What I do know is that both you and Moore are obviously very
spooked by the very notion that Roswell base _might_ have known
about the flights a month before the Roswell incident. You
choose to ridicule the whole notion with inane remarks about the
Mexican air force and nobody paying attention to the skies at
Roswell. And Moore deliberately distanced Flight #5 from the
base starting in 1995 by altering the graphic, and is still
doing it the present, lying in recent e-mail about the balloons
coming no closer than 15-20 miles to the base.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                        Re: Green Fireballs - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:26:07 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:06:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Green Fireballs - Speiser


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:36:46 EST
 >Subject: Green Fireballs

 >There is a great deal speculation about the exact nature of
 >green fireballs.

<snip>

 >I suggest that green fireballs may be extraterrestrial probes
 >entering our atmosphere. They appear to fly horizontal paths
 >indicating a possible probe rather than a meteorites. The green
 >color of the glowing gases simply does not agree with what is
 >known about meteorites [sic].

Then we probably don't know as much as we need to about meteors.

I have seen green fireballs, late at night over Fountain Hills,
AZ.  They were quite common when I was living up there. Apart
from their color, they sure as heck looked like standard, run-
of-the-mill meteors to me.  Doesn't the color indicate what
chemical is combusting upon entry?  And isn't green pretty
indicative of a common element, like phosphorous?  Just
guessing.

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Green Fireballs - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:42:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:09:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Green Fireballs - Maccabee


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:36:46 EST
 >Subject: Green Fireballs

 >There is a great deal speculation about the exact nature of
 >green fireballs.

 >Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, a respected astronomer from the University of
 >New Mexico was absolutely convinced that the green fireballs are
 >not conventional fireballs or meteorites.

 >Green fireballs were passing over New Mexico on a fairly regular
 >basis, often followed by a series of UFO reports.

 >La Paz also ruled out other unconventional types of meteors and
 >fireballs.

 >Based on Space Shuttle videos the UFOs may create the green
 >fireball upon entry into the Earth atmosphere.

 >Frequently they are sighted above sensitive military
 >installations.

 >FBI documents, as outlined in the book, 'Above Top Secret', by
 >Timothy Good reveal:

 >"... the matter of Unidentified Aircraft or Unidentified Aerial
 >Phenomena, otherwise know as Flying Disks, Flying Saucers and
 >Balls of Fire' is considered to be top secret by Intelligence
 >Officers of both the Army and the Air Forces." (Page 267). >

 >I suggest that green fireballs may be extraterrestrial probes
 >entering our atmosphere. They appear to fly horizontal paths
 >indicating a possible probe rather than a meteorites. The green
 >color of the glowing gases simply does not agree with what is
 >known about meteorites.

FBI documents presented in 'The UFO-FBI Connection' which I
published 2 years ago show that La Paz suggested to the FBI that
the fireballs were either a secret project of the Air Force or
else missiles launched from the Soviet Union.

These supposed missiles were flying over the North Pole and
traveling southward toward military areas of high significance
("vital installations").

La Paz told the FBi that, in his opinion (1949), the missiles
were being targeted toward Los Alamos, Sandia Base and so on and
once the Russians had the correct range they would replace the
"green" warhead with a nuclear warhead.

It appears that Hoover fed this information to radioman Walter
Winchell, who then publicized this over the airwaves. The Air
Force immediately pooh-poohed the idea.

Bottom line: no one doubted that they were real; La Paz argued
they were not normal meteors (he was an expert on meteors) and
the result is that no one knows exactly what they were.

However, in a list of sightings in 1949 and 1950 there is what
La Paz called the "disc variation."

Hmmmmmm... wonder what that could be?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:39:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:24:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:30:32 EST
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >Whatever Carter 'thinks' that he might have seen that evening in
 >Leary, he's the only one who thought he saw anything out of the
 >ordinary. If there were truly something amazing flying around
 >the sky that night, the others with him would surely have
 >remarked on it, and remembered it.

 >Robert Sheaffer
 >robert@debunker.com
 >Skeptical to the Max!

<snip>

Really. Well I never had much interest in Carter's sighting -
until now. When I see an obvious misconstruing of what Carter
reported then I wonder what's in it for the debunker.

Carter said it was well defined, sharp edged, as bright and as
large as the Moon at times. It moved in close to between 300 and
1,000 yards. He did say that it was about 30 degrees above the
horizon [he's ex-navy and stood watches so probably has a little
more on the ball than some reporter]. He said there were 10-12
members of the Lions Club milling around at the front entrance
of the club. Why would he lie about something so easily checked?
Why does he have to have seen Venus because it was in the sky to
the southwest at 25 degrees above the horizon instead of in the
west at 30 degrees.

There is only one reason why you and your debunker buddies would
want this one to go away is because it's an obvious threat.
Carter had more credibility than any other Presidents other than
Lincoln and Kennedy and that's a threat. He's up for the Nobel
Peace Prize - and that's a threat. Credibility again.

Maybe _you_ should check for those witnesses again Robert.
Anyway, let me know how this comes out.


Best,

Don Ledger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Dilettoso

From: Jim Dilettoso <jim@villagelabs.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:16:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:27:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Dilettoso


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:05:49 EST
 >Subject: Dorothy Izatt?

 >Hello all,

 >Well I'm almost afraid of asking this to this particular List,
 >but has anyone looked into the claims/story/investigation of
 >Dorothy Izatt?

 >That's it, sweet and simple.


Chris,

Some years back I did study some 8mm movie film and 35mm photos
that Dorothy Izatt took herself. I also studied two sets of
photos taken by persons sitting with Dorothy. Dorothy instructed
them when to shoot.

They did not see anything where she pointed, but the film
negatives revealed images similar to others that Dorothy had
taken. The images are similar to those taken by Bruce Cornet.
Ball, streaks, rapid direction changes, with steady trees and
rooflines as reference points.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:17:02 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:30:20 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:55:14 +0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

<snip>

 >>Well, I just grabbed one off of my shelf, "On Mars - Exploration
 >>of the Red Planet 1958-1978", published by NASA as part of the
 >>NASA History Series. It's authors are Edward Clinton Ezell and
 >>Linda Neuman Ezell

 >>Well, it covered the issue of whether the Viking science
 >>experiments really found evidence of life or just chemistry,
 >>citing Gil Levin for the latter and other participants for the
 >>consensus.

Dick:

By the way, I make a mistage above, Gil Levin argues that the
Vikings found possible evidence for life, while the consensus
was for chemistry. Sorry.

 >Okay. But I still think we are talking apples and oranges here.

 >I believe that the Oberg commissioned book is quite unique and
 >unprecedented in the history of NASA publishing.

Well, you might be right about that. But, then the problem is
somewhat unique. I'm not sure that there has been much said
about other aspects of the space program being phoney. This one
needs to be debunked, pardon the term. I assume that you agree.

I guess some might argue that the material would better be done
by an outside author, privately, and published by, say,
Prometheus.

You've worked in DC, can you imagine how many people-hours are
being spent answering the "priority" inquiries from Congress on
behalf of their constituents who have heard something on, say,
Art Bell? Evidently teachers are being driven crazy by questions
from their students and a lot of time is also being spent by the
education offices. $15,000 plus the printing costs are probably
a drop in the bucket compared to the time being wasted annually
on answering this nonsense. And it is apparently getting worse.

Even the mainstream media's treatment of the subject makes me
depressed. On anniversaries of Apollo 11 there's usually more
about the rock concert at Woodstock, a muddy, one-time fiasco
for a few hundred thousand, never to be repeated, while nothing
is said about the million people who camped out to watch each of
the eight Moonships take off. But they were only the Woodstocks
of the "Squares".

Do you know what happens most of the time when I point out real,
honest-to-God moonrocks at the planetarium? Most people our age,
and many adults over about 40, are interested. And a lot of
kids, but I think that many kids just walk away to go to the
gift shop, I guess. It's depressing.

That's why I think it's probably very useful to have good info in
libraries, congressional offices and classrooms.

<snip>

 >And "the genre" (whatever that means) is not Charles Fort.

I meant that in the sense of "Forteana", as in "Fortean"
literature, a term that I have seen used a lot.

<snip>

 >I certainly don't agree at all with Bennett's view that there are
 >no objectively established facts or truths.

Yeah, that's classic deconstructionism. It's usefull, I
suppose, in political arguments, but not in physics.

 >One of those is that we definitely landed craft and
 >humans on the Moon.

We both agree on spacecraft guided by an intelligence and seen
in our atmosphere. Finally. Yiikes.


Have a good one,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:17:06 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:32:33 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000
 >Subject: Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>Tell me Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent astronauts
 >>to the Moon or not? On which side of reality do you sit?

 >>>Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right up
 >>>there with the Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense.

 >Does Bob think that tremendous events have a simple
 >non-anomalous linear reality?

Good Lord, man, I only asked if you thought it happened.

 >Books could be filled with the multiple anomalies of the Moon
 >landing, but I will point out just one - let Bob consider say,
 >the very strange motion of the LEM before landing as
 >described by Norman Mailer in A Fire on the Moon.

I asked what _you_ think, and you give me Mailer. I already
know what he thinks.

 >People and events are actors in a cultural petri-dish, and they
 >paint on cave walls just as does everyone else. Let Bob read the
 >chapter The Search for Oswald in my recently published book,
 >Politics of the Imagination, and he will realize that absolute
 >reality like absolute temperature is a theoretical possibility
 >realizable only in the impossible limit.

Or do I just detect envy of somebody else's book contract with
NASA?

<snip>

 >For instance, I myself could accept that parts of the first
 >moon landing were almost real.

Yes, go on.

<snip>

 >But again, seen as art form, the reality of scientific
 >discoveries is irrelevant. In this sense, science can be
 >deconstructed as profitably as can the faces of Garbo,
 >Dietrich, Robert Oppenheimer, or even George Bush.

I asked about reality, you talk about profitably deconstructing
science.

A Tale of Two Cities, I guess.

<snip>

 >My final answer to both Bob and Dick is this: Both saw a
 >moon landing. I didn't see a moon landing. For me such a
 >landing didn't happen. It was a very weak reality. Like Norman
 >Mailer, all I saw was a WASP cathedral being built. That's
 >what I saw.

Well, like Mailer, it's very likely that what you think is
probably irrelevant. A million years from now the Apollo 11
capsule now on display at the Air & Space Museum will still be
the first spaceship which carried humans to another world. I
hope that your book is printed on acid-free paper.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"Oh, never mind" -- Emily Latella, AKA Rosanne Rosanna Dana









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Re: Terminology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:29:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:35:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Connors


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
 >>Subject: Terminology

 >'Crypto-' is from the Greek, 'kryptos', for 'hidden'. To move
 >from 'ufology' to 'Crypto-Aeronautics' and denote the UFOs as
 >'Crypto-Crafts' is pure silliness. Why would you want to talk
 >about these as "the hidden science, theory and practice of
 >aircraft navigation" and why would you be studying 'hidden
 >craft'? The revealed nature of ufology and the UFOs are what
 >propels your study, not that they are 'hidden'.

 From the Greek "kryptos" certainly, but not "silly". Crypto
denotes unknown, puzzling. "Revealed nature of ufology?" Are you
saying you know the reason for the existence of 'UFOs' and the
origin? If so, you are way ahead of everyone else.

Of course, I've only been at this for 45+ years and contributed
absolutely nothing to this genre, so what the hell do I know,
eh? But, then again I'm sure crypto-zoologists such as yourself,
know more about UFOs than anyone else.

Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:37:13 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 22:45:53 +0000
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >>Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

<snip>

 >>For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >>universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >>It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >>You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >>would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >>to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >>Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >>be? Opinions please.

 >Frank,

 >No brainer. Tell them the truth, but present it via a group of
 >well-informed and respected persons. You don't even include the
 >visitation scenario, which theoretically could pose some
 >problems.

<snip>

I think even visitation via UFO could be assimilated by the
public. But then the issue of alien abduction is bound to come
up, and that would certainly cause some unease.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:56:26 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:38:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:13:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:02:47 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

   ><snip>

 >>>PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

 >>>NARBERTH -- The witness was on his back porch talking to a
 >>>friend on October 8, 2002, and they were looking at the night
 >>>sky on a clear night, like they often do.  Then it happened, for
 >>>about two to three seconds a fireball streaked across the sky,
 >>>from east to west, and disappeared.  The witnesses report, "I
 >>>continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >>>slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >>>was a bright star.  It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >>>was thundering back into space.  The witness said, "I have seen
 >>>many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

 >>George:

 >>As the witness looks up, he obviously sees many shooting stars
 >>and Iridium satellites.

<snip>

 >I thought his description was interesting since it matches some
 >of the space shuttle photos. NORAD indicates they get
 >incorrelated targets every day. It doesn't sound like a shooting
 >star to me.

George,

"Then it happened, for about two to three seconds a fireball
streaked across the sky, from east to west, and disappeared."

This is the part that sounds like a meteor.

 >"I continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >slowly moving. It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >was a bright star. It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >was thundering back into space."

This is the part that could be a classic description of the
flare of an Iridium satellite.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bassett

From: Steve Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:58:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:40:23 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bassett


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >Hello To All,

 >I'd like to try an exercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For argument's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.
 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?
 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.


See:

http://www.disclosure2003.net/AlienZooArchive/Cookbook/11-1-00_Cookbook.html

Regards,

Steve 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         Re: Green Fireballs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:02:02 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:27:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Green Fireballs - Young


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:36:46 EST
 >Subject: Green Fireballs

<snip>

 >The green color of the glowing gases simply does not agree
 >with what is known about meteorites.

George:

Could you be more spedific about what you mean about this?

Do you know about Richard Haines' book Observing UFOs? He
describes how intensely bright light is seen by the eye as green
after the saturation of the process of sight.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                           Re: Terminology - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:17:53 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:30:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Gates


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: fortlist <fort@egroups.com>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: Ufo Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 10:12:16 -0700
 >>Subject: Terminology

 >'Crypto-' is from the Greek, 'kryptos', for 'hidden'. To move
 >from 'ufology' to 'Crypto-Aeronautics' and denote the Ufos as
 >'Crypto-Crafts' is pure silliness. Why would you want to talk
 >about these as "the hidden science, theory and practice of
 >aircraft navigation" and why would you be studying 'hidden
 >craft'? The revealed nature of ufology and the UFOs are what
 >propels your study, not that they are 'hidden'.

Loren,

An observation. Some people aren't thrilled about the "crypto-
  Aeronautics" name. That being said we all realized that there
are those who are not thrilled about the names "Ufologist" or
"Ufological" or others because those names are/were (at least by
one story a few years back) supposedly connected to the trash of
Ufology. The belief seems to be that the term Crypto or Hidden
aeronautics apparently has a more respectful connotation then
words like "Ufologist." Note that just because a person or group
may go under the label of "Hidden aeronautical" researcher,
doesn't mean it will get scientific respect or attention.

To me the term Ufologist has no more disrespectful content then
terms like "geologist" "Palentologist" and many others.

Whether or not you want to frame yourself as a Ufologist,
Hidden-Aero, or whatever term a person wants to use all means
the same thing in the end.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bryant

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:42:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:35:47 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Bryant


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.

Apropos of Frank Warren's "disclosure exercise", I offer the
following draft "Presidential Statement on UFO Reality," which
I created some years ago for public consumption and wide
distribution. Perhaps it still has some relevance? The
hard-copy version has this note of explanation:


Let's suppose that, within the next several years, the growing
pressure on the federal government to level with the public
about UFO reality actually succeeds. The full measure of that
success, of course, would consist of a formal announcement from
Washington.

And who better to make it than the president of the United
States? Accordingly, CAUS Washington, D.C., director Larry W.
Bryant proposes that the president deliver the following speech,
timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Roswell, N.M., UFO
crash-retrieval case of July 1947.

Presumably, the White House press office will have given the
news media advance notice of the general topic - but not the key
element - of the speech. Thus, the news-wire advisory to editors
might read:


"Tonight, at 9:00 o'clock eastern daylight time, the
president is scheduled to address the nation from the Oval
Office of the White House. Informally referred to as the
'Citizens of Earth' speech, the president's remarks are expected
to reveal new de- velopments in space research, to include
matters involving uni- dentified flying objects."


JULY 7, ______ (9:00 p.m.)

FROM: Washington, D.C.
The Oval Office of
The White House

An Address by the President of the United States

Fellow Americans... and fellow citizens of Earth:

Earlier today, I invited three senior members of the White House
press corps to join me and the secretary of the Navy in a round-
table discussion of what I'm announcing to you this evening. In
making the announcement, I ask that you stay tuned to this TV or
radio station for 30 minutes of recorded highlights from the
discussion.

Now, perhaps I should use the term astronomical announcement.
Because, what I'm revealing today certainly has profound
implications for all mankind.

It was more than 50 years ago this week that two so-called
"flying saucers" collided during a thunderstorm near Roswell,
New Mexico. A few days later, the resulting wreckage, with four
humanoid occupants, was retrieved by military authorities.

What little we can surmise about the occupants' origin and
mission stirs both our imagination and our compassion. By their
sudden and violent demise, these small, vulnerable beings --
  cosmic pathfinders, perhaps? - have left us with a mystery
that both invites and defies solution. Unable to return, or to
be returned, to their home planet, they epitomize the grim risk
confronting every space traveler.

Ever since July 1947, leaders from within and from outside the
federal government have chosen to let the "Roswell Incident" lie
in limbo - a political hot potato that would grow hotter
whenever they tried to deal forthrightly with it.

Now, with the passage of five decades, that difficult issue has
begun to cool. The turnabout is due in part to acknowledging our
own advances in space technology and travel. For, today, who can
say for sure that our march into space has not been duplicated
elsewhere, and with greater success?

My purpose here tonight is not to find fault with past leaders
as to when and how to tell the whole story about the Roswell
Incident and its aftermath. Rather, as one who only recently has
learned the story, I want this occasion to be one of mutual
reassurance and recommitment.

We citizens of Earth must reassure ourselves that, as a
community of nations, we can deal effectively and justly with
unannounced visits by life forms beyond Earth. And, in the
process, we must recommit ourselves to the principles and ideals
that preserve our species and its civilization.

Are we up to the challenge, in light of this news that mankind
truly does share the universe with advanced inhabitants of other
worlds? If I had any doubts about that, I would not be here
before you tonight.

As we rise to the challenge, let us rely upon the cooperation of
a free government and a free press to inform, to inspire, and to
lead us in coming to terms with this singular event in human
history.

By an executive order to be issued tomorrow, I am directing that
all official records pertaining to the Roswell Incident - and
to any other such spaceship-retrieval case - be transferred to
the Library of Congress. There, under guidance from officials of
the Department of the Navy (which has had custody of the records
for a number of years), researchers, scholars, scientists, and
just plain citizens will have full access to what used to be the
Ultimate Secret.

Tomorrow evening, I will address a joint session of Congress,
where I'll present my proposal as to how our government should
deal, from now on, with the reality of these extraterrestrial
visitors.

In the meantime, I'm asking that the Navy secretary conduct a
press conference tomorrow at noon in the auditorium of the
National Press Club in Washington. There, reporters will have
access to a packet of background material that includes
photographic and technical data derived from analysis of the
retrieved spacecraft.

Tonight, MY duty is to affirm your right - and to renew
everyone's opportunity - to take part in the decisionmaking on
how and where we should proceed from here. YOUR duty is to help
keep the event in proper perspective - and to build upon it in
the realization that we, indeed, are not alone in the universe.

As I welcome your understanding, I thank you for your patience.
And may God bless the citizens of Earth.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:20:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:37:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:05:49 EST
 >Subject: Dorothy Izatt?

 >Hello all,

 >Well I'm almost afraid of asking this to this particular List,
 >but has anyone looked into the claims/story/investigation of
 >Dorothy Izatt?

 >That's it, sweet and simple.


- - -

Hello Chris:

I never heard the name Dorothy Izatt in my life. The name is
unusual enough that I would remember. I have no idea who she is,
or what claims are being made. Could you give us some clues, a
(clickable) URL perhaps?


Thanks

- 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Matthews

From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:41:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Matthews


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >>Dear All,

 >>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >>of production.

 >>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >>seen the light of day.....

 >Tim-

 >I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
 >objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
 >or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
 >sightings were really "Black Project" related?

A majority of which sightings? In any case, we're very happy
with the conclusion that FTs and Flying discs were of
terrestrial design. The majority of "UFO" cases relate to
natural phenomena; earth lights and so on. That's what we think
the "zig zag" video footage mentioned more than likely
represents.

Could some UFOs be alien? Possibly. But not FTs and discs. What
is happening here is that evidence of man made projects is
ignored consistently. Stan simply continues to proselytise that
discs "couldn't" be man made and tends to cite sightings by
witnesses as evidence that the technology is "beyond" the
capacity of humans. Yes, Blue Book had its unknowns but was a
badly funded and organised effort. Where really good cases of
structured UFOs exist, like the Henderson, NV, case mentioned in
Hynek's UFO Report (1957), where a disc was seen by a USAF
Officer, the thing was debunked as "psychological". We are sure
we know why. A bit too near Groom Lake/Papoose for comfort!

But then the vast majority of sightings are flawed and the tiny
fragment of credible evidence we have tends to indicate the
existence of structured objects whose flightpaths coincide with
the location of military facilities. Take, for instance, the
fairly recent NIDS report that supported our conclusion that FTs
operated from several military facilities. Stanton would have us
believe that these craft are "checking out military bases", or
some similar argument. This doesn't hold water and I'm sure the
CIA and co and happy with his 40 years of promoting the remnants
of their 1950s 'Aliens in UFOs' agenda!

 From the Boeing 360 to the jet-powered pancakes, the Navy disc
projects at China Lake, the AVRO effort, those at Papoose Lake
and elsewhere, comes significant evidence that discs, and later
FTs, were, and are, terrestrial. Of course we are rarely
afforded either the chance to debate with people like Stanton,
the chance to write about this in journals or magazines or to
present these apparently shocking ideas to conference attenders.
TV programme makers don't want to hear it either, as seven years
in this game have shown me.

Shame, really, because if we had the amounts of money made
available to Ufology to "prove" the alien case we'd be so much
further advanced. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept the
testimony of Frank Carlson (who worked at Papoose Lake from
1960-62), Thomas Smith (Chance Vought 1944-46), Jack Pickett
(McDill 1960s) and others who tell us that we are right and that
everything else is belief driven.

I don't intend to get into a ding dong debate on this because
very few are even interested in changing their minds or
admitting that they could be wrong. In my view, and that of my
many colleagues, Ufology is pretty much an alien believer cult
hardened against contrary evidence. It's not that we're against
the idea that UFOs could be alien, only that there is much
better evidence that aliens were promoted from the 1950s onwards
to cover the activity of US-made flying discs and, latterly,
FTs.

So it's not simply a debate about "aliens or not", rather an
argument about the best evidence that the few cases where
structured craft (rather than anomalous lights that zip around
the sky and look great on video tape) are fairly certain to have
been seen are of human design and operation.

Although I have my suspicions about the role of the CIA I'm
afraid we'll have to see what else emerges from the vaults
before going further on that one!

Thanks Steve and friends,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:06:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:48:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:26:16 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >Here's another idea for testing the "ion thrust" hypothesis of
 >the electrostatic lifters.

 >Surround the lifting conductors with light weight hollow plastic
 >tubing, with a few internal support insulating discs along the
 >length.  The larger diameter the better.

 >One material might be to roll the thin plastic paper sleeves for
 >protecting document pages, or even transparency blanks, around a
 >broom handle, then tape.  The insulating discs could be made of
 >balsa.

 >If lift results from an ion stream, such an enclosure on the
 >conductors should severely interfere with, and possibly almost
 >stop, such ion currents from producing lift, for the same reason
 >the entire craft in a bag would - the momentum of ions leaving a
 >wire would be cancelled when the ions hit the tubular enclosure.


Eleanor,

In the vacuum experiment carried out at NASA's Marshall Centre,
the rig used was a rotating armature having two "thrust
capacitor" pods, one each end of the armature see:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/actv3tst.htm

These "capacitor pods" have a _solid_ dielectric insulating
layer between the two electrode plates, in the rig on the
website it's a layer of polystyrene.

There's an interesting "UFO" linkage on the above page that's
not at first obvious. Jean shows a table of dielectric constants
for a few materials, some of which he's used in his experiments.
He's currently using polystyrene which has a dielectric constant
listed as 2.56, he also lists Barium Strontium Titanate which
has a constant of 13800, it can theoretically hold 5400 times
more charge per given mass than polystyrene. One wonders whether
a "capacitor pod" constructed using this dielectric would
perform significantly better than the ones so far tested!.

The UFO link??

Weren't those alleged UFO craft fragments Linda Moulton Howe had
analysed found to be constructed of layers of magnesium
separated by layers of a _Barium_ compound, in fact very much
like a multi layered _capacitor_. And further, didn't they too
exhibit reactive movement when given a electric charge.


Neil







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Re: Terminology - Coleman

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:43:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:52:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:29:01 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

<snip>

 >Of course, I've only been at this for 45+ years and contributed
 >absolutely nothing to this genre, so what the hell do I know,
 >eh? But, then again I'm sure crypto-zoologists such as yourself,
 >know more about UFOs than anyone else.

I never said I knew anything about UFOs, as my comment was about
words! "Crypto" denotes "hidden". What's wrong with keeping it
as ufology or Ufology? Crypto-Aeronautics and Crypto-Craft,
sorry, appear to not be good choices. Sorry my feedback offended
Ms. Connors. I thought that's what was requested, feedback. I
did not know I was just suppose to agree.

By the way, cryptozoology and cryptozoologists are single words,
and do not employ hyphens.


Loren Coleman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                        Stonehenge A Magnet For UFOs?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:52:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:54:03 -0500
Subject: Stonehenge A Magnet For UFOs?


Source: Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/07/39270.html

Stig

***

2002.11.07/17:04

Stonehenge: Alternative Views

**

The majority of Englishmen know the Salisbury Valley because of
the ancient Stonehenge monument. However very few people know
that the ruins are haunted by UFOs. In August 1957, a war game
was held between the London garrison and the Royal Guards from
Liverpool in the mentioned valley. According to the battle's
conditions, the defending side (the London garrison) was
equipped with five Centurion tanks. The tanks performed a
defensive role: they maneuvered and fired at the center of the
area. When the tanks were getting ready for the combat mission,
the crew of one of the tanks reported that they saw a large,
silver, cigar-shaped object; they reported that the tank was
ready to open fire.

After the report, no more information could be obtained about
the tank, and none of its traces could be found. The tank simply
disappeared.

Really strange things occur around Stonehenge. One Englishman
decided to fly a kite near Stonehenge. He stood on the bed of
his pickup, and the kite flew up and up towards the sky.
Suddenly, when the kite flew above the cromlech's edges, 150-200
yards from the car park, a strange unknown source of energy hurt
the man's hands. The man lost his conscience and fell down from
his car. His wounds healed only after six months.

There is another even more fantastic phenomenon. Once, a group
of people heard some strange sounds from the direction of the
stones. These people immediately left, but the strange sound
went up into the sky with a buzzing. Then, these people saw
something resembling a huge wheel of fire, turning as it flew up
into the sky. Later, after they returned home, they saw a female
figure dressed in yellow clothes. The woman's hair was long, and
her coiffure resembled an ancient Egyptian one. This even gave
them the impression that they witnessed a struggle between good
and the evil.

One Czech artist says that levitation of sounds was used when
Stonehenge was built; the levitation was caused by the strengths
of sound and thought.

Tony Wedd discovered a very important element of new
discoveries: he discovered a connection between ancient field
lines of the area and UFOs. The cromlech area resembles an UFO
when seen from the air. Circular embankments and ditches are an
exterior rim of the UFO, the Aubrey holes are the illuminators,
and the internal stone ring is the UFO's cabin. The central
stone resembles a prominent cabin, and the so-called blue stones
are humanoids.

The rather unknown small town of Waminster, situated between
Stonehenge and Glastonbury, is the center of a garrison
surrounded by military emplacements. Is this the reason why the
place is so often observed by UFOs? On the whole, the connection
between UFOs and the military can be interpreted in two ways. A
positive one: extraterrestrials believe that the nuclear
emplacements pose a danger to the existence of people, which is
why they are keeping their eyes on us. Another, and rather
strange, suggestion is that even if extraterrestrials and the
military don't closely cooperate, they have probably established
a policy of concealing the truth. At least, they have decided
not to reveal their secrets to people of the Earth.

Although Stonehenge is owned by civilians (it belongs to the
Royal family), it is surrounded by closed military zones.
Glastonbury's peace and quiet are not disturbed yet. Over
Waminster, UFOs frequently follow a flight path from the east to
west, from Stonehenge to Glastonbury. In this place, people have
observed UFO landings, giants, sounds of invisible pedestrians,
and even exotic space perfume left after a UFO flew away.
However, this phenomenon isn't new. Even John Aubrey in his
notes in 1670 mentioned a strange ghost seen not far from
Sprinchester. When the ghost was asked whether it was a good or
an evil spirit, no response followed, and the creature
disappeared, leaving an unusual smell and melodious chime after
itself.

In 1954, many years before alternative archeology appeared, one
photographer saw a column of light in his pictures. It was like
a searchlight ray that hit the cloudless sky from central
Trilit.

Two obvious instances of UFO presence in the area were
registered not so long ago. In 1968, Arthur Shuttlewood saw an
UFO close to a circle of fire that emerged from Stonehenge. When
the man decided to approach the strange object, it shot straight
up. Late one evening in November 1977, blazing fires were seen.
They moved across the sky in a line, and they could hover and
suddenly change direction. At that, the fires didn't move
fluently like planes, by in a very energetic and sudden manner.
The compasses showed wrong directions and the picture of a
portable TV set was unstable. The fires were filmed with a movie
camera.

No wonder the military has great interest in the mysterious
area. The searchlight ray was obviously directed at an UFO.
Other researchers, Anthony Roberts for instance, discovered that
folklore and the traditional history of the Ancient World
contain many records of giants, Atlantis, and flying dragons,
which were more than likely paleo-UFOs. If you follow the
position of speculative mythology, this old evidence becomes
perfectly clear.

At the same time, orthodox archeologists still resist new ideas
of those whom they call "dishonest apologists of industrial
civilization."

However, the alternative study of Stonehenge is popular not only
in England, but also in California, where Donald Cyr publishes
Stonehenge Viewpoint newspaper. He bases his publications on the
dome hypothesis suggested by researcher Eisen Veil, who said
that there is a layer of ice crystals high above in the
atmosphere. When light is reflected by the crystals, bright
shining arcs of 22 and 44 degrees can appear around the Sun and
the Moon. Such arcs and even whole circles can be seen under
definite conditions. Those who wish to see this effect can use
the Marc-1 and Marc-2 devices for it. This device allows one to
see shining circles around any metal construction, around Egypt
pyramids, and Stonehenge.

Translated by Maria Gousseva

**

Copyright 1999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in
whole or in part, reference to Pravda.RU should be made.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Cluster Of Lights Baffles Yuma Couple

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:15:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:55:20 -0500
Subject: Cluster Of Lights Baffles Yuma Couple


Source: The Yuma Sun - Arizona

http://yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_2542.shtml

Stig

***

News Briefs

Cluster of lights baffles Yuma couple

Nov 7, 2002

**

A Yuma couple did more than a double-take when they saw a
cluster of circular white lights zip across the sky Tuesday
night, they said.

At about 8:10 p.m., a woman said she saw the object appear out
of the northeast. She called to her husband, who came out just
as the the lights crossed overhead and continued south, where
they disappeared from view.

The couple, who asked not to be identified, said they're not
trying to cause a stir. They don't believe in UFOs, they said.

"I'm going to die of curiosity until I find out," said the
woman, who took on a light-hearted tone. And she added, "I would
like to know if anyone else saw it."

The couple live at a mobile home park off 4th Avenue extension.

The woman described the object as a cluster of about 15 disc-
shaped white lights that moved in unison. Her husband saw them
just as they passed high above their home. The object seemed to
be climbing higher and moving south. The lights were visible for
just a couple of minutes, they said.

Crop duster pilot Matt Fieldgrove said it was probably two
military planes flying side by side with their lights pointed
toward the ground.

"I see them a lot of times when I'm flying," he said. It wasn't
a crop duster because most planes have only three lights on the
wings, he said.

Officials at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma had another possible
explanation.

"Our best guess it was probably a crop duster," said Sgt. Tracie
Kessler, media chief. "If there was anything going on, flight
ops would have known about it."

Yuma International Airport didn't receive any reports out of the
ordinary, officials there said.

Yuma Proving Ground is testing flares, but not at night, said
Chuck Wullenjohn, spokesman for the base. He could not provide a
possible explanation.

The couple said they weren't able to hear any sounds of a plane.

"They couldn't have been balloons because they didn't bobble and
they weren't carried by the wind," the woman said.

Sightings of disc-shaped lights that look like portholes or
windows are very common, said Bridget Ceccacci, a library
associate at the International UFO Museum and Research Center in
Roswell, N.M.

"It's hard to say what they are without seeing them," she said.

**

Copyright, YumaSun.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         UFO Fever The Wisconsin Way

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:37:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:11:47 -0500
Subject: UFO Fever The Wisconsin Way


Source: Wisconsin State Journal

http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/36265.php

Stig

***

Bar and patrons are open to UFOs

9:08 PM 11/06/02

Beth Williams, Wisconsin State Journal

**

DUNDEE - Despite the pictures of aliens with their green eyes
glowing eerily from behind the bar, the self-proclaimed UFO
headquarters is all about acceptance.

As the regular patrons filter into Benson's Hide-A-Way on Long
Lake at the edge of the Kettle Moraine State Forest, they bring
with them stories of UFO sightings, abductions, dimensional
portals, missing time, crop circles, beings from the center of
the Earth, government conspiracies and just about any other UFO
theory ever discussed.

And no one laughs, said owner Bill Benson.

"The reason we started the UFO thing was people had this to
share without being laughed at or scoffed at," Benson, 60, said.
"The big scoffers, if they see something, they're the more die-
  hard people."

Odds are decent that if someone spends time in the Dundee area,
about a 100 miles northeast of Madison, they will see something.

It all started with a crop circle on a nearby farm back in 1947,
Benson said. Since then, area residents have reported strange
lights in the sky and other mysteries.

Back in 1978, for example, Benson was driving a milk truck
between Plymouth and Kiel - a trip of about 13 miles.

"It took me an hour and 15 minutes to get there - and I don't
know why," said Benson, who isn't sure if he was abducted by
aliens.

Pulling his leg up onto the bar, he showed off a small red
circular scar on his ankle that he says he didn't have when he
got into that milk truck.

"It's never gone away," he said.

The bar, which Benson and his wife, Judy, have run for 22 years,
is covered in alien souvenirs brought by his customers from
around the world. Stuffed little green men in wizard-like capes,
alien street crossing signs, plastic gray aliens wearing
sunglasses, and posters of aliens with glow-in-the-dark eyes
cover the wall behind the bar.

Although there are sporadic sightings year-round, there's only
one night each year the locals can depend on a light show.
That's because local UFO guru Bob Kuehn uses his weekly radio
program on Fond du Lac's KFIZ- AM to ask the aliens nicely for a
performance on the third Saturday in July.

"That's how they know to show," Kuehn, 71, of Fond du Lac said.
"They only want to show once a year."

And just because the sightings occur outside the bar doesn't
mean they are booze-induced, Benson said.

"It could be a catalyst," he said. "But I don't know if it is.
Most of the people who go to watch for them don't overindulge."

Benson is quick to show visitors a videotape of this year's
performance, in which six small round lights apparently flitted
across the sky.

While Kuehn firmly believes that the lights were spacecraft
piloted by aliens, others really aren't sure what the lights
are.

"They never stop to tell us," Benson said. "Are they from here
or the center of the Earth? I don't know. All I do know is I've
seen the lights in the sky."


Shedding light on lights?

John Hoppe and his wife, Jennifer, say they saw the lights in
the sky this summer. The couple run a Web site,
www.ufowisconsin.com, out of their Sheboygan home to record
sightings across the state and Hoppe tries to investigate some
of them.

"We're trying to track UFOs over the state and see if there's a
pattern," he said. "Hopefully, we can figure out what's going
on. There's too much out there to say the phenomenon is not
real."

But they don't think the lights in the sky are necessarily
spaceships with E.T. at the helm. The Hoppes simply define UFOs
as unidentified flying objects - whatever they may be.

In July, while the lights in the sky held everyone's attention,
John Hoppe and a friend took off in a car to see if they could
find the source. Finally, in a remote fire lane in the woods,
two men chased them away.

When Hoppe and his friend returned the next morning, they found
candles and plastic bags - which, with the darkness of the
forest, could have been made to appear like UFOs to the people
standing across the lake at a lower elevation, Hoppe said.

But he still isn't entirely sure what the lights were.

"You listen to the locals out here," Hoppe said. "They have
unique stories so obviously they have been seeing something."

In a few cases, Hoppe has been able to identify some of the
lights in the sky. For example, he discovered that a UFO spotted
in Beaver Dam a couple of years ago was a delta-wing kite with a
light on it.


Research: 'A career killer'

Enthusiastic amateurs, the Hoppes aren't paid for their work and
getting professional researchers to devote their time to UFOs
isn't easy.

"It's a career killer," said Colm Kelleher, deputy administrator
of the National Institute of Discovery Science, a privately
funded group based in Las Vegas that scientifically investigates
aerial phenomena.

Kelleher, who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the
University of Dublin, said scientists often shy away from UFO
research because of fear their work won't be taken seriously and
they'll be thought of as crazy.

Believing in UFOs and even the possibility of extraterrestrial
life doesn't make anyone crazy, said psychologist Al Harrison,
and society can generally accept both those ideas.

"The big jump is when you say they're here. That's what freaks
people out," said Davis, a psychology professor at the
University of California-Davis who has studied why people
believe in UFOs and the effects extraterrestrial life would have
on humanity.

Studies haven't really been able to find many differences
between those who believe in UFOs and those that don't, he said.
People of all intelligence levels and backgrounds believe.

"There are all kinds of people on both sides of the fence," he
said.


Basking in Belleville

But still believing in UFOs can be a stigma of sorts.

"I'd rather not be known as the UFO Capital, but that's my own
personal preference," Belleville Village President Jo Ann
Therkelsen said. "I don't think the chamber would want to give
up the title."

The village, on the Dane and Green County line, got the nickname
after a series of sightings in 1987. They still hold an annual
UFO Day festival, but Therkelsen said it's really just become a
community event with an out-of-this-world theme.

"I don't really think we're looking for UFOs anymore," she said.
indentBut according to the Hoppes' data, based on reports to
their Web site, Dane County is still one of Wisconsin's UFO hot
spots often coming up in the top three counties for reported
sightings.

And as the banner on their Web site proclaims, Wisconsin has
more UFO sightings than any other state except New Mexico,
according to the Air Force's Project Blue Book, which studied
UFOs from 1947 to 1969. indent"It seems to be a good time to see
a UFO," John Hoppe said. "So if you can't sleep, go outside. You
might see a UFO."

**

Copyright =A9, Madison Newspapers, 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                              Starship Memories

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
Subject: Starship Memories


Source: The Harvard Gazette

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html


Starship Memories:
"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

By Beth Potier
Gazette Staff

Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

For the past three years, Clancy, a postdoctoral fellow in
Harvard's Psychology Department, has studied people who believe
they were abducted by aliens from outer space. Her research,
done in conjunction with Professors of Psychology Richard
McNally and Daniel Schacter, former associate professor Mark
Lenzenweger and Harvard Medical School professor Roger Pitman,
was recently published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

Yet Clancy's interest is not in extraterrestrial beings at all.

"As far as science knows, nobody is being abducted by aliens,"
she stressed.

Rather, Clancy wanted to explore conditions under which people
develop false memories of traumatic events.

"One of the most bitter and volatile debates ever to occur in
psychology concerns the reality of repressed and recovered
memories of traumatic events," she said.

 From the very serious and plausible claims of childhood sexual
abuse to the less credible ones of alien abductions,
psychologists are at odds over the idea that people can forget
traumatic events then "recover" intact memories of the trauma
years later.

On the one side are clinicians, who observe that painful
memories can be repressed, banished from a trauma survivor's
consciousness until they're "recovered" with the help of certain
psychotherapeutic techniques in adulthood.

Memory researchers, on the other hand, say that people don't
repress traumatic events; in fact they remember them all too
clearly - sometimes they can't stop thinking about the trauma.
When people report recovered memories of traumatic events,
assert these cognitive psychologists, they are most likely
creating false memories.

Intrigued by this debate, and its enormous political, legal, and
social implications, Clancy noticed something missing in
previous studies when she came to pursue the Ph.D. at Harvard in
1996.

"I found it striking that despite how volatile this debate was,
nobody had done any research on the population that was at the
center of the controversy: those who were reporting recovered
memories," she said.

Using standard laboratory tests of memory, Clancy initially
studied women who reported recovering memories of childhood
sexual abuse, finding that they were more likely, in laboratory
tests, to create false memories than women who had always
remembered childhood sexual abuse. While her findings were
interesting, they were limited: It was very difficult to
corroborate whether or not the women with recovered memories of
childhood sexual abuse actually had been sexually abused as
children.

'I was so naive'

That gap in Clancy's research on survivors of childhood sexual
abuse led her into the world of people who believe they were
abducted by aliens. Comfortable in her assumption that their
experiences were false, she could test whether people who create
false memories in the "real world" are also likely to create
false memories in the lab.

But finding subjects and recruiting them for her study was more
challenging - and sometimes humorous - than she could have
imagined.

"Three years ago, I was so naive. I just thought I'd put ads in
newspapers asking 'have you been abducted by aliens?'" she said.

She received hundreds of calls in response to her ads, but few
of them qualified as research subjects. Out of every 10 calls,
she said, only two were from people who believed they had been
abducted by space aliens.

The other eight were from media seeking a good story, from
citizens concerned that Harvard was wasting money on bogus
research, from people playing jokes on friends, and even from
aliens - or people portraying aliens - themselves. A few calls,
she said, were from native Spanish speakers who misunderstood
the ad to be looking for illegal aliens who had been abducted at
the border by immigration officials.

Convincing the "legitimate" alien abductees to participate in
the study was an enormous challenge, said Clancy.

"They're very skeptical about what science is going to say about
their beliefs," she said.

In the end, Clancy rounded up enough subjects for two groups of
people who believed they were abducted by aliens: one group of
abductees who reported recovering memories of their experience,
and one group who had no actual memory of the abduction. This
second group attributed a variety of signs and symptoms -
 unexplained scars or birthmarks, waking up in strange
positions, depression, sleep disturbance, or panic at seeing a
picture of an alien - to what they believed was their own alien
abduction.

Clancy also studied a group of people who said they were never
abducted by aliens as a control.

Testing false memories

In the lab, Clancy used a number of standard laboratory
paradigms to test memory and recall. One test, called the
Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm, has subjects memorize then
recall a list of semantically related words: brownie, cookie,
sugar and candy, for instance. Clancy's group of alien abductees
who recovered memories of their abductions recalled the list of
words successfully. There were no global memory deficits.

In fact, said Clancy, the people who recovered memories of alien
abductions were seldom psychologically impaired. "They're
normal, very nice people with no overt psychopathology," she
said.

Yet the recovered-memory abductees as a group were much more
likely to falsely remember the word sweet - not on the list, but
suggested by it - than either of the other two groups. In this
laboratory test, the recovered-memory group was more prone than
the other two groups to create false memories.

And assuming, as Clancy and her colleagues did, that none of the
subjects were actually abducted by space aliens, she drew the
conclusion that people who develop false memories in the lab are
also more likely to develop false memories of experiences that
were suggested or imagined.

Additional research helped explain the recovered-memory group's
propensity toward false memories of alien abductions.

Everyone in this group developed his or her belief of alien
abduction after describing an episode that is consistent with
sleep paralysis, a harmless but nonetheless frightening
desychronization of sleep cycles.

"You wake up from REM [rapid eye movement] sleep but you still
feel the paralysis that normally accompanies REM sleep," said
Clancy.

Occurring across cultures in approximately 15 percent of the
population, sleep paralysis is sometimes accompanied by
hallucinations: a sensation of electrical tingling or
levitation, hearing buzzing noises, seeing flashing lights or
shadowy figures hovering near the bed.

That her subjects attributed this sleep paralysis to alien
abduction is not surprising, said Clancy.

"There's this widely shared cultural script that helps explain
these frightening sleep paralysis experiences," she said. From
"The X-Files" to movies, books, and media, this group prone to
creating false memories can choose from a wide array of sources
for suggestion.

"I think these recovered memories are actually distorted
memories of things they had read about or seen," she said.

It's not about the aliens

Clancy was pleased that the Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
notoriously selective about papers it publishes, accepted this
paper for its August 2002 issue with no reservations.

Collaborator Richard McNally, who was Clancy's doctoral thesis
adviser, attributed the paper's acceptance to its use of well-
established experimental paradigms that produced clear-cut
results in an unusual population.

"It helps us to understand that there might be a link: People
who show this elevated false recognition effect in the
laboratory may be more likely to exhibit false memories in the
real world," added collaborator Daniel Schacter.

Clancy is leaving behind the spaceships and aliens to turn her
attention back to survivors of childhood sexual abuse, where she
hopes her work could have a real impact.

"Childhood sexual abuse occurs, and it's terrible," she said.
"If we can understand more about how people remember and forget
traumatic events and how people can develop false memories of
traumatic events, we can help resolve the controversy over the
reality of repressed and recovered memories."


beth_potier@harvard.edu

Copyright 2002 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.comfor the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                  'Crop Circles' Director Is True Believer

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:32:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:32:26 -0500
Subject: 'Crop Circles' Director Is True Believer


Source: The News Tribune - Tacoma, Washington

http://www.tribnet.com/entertainment/story/2090506p-2187604c.html


'Crop Circles' Director Is True Believer

Soren Andersen; The News Tribune

This past summer, "Signs" spooked moviegoers with a story about
an invasion from outer space, scaring up more than $225 million
at the box office in the process. Now along comes "Crop Circles:
Quest for Truth" to try to set the record straight.

The feature-length documentary is playing a one-week engagement
beginning Friday at the eight-screen Yelm Cinema.

"Crop Circles" wasn't conceived with the intention of debunking
"Signs," said its maker, William Gazecki. Born in Tacoma but
raised in California since the age of 5 (his mother and two
brothers live in the Tacoma area today), Gazecki said he'd been
fascinated by crop circles since attending a lecture on the
subject in 1991. That was long before "Signs" was even a twinkle
in the eyes of its star, Mel Gibson, or its director, M. Night
Shyamalan.

Gazecki's first documentary, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement,"
about the disastrous federal siege of the Branch Davidian
compound in Texas, was nominated for an Academy Award in 1998.
That gave him clout in Hollywood. And with that clout came the
money and freedom he needed to delve deeply into the matter of
crop circles.

According to Gazecki, what "Signs" gets wrong about crop circles
can be summed up in three words: pretty much everything.

"The film contains almost nothing that is matched in the real
world," he said. "It's a fantasy."

Gazecki says that movie's biggest departure from reality is
portraying crop circles as frightening harbingers of an invading
army of extraterrestrials.

"It's not a scary subject," he said firmly. Rather, it's a
phenomenon that's a cause for a kind of reverent fascination.

Gazecki said he felt such a sense of fascination himself during
a series of trips he made to Britain to film scenes for his
documentary.

Britain is considered to be a kind of ground zero for crop
circle studies, he said. Although the mysterious patterns have
appeared in countries around the world, including, India, Japan,
Russia, Canada and the United States, for the past 20 years
Britain "has been the only place where they appear in
centralized areas where people have easy access to them,"
Gazecki said.

Because there are so many of them, many Brits have become
interested in studying them. A representative sampling of these
folks appear in Gazecki's movie.

Gazecki finds crop circles endlessly tantalizing. He
particularly remembers standing in a field of English wheat,
marveling at the sight of millions of green stalks bent but not
broken - with the bends a full foot off the ground.

That alone was enough to convince him that no human hoaxers
created the circle. Hoaxers bend stalks with boards and ropes,
flattening them to ground level. Also, the stalks were layered
and interwoven in sections in ways he believes no crude
trampling could achieve.

No hoaxers or skeptics appear in Gazecki's movie. He was more
interested in presenting the views of people who have studied
the phenomenon and are willing to consider it with an open mind.

These people are amateur researchers for the most part. Serious
scientists and most academics treat crop circles with "sneering
ridicule," Gazecki said, leaving it up to amateurs to try to
figure out what, or who, makes these patterns. In the movie's
many talking-heads segments, these people earnestly hold forth
on the possible religious significance of the patterns as well
as on whether they are the work of space aliens or even beings
from other dimensions.

Interspersed among these dry discussions are aerial shots of
many formations. These shots show that the term "crop circle" is
grossly outdated and inaccurate. Over the years, the patterns
have become increasingly complex, with many shaped like
pinwheels or insects or esoteric symbols.

Their sheer size - some are as large as two football fields - as
well as the mathematical precision with which their shapes are
etched and the speed with which they appear - sometimes in a few
hours - all are powerful proof that they're not made by men with
boards and rope, Gazecki said.

He'll be at the Yelm theater Friday night to introduce the two
evening showings of "Crop Circles" and to discuss his findings
and his feelings about the phenomenon with members of the
audience.

Released Aug. 23, the picture has played in cities throughout
the United States, but none in Washington until now. The Yelm
theater was picked because it has a reputation for programming
documentaries and independent film fare not usually found in
multiplexes, said Vicki Elam, the theater's general manager.
It's also become known as a good venue for the test marketing of
movies.

If it does well during its weeklong Yelm run, it likely will be
picked up by theaters in the Tacoma area sometime after the
first of the year, Elam said.

Soren Andersen: 253-597-8742, Ext. 6235
soren.andersen@mail.tribnet.com

If you go

What: "Crop Circles: Quest for Truth."

Where: Yelm Cinema, 201 Prairie Park Street, Yelm.

When: Friday through Nov. 14.

Showtime information: 1-360-400-3456.

Director: William Gazecki.

Rating: Unrated. Suitable for all ages.

Running time: 2:00.

(Published 12:30AM, November 7th, 2002)


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Raelian Centre Vandalized

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:36:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:36:07 -0500
Subject: Raelian Centre Vandalized


Source: CanWest Global

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=%7B79CB32C7-39A1-4C6D-86A8-F6262FE55122%
7D


Raelian Religion Centre Vandalized

Canadian Press

Thursday, November 07, 2002

MARICOURT, Que. -- An information centre known as UFO land,
which is run by the Raelian religion, was vandalized Thursday,
with damage totalling more than $100,000.

The centre's security gate was knocked down by a pickup truck,
while a white building, community centre and camper trailers
were damaged by the truck.

Police were questioning a man about the incident, which happened
in this community near Sherbrooke in the Eastern Townships.

The Raelian Church of Canada is an officially recognized
religion in Quebec. The Swiss-based, hedonistic movement is
based on the concept that extraterrestrials created humanity as
part of a lab experiment.

Raelians have made headlines in recent years for their
involvement in the human-cloning debate. The group claims to
have several female members ready to carry cloned embryos.

The Raelians recently targeted high schools in Quebec as part of
its ongoing campaign to have Roman Catholics renounce their
faith.


Copyright 2002 Canadian Press

[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hanson

From: Ingrid Hanson <froggy@cmc.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 05:03:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:38:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hanson


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:05:49 EST
 >Subject: Dorothy Izatt?

 >Hello all,

 >Well I'm almost afraid of asking this to this particular List,
 >but has anyone looked into the claims/story/investigation of
 >Dorothy Izatt?

 >That's it, sweet and simple.


Hi All,

I believe she is Canadian. The BC MUFON site has fairly
extensive info on her (or at least it did a year or so ago).
This might be a start to hunting her down.


Ingrid









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                           The Real Tubes On Mars

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:40:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:40:46 -0500
Subject: The Real Tubes On Mars


http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/45/realtubes.htm


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:25:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:42:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You -



 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:06:52 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity FTs Coming To A Store Near You

 >The UFO link??

 >Weren't those alleged UFO craft fragments Linda Moulton Howe had
 >analysed found to be constructed of layers of magnesium
 >separated by layers of a _Barium_ compound, in fact very much
 >like a multi layered _capacitor_. And further, didn't they too
 >exhibit reactive movement when given a electric charge.


A correction to my earlier post above.

The dielectric-like layer in the LMH debris samples was Bismuth
and not Barium _but_ curiously Barium is used with Bismuth in
compounds in the field of superconductor research ie Barium
Potassium Bismuth Oxide which starts to exhibit superconducting
qualities at relatively warm 34 Kelvin.


Neil








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Previously On Strange Days... Indeed

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:44:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:44:10 -0500
Subject: Previously On Strange Days... Indeed


Short, "Previously On Strange Days... Indeed" promo-clips, used by
CFRB 1010 are available on-line at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

They average a minute and present salient points from each
program. The 'Play' button in the Program Number/Date cell
will call RealPlayer.....


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                Mysterious Dwarf Causes Concern In Argentina

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:15:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:02:09 -0500
Subject: Mysterious Dwarf Causes Concern In Argentina


Source: noticiasonline.org (Junin de los Andes)
Date: 28 October 2002

MYSTERIOUS DWARF CAUSES CONCERN IN COMMUNITY

Far from being yet another tale or childrens' story, the alleged
appearance of a strange individual has become the predominant
subject of local comment in this quiet Cordilleran town.

According to yesterday's edition of the 'Junin Dice' newspaper,
the story began as a mere neighborhood remark when a resident
made a call to the local sheriff's office reporting the presence
of a "strange little person" at his house.

According to the information, a police patrol reached the site
to ascertain the report and learned that the resident had been
visited by a small person that knocked at the door of his house,
requesting help, since "someone was beating on one of his
relatives" (sic).

The house's occupant stated that the creature was short in
stature, although given the fact that it was night time he was
unable to identify it clearly. However, he acceded to the
mysterious little man's request. He left his house but upon not
hearing other voices or cries for help, he chose to return home,
fearing it might all be a ruse to commit burglary during his
absence.

The mystery grew, since the "strange little person" vanished in
the dark of night.

Hours later, police received notice regarding a strange presence
in the 150-dwelling neighborhood, located to one side of
Boulevard Juan Manuel de Rosas. Once again, a patrol car
reported to the scene without ascertaining any developments.

The journalistic report continues by saying that days later, an
officer of the provincial police decided to inspect the location
at 4:30 a.m. due to the incessant barking of dogs. He observed
the presence of a small person, some 80 cm tall, who was on the
pathway leading into a house. Upon realizing it was being
watched, the entity made a quick getaway.

Concerned by what he had seen, and according to the journalistic
source, the offcer made an identikit drawing of the suspect to
report the story to his superiors.

Hugo Jara, the main officer at Sheriff's Office #25, was
interviewed by a local station and confiremed the information on
both procedures, although no evidence was found to corroborate
the presence of the small person at the site.

The news spread like gunpowder theroughout the city, and
residents provided confirmation of the strange event, such as
the odd behavior of dogs that evening, with their incessant
barking.

Of course, jokes also spread among the townspeople, who
laughingly discussed the event in various gathering places. Some
radio shows took the opportunity to mention the subject and make
jokes or confect humorous stories about the character.

The fact is that the "goblin" or "gnome" as it became knonw
caused a sensation that shattered the city's habitual calm, and
has gone on to form part of the gallery of mysterious characters
in the area, such as El Cuero of Huechulafquen, the marine
creature seen several times in said lake.

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

Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales IHU
Special thanks to Guillermo Gimenez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Argentine Contactee "Tunnel Used by Alien Craft"

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:30:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:05:52 -0500
Subject: Argentine Contactee "Tunnel Used by Alien Craft"



SOURCE: Diario La Cronica (Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina)
DATE: November 7, 2002

** 74-year old resident, native of Catamarca, claims being taken
to the Moon**

CONTACTEE CLAIMS DISCOVERY OF "TUNNEL" USED BY ALIEN CRAFT


Caleta Olivia (news agency) -- A man claims having sustained
contact with beings from other worlds. As stated above, he
claims that there is a tunnel on the Moon through which alien
spacecraft can pass.

Ram=F3n Barraza was born in Tinogasta, Catamarca Province, is 74
years old and has lived in our city for over 50 years, currently
retird from the YPF corporation, defining himself as a kind of
mediator between "Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the community."

Through this newspaper, he retold his discovery, which he
considered of vital importance for the community, stating that
his mother prepared him for the task when he was only 15 and
still living in his native province. She urged him to sleep on
straw instead of on a matress, and he did not understand at the
time the reason for her request. Today, after meditating on that
period of his life, he concludes that this mother was preparing
him to be a mediator.

He said that he is visited by Jesus and the Virgin on a daily
basis. The first time the appeared was during the tragedy of the
Hudson volcano. The divinities offer hints about different
matters of interest to community, always without speaking.

Continuing his story, he explained that aside from our own world
there are two more. The second one is occupied by beings having
characteristics almost identical to humans, with some
differences in overall anatomy and lacking hair. He showed a
photograph of a drawing he made. He also pointed out that he
could see alien craft shrinking in size as they enter the lunar
tunnel, adding that beings from other worlds addressed him to
step aside from the vehicles in transit. He remarked that [the
objects] have a reddish light. The tunnel, he continued, is
divided in two: the first part is known as B1 and is located on
the visible side of the Moon. The second, B2, is on the lunar
dark side and spacecraft meet in the middle on their wayn to
sapce.

After all these explanations, he drafted a document which took
nearly 5 years to complete, setting down all of his discoveries
and adding new concepts as these are disclosed to him.

On a table in his dwelling, as well as in his back yard, he has
several sanctuaries and various stones visited by persons from
different communities. He demonstrated that with these it was
possible to observe the Virgin and Jesus in different stages of
their lives. He further added that before going to bed each
night he asks: "Jesus and Mary, are you there?" and at that time
a small light illuminates in the ceiling as a response.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales IHU
Special thanks to Guillermo Gimenez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Re: Terminology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:47:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:52:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Connors


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:43:43 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology


 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:29:01 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>>From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

<snip>

 >>I never said I knew anything about UFOs, as my comment was about
 >>words! "Crypto" denotes "hidden". What's wrong with keeping it
 >>as ufology or Ufology? Crypto-Aeronautics and Crypto-Craft,
 >>sorry, appear to not be good choices. Sorry my feedback offended
 >>Ms. Connors. I thought that's what was requested, feedback. I
 >>did not know I was just suppose to agree.

 >>By the way, cryptozoology and cryptozoologists are single
 >>words, and do not employ hyphens.


Loren,

Of course you are not just supposed to agree. Yes, my intent was
for feedback. I just wasn't expecting "silly," but a more
indepth discussion by ufologists on the List. I keep forgetting
that UFO Updates isn't actually a true UFO forum because it also
is a Fortean forum as well. I'm just used to dealing with others
who study Ufology and not chupacabras, crop circles, swamp apes,
etc. Skeptics and skeptibunkers also have their own forums, but
ufologists are not really welcome there except for the purpose
of ridicule and debasement.

I just wish that instead of "silly," you would have given a hard
look at what my proposals were. Certainly I have been very
upfront in trying to get the miscellaneous fortean elements out
of the study of UFOs ever since the purple robed, mountain top
channels of UFOs. The following is from your own website and
endorsed by you:

"Meanwhile, ISC's Vice President Dr. Roy Mackal has written:
'...the term 'cryptozoology' seems to me particularly
appropriate, coming as it does from the Greek work *kryptos*,
meaning 'hidden.' 'unknown,' 'secret,' 'enigmatic,'
'mysterious'; hence literally the study of hidden animals"

Experimenting with terminology is always an on-going avenue and
working terminology evolves as does ufology. It seems that UFOs
are "unknown", "enigmatic" and "mysterious". Their origin and
purpose are indeed, "hidden". So, I don't think attempting to
updating the terminology of ufology is "silly" or "silliness".
Most young people today believe that Ufology is about UFOs,
chupacabras, crop circles, etc. I just think it is important to
clean house in the field of what constitutes "ufology."

I chose to hyphenate crypto-aeronautics and perhaps I am in
error, but at least I am trying to bring some semblance of
logic, rationality and change to a field I've devoted my life.
I've certainly gone beyond sitting in a recliner and just
reading the newest UFO tomes and think myself a 'Ufologist'.
My contributions to Ufology speaks for itself.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Re: The Real Tubes On Mars - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:44:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:55:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The Real Tubes On Mars - Morris

 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:40:46 -0500
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: The Real Tubes On Mars

 >For those as interested as I in the  'Mars Tubes':

 >http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/45/realtubes.htm

 >ebk

Errol,

With the evidence NASA now has about the very large amounts of
sub-surface water Mars is now believed to have, could we not be
looking at some of these "frozen" reserves sculpted and polished
by the extream force of the Martian duststorms?.

Just a thought.

Neil








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:11:48 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:24:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Filer


 >From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:51:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>PENNSYLVANIA UFOs SPOTTED USING BEAMS OF LIGHT

 >><Snip>

 >>The witnesses report, "I
 >>continued to gaze up when I saw what appeared to be a dim star
 >>slowly moving." It suddenly got brighter and brighter until it
 >>was a bright star. It then turned west and dimmed, as though it
 >>was thundering back into space. The witness said, "I have seen
 >>many UFO's, just keep looking up!"

 >This is a good description of what is most likely an Iridium
 >flare. It should be a simple matter to verify this hypothesis by
 >getting details of the time and direction, as well as
 >approximate elevation. Checking any of a number of sites of
 >Iridium flare predictions should throw some light (if you'll
 >pardon the pun) on this matter.


The witness stated, "It then turned west and dimmed, as though
it was thundering back into space. "

I was unaware that Iridium satellites changed direction.
However, the description is similar to those objects captured on
video from the Space Shuttle. Russian Pravda is claiming the US
has aircraft that operate in space.

Regards,

George Filer







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Starship Memories - Bueche

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:32:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:31:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Bueche


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >- UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
 >Subject: Starship Memories

 >Source: The Harvard Gazette
 >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

 >Starship Memories:
 >"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

 >Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

 ><snip>

 >Yet the recovered-memory abductees as a group were much more
 >likely to falsely remember the word sweet - not on the list, but
 >suggested by it - than either of the other two groups. In this
 >laboratory test, the recovered-memory group was more prone than
 >the other two groups to create false memories.


As one who participated in both Clancy's study and another study
by her supervisor, Richard McNally, I'd like to make a
statement. I am not a psychologist, but it seems evident that
what Clancy's study proved was that experiencers are more likely
to create word associations than non-experiencers. The article
uses the term "memory" rather freely, suggesting that when one
is attempting to recal a list of words (her study's experiment),
a greater error rate is equivalent to "the creation of false
memories." To my view, this is an exaggeration of the term. One
could probably select different groups of people from different
professions (some theater people and some business managers
perhaps) and we'd likely see the same sort of variation. To
attempt to connect this word association test to alien encounter
experiences is rather ludicrous.

Now I'd like to blow her out of the water by saying something
that I probably should not, since a standard policy of research
is to never reveal results until a paper is published. But her
colleague Richard McNally, who is a nice guy even if he suspects
that sleep paralysis might explain alien encounters (he makes
this assumption because it sounds similar, not because he's seen
any evidence supporting that which would convince someone beyond
a reasonable doubt), engaged in an unrelated study at Harvard of
alien encounter experiencers which has yet to be published.
Indeed they shared some of the same subjects, since it was
convenient to do so.

McNally's study, unlike Clancy's, directly studied reports of
alien encounters by comparing the physiological responses of
experiencers (their skin conductivity, for example, I gather)
measured while they were listening to a narrative of their own
encounter experiences, compared to a vast database cataloguing
the physiological responses of Vietnam combat veterans (who were
recorded earlier at Harvard's facility in New Hampshire). These
comparison made sense because both parties have been through
trauma, with experiencers fulfilling most, though fortunately
not all, of the scores for post-traumatic stress disorder (as
measured on a separate, written exam).

In this study, the physiological responses that mark a real
traumatic experience are measured by devices attached to the
subjects' bodies. Since the Veterans' combat experiences were
known to be real, the pattern of physiological responses has for
years been considered one of the ways to determine authenticity
of experience.

Simply put, a dream or a fantasy doesn't create the same
physiological responses, as recorded by the machines. Richard
McNally's study expected that experiencers' responses would
indicate that their experiences were not the deep seated kind of
experiences that would cause the body to react. What he found
thus far was quite different. What he found was that
experiencers responses are equivalent to the responses of the
veterans. The implications of his study is - if one does not
believe that alien encounters are authentic - then this very set
up of measuring physiological responses must be discarded, as we
will have to redefine such responses as symptoms of both reality
AND fantasy -- based wholly on the assumption that alien
encounters cannot possibly be real. It is a lovely situation
that McNally is about to put the scientific world into. (To my
knowledge, his paper has not been published, but if it has
please let me know as I'd love to read it).

One final word: I'd like to disclose that I personally came out
ahead in participating in these 2 studies: I was paid something
like five dollars, and given some free Chinese food. Ah,
Chinese... reminds me that while the scientists dabble, I've got
to go live my life. And that includes getting some fried rice.

Peace out.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                George Washington University Symposium Report

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:22:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:45:51 -0500
Subject: George Washington University Symposium Report


Here is a 'quick and dirty' report on todays conference at
George Washington University, Washington, D.C., titled
"Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Science
Fiction or Science Fact?" from a slightly jaded and cynical
reporter. Opening remarks were made by Prof., Don Lehman, vice
President for Academic Affiars at GWU; Bonnie Hammer, President
SCI-FI Channel; and moderator Ray Suarez, Senior Correspondent,
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

Someone fell down on the job of promotion rather badly, as the
audience was sparse and only a handful of news media showed up
(including Channel 4 TV and the Washington Post). So the
question arises, "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no
one there to hear it....?" The content and the caliber of
panelists, on the other hand was rather good. Briefly, here is
what each speaker talked about in order of appearance (there was
an extensive question and answer session afterwards).

Dr. Richard Henry, professor of astrophysics, Johns Hopkins
University, questioned the adequacy of the scientific method to
deal with a subject like this, illustrating how easy it is for
scientists to debunk the subject strictly on theoretical grounds
without studying any actual data. They thus come up with a
"conservative" conclusion, which is that space visitors seem
unlikely. But, he continued, they easily could be wrong and the
possibilities are wide open, therefore, UFO reports deserve
careful study.

Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics, City
University of New York, spoke entertainingly about his research
on worm holes and string theory, which if these theories
ultimately prove out could explain ways around the current
(theoretical) barriers to interstellar travel. He graded
civilations into three types (with us at Type 0) in terms of
energy production and its implications for space travel. Type
III, "Planck energy production" civilizations would be the ones
most likely to visit us (for complex reasons), but he warned
that we might be merely an anthill on the route of their
superhighway.

Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director, California Institute for Physics
and Astrophysics, also suggested theoretical ways around space
travel limitations posed by the vast distances in the universe.
Further, he examined the issue of potential Government coverup
and the classification systems used in the intelliegnce
community, with some useful facts and history about Special
Access Projects.

Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist and computer scientist in the
private sector, focused on the types of physical evidence cases
available for science to study, illustrating it with specific
case examples. He argued that today's science can study UFOs in
may ways, ideological arguments or theories are premature,
reality doesn't necessarily mean they are ET visitors, and the
UFO phenomenon is a chance to advance science.

Ted Roe, Executive Director of the National Aviation Reporting
Center for Anomalous Phenomena, reported on that organization's
activities and progress, citing cooperation with several
agencies in other countries. NARCAP's mission is to collect high
quality data based on ground and airborne aviation systems and
aircrew sightings, and to encourage analyses of "hard sciences
data."

John Callahan, former FAA Division Chief of Accidents and
Investigations, talked entertainingly and amusingly about an
aviation case in point: The 1986 Japan Airlines B-747 radar-
visual sighting over Alaska. Many new details were included.
Callahan personally briefed then FAA Director, Donald Engen, on
the case. Since UFOs were not in the FAA "job description," they
brief the CIA, which gobbled up all available evidence and then
declared,`nothing happened here, nobody saw anything.' "You only
think you see those coffee urns on the side table," he joked to
the audience.

Dr. Peter Sturrock, Emeritus Professor of Applied Physics,
Stanford University, who has analyzed the Condon Report and was
instrumental in the Rockeller-sponsored 1997 conference at
Tarrytown, N.Y., spoke about his work and told various anecdotes
about these events. He was also instrumental in polling
astronomers a number of years ago about their views on UFOs, and
when allowed to respond anonymously, they indicated considerable
interest in the subject.

Topics discussed at some length were the problem of funding for
scientific research and what could be done with only limited
funding, the "ridicule factor" and its effect on scientific
research, Government secrecy and suppression of information, and
how to break out of the current deadlock and get some serious
research conducted. Every single panel member contributed some
worthwhile information and, here and there, some valuable
insights into all facets of the "UFO problem" in all senses of
the word "problem": scientific, social, political. Very
stimulating and interesting, at least to the choir.

(Too tired to proofread; excuse any typos. - Dick Hall)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                 Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:13:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:27:05 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Pope


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.

Frank and List,

Although not dealing with the specific scenario posed, the
Declaration of Principle Concerning Activities Following the
Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence is worth a look, and
may be relevant. It can be found at:

http://www.seti.org/science/principles.html

I'm fairly sure that most radio astronomers have signed up to
it, and that it has some standing in the wider scientific
community.  However, despite the good intentions, I very much
doubt that things would work out quite as planned.

Best wishes,

Nick Pope








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Re: Black Projects Come Out - Novak

From: John Novak <john@supremalex.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:51:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:15:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Novak


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >From the Boeing 360 to the jet-powered pancakes, the Navy disc
 >projects at China Lake, the AVRO effort, those at Papoose Lake
 >and elsewhere, comes significant evidence that discs, and later
 >FTs, were, and are, terrestrial. Of course we are rarely
 >afforded either the chance to debate with people like Stanton,
 >the chance to write about this in journals or magazines or to
 >present these apparently shocking ideas to conference attenders.
 >TV programme makers don't want to hear it either, as seven years
 >in this game have shown me.

 >Shame, really, because if we had the amounts of money made
 >available to Ufology to "prove" the alien case we'd be so much
 >further advanced. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept the
 >testimony of Frank Carlson (who worked at Papoose Lake from
 >1960-62), Thomas Smith (Chance Vought 1944-46), Jack Pickett
 >(McDill 1960s) and others who tell us that we are right and that
 >everything else is belief driven.

 >I don't intend to get into a ding dong debate on this because
 >very few are even interested in changing their minds or
 >admitting that they could be wrong. In my view, and that of my
 >many colleagues, Ufology is pretty much an alien believer cult
 >hardened against contrary evidence. It's not that we're against
 >the idea that UFOs could be alien, only that there is much
 >better evidence that aliens were promoted from the 1950s onwards
 >to cover the activity of US-made flying discs and, latterly,
 >FTs.


Can you tell me when Boeing first opened it's doors? How about
Lockheed Martin? Did they begin producing flyings chariots,
discs and wheels back in Biblical times and before? Were these
US-made flying discs hovering around cave dwelers tens of
thousands of years ago that so impreesed them that they carved
petroglyphs of them into cave walls and on rocks? Did they make
their plans available to the ancient Indian yogis so they could
write detailed explanations of them into their Vedas? How about
the ones flying over the head of Alexander the Great? Were the
"Skunk Works" boys flying around in the skies over 14th, 15th &
16th century painters who decided to add them in to their art,
showing discs shooting out beams of light?

Aliens from another world? I don't know. But what I do know is
that this is an issue humanity has been wrestling with for as
long as we've been on this planet. If anything, the only
critical words I can give for a man like Stanton Friedman and
others like him is that we seem to be focused on making this an
"extraterrestrial" explanation, meaning some sort of "flesh and
bone" intelligent life-form. Modern science can only measure 1%
or so of the known universe that exists all around us. To me,
this shows how absolutely ignorant we as humans are as to the
nature of reality and under what circumstances life can exist
and evolve into conscious intelligence! Start listening to the
theoretical physicists and we begin to see that we are living in
a multi-dimensional Multi-verse!

In an infinite universe, there exists and infinite amount of
possibilities. But I don't think this timeline includes US-made
flying discs reaching that far back into history.

As for this huge amount of money that exists for Ufology to
prove anything, please let me know how to get on that bandwagon.
I have a wife and family to feed! LOL


John Novak
Changing Planet
http://www.supremalex.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:07:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:21:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >Message-ID: <189.10ed0764.2afce4ca@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >>>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >>>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >>>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >>>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >>>of production.

 >>>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >>>seen the light of day.....

 >>I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
 >>objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
 >>or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
 >>sightings were really "Black Project" related?

 >A majority of which sightings? In any case, we're very happy
 >with the conclusion that FTs and Flying discs were of
 >terrestrial design. The majority of "UFO" cases relate to
 >natural phenomena; earth lights and so on. That's what we think
 >the "zig zag" video footage mentioned more than likely
 >represents.

 >Could some UFOs be alien? Possibly. But not FTs and discs. What
 >is happening here is that evidence of man made projects is
 >ignored consistently. Stan simply continues to proselytise that
 >discs "couldn't" be man made and tends to cite sightings by
 >witnesses as evidence that the technology is "beyond" the
 >capacity of humans.

Come off it Tim. Now you are trying to be psychic and as might
be expected you are wrong. The question for me is _not_ what are
UFOs? but are Any UFOs ET spacecraft? My answer is yes. If you
are aksing are some UFOs astronomical or secret government
military projects I would also say yes.

When People ask me about FTs I refer them to the NIDS report.

Remember that military secret projects are done to develop new
systems for use in military efforts. The high peformance clearly
manufactured objects reported in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s
still haven't shown up in our arsenals. The Stealth when needed
was called on. So was the B-1. and the new UAVs.

Estimates of the Black Budget run 25-35 Billion dollars per
year. Did you notice any of these hot shot new vehciles that
could duplicate flying saucer behavior in the Korean War or
Vietnam or the Gulf war or Bosnia or Afghanistan? I surely
didn't. Stealth recently sure and the B-1. They don't fly like
flying saucers.

 >Yes, Blue Book had its unknowns but was a
 >badly funded and organised effort. Where really good cases of
 >structured UFOs exist, like the Henderson, NV, case mentioned in
 >Hynek's UFO Report (1957), where a disc was seen by a USAF
 >Officer, the thing was debunked as "psychological". We are sure
 >we know why. A bit too near Groom Lake/Papoose for comfort!

 >But then the vast majority of sightings are flawed and the tiny
 >fragment of credible evidence we have tends to indicate the
 >existence of structured objects whose flightpaths coincide with
 >the location of military facilities. Take, for instance, the
 >fairly recent NIDS report that supported our conclusion that FTs
 >operated from several military facilities. Stanton would have us
 >believe that these craft are "checking out military bases", or
 >some similar argument.

As noted above this is hogwash plain and simple You are not
psychic. Please do not put false words in my mind or mouth. FTs
do _not_ describe most UNKNOWNS.

 >This doesn't hold water and I'm sure the
 >CIA and co and happy with his 40 years of promoting the remnants
 >of their 1950s 'Aliens in UFOs' agenda!

Nice to know you know what the CIA thinks, Tim. I doubt if they
like my showing their blacked out UFO documents. Research by
proclamation which you seem to enjoy is not the same as research
by investigation.

 >From the Boeing 360 to the jet-powered pancakes, the Navy disc
 >projects at China Lake, the AVRO effort, those at Papoose Lake
 >and elsewhere, comes significant evidence that discs, and later
 >FTs, were, and are, terrestrial. Of course we are rarely
 >afforded either the chance to debate with people like Stanton,
 >the chance to write about this in journals or magazines or to
 >present these apparently shocking ideas to conference attenders.
 >TV programme makers don't want to hear it either, as seven years
 >in this game have shown me.

I suppose the thought never occurred to you that maybe others
besides me recognize that you deal with proclamations not
evidence? Try your psychic powers.

 >Shame, really, because if we had the amounts of money made
 >available to Ufology to "prove" the alien case we'd be so much
 >further advanced. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept the
 >testimony of Frank Carlson (who worked at Papoose Lake from
 >1960-62), Thomas Smith (Chance Vought 1944-46), Jack Pickett
 >(McDill 1960s) and others who tell us that we are right and that
 >everything else is belief driven.

Wow. I am impressed. These people know not only what is secret
weaponry, but know there is nothing else.and everything else is
belief driven. Incredible!!I suppose they also tell you there is
no gold in the hills because 99.44% of the so-called ore is
Dross??

 >I don't intend to get into a ding dong debate on this because
 >very few are even interested in changing their minds or
 >admitting that they could be wrong. In my view, and that of my
 >many colleagues, Ufology is pretty much an alien believer cult
 >hardened against contrary evidence. It's not that we're against
 >the idea that UFOs could be alien, only that there is much
 >better evidence that aliens were promoted from the 1950s onwards
 >to cover the activity of US-made flying discs and, latterly,
 >FTs.

Too bad you seem unable to provide that evidence. You might read
my response to the CIA Historian's article saying something
similar..... By the way what has been the war record of those
fantastic discs? I am sure Kevin would have liked one to fly in
Vietnam.

 >So it's not simply a debate about "aliens or not", rather an
 >argument about the best evidence that the few cases where
 >structured craft (rather than anomalous lights that zip around
 >the sky and look great on video tape) are fairly certain to have
 >been seen are of human design and operation.

Ever hear me talk about anomalous lights that zip around in the
sky? Have you watched my videos or heard my lectures or read my
papers? I suppose that isn't necessary to make a judgement for
somebody with such psychic skills.

 >Although I have my suspicions about the role of the CIA I'm
 >afraid we'll have to see what else emerges from the vaults
 >before going further on that one!

Stan Friedman - not a psychic








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:40:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:24:30 -0500
Subject: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book


Source: BBC On-Line

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2424927.stm


"The US space agency (NASA) has cancelled the book intended to
challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings
were a hoax.

NASA declined to comment specifically on the reasons for
dropping the publication, but it is understood the decision
resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement
of the project.

Criticism that NASA was displaying poor judgement and a lack of
confidence in commissioning the book caused it to abort the
project, agency spokesman Bob Jacobs said.

Oberg will still write the book

Nasa had hired aerospace writer Jim Oberg for the job on a fee
of $15,000.

He says he will still do the work, although it will now be an
unofficial publication with alternative funding.

The book will deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of the theory
that the Apollo landings were faked in a movie studio, to
convince the world that the US had beaten the Soviets to the
Moon.

It will explain why in still and video footage of the landings,
no stars can be seen in the Moon sky, why a flag appears to
ripple on the atmosphere-free satellite and why shadows fall in
strange directions - all "facts", conspiracy theorists say,
point to a hoax.

Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
certain credibility to the hoax theory."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                 SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:46:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:26:24 -0500
Subject: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions


Source: Sci Fi Channel,

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-11/08/11.00.sfc

Stig

***

12:00pm ET, 8-November-02

SCI FI Airs UFO Specials

The SCI FI Channel announced that it will air two original
documentary specials dealing with the question of UFOs,
government conspiracies and alien abduction, starting at 8 p.m.
ET/PT Nov. 22. The specials will air in anticipation of the
channel's upcoming original miniseries Steven Spielberg Presents
Taken, which premieres Dec. 2.

At 8 p.m., Bryant Gumbel hosts The Roswell Crash: Startling New
Evidence, a two-hour documentary about the 1947 event that
includes new eyewitness interviews and never-before-seen
footage. The documentary includes an excavation of the alleged
Roswell crash site by archaeologists from the University of New
Mexico in partnership with SCI FI. Melissa Jo Peltier (Scared
Silent: Ending and Exposing Child Abuse) directed and executive
produced the special. James Romanovich, Jim Milio and Mark
Hufnail also executive produce.

At 10 p.m., the network airs Abduction Diaries, a one-hour
documentary with first-person accounts of those who say they
have been taken by extraterrestrials. Tina DiFeliciantonio and
Jane C. Wagner (Girls Like Us) produced the special.

Taken, executive produced by Spielberg, is a 20-hour epic
miniseries that chronicles the lives of three families against
the backdrop of 50 years of UFO lore.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                            Magonia Supplement 42

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:00:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:27:55 -0500
Subject: Magonia Supplement 42


The latest Magonia Supplement, # 42, contains a number of jpegs,
which makes it unsuitable for posting on UFO UpDates, but it can
be seen at:

www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/ms42.htm

While you're over at the website you might like to have a look
at the latest addition to the archives:

www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/airmyth.htm

Rory Lushman's close encounter with a strange ufologist!

Regards

John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Addendum On GWU Symposium

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:41:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:31:23 -0500
Subject: Addendum On GWU Symposium


A thought has occurred to me about why Podesta et al. may not
have cared all that much about promoting a turnout, of people
and news media. One of the panelists told me privately that they
had been flown to New York for interviews. I suspect that this
conference and the interviews will be showing up on the Sci-Fi
Channel on various programs. Podesta's client, after all,  is
the Sci-Fi Channel.

Also, I attended the conference with John Velez, who was in town
for the occasion and who was covering events for 'Strange Days
Indeed...' - stay tuned via:

http://www.cfrb.com

We had some interesting chats about our common interests. Many
denizens of this List also were present, including Steve Kaeser,
Stephen Bassett, Bruce Maccabee, and Larry Bryant, so there may
well be other perspectives posted soon.

  - Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Re: Terminology - Bueche

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 19:00:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:35:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Bueche


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:43:43 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

 >Sorry my feedback offended
 >Ms. Connors. I thought that's what was requested, feedback.

<snip>

 >Loren Coleman

Latin roots aside, I agree the word "crypto" won't fly for the
simply reason that the word is currently associated with creepy
words, like crypt for example. This subject has too much "eek"
factor as it is. "Para" has the same effect.

The only research area in this field that came up with a classy-
sounding name are the "cereologists" who study crop circles.

Personally I'd encourage people to say the words "unidentified
flying object" rather than say "UFO," for the simple reason that
the term is abbreviated so often that there is probably one or
two entire generations who have no idea what it stands for,
unless they were a fan of the X-files. Give them words they can
hold on to without any specialized knowledge.

When reporters write on this subject, I try to help them with
their language a bit, suggesting terms like "alien contact,"
"contact," "alien encounter," "interaction", "visit," "episode,"
etcetera, so they realize that in their reporting they can
create more nuance than they would if they only used "abduction"
as a catch-all word (which they often do, even when it does not
apply).

Developing language is important if we are to convey what we
mean, and I applaud Connors for making an effort, even if her
first suggestion didn't seem to take.

By the way, on a related note, I want to mention that anyone who
interacts with reporters might do well to have a few copies of
the young-adult almanac, "Almanac of Alien Encounters" by Eric
Elfman, to place into reporters' hands for instant perspective.
In 168 short pages (with plenty of sketches and sidebars) it
covers the entire phenomenon in depth and most importantly with
remarkable neutrality, in short, easy-to-read entries. Like
children, reporters need info that is succinct and fast, and
Elfman's almanac delivers - and exceeds the youth market it may
have been intended for. Order a case. (It's retail price is
US$4.99).








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       No Mars Face At Night Weirdness

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:37:50 -0500
Subject: No Mars Face At Night Weirdness


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

The Electric Warrior : News November 8, 2002
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> NO MARS FACE AT NIGHT WEIRDNESS
martian enigmas

*** A Cydonia researcher says there are no weird thermal
anomalies in a nighttime infrared image of the Mars Face. NASA
experts say recent data shows the true geological nature of the
Martian enigma ***

image: Mars Face, Nighttime Infrared
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsFaceNight.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - Mars anomaly researchers who have been
clamoring for a nighttime infrared image of Cydonia got their
wish last week just in time for Halloween. An imaging science
expert now says there are no thermal anomalies proving an
artificial origin for the Face or other well known features at
Cydonia.

In the new nighttime image the notorious Face on Mars is hard to
distinguish from the surrounding terrain unless you know where
to look. The Face is circled in the photo that accompanies this
blog.

Why is it important what the Mars Face looks like at night? Mars
anomaly researchers say that a nighttime infrared image might
provide clues about whether or not the Face is artificial,
proving the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence beyond
Earth.

But according to Mark Carlotto, whose New Frontiers in Science
Web site examines the Martian enigmas, there are no thermal
anomalies in the new image that would point to an artificial
origin for the Mars Face or the D&M Pyramid of Cydonia. Carlotto
goes on to say that if artificial structures had been inactive
for a long time he wouldn't expect to see thermal anomalies
anyway.

"Highly eroded artificial structures that have been inactive for
hundreds or thousands of millennia are likely to be in a state
of thermal equilibrium with respect to the background. One would
therefore not expect to see a thermal anomaly," writes Carlotto.

That doesn't mean Carlotto has given up hope for finding
evidence of ET on Mars. His "Cydonia Controversy" Web page says
that rather than seeking out conspiracy theories and government
cover-ups that can't possibly be supported by the data in hand
we should simply follow the data to where it leads.

Carlotto thinks there are subtle indications of symmetry,
geometry, and pattern in the area that are worth studying. He
recently uncovered a rock strewn area south of the Mars Face
that looks curiously similar to archaeological sites on Earth.

The SETI Institute's Dr. Jill Tarter has said that there might
be evidence of ET technology within our solar system. Carlotto
and others say it's worthwhile looking on Mars.

IN THE DARK

But according to Arizona State University's Philip Christensen,
Cydonia researchers don't like it when NASA releases new images
that show the geological nature of the Face. Christensen, who
leads the Mars Odyssey thermal imaging team (THEMIS) recently
told the Discovery Channel that he gets nasty emails from people
accusing him of being part of a cover-up.

As reported by Discovery Channel: The only reason NASA still
calls it a face is that there are some people who religiously
claim that the feature is not natural and will cry "cover-up" if
NASA lets the matter drop.

At night many of the Martian hills in this region become
invisible to the THEMIS camera because there is no heat
signature to make them stand out. The Face is much easier to see
during the day in a photo shown side-by-side with the new
nighttime THEMIS data.

The ASU Web site explains, "This knob can be seen in the daytime
image because of the temperature differences between the sunlit
and shadowed slopes." The online ASU article concludes that
recent NASA missions like Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey
have provided detailed views of the hill which show that it is a
normal geologic feature.

Mars Cydonia researchers awaited the new nighttime image to see
whether it revealed anything peculiar. Some won't be happy with
either ASU's assessment that the true nature of the Mars Face is
geological or Carlotto's analysis that fails to reveal any
thermal signature weirdness.

Carlotto has said that building a case for artificiality on Mars
that even NASA can't dismiss takes time. Electric warriors are
content to await further analysis.

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

08-Nov-02
Analysis of First Night-Time IR Image over Cydonia
http://newfrontiersinscience.com/cydoniacontroversy/updates/nightIRprelim/nightI
R.shtml
(New Frontiers in Science) - First night-time image
acquired by THEMIS aboard the Mars Odyssey spacecraft
shows no evidence of thermal anomalies of artificial
origin in the Cydonia region containing the Face,
D&M Pyramid and other objects.


06-Nov-02
Face on Mars Gets Nighttime Look
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021104/mars.html
(Discovery Channel) - The face on Mars has been
spotted again, this time in a nighttime infrared
image that tells a bit more about its mysterious
geological origins... The face itself looks a lot
less face-like close-up, of course, and was first
called a face because of low-resolution Viking images
some 30 years ago.

31-Oct-02
The so-called 'Face on Mars' at night
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20021031A.html
(NASA/ASU) - This pair of THEMIS infrared images
shows the so-called "face on Mars" landform viewed
during both the day and night. The nighttime THEMIS
IR image was acquired on Oct. 24, 2002; the daytime
image was originally released on July 24, 2002...
The 3-km long 'face' knob was first imaged by the
Viking spacecraft in the 1970's... Since that time
the Mars Orbiter Camera on the Mars Global Surveyor
spacecraft and the THEMIS visible and infrared
cameras on Mars Odyssey have provided detailed views
of this hill that clearly show that it is a normal
geologic feature.

14-Oct-02
Carlotto Finds Possible Ruins on Mars
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews004A.htm
(The Electric Warrior) - A Cydonia researcher says
that a rock strewn area south of the Mars face looks
curiously similar to archaeological sites on Earth.
SETI's Jill Tarter didn't say exactly where we might
find evidence of extraterrestrial activity in our
own solar system. Carlotto and the Society for
Planetary SETI Research say it's worthwhile looking
on Mars.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
November 8, 2002
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
The Mars Nighttime Infrared image is courtesy of
NASA/JPL/ASU

This text is freely distributable for non-commercial
purposes, provided you cite The Electric Warrior.
Web developers should link here...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews004C.htm

Readers are strongly cautioned that The Electric
Warrior asserts it is OK to laugh and have a good
time with some of this stuff. Lighten Up!

The Electric Warrior is not responsible for the
content of Web links. Content reproduced here is
for informational purposes only. All copyrights
Acknowledged.

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 18:32:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:38:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>Dear All,

 >>>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
 >>>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
 >>>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
 >>>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
 >>>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
 >>>of production.

 >>>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
 >>>seen the light of day.....

 >>I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
 >>objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
 >>or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
 >>sightings were really "Black Project" related?

 >A majority of which sightings? In any case, we're very happy
 >with the conclusion that FTs and Flying discs were of
 >terrestrial design. The majority of "UFO" cases relate to
 >natural phenomena; earth lights and so on. That's what we think
 >the "zig zag" video footage mentioned more than likely
 >represents.

Earth lights?  This has been proven??

==JJS==







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                          Re: Terminology - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 18:56:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:40:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Speiser


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:43:43 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:29:01 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Terminology

 >>>From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:38:20 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Terminology - Coleman

 ><snip>

 >>Of course, I've only been at this for 45+ years and contributed
 >>absolutely nothing to this genre, so what the hell do I know,
 >>eh? But, then again I'm sure crypto-zoologists such as yourself,
 >>know more about UFOs than anyone else.

 >I never said I knew anything about UFOs, as my comment was about
 >words! "Crypto" denotes "hidden". What's wrong with keeping it
 >as ufology or Ufology? Crypto-Aeronautics and Crypto-Craft,
 >sorry, appear to not be good choices. Sorry my feedback offended
 >Ms. Connors. I thought that's what was requested, feedback. I
 >did not know I was just suppose to agree.

 >By the way, cryptozoology and cryptozoologists are single words,
 >and do not employ hyphens.


I have to agree with Loren. Changing the terminology will not
alter the public's perception of "our thing," because the
terminology is not to blame, our halting and half-hearted
efforts at conducting ourselves scientifically is our downfall.
If Frank Stranges started calling himself a Crypto-
Aeronauticalist or whatever, would we be any better perceived
than we are?

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Starship Memories - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:12:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:42:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Speiser


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>)
 >Date: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:18 AM
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Starship Memories

 >Source: The Harvard Gazette

 >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

 >Starship Memories:
 >"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

Wow.

Any comments?  First thing that strikes me is, how did she
filter her test subjects? I hope she did more than take out an
ad in the paper...


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                      Re: Starship Memories - Jacobson

From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:08:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:19:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Jacobson


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>)
 >Date: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:18 AM
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Starship Memories

 >Source: The Harvard Gazette

 >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

 >Starship Memories:
 >"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

 >By Beth Potier
 >Gazette Staff

 >Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

 >For the past three years, Clancy, a postdoctoral fellow in
 >Harvard's Psychology Department, has studied people who believe
 >they were abducted by aliens from outer space. Her research,
 >done in conjunction with Professors of Psychology Richard
 >McNally and Daniel Schacter, former associate professor Mark
 >Lenzenweger and Harvard Medical School professor Roger Pitman,
 >was recently published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

<snip>

There are two major gaping problems with Clancy's research:

i) She does not, at least according to this article, consider
the possiblity that people who recall being abducted by aliens
are recalling a hallucinatory experience. The failure to take
that possiblity into account is especially egregious because it
is well known that hypnagogic hallucinations often accompany
episodes of sleep paralysis, and she did note that her abduction
recalling subjects had a high incidence of those. If what they
are remembering are hallucinatory episodes, then her explanatory
hypothesis, that their memories are "false memories" is it self
falsified.

ii) There is ample research supporting the actuality of the
repression of traumatic memories. This has recently been
summarized in a volume by Danial Brown, MD (unfortunately I
don't recall the title). Dan is one of the leading scholars in
the field of dissociation and repressed memory. He reviews a
number of studies which tracked victims of traumatic violence
from the occurrance of the event forward and documented their
repression of the the memories. His review was so thorough and
well reasoned the the international tribunal trying war crimes
in Bosnia and Sarajevo adopted a policy of recognizing recovered
memory of war crimes abuse as admissable evidence in their
court.

These are two rather glaring oversights on Clancy's part. I'm
actually surprised that her dissertation committee passed her
with requiring her to correct them. However the issue of
repressed/recovered memory is highly politicized, and it's
conceivable that that colored her committee's judgement.


Best wishes,

Eric Jacobson
Department of Social Medicine
Harvard Medical School






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:02:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:34:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Ledger


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 18:32:33 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

<snip>

 >Earth lights?  This has been proven??


Hi Jim,

I wasn't going to bother getting into these explanations of
Tim's but the Earthlights thing is a little too much. It's a
case of trying to prove one phenomenon doesn't exist by
explaining it away as another unproved phenomenon.

The Experimental aircraft from the 40s and early 50s as
explanations for most UFOs are ludicrous. Most of these could
barely get off the ground or out of their own way let alone
perform as most UFOs are said to perform. Tim had to ignore a
hell of a lot to make these claims. I've never seen so much
whittling of square pegs to get them into round holes.

Tim, you must be knee deep in shavings.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 8

              Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:53:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:22:41 -0500
Subject: Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions -


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:46:48 +0100
 >Subject: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions

 >Source: Sci Fi Channel,

 >http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-11/08/11.00.sfc

 >Stig

<snip>

The SciFi's interest was demonstrated today during a four hour
Symposium at the George Washington University in Washington DC.
The subject of the event was "Interstellar Travel and
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Science Fiction or Science Fact".
It was moderated by Ray Suarez, a senior correspondent for "The
NewsHour", and the speakers included Dr. Richard Henry, Dr.
Michio Kaku, Dr. Bernard Haisch, Dr. Peter Sturrock, Dr. Jacques
Vallee, Ted Roe and John Callahan.

I believe that others are planning a detailed report on the
event, so I won't attempt to provide any details. But the fact
that this type of event, with a distinguished panel of this
type, was sponsored by the SciFi Channel speaks well for their
efforts.

The SciFi Channel's President, Bonnie Hammer, said the cable
network has straddled the line between science fact and science
fiction for a decade. She hoped that the thrust of their effort
would help to define that line more clearly, and today's event
was a positive step.

I would add that "Taken" wasn't mentioned once during the
Symposium, and there was no effort to promote the 10 hour
mini- series.


Steve

PS- It was a pleasure to have the chance to meet John Velez, who
was one of many who had driven many miles to attend.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                  Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 08:27:49 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser


 >From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:40:33 +0000
 >Subject: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >Source: BBC On-Line

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2424927.stm

 >"The US space agency (NASA) has cancelled the book intended to
 >challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings
 >were a hoax.

<snip>

 >Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >certain credibility to the hoax theory."

In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:12:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 08:31:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:02:54 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 18:32:33 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 ><snip>

 >>Earth lights? This has been proven??

 >Hi Jim,

 >I wasn't going to bother getting into these explanations of
 >Tim's but the Earthlights thing is a little too much. It's a
 >case of trying to prove one phenomenon doesn't exist by
 >explaining it away as another unproved phenomenon.

 >The Experimental aircraft from the 40s and early 50s as
 >explanations for most UFOs are ludicrous. Most of these could
 >barely get off the ground or out of their own way let alone
 >perform as most UFOs are said to perform. Tim had to ignore a
 >hell of a lot to make these claims. I've never seen so much
 >whittling of square pegs to get them into round holes.

 >Tim, you must be knee deep in shavings.


I've known this for some time. On ParaNet back in the late
eighties we had several members describe sightings of strange
aircraft which later turned out to be the Stealth fighter. Their
descriptions were quite accurate in hindsight - nothing saucer-
like or bizarre, no anomalous movements, no hovering.  They
quite obviously recognized them as airplanes of some kind, just
not of any kind they had seen before.

This is not to say that I am convinced the FTs are not some
highly secret earth-born project.

Note, first of all, that the triangles did not seem to make
themselves known until the early 1980s, as I recall, which could
conceivably indicate that they are a separate phenomenon from
"flying saucers." And then there is this ubiquitous "spoiler"
factor:

It seems that every time we get a high-profile FT sighting, it
is accompanied by some sort of distraction that seems designed
to lessen our confidence in the sightings, or deflect attention,
or perhaps provide plausible deniability.

With the Hudson Valley case, it was the 'Ultralight Club' flying
in formation at night. (To me, this backfired when the Pozzuolis
caught both the object and the pilots on videotape, showing a
striking difference.)

In the case of the Phoenix Lights, it was this curious
coincidence of a flare drop behind the South Mountains -
something that has not occurred before or since in the 17 years
I've lived here. (We also have a merry band of night flyers here
in Phoenix, and they've created their share of UFO reports... but
nothing so dramatic as the events of March 1997).

And I seem to recall that there was a spate of legitimate
boomerang sightings near Elgin AFB about a month _before_ Ed
Walters showed up with his cute little lantern photos.

Haven't heard much about those sightings since Ed came on the
scene... are we missing something here folks?

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                        Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 02:03:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 08:38:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Gates


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:29:54 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:57:59 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >Hi Robert,

 >I appreciate the chance to answer your objections. Your comments
 >are thoughtful, but I have some objections of my own.

 >>>>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>>>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>>>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>>>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>>>was in use at the time (1954).

 >>>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >>>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >>>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >>>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >>In my research, I have actually seen documents that were marked
 >>with Top Secret Restricted that had absolutly nothing do with so
 >>called "Restricted Data." From documents that I have seen from
 >>the Archives, not to mention photocopys I have seen over the
 >>years many highly classified documents were not stamped
 >>properly, or created exactly as the manual said they should be
 >>created, marked or stamped. This didn't diminish from the fact
 >>that they were highly classified until they were declassified,
 >>just career level govt workers, White House workers and staff
 >>members didn't always "do it by the book."

 >Please note the challenge at the bottom of this page. Please
 >produce one such document.

I have many thousands of pages of cold war related documents and
may or may not have copied those documents as part of my
research. I will check as I can.

I have seen documents with classification markings, such as
TS/Codeword dead center across the top. Others the markings are
on the side of each page. Others with the TS control number on
each page of the document and yet others with the control number
only on the cover page.  In one instance I was reviewing approx
25 or so boxes of documents at a Presidential library and saw
all sorts of variations, in how a document was marked...not by
the book, or by the regulations, however this did not diminish
from the fact that said documents were highly classified and
kept as such.

 >>>>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >>>>RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >>>>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >>>>frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >>>>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >>>Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
 >>>Restricted Data (SRD)

 >>>The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
 >>>weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

 >>>One problem in researching at archives is that documents
 >>>containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
 >>>Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
 >>>real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
 >>>are involved.

 >>>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 >>While that may technically be true, List members will recall a
 >>much earlier post from me directly quoting the Congressional
 >>testimony of the director of Sandia Labs. He stated that a Q
 >>clearance was equivilant to a Top Secret and a L clearance was
 >>equivilant to a Secret. Bottom line is these clearences only
 >>apply to nuclear materials and a person with a Q clearance could
 >>not walk over to a DOD project and expect to be given knowledge
 >>about it even if it concerned nuclear materials.

 >And that is a mis-statement. A Q-clearance and a TS clearance
 >will get you access to TS nuclear information. One goes with the
 >other.

As I stated earlier over the years its generally thought that a
L is equivilant to Secret and Q can cover either Secret or Top
Secret, by one DOE account, supposedly depending on if it has
the word "sensitive" behind it, i.e. Q Sensitive is access to
"specific Top Secret information on a need-to-know basis."

On a simple basis we have:

http://www.lanl.gov/security/clearances/reciprocity.shtml


Reciprocal Clearances

To be eligible for a reciprocal clearance, the applicant must
have an active clearance from another agency (DOD, NRC, FBI,
CIA, etc.) and a current investigation.

DOE equivalencies are:

Secret is equivalent to a DOE - L.
Top Secret or SCI is equivalent to a DOE- Q.

NOTE: DOE does not recognize other levels of access.

End excerpt....


Note this does not discuss the Sensitive term, although
it is mentioned in the DOE system.

See this quote from: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/govsec/chap4.htm

"The length and complexity of the background investigation
varies depending on the level of clearance (or the access)
needed. In most agencies individuals are vetted for
Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearances, and possibly for
access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) as well. The
Department of Energy (DoE) has a separate system pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act; most of its employees receive either an "L"
clearance, which equates to a Confidential or Secret clearance,
or a "Q" clearance, which equates to a Top Secret clearance."

At:http://www.lanl.gov/security/clearances/clearance_types.shtml

Types of Security Clearances

"Q" allows individual access to:
Top Secret Restricted Data
Top Secret Formerly Restricted Data
Top Secret National Security Information
Secret Restricted Data
Special Nuclear Material (Category I & II)
Exclusion Area Access

"L" allows individual access to:

Confidential Restricted Data
Confidential Formerly Restricted Data
Special Nuclear Material (Category III)
Confidential National Security Information
Unescorted Access to Limited and Protected Area
Secret Formerly Restricted Data
Secret National Security Information

End Excerpt

 >>A DOD person shouldn't expect to walk over to DOE HQ and be
 >>given access to weapons material... even though said person may
 >>have TS/Codeword clearances relating to the DOD side of say a
 >>nuclear weapons project.

 >>The DOD person would have to go over to DOE, demonstrate a need-
 >>to-know, be cleared for access and get investigated to get an L
 >>or Q Clarence. The DOE person would have to go over to DOD,
 >>demonstrate a need-to-know, be cleared for access and get
 >>investigated to get a clearance into the DOD project.

 >If you had not cut the portion of my message out that pertained
 >to military personnel, we could now see where I said that
 >military personnel are no longer (after 1955) required to have Q
 >or L clearance. They are in the Personnel Reliability Program
 >which allows them access to nuclear data/weapons. There is
 >another Special Access Program, Critical Nuclear Design
 >Information - off the top of my head CNWIDI which doesn't look
 >correct - is the program.

 >Your assertion that DOD personnel have to go to DOE to
 >demonstrate a "need to know" is incorrect. They have to
 >demonstrate such only to their superiors.

If a DOD person needs access to something in the DOE chain they
have to make a specific request in writing which is reviewed by
particular managers in the system.  The only exception to this
is on an emergency type basis. The same is true going the other
way. Now if the person(s) involved needed continuing access as
part of a specific project or program they don't have to submit
a request each and every time. Note when the project or program
is done, so is their access.

 >>>Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
 >>>mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
 >>>reading.

 >>Again, in my visits to the archives, I have found that many
 >>documents were not created by the book, nor were they stamped by
 >>the book and in some instances some of them did not have any
 >>kind of TS control number... even though that is required.

 >I didn't get my information from visits to archives although I
 >have discover nearly one hundred formerly Top Secret documents
 >there dealing with foo-fighters, ghost rockets and UFOs. I
 >lived and breathed security for over seven years. I think there
 >is a little difference in the experience level here.

 >Robert, please send me a photocopy of just one Top Secret
 >Restricted document from 1954 or before and the source
 >information. I continue to doubt that such exist, but I can be
 >convinced otherwise. During the last 50+ years marking and
 >procedures have changed and each agency has some leeway in the
 >marking and controlling their documents.

See my earlier comment. Some leeway in fact translates to they
did what they thought was right at the time, whether it was done
exactly as the manual or book said it should be done is another
thing entirely. It did not change the fact that the document was
in fact classified or highly classified, just means people are
in the system. During the Kennedy administration many so called
Presidential directives were not signed by the President but by
his National Security advisor.  Who would reject the guidance
solely on the basis that it wasn't done by the book and signed
by the President?

 >As for document found at the Archives without everything in
 >order, I have answer this objection about a dozen time. In
 >preparing document for the public many time the declassification
 >personnel might remove or change marking, coversheets, and
 >control #s, etc.

I can appreciate that, but as you well know at times when you
make a copy of a document, you can see exactly what was removed,
or changed and tell something was in fact there. In some
documents a control # was not there. This is especially true of
the National Intelligence Estimates in the CIA RG at the
archives.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:30:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 08:40:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Deschamps


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >>>To: updates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
 >>>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

<snip>


Keep writing, Tim...

The more you do, the more it becomes apparent that you know
absolutely nothing about flying saucers and UFOs. There is no
convincing proof that FT and Flying Discs/Saucers are man-made
devices... only conjecture on your part. You are digging your
own "professional" grave.


Here's a shovel!

cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
Multiple 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 06:09:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:34:57 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:40:33 +0000
 >>Subject: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>Source: BBC On-Line

 >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2424927.stm

 >>"The US space agency (NASA) has cancelled the book intended to
 >>challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings
 >>were a hoax.

 ><snip>

 >>Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >>official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >>certain credibility to the hoax theory."

 >In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

 >Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
 >is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
 >that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
 >comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
 >happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."



Hi Jim:

I agree. The 'moon shot hoax' scene is beneath contempt. For
NASA to commission a book, then back out, only gives the hoax
twinkies more to chew on, sadly.

My impression is that the book idea wasn't well thought out at
some level. Oberg is as capable as anyone to write the book, I
sense some poor planning at higher levels.

Its a tough call really, so I can't blame anybody at NASA too
much. Now, after decades, the finest achievement NASA ever made
is called into question.

It was easy enough to ignore the yahoos at first, that's my
first inclination. Who cares what a few nuts think? But then,
over time as memories dim and new generations arise, it starts
to sound credible .. more and more people start to doubt we
landed a man on the Moon.

There are definite parallels to the Holocaust, a very similar
denial, and the same sort of pot-boiler opportunism.

Lost in all this are simple facts like:

a) It would have cost far more to bribe the millions of
participants and witnesses to lie, and to lay silent for
decades... all of them.

b) The Soviets would have sniffed out a fake immediately and
trumpeted it to the world. They suffered a terrible propaganda
defeat with the US Moon landings.

c) Scientists the world over have carefully examined the moon
rocks retrieved.

d) Lots of stuff I cannot [burp] recall at the moment.

None of this will impress the morons.
(Does _anything_ impress a moron?)

I'm tempted to suggest that we simply let the twinkies believe
whatever they wish. What stops me is the insult to the hard,
hard, dedicated work of all those engineers, technicians,
scientists, astronauts .. heck even the janitors.

They made it possible, at great personal cost and risk, for low
pay, just to prove it could be done.

I hate to say it, but I kinda cheered when the astronaut socked
that bible-jamming ass.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Starship Memories - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:11:20 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:39:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Randle


 >From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:32:37 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Starship Memories

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>- UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
 >>Subject: Starship Memories

 >>Source: The Harvard Gazette

 >>http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

 >Starship Memories:
 >>"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

 >>Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

 >><snip>

 >Yet the recovered-memory abductees as a group were much more
 >likely to falsely remember the word sweet - not on the list, but
 >suggested by it - than either of the other two groups. In this
 >laboratory test, the recovered-memory group was more prone than
 >the other two groups to create false memories.

 >snip<

 >McNally's study, unlike Clancy's, directly studied reports of
 >alien encounters by comparing the physiological responses of
 >experiencers (their skin conductivity, for example, I gather)
 >measured while they were listening to a narrative of their own
 >encounter experiences, compared to a vast database cataloguing
 >the physiological responses of Vietnam combat veterans (who were
 >recorded earlier at Harvard's facility in New Hampshire). These
 >comparison made sense because both parties have been through
 >trauma, with experiencers fulfilling most, though fortunately
 >not all, of the scores for post-traumatic stress disorder (as
 >measured on a separate, written exam).

 >In this study, the physiological responses that mark a real
 >traumatic experience are measured by devices attached to the
 >subjects' bodies. Since the Veterans' combat experiences were
 >known to be real, the pattern of physiological responses has for
 >years been considered one of the ways to determine authenticity
 >of experience

Good Morning, All -

There are two things that bother me about this study. First, the
assumption that alien abduction is not grounded in reality
without providing the proof for that statement. It is an
assumption based on the researcher's bias and would seem to
invalidate her conclusions right off the bat.

Second, the assumption that her comparison group, Vietnam
Veterans, had combat experiences known to be real. I would like
to know how she validated that and would guess that if someone
came forward with these self-described tales of combat, they
were accepted at face value.

We know, from such work as Stolen Valor, that large numbers of
men claiming horrific combat in Vietnam have invented those
tales. In one startling example all eight members of a support
group that told their terrible tales of Vietnam combat, who had
been in therapy for years, and who were receiving compensation
from the government, were all inventing their stories. In fact,
one or two of them had never set foot in Vietnam, let alone
experienced combat.

So, it seems to me that if she didn't bother to validate her
Vietnam veterans, and some of those used in the study were
fakers, then her entire study is invalidated. It might be useful
to find out what we can about the "Vietnam" veterans because
there are records available...


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

               Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:19:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:44:49 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Friedman


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:13:29 -0000
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >>Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>Here's the scenario:

 >>For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >>universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >>It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >>You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >>would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >>to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >>Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >>be? Opinions please.

 >Frank and List,

 >Although not dealing with the specific scenario posed, the
 >Declaration of Principle Concerning Activities Following the
 >Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence is worth a look, and
 >may be relevant. It can be found at:

 >http://www.seti.org/science/principles.html

 >I'm fairly sure that most radio astronomers have signed up to
 >it, and that it has some standing in the wider scientific
 >community.  However, despite the good intentions, I very much
 >doubt that things would work out quite as planned.

 >Nick Pope

I agree with Nick, that things wouldn't go as planned. However,
there is a much bigger problem.....

Frank's question is very badly phrased because he hasn't defined
his terms. There is an enormous difference between life being
out there sending and receiving signals, but no threat
whatsoever to Earthlings, and saying ETs are visiting,
abducting, disposing of aircraft that attack them, etc. Sort of
like announcing a new tribe of cannibals was found in the wilds
of New Guinea, versus a new tribe of cannibals was found in
downtown Washington, DC.

The SETI cultists have long assumed there is life out there all
over the place, _but_ they are not coming here. Just listen long
enough (or finally, look for optical signals) and contact at a
distance will finally be made. Has no relevance compared to
advanced technological systems doing their thing here, crashing,
attacking on occasion, abducting Earthlings, etc.

Based on the reactions of my more than 700 lecture audiences and
hundreds of radio and TV audiences, I think the public can
handle news of contact. I would expect the bell-shaped curve of
reactions but life would go on.

If they are presented as nasty beings destroying our planet,
that would be another situation entirely.

One can't blame New Jerseyites for reacting badly to the Orson
Welles broadcast. Earthlings are not monolithic in their
responses to anything. Many religions preach that there is
intelligent life all over... even if Jerry Falwell says we are
the only ones. But surely radio contact is very different from
here and now.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:24:56 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:47:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Randle


 >From: TCarey1947@aol.com
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:14:09 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>SCI FI CHANNEL GETTING INVOLVED IN UFO RESEARCH

 >>SCI FI Channel, as I suggested in Filer's Files last May, is
 >>sponsoring a landmark archeological excavation at the 1947
 >>Roswell Crash Site. SCI FI Channel's recently announced an
 >>initiative to bring scientific, congressional and media
 >>attention to the UFO phenomenon. Remote sensing technologies
 >>from the University of New Mexico, will be used to excavate the
 >>alleged crash site of an alien craft. Working under top secret
 >>conditions, skilled archeologists will attempt to find physical
 >>evidence of an extraterrestrial craft. "THE ROSWELL CRASH:
 >>STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE" will be hosted by Bryant Gumbel on
 >>Friday, November 22, beginning at 8 PM (ET/PT). Sci.Fi.com

 >George, List, All:

 >George Filer leaves the impression that the Roswell
 >archaeological dig sponsored by the Sci Fi Channel has yet to
 >happen. Actually, the dig was conducted in September and will be
 >part of Sci Fi's new, two-hour documentary on Roswell which will
 >air on Friday evening, November 22nd

Good Morning, Tom, List, All -

Say Tom, were you actually in the room when Don Schmitt lied
about the CUFOS archaeological dig at the debris field or are
you unaware of this? And for those keeping score at home, this
resets the "statute of limitations clock" that Schmitt is so
fond of mentioning to 2009.

And, no, this does not invalidate the Sci Fi Channel's
expedition at all. I simply mention it because it seems to be
another example of Schmitt's inability to confront the truth.


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                    Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:26:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 09:50:24 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hall


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

<snip>

 >>Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >>official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >>certain credibility to the hoax theory."

 >In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

 >Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
 >is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
 >that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
 >comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
 >happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."

 >==JJS==

Jim,

Well said! But don't forget that the Earth is hollow.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Starship Memories - Bueche

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:13:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:36:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Bueche


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:11:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Randle

<snip>

 >There are two things that bother me about this study. First, the
 >assumption that alien abduction is not grounded in reality
 >without providing the proof for that statement.

<snip>

 >Second, the assumption that her comparison group, Vietnam
 >Veterans, had combat experiences known to be real. I would like
 >to know how she validated that and would guess that if someone
 >came forward with these self-described tales of combat, they
 >were accepted at face value.

Kevin,

Two quick clarifications.

One, Richard McNally's study is not mentioned in the Harvard
article; I brought it up because I felt that Susan Clancy's
research (the word-association test described in the article)
was weak research compared to that of her supervisor (McNally),
which I was personally familiar with.

So just to clarify, I brought up a second Harvard study which
had little to do with the word-association test that Susan
Clancy did.

Susan Clancy's control group were not veterans, they were just
average folk. In that light, one needs to ask why the
experiencers made more errors in the word recall - were they
trying too hard to establish that their recall ability was good?
I expect so. But it could also be that experiencers' minds are
more conceptual and less verbal... a trend seen in philosophers,
if I am not mistaken, yes? Her study is provocative, but not for
the reasons she thinks.

Two, the Veterans in McNally's as-yet-unpublished study were not
a control group in the typical sense of individuals-that-were-
selected, but rather, as I understand it, they have a database
from past decades that shows the average physiological responses
of a vast number of veterans. I beleive they also ran some
regular folks as controls, ran average people afresh, to see if
average people could be prompted to have the responses seen in
both of those groups. But obviously we'll need to see the
published paper, and I look forward to that.

It is nice that Harvard has a newfound openness towards
research. (Too bad they won't compensate Dr. Mack for the
$100,000 he blew in legal defense when they weren't so open in
the past!).

But to your core point, that some of the Vietnam veterans who
comprised their database may have been fakers trying to get
compensation: That is indeed a fact of life but the data from
any such fakers would I expect have been averaged out, if we
allow that only a fraction would have been such people. If
fakers are dominant in number, then of course your point stands,
as they'd throw off the averages if they were dominant.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

              Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions -

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:25:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:44:51 -0500
Subject: Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions -


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:53:53 -0500
 >Subject: Re: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions

 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:46:48 +0100
 >>Subject: SCI FI Specials On Roswell Dig & Abductions

 >>Source: Sci Fi Channel,

 >>http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-11/08/11.00.sfc

 >>Stig

 ><snip>

 >The SciFi's interest was demonstrated today during a four hour
 >Symposium at the George Washington University in Washington DC.
 >The subject of the event was "Interstellar Travel and
 >Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Science Fiction or Science Fact".
 >It was moderated by Ray Suarez, a senior correspondent for "The
 >NewsHour", and the speakers included Dr. Richard Henry, Dr.
 >Michio Kaku, Dr. Bernard Haisch, Dr. Peter Sturrock, Dr. Jacques
 >Vallee, Ted Roe and John Callahan.

 >I believe that others are planning a detailed report on the
 >event, so I won't attempt to provide any details. But the fact
 >that this type of event, with a distinguished panel of this
 >type, was sponsored by the SciFi Channel speaks well for their
 >efforts.
 >
 >The SciFi Channel's President, Bonnie Hammer, said the cable
 >network has straddled the line between science fact and science
 >fiction for a decade. She hoped that the thrust of their effort
 >would help to define that line more clearly, and today's event
 >was a positive step.
 >
 >I would add that "Taken" wasn't mentioned once during the
 >Symposium, and there was no effort to promote the 10 hour
 >mini- series.

 >Steve

 >PS- It was a pleasure to have the chance to meet John Velez, who
 >was one of many who had driven many miles to attend.

Hi Steve, All,

The pleasure was all mine Steve. It was great to be able to
finally, after all these years, to put faces on some of the
friends I have made on this List. I'm only sorry that we didn't
get to spend more time together afterwards.

Re: the GWU symposium.

I'll file a report on 'Strange Days... Indeed' tonight, along
with audio-clips from the conference. Despite the fact that it
was poorly attended and that media coverage was sorely lacking,
(which, as Dick Hall mentioned may have been intentional -?-) I
think it was an historic event.

The panel of scientists that was gathered there was impressive -
  to say the least. My concern all along has been that after
'Taken' airs in December all this public effort will dry up.

After seeing and hearing this group of academics 'put it on the
line' by calling for the serious investigation of the UFO
phenomenon by the members of the scientific and academic
community, not to mention that they have all put their own
careers and reputations on the chopping block, I doubt that we
are looking at a transitory disclosure effort solely intended to
hype 'Taken'.

I drove hundreds of miles to be there. To support it. I think
_everyone_ should lend as much support as they can to these
courageous scientists. If we're ever to gain access to any truth
in regard to the UFO question, these are the folks who are going
to produce/provide it.

Be sure to listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' tonight, at 23:00
Eastern, via SurferNet from:

http://www.cfrb.com

EBK will air as much of the audio I recorded as time will allow.

Regards to All, and especially to Steve Kaeser and _all_ the UFO
UpDates List members (some whose names have not been mentioned)
that I had the pleasure of meeting at the Symposium.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                        Re: Starship Memories - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:31:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:48:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Velez


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Starship Memories


 >Source: The Harvard Gazette

 >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

Hello All,

 >Starship Memories:
 >"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

 >By Beth Potier
 >Gazette Staff

 >Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

 >For the past three years, Clancy, a postdoctoral fellow in
 >Harvard's Psychology Department, has studied people who believe
 >they were abducted by aliens from outer space. Her research,
 >done in conjunction with Professors of Psychology Richard
 >McNally and Daniel Schacter, former associate professor Mark
 >Lenzenweger and Harvard Medical School professor Roger Pitman,
 >was recently published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

 >Yet Clancy's interest is not in extraterrestrial beings at all.

 >"As far as science knows, nobody is being abducted by aliens,"
 >she stressed.

<snip>

 >And assuming, as Clancy and her colleagues did, that none of the
 >subjects were actually abducted by space aliens, she drew the
 >conclusion that people who develop false memories in the lab are
 >also more likely to develop false memories of experiences that
 >were suggested or imagined.

The above kind of 'says it all' doesn't it? I'm not shocked that
they didn't find something that they weren't looking for. ie;
that 'some' abductees may be recalling actual, physical
_events._

They did find exactly what they were _looking_for_, however.

Surprise, surprise.

Susan Clancy? Sounds like another 'kid' looking to establish a
career and further her quest for academic grants. Kinda like
telling mom and dad just what they want to hear, so she can
score her 'allowance.'  :)

'Harvard's revenge' and counter to John Mack?  Who knows?

Who cares?

This is just more of the same kind of tunnel visioned crap that
we've already gotten from the late Robert Baker and others like
Elizabeth Loftis and that tin-foil hat wearing dolt Michael
Persinger. All that Ms. Clancy has done is to re-heat some old
hash that she pulled from the fridge.

Been dere, done dat.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Starship Memories - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:37:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:35:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Reason


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:08:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Starship Memories

 >These are two rather glaring oversights on Clancy's part. I'm
 >actually surprised that her dissertation committee passed her
 >with requiring her to correct them. However the issue of
 >repressed/recovered memory is highly politicized, and it's
 >conceivable that that colored her committee's judgement.

When the subject of false memory came up on this List a month or
two back, I made the point that most of the underlying research
was based on word-lists which didn't pay even cursory attention
to the issue of ecological validity, and Clancy's research is
obviously a spectacular example of that.

Obviously, there's mammoth leap of faith involved in
generalizing from a mistake on a word-list to the assumption
that whole memories for extended, anomalous events can be
created more or less arbitrarily. But I think there's another
flaw in this study which is rather more subtle.

The type of error which Clancy has induced in her subjects
involves an inference from context. Evidently her experimental
paradigm is such that this is defined a priori to be an error.
The problem is, that in the context of brain-function generally,
this sort of contextual inference isn't an error at all - in
fact, it's an essential part of the way the brain operates.

To show how, take the "occluded object" problem. It often
happens in the real world that we can't see whole objects all at
once, we can only see part of them. Nevertheless, we infer the
existence of the unseen part of the object from our contextual
knowledge - if we see someone we know standing behind a car, we
don't assume that the part of them we can't see is missing, just
because we can't see the whole person. This sort of process
underlies a number of visual illusions, such as the Kanizsa
triangle. Indeed, an inability to make inferences from context
is one of the characteristic deficits found in certain
neurological conditions, such as autism and Asperger's Syndrome.

So, what Clancy defines as an error is only an error because the
experimental context of her study is completely unrealistic - an
extremely common problem in experimental psychology. Looked at
in another way, what Clancy has found is that people with
"recovered" memories tend to be better at inferring from context
- which is, surely, not all that surprising.


Cathy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                      Re: Starship Memories - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:22:36 UT
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:13:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Memories - Hamilton


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:31:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Starship Memories

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:15:41 -0500
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Starship Memories

 >>Source: The Harvard Gazette

 >>http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html

 >Hello All,

 >>Starship Memories:
 >>"Alien abductees" provide clues to repressed, recovered memories

 >>By Beth Potier
 >>Gazette Staff

 >>Susan Clancy's research has taken her into alien territory.

 >>For the past three years, Clancy, a postdoctoral fellow in
 >>Harvard's Psychology Department, has studied people who believe
 >>they were abducted by aliens from outer space. Her research,
 >>done in conjunction with Professors of Psychology Richard
 >>McNally and Daniel Schacter, former associate professor Mark
 >>Lenzenweger and Harvard Medical School professor Roger Pitman,
 >>was recently published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

 >>Yet Clancy's interest is not in extraterrestrial beings at all.

 >>"As far as science knows, nobody is being abducted by aliens,"
 >>she stressed.

 ><snip>

 >>And assuming, as Clancy and her colleagues did, that none of the
 >>subjects were actually abducted by space aliens, she drew the
 >>conclusion that people who develop false memories in the lab are
 >>also more likely to develop false memories of experiences that
 >>were suggested or imagined.

 >The above kind of 'says it all' doesn't it? I'm not shocked that
 >they didn't find something that they weren't looking for. ie;
 >that 'some' abductees may be recalling actual, physical
 >_events._

 >They did find exactly what they were _looking_for_, however.

 >Surprise, surprise.

 >Susan Clancy? Sounds like another 'kid' looking to establish a
 >career and further her quest for academic grants. Kinda like
 >telling mom and dad just what they want to hear, so she can
 >score her 'allowance.'        :)

 >'Harvard's revenge' and counter to John Mack? Who knows?

 >Who cares?

 >This is just more of the same kind of tunnel visioned crap that
 >we've already gotten from the late Robert Baker and others like
 >Elizabeth Loftis and that tin-foil hat wearing dolt Michael
 >Persinger. All that Ms. Clancy has done is to re-heat some old
 >hash that she pulled from the fridge.


John,

I was waiting to see what you would say. You don't think an
academic study like this is going to look beyond memories for
physical evidence, do you?

Why don't they make a study of those who were wide awake and
fully conscious and yet describe an encounter with aliens? I
would bet they would find another lame hypothesis to account for
it.


Bill H.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                  Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:26:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:12:40 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak


 >From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:08:29 EST
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:47:28 -0500
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Printy

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2


 >>What Brad Sparks pointed out has nothing to do with what I was
 >>saying. Brad was pointing out that Moore's table for Flight #4
 >>showed rise and fall rates that differed substantially from
 >>about half the ones he _really_ used.

 >Brad made the statement that these errors pushed the
 >flight 50 miles to the northeast. I was questioning
 >how he arrived at this value.

You were doing more than that. Like a good little propagandist,
you were trying to mush everything together to confuse the
issues.

One issue is Moore's clearly mangled math. His false rise/fall
rates are just one glaring example, as pointed out by Brad
Sparks.

I mentioned others, actually far more serious, involving his
mathematically bogus calculation of his entire table. He needed
a false calculation to get his little lost Mogul up to the
Foster Ranch. Improbable, internally contradictory assumptions
alone didn't do it for him.

And apparently that still wasn't enough, hence his "fine-tuning"
of the already bogus trajectory by using bogus rise/fall values
in disagreement with his own table.

Now here's how Printy tried to confuse everything. Instead of
dealing with the _undeniable fact_ that Moore's actually used
rise/fall values disagree substantially with his own table --
  yet a further indication of fraud on his part -- Printy tried
to take the discussion off another tangent, namely that Sparks
and I are getting various different trajectories, never
explaining that we are talking about different mathematical
errors and different assumptions being used by Moore.

In other words, Printy was again trying to shift the focus onto
us instead of Moore. If we disagree or if we are wrong in any
way, then this somehow exonerates Moore.

This is false logic. Even if either of us was grossly wrong in
how we did our own calculations, this does not somehow validate
what Moore did or invalidate our criticisms of his methodology.
Moore's math "mistakes" are still going to be there for anybody
else to see, such as his false rise/fall rates or improper
calculation of his own table.

 >>Naturally Printy totally screwed it up. Just like Moore
 >>improperly pushed all his velocity data back one data point, it
 >>appears Printy decided to push back the rise rate data instead
 >>of carrying it forward from one point to the next, which is the
 >>way the table definitely shows the calculation should be done
 >>(see below). That is seemingly how he gets his first two
 >>"corrected" times.

 >I used this method based on several reasons:
 >1. Moore stated that once the balloons hit the tropopause at
 >52,000 feet, they lost there rate of rise. If one started with
 >the 100 ft/min rate of rise, the rate of rise at 52-52.1K would
 >be 350 ft/min, followed by a still rapid 70 ft/min at 52.1-
 >53.7K. This is unlikely based on looking at flight #5's
 >performance where the rates were 50-53 ft/min. It seemed like a
 >conservative way of plotting the ascent rates.

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gave you permission to
change Moore's table to suit your own tastes. The whole point of
the recalculation exercise was to see what would happen if you
used Moore's actual rise/fall values, not ones that you thought
made more sense.

As is, by pushing back the rise rates by one notch, you threw
out the first value in the table instead of using it. That's one
mistake.

This then causes you a serious problem down the line. Because
you have thrown out a value and pushed everything back, you now
have the problem at the peak where the balloons are still
rising, but your flawed "push-back" calculation has Moore's rise
rate swinging negative.

It is impossible for the balloon to continue to rise with a
negative rise rate. If you knew how to read a table properly,
this alone should have clued you in that your push-back method
was dead wrong.

But as I have seen repeatedly with your work, you never let
simple logic and facts get in your way. Rather than realizing
that you were doing something wrong and starting over, you
compounded your mistakes. You couldn't have a negative rise rate
-- but no problem! Insert a new positive rise rate in its place.
In other words, change Moore's table yet again.

 >2. Moore's values of ascent clearly show he intended the rates
 >of rise to be applied this way.

Since when is mind-reading a proper way to interpret a table?
The _fact_ that your method caused the rise rate to swing
negative before the balloons had finished rising would tell
anybody _competent_ in math that this method was wrong.  No mind
reading is necessary here if one knows how to read a table
properly.

 >3. I was not aware of any balloon flights that had a 100ft/min
 >rise rate for the first 2.8 minutes. It did not conform to known
 >performance of the flight records.

Again nobody gave you permission to change the table to suit
your own tastes. Moore used 100 ft/min for his first rise rate.
You're stuck with it buddy boy! It doesn't matter whether or not
it makes sense to you. That is the value you use in running the
calculation. Instead you don't like it, so you throw it out.

 >>However, even Printy is smart enough to realize he can't reach
 >>peak altitude with a negative rise rate. So he inserts an extra
 >>positive rise rate (15 ft/min) into his table. (Also when I
 >>tried to reproduce his "corrected" times, I found that he also
 >>seemingly altered Moore's rise rate of 21 ft/sec to 20 ft/sec.
 >>Printy is changing Moore's table, but he doesn't tell us that.)

 >The spreadsheet I used has 21 ft/sec so there must be an error
 >somewhere.

It's not even the major point even if you didn't change this
value. You still improperly altered the table and ran the
calculation wrong. You threw out the first value and then
inserted another one further down the line to avoid the disaster
of balloons rising with a negative rise rate.

 >>Now remember, this is my best-guess reconstruction of the
 >>"Printy way." God only knows what the man really did!

 >You are correct that I maintained the 15ft/min value for the one
 >step.

Right, you improperly inserted your own value into the table and
changed the table. You were forced to do this because your own
method created a mathematical paradox of a rising balloon but
with a negative rise rate.

Instead of paying attention to this obvious red flag that
something was badly wrong, you ignored it and changed the table
instead.

To paraphrase somebody who e-mailed me about Printy's
mathematical prowess, somebody who is competent in math can
still make mistakes. But they are smart enough to know they have
made a mistake when they run into an obvious snag in the
calculations.

But the problem with Tim Printy is that he ignores the red
flags. He knows enough to run a calculation but not enough to
know when he is wrong. A little math in Printy's hands is a
dangerous thing.

Printy is also arrogant and clueless about his own shortcomings.
  This math-challenged debunker then hurls abuse at the likes of
Brad Sparks and myself based on his own lack of understanding.
It's not that we are above criticism in our own math. But what
Printy loves to do is drag the debate off-topic onto
inconsequential mathematical minutia that has nothing to do with
the key issues under discussion.  Thus, e.g., he'll try to make
an issue of whether Brad Sparks accurately measured exactly how
much Charles Moore misplotted his Flight 5 crash site, instead
of the fact that Moore clearly misplotted it.

But what really galls us about Printy is that he usually doesn't
even know what he is talking about. E.g., instead of having the
mathematical smarts to realize the Charles Moore's calculation
of a Flight #4 trajectory is mathematically wrong in numerous
ways, he attacks me personally on his web page. Supposedly it is
me who is in error because I couldn't figure out exactly how
Moore did his calculation. It never dawns on him that maybe the
_real_ problem is that Moore's calculation is wrong.

Above I mentioned how Printy ignores red flags that somebody
mathematically competent would not ignore. Another good example
of this was when Printy finally figured out how Moore did his
table calculation. Even Printy noticed that the "Moore way"
resulted in the turn altitudes going badly out of synch with one
another on ascent and descent. But he just dismissed this from
his little debunker mind with the comment that he was sure Moore
had a "good reason" for doing this.
 >I made a transposition error on the next step in my spread
 >sheet resulting in the difference between the two values on
 >descent.

An error like this in setting up a spreadsheet is easy to make
and doesn't bother me. What _does_ bother me is how Printy
obviously changed calculation methods in midstream. (It
resembles how Moore keeps changing his assumptions in midstream
as well). Printy pushed everything back on the ascent phase to
suit his own tastes of what the "right" values should have been,
then had to stick in an extra value to avoid disaster, which now
meant no more push-back for the rest of the table. Now he is
carrying the rise rates forward instead of backward through the
rest of the calculation.

It's too bad he didn't do this from the beginning, because this
was the _right_ way to do the calculation given the way Moore
set his table up. It would have completely avoided throwing out
the first rise rate and later having to stuff another value into
the table to avoid mathematical paradox. In other words, if you
do the calculation _right_, you don't have to improperly change
the table like Printy did.

 >>So why is Printy now going back to Moore's original time line?
 >>What Printy is trying to CONCEAL here is that his own
 >>"corrected" time line creates a trajectory that misses by a huge
 >>margin. When I run Printy's "corrected" time line complete with
 >>Moore's flawed backwards velocity calculation (that Printy still
 >>claims is correct), you get a trajectory that lands the balloons
 >>almost 20 miles west of the "desired" Moore landing spot on the
 >>Foster Ranch. Can't have that happen, can we?

 >I used the original timeline since it was what Moore assumed to
 >be the duration of the flight. This is something you contest in
 >your webpage as being too long. Now you seem to want the flight
 >to last another 85 minutes?

Not only is Printy a bit "challenged" in his math. He can't even
rationalize very well. The whole point of doing a recalculation
of Moore's time line using his actual table rise rates was to
see what effects this had on his model.

The fact that Printy's calculation produced a timeline extended
by 85 minutes should have been yet another red flag of something
seriously wrong. In this case, it should have indicated to him
that maybe his own calculation was off, or if it was correct,
that Moore's model was fatally broken in yet another way.

Printy knew that neither he nor Moore could produce a
conceivable rationale for extending Flight #4's time aloft yet
another 85 minutes. Moore had already made it far and away the
longest of all the early Mogul neoprene weather balloon flights
by over 2 hours. And to do this he had to flip-flop on his 1995
position of a post-dawn launch (around 5:15 a.m.). Instead in
1997 in his book, he claimed the same weather data and notations
in Albert Crary's diary supported a 3 a.m. launch. Nothing had
changed except Moore's need to extend Flight #4's time aloft by
over 2 hours. The reason Moore needed to do this is because of
the more detailed Orogrande wind data he obtained in the interim
had the winds blowing more strongly and taking the balloons much
further away from his desired landmarks and crash site than his
assumed winds in his 1995 model.

(To see these changes between his 1995 and 1997 model, see:)

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

Another problem Printy confronted with his extra 85 minutes was
the serious effect it had on Moore's Flight #4 trajectory. When
I ran the simulation the "Printy way" with the extended flight
time, the balloons crash 19 miles west of Moore's desired crash
site at the Foster Ranch.

But Printy, as usual, has trouble following things to their
logical conclusion. 85 minutes spelled big trouble to himself
and Moore's model. So he went into his usual spin mode. Instead
of coming out and saying that it was indeed a very significant
problem, he instead called it "not signficant." Then he just
ignored the extra time, saying he was going back to Moore's
original timeline.

Finally, to go back to Moore's original timeline, he had to
change Moore's table yet again by aborting the full ascent. None
of this, of course, bothers Printy in the least.

 >>The big problem is that extra 84.9 minutes, which Printy
 >>disingenuously labels "not significant." A big part of those
 >>extra minutes adds a lot of westward drift mileage to the
 >>trajectory, resulting in the final big miss. By going back to
 >>Moore's original time line, he can lop about 77 of those extra
 >>minutes off of the flight.

 >It is not significant because the flight's direction/speed is not
 >affected. Keeping with Moore's assumed duration of flight,
 >there is no change in direction/speed for this increased time
 >in the stratosphere. This is what I meant by being "not
 >significant".

Again Printy trying to spin himself out of a corner. There are 2
big problems with those extra 85 minutes. First the balloons are
up far too long even by Moore flip-flop logic. And second, the
balloons miss by a wide margin. Both are highly "significant" by
any definition.

But Printy doesn't want you to think about this. Instead he
comes up with an "explanation" for his "not significant" remark
that makes no sense and has nothing to do with the problems
produced by the extra 85 minutes.

 >>But Printy doesn't tell you any of this. Printy is a true
 >>student of the Charles Moore school of secret, back-stage
 >>mathematical manipulation.

 >If I had made the flight longer you surely would have protested
 >that the flight was unrealistically long. Obviously, I could not
 >get it right either way.

Printy could have gotten it "right" by sticking to the truth
instead of trying to spin an undesirable result.  If Printy had
been honest about this, he should have noted that his extra
calculated 85 minutes did indeed produce serious problems for
Moore's theory. The flight was now way too long and the balloons
missed by a big margin. Instead he lied and claimed the extra
time was "not significant" in how it affected Moore's model.

Remember earlier how he changed Moore's table when he ran his
revised time calculation because he didn't like the listed rise
rate values? Well he's back changing things he doesn't like
again. He didn't like the outcome of his own calculation, so he
just ignored it. He went back to Moore's original time-line,
threw out the extra time (just like he threw out the
"undesirable" initial rise rate) and again claimed that nothing
of significance has changed when he recalculated Moore's model.

 >>Again, who the hell cares? The _real_ point is that Moore's math
 >>is completely screwed up and his "calculated" trajectory
 >>"exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site a very bad joke.

 >You missed the point. I was wondering from the "mathematically
 >challenged" point of view, how Sparks reached his value. Based
 >on what you have written, it seems one of you also has problems
 >with their math.

I don't know exactly what Brad Sparks did. I get a different
result, but again this not the _real_ point. Whether Brad Sparks
or myself miscalculated a trajectory has nothing to do with
whether or not our criticisms of Moore's assumptions, data, and
methodology are valid or not. Again Printy is trying to make the
issue us instead of Moore.

If Moore is right and we are wrong, then Printy should be
pointing out in _specific_ fashion _exactly_ where our
criticisms our wrong. For example:

MOORE'S FAULTY RISE RATES:

1. Brad Sparks pointed out that Moore used many rise rates that
disagreed with Moore's own table. True or False?

2. These different rise rates have significant effects on
Moore's model. True or false?

MIS-CALCULATION OF FLIGHT 4 TRAJECTORY:

I pointed out that Moore's methodology in running his own table
was mathematically flawed. Moore pushed back all his wind
velocities in order to get his balloon "exactly" to the ranch.
In doing so he did the following, that completely invalidates
his "technique":

1. Destroyed the symmetry built into his table between the
velocity values on rise vs. those on fall. True or false?

2. Destroyed the correspondence in turn altitudes on rise and
fall. True or false?

3. Destroyed the exact correspondence in turn altitudes between
Flights #4 & #5. True or false?

4. Calculated average velocity values in his Flight #5, Table 2,
in which he calculates averages between _successive_ data
points. When he spliced some of this data into his Flight #4
table for higher altitude winds, he used the data in the
_reverse_ direction from the way he originally calculated it,
which is mathematically invalid. True or false?

5. His above reverse use of his own average wind direction
values cut the Flight #4 ascent time by 30 minutes and forced an
early turn. True or false?

MOORE'S MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS:

Moore stated he was assuming Flight #4 was similarly configured
and performed as well or better than the successful Flight #5.
Yet when the numbers in his table are examined he really did the
following:

ASCENT:

1. Moore removed the "kink" in the ascent trajectory so evident
in Flight #5. The "kink" was the point at 35,000 feet where
extra lifter balloons were cut off by a special device,
drastically slowing the ascent of the Flight #5 balloons and
thus greatly extending the ascent time to the stratosphere of
the balloons. Instead, Moore has his Flight #4 never showing
lifter balloon cutoff, thus never slowing its ascent and
consequently reaching the stratosphere much earlier than the
real #5. True or false?

2. The removal of the lifter balloon cutoff contradicted his
stated assumption that #4 was similarly configured and worked as
well or better than #5, i.e. had properly functioning altitude
control equipment. True or false?

3. By removing lifter balloon cutoff, Moore greatly
foreshortened traversal time through the upper troposphere where
the winds were strongest, and thus greatly foreshortened his
ascent ground trajectory. True or false?

4.  By greatly foreshortening the rise trajectory and forcing an
early turn, Moore forced his balloon to pass close to his
critical landmarks of Arabela and Capitan Peak.  Yet Moore
claimed that the winds were "exactly right" to take them there.
  True or false?

DESCENT:

1. Moore's own redrawing of Flight #5 (his Figure 1 in his 1997
book) shows two other "kinks" on the descent trajectory where
other altitude control equipment caused ballast dumps, again
drastically slowing descent. Moore removes these kinks and
ballast dumps from his Flight #4, and instead has the balloons
speeding up their fall. True or false?

(To see Moore's Figure 1, showing the kinks on rise and fall for
Flight #5, see:)

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight5_Fig1_Moore.html

2. The removal of the automatic ballast dumps contradicted his
stated assumption that #4 was similarly configured and worked as
well or better than #5, i.e. had properly functioning altitude
control equipment. True or false?

3. Moore has Flight #4 falling to the ground much faster than
any of the real early neoprene Moguls, Flights #5-#7. True or
false?

4. The effect of this very fast fall is to drastically
foreshorten the descent ground trajectory and prevents serious
overshoot of Moore's desired crash site. True or false?

Well I could go on like this until the cows come home, but that
will do for now. As I pointed out on my Website, if you actually
calculate Moore's table _correctly_, you get approximately 17
miles of overshoot to the northeast of Moore's carefully
massaged Foster Ranch crash site. And if you hold his feet to
the fire regarding his stated assumptions of similar
configuration and properly functioning equipment, i.e., rise and
fall profiles similar to that of Flight #5, then the miss is
more like 70 miles to the northeast.

Printy has never dealt with the mathematical objections (he
can't), and his attempts on his Website to debunk my criticisms
about Moore stating one thing but doing another as they affect
the rise and fall are a mix of diversion and straw man
argumentation, self-contradiction, an inability to stay on
point, and simply inane logic.

Instead I'm accused of character assassination against Moore and
other perfidies, such as concealing critical evidence that
supposedly exonerates Moore.

 >>(Printy will no doubt try to make an issue that my results don't
 >>agree with Brad Sparks. But this is another "who cares?"
 >>diversion. The _real_ issue is that Moore's math and model are
 >>horrifically in error.)

 >Of course I would point this out. The whole point of my argument
 >was not if Moore's model was correct but that the errors noted
 >did not seem to have a great effect on the times involved and
 >that Sparks proclamation that it made the flight move 50 miles
 >further was incorrect.

More disingenuousness by Printy. Printy's own calculation has a
_big_ effect on the times to the point of causing a big miss and
greatly extending the duration of flight, that Printy wouldn't
be able to explain away. Of course, Printy did his calculation
completely wrong, but that's another issue altogether. He
thought he did it right and is outright lying about his numbers
not showing a very significant effect.

He is also missing the point about Moore's math. Once again,
Moore indicates he was doing one thing, but when the numbers
were examined he was doing something else entirely. His table
shows one set of rise rates, but he used others in their place.
This somehow doesn't bother Printy.

 >>The _real_ issue is what _Moore_ did.
 >>Moore's Flight #4 model trajectory is hopelessly broken. It's a
 >>complete and utter fraud.

 >Not exactly. I have stated before, and will state again, that
 >Moore's flight path in his book was not necessarily THE flight
 >path that flight number 4 took.

Again the clueless or disingenuous Printy misses the point.
Moore could only get his Flight #4 to the Foster Ranch by
repeated _cheating_, first with his assumptions, then with his
math. His whole model is a fraud.

What I also stated very clearly on my web site was that the
model really demonstrates that any trajectory taking balloons to
the Foster Ranch, given Moore's wind, data was highly
improbable. I even generated my own trajectory in a much
simpler, mathematically correct model. But the problem was I had
to greatly rotate the winds to the north and drastically cut the
wind speeds. I felt that was also very unlikely to have
happened.

 >You have created many models and
 >variations on this theme and seemed to have created a
 >"footprint" to demonstrate that Moore was correct in that the
 >winds would take the flight in the direction of Foster Ranch.

This is completely false. What I clearly demonstrated through
this alternate modeling was the _improbability_ of the balloons
getting to the ranch and that far more probable scenarios have
the balloons missing by a wide margin off to the northeast.

In one model I adhered to the Flight #5 ascent and descent
profiles (what Moore implied he was doing but didn't) and the
balloons missed by nearly 70 miles to the NE. And in another
model I adhered to his 1995 assumption that the balloons were
launched post-dawn (instead of his flip-flop 2 years later to 3
a.m.), and gave them full Flight #5 time profile, which included
a greatly foreshortened stratospheric drift period. In that case
the balloons miss by over a 100 miles.

As I wrote in my summary:

"Ironically what Moore has really demonstrated is just how
unlikely it would have been for Flight #4 to end up at the
Foster Ranch. Moore is working with about a dozen different
variables, both stated and unstated, and all of them have to
assume Moore's values for his trajectory to work. It would be
similar to tossing a dozen coins in the air and expecting them
all to come up heads. It's certainly 'possible', but the
probability is very low. His 'possible' trajectory is really an
"improbable" trajectory, a statistical outlier."

 >Any number of variables can shift the location of the landing
 >site in this "footprint". You even showed one method of the
 >flight to get to the Foster ranch.

In addition to being math-challenged, Printy is also badly
challenged in the reading comprehension department. As I wrote
at the very end of my Web page in the 4th addendum:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html


"Because it uses much less probable values for wind direction
and speed... this modified... model to the Foster Ranch is at
least an order of magnitude less probable than the complex
trajectory to the Kellahin site [30-40 miles to the NE]. Moore's
trajectory, with its many strained assumptions, has a similar
lower order of probability. The Foster Ranch crash site still
remains a statistical outlier no matter what combination of
assumptions are used to get the balloons there. Fewer, less
extreme assumptions always take the balloons further to the
north and east of the Foster Ranch..."


What Printy doesn't get, or chooses to ignore, is that
"possible" does not mean the same thing as "probable." It is
"possible" Printy might win the lottery tomorrow, but it isn't
very probable. He might win a poker hand with four queens, but
again it isn't very probable.

The winds pushing the balloons to the Foster Ranch has a similar
order of probability of winning a poker hand with four-of-a-kind
or a full house. Sure it's "possible", but it doesn't happen
very often.

Moore's winds are simply blowing too strongly and pushing
everything too far eastward. That's why he resorts to all his
subterfuges to greatly foreshorten the trajectory and also push
his balloons back to the west.

What one wants to examine are the _more probable_ trajectories,
not the remotely possible ones. In other words, we want
trajectories the poker equivalent of winning a hand with a pair
instead of a full house.

What happens if one doesn't "cook the books" like Moore did and
instead plays it straight, using proper math and flight profiles
similar to known Mogul flights like Flight #5? If you do that,
then you get those big misses I was talking about.

But instead of accurately representing what I really wrote,
Printy _again_ resorts to spin. According to him, I somehow
established a "footprint" showing that the winds were right to
take the balloons to the ranch and that Moore was really
correct.

Yeah right!  And pigs can fly.

 >There are other variables
 >that could push it there as well.

Yeah, such as wishful thinking and additional spin-doctoring.

 >If you look at what I have
 >written, I have never stated that your analysis of Moore's math
 >was wrong. I have never stated Moore's model was accurate. I
 >have only argued that your interpretation of the meaning of
 >these errors was wrong.

More flagrance by the ever-disingenuous Tim Printy.

Actually what is happening here is that Printy is beginning to
back-pedal. I think even he knows Moore's model is in shambles
and completely indefensible, but doesn't have the guts to come
out and admit it. (Has anyone ever seen a debunker criticize
another debunker?)

So he tries to put as much of a happy face on it as he can.
Moore was really basically right, and somehow my work really
showed it. He never accused me of character assassination or
concealing critical evidence. He never said I did anything
wrong.

Printy, in addition to be severely challenged in math and
reading comprehension, is also severely challenged in the
integrity department.

 >>Whoopie-do! Printy figured out how Moore did it _wrong_! Have
 >>you noticed that Printy has been totally unable to show how
 >>Moore did anything right?

 >Sparks stated that he could easily refute this suggestion and
 >then compounded one error to make four. This was not correct.

Your point is what exactly? That Moore's clearly erroneous math
and numbers somehow become magically right again?

 >>And Moore's _indisputable_ map alterations all seem designed to
 >>conceal just how close Flight #5 came to Roswell base the next
 >>day. This also seems designed to bolster Moore's claim that
 >>Roswell base knew nothing about Mogul and thus somehow were
 >>grossly confused when they came across the debris the following
 >>month.

 >Exactly what map alterations are "indisputable"?

Printy is still playing games. Back he goes to the Debunker
Denial ploy He knows full well what map alterations are
indisputable:

1. Flight #5 passed only 4 miles south of Roswell base, which
was marked on the original Mogul trajectory graphic along with
the trajectory. Thre draftsman, however, identified it only as
"Roswell."  Moore when he redrew the figure, which he claimed he
did "without change", also has "Roswell" on his map.  But this
isn't the same "Roswell".  Instead Moore removed the base and
substituted Roswell town in its place 6 miles further to the
north.

2. He shifted the crash site from 16-17 miles east of the base
on the original graphic to 31 miles east of his newly drawn
Roswell town.

3. When Sparks confronted Moore on this in e-mail last summer,
Moore flat-out lied about the proximity of Flight #5 to the
base, claiming it came no closer than 15-20 miles.  This was a
good indication that his removal of Roswell base and his moving
of the crash site was no accident but very premeditated and
designed to push Flight #5 as far away from "Roswell" base as
possible.

To view Moore's changes, go to:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

 >His trajectory for flight #5 is accurately represented on the
 >maps with the exception of the endpoint, which is in dispute.

Moore's endpoint corresponds to nothing documented in Mogul
records. He made it up out of thin air and nearly doubled the
distance between the originally marked crash site to the base.
His removal of the base from the map was also highly misleading,
making it appear that Flight #5 was much more removed from the
base than it really was.

 >As I have shown, Sparks attempts to make it look like Moore
 >was moving the path farther away on each successive
 >publication is false.

But Moore definitely used two different values for his "unique"
crash site, one in his table for Flight 5 and anther in his
plot, didn't he?  Even Printy admits to that.

But even that's not the point. Moore altered the plot, period!
Printy is again discussing irrelevancies instead of staying on
point.  Whether Brad Sparks measured perfectly isn't the issue.
Moore's alterations are.

 >If you are talking about the location of the RAAF not being in
 >his maps, I can hardly say this was an "alteration". You might
 >call it an omission but, then again, anything to prop up the
 >RAAF must have known theory is fair game.

Printy seems to believe that word play and propaganda ploys are
a substitute for sound argumentation. What is it about the word
"alteration" that Printy doesn't understand?

 >The location of Roswell in his maps can be explained when one
 >examines the locations of all the landmarks and the locations of
 >landmarks/fixed points shown in the charts for flights 5 and 6.
 >It seems that the NYU used the center of Alamogordo AFB, while
 >Moore used the launch point from the north end of the field. I
 >notice you chose to use the position of Roswell and RAAF that
 >was furthest from Alamogorodo. Why didn't you choose to use the
 >values for RAAF listed on fig. 32? Since there is a significant
 >difference, did you try and explore the possibility of which was
 >correct? I don't think so based on what I measured.

This refers to Moore also shifting the location of Roswell town
about 1 to 2 miles further west compared to Mogul plots. Even if
one accepts Printy's argument that this was just somehow a
"correction" to the original plots, _logic_ would tell us that
_everything_ plotted on the map should have been "corrected" or
moved by the same amount and in the same direction.

Instead Moore picked up the crash site and moved it in the
_opposite direction_ by a completely different amount. (This is
another one of those indisputable items that Printy will no
doubt continue to deny is indisputable.)

In addition to everything else, Printy also can't think
straight.



David Rudiak

Website:

http://roswellproof.homestead.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:22:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:16:10 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:40:33 +0000
 >>Subject: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>Source: BBC On-Line

 >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2424927.stm

 >>"The US space agency (NASA) has cancelled the book intended to
 >>challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings
 >>were a hoax.

 ><snip>

 >>Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >>official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >>certain credibility to the hoax theory."

 >In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

 >Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
 >is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
 >that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
 >comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
 >happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."

Jim,

You forgot Adamaski's trip to Venus and how L. Ron Hubbard
visited the Van Allen Belt, not to mention ET going to land on a
mountain top in Arizona in Dec of 2000.... :)


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:22:56 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:42:50 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rimmer


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 06:09:24 -0800
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >Hi Jim:

<snip>

 >It was easy enough to ignore the yahoos at first, that's my
 >first inclination. Who cares what a few nuts think? But then,
 >over time as memories dim and new generations arise, it starts
 >to sound credible .. more and more people start to doubt we
 >landed a man on the Moon.

 >There are definite parallels to the Holocaust, a very similar
 >denial, and the same sort of pot-boiler opportunism.

I think this is a very important point, and I wonder if it is
just "pot- boiler opportunism". I quote the following from Peter
Rogerson's review of a book, "Telling Lies About Hitler", about
the David Irving trial in Britain, which in on the Magonia
website. Irving sued the historian Deborah Lipstadt for naming
him as a Holocaust denier. Peter commented:

"Evans points out that the holocaust denial strikes at the very
heart of historical knowledge, if we can start to doubt major
world events with thousands of witnesses, mountains of documents
of all kinds, all knitting together, then we never know any
about the past. (What comes next: there never was a First World
War; slavery in the USA was a myth; the Berlin Wall never
existed?). Of course, outside the ranks of the neo-Nazi faithful
full-frontal holocaust denial has not made many converts;
perhaps that is why the "revisionists" are now taking on less
emotive targets, such as the moon landing, as a sort of
seduction. If you can persuade someone that one of the central
events of the twentieth century never occurred, it makes arguing
others were fakes that much easier. You can also get
documentaries on TV channels which which would never entertain
the real hard stuff."

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/sept02.htm for the full review

It might be interesting to examine the backgrounds of some of
those most forceful in promoting the "Moon Landing Hoax".


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:57:45 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:27:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:11:48 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:51:31 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>The witness stated, "It then turned west and dimmed, as though
 >>it was thundering back into space. "

 >I was unaware that Iridium satellites changed direction.
 >However, the description is similar to those objects captured on
 >video from the Space Shuttle. Russian Pravda is claiming the US
 >has aircraft that operate in space

George:

When the witness assumed that it was, "thundering back into
space", he assumed that it turned west because it dimmed.

How would an "aircraft" operating in space "turn"?  It would be
in orbit.

Pravda, the old Communist Party paper, means 'Truth', in
Russian.  There is another paper, "Isvestia", meaning 'News'.
Back in the old days there used to be a joke in Moscow, "There's
no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News."


Just disinformation.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 22:01:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:37:19 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book


 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 ><snip>

 >>>Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >>>official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >>>certain credibility to the hoax theory."

 >>In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

 >>Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
 >>is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
 >>that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
 >>comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
 >>happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."

 >Jim,

 >Well said! But don't forget that the Earth is hollow.

 >- Dick

Yeah, but only on the inside Dick.

Don






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2

From: Marspyrs@aol.com
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:42:28 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:40:55 -0500
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:26:16 -0800
 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Rudiak

 >>From: Tim Printy <TPrinty@aol.com
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:08:29 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:47:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2 - Printy

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2
.....

Could the main points be summarized as follows?

1. Moore's claims depend on maps and plots essentially identical
to the originals, plus a table of values either known or copied
from other flights, and from weather data.

2. On Moore's 1995 and 1997 maps, Roswell Air Force Base
(Roswell Army Air Field - RAAF) is missing from the maps.

3. Moore's 1995 and 1997 balloon plot for Flight #5 has been
extended by 13 miles without any known foundation for so doing -
  even if the original plot line ended in an "arrow" rather than
an "X", since there was no annotation as to where the balloon
might have crashed "off map".

4. Using the values from Moore's table published in the 1990s,
it is impossible to recreate Moore's plot for Flight #4 using
standard mathematical procedures. This means that a large number
of mistakes were made in the table, or the computed crash point
is a fraud.

5. To make Flight #4 crash on the Foster Ranch via plotting
using Moore's table, one must make drastic alterations to the
data, including the elimination of the first data point. This
means that a large number of mistakes were made in the table, or
the table is a fraud.

6. Since Roswell Base is not shown on his 1995 and 1997 maps,
discussion of distances of the balloon from the Base by Moore
(using his maps from the 1990s) are irrelevant and can be
dismissed, until he publishes a revised map showing the Base.
One cannot intelligently and cogently discuss something which
doesn't exist.

7. The location of the Base can be illustrated by researchers
drawing it on the 1995 and 1997 maps, using the old maps as a
source, or offsetting it by 2 miles if a different launch point
was used for the new maps. (Moore could do the same thing and
publish it on a website).

8. When Printy can't get Moore's numbers to work, he changes the
numbers and the methods so the answer will come out the same as
Moore's.

To summarize the summary:

S1. Moore has caused the all-important military base to
disappear from his two 1990s maps, and has apparently not
published a revision showing the Base.

S2. Moore has made dozens of mistakes in his 1990s table for
Flight #4.

Conclusion by CSICOP et al: Professor Moore has proven that
Flight #4 probably landed exactly on the Foster Ranch, and it
was this debris which Mac Brazel recovered, and which so baffled
the ignorant and clueless Major Jesse Marcel of Roswell Base - a
base which doesn't even exist.

If it makes sense to CSICOP and Printy, how could it possibly
be wrong?

I always say, If you flunk a math test, find the Teacher's
Original Test Sheet, and change the values in the problems to
match your answers. Then complain! (2+1=3, not 4). I'll bet
Rudiak and Sparks never thought of that. They probably aced the
test, those dummies...

Time to shift, time to shift... More tea? More tea? A very merry
Un-Birthday to all the underground propagandists, government
agents, fundamentalist schemers, the seething and simmering, and
the neurologically impaired! (I admit to being in the last
category, but I'm not _that_ impaired that I can't see what's
happening).


Dave Morton








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                          Re: Terminology - Maltby

From: Carol Maltby <CarolMaltby@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:07:15 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:44:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Terminology - Maltby


 >From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 19:00:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Terminology - Bueche


<snip>

 >Personally I'd encourage people to say the words "unidentified
 >flying object" rather than say "UFO," for the simple reason that
 >the term is abbreviated so often that there is probably one or
 >two entire generations who have no idea what it stands for,
 >unless they were a fan of the X-files. Give them words they can
 >hold on to without any specialized knowledge.

 >When reporters write on this subject, I try to help them with
 >their language a bit, suggesting terms like "alien contact,"
 >"contact," "alien encounter," "interaction", "visit," "episode,"
 >etcetera, so they realize that in their reporting they can
 >create more nuance than they would if they only used "abduction"
 >as a catch-all word (which they often do, even when it does not
 >apply).

 >Developing language is important if we are to convey what we
 >mean, and I applaud Connors for making an effort, even if her
 >first suggestion didn't seem to take.

 >By the way, on a related note, I want to mention that anyone who
 >interacts with reporters might do well to have a few copies of
 >the young-adult almanac, "Almanac of Alien Encounters" by Eric
 >Elfman, to place into reporters' hands for instant
 >perspective.

Are there any short guides on the Web discussing nuances of UFO
vocabulary that could be specifically aimed at reporters? If
there aren't, it would be useful to have some guides available.
It would need to be short, a couple of pages at most that could
be easily downloaded, to be given to the reporter as part of the
background orientation.   Might be good to let them know what
terms are likely to raise hackles, what cliches to avoid. Maybe
include some questions that might make them think about how they
can avoid sounding like the rest of the hacks and thus make
themselves sound better. You'd want to do it subtly, as you'd
want to give the impression that this is just helpful background
information that's in their self-interest, rather than having it
taken as an attempt to control content.

Will, do you have anything written up that would fit the bill,
given your experience? Is there anything in Elfman's book that
could be reprinted with his permission (and clear links for
ordering the original) that would suffice?

Carol Maltby







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 02:38:28 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:53:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:24:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


 >>From: TCarey1947@aol.com
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:14:09 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:25:31 EST
 >>>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>SCI FI CHANNEL GETTING INVOLVED IN UFO RESEARCH

 >>>SCI FI Channel, as I suggested in Filer's Files last May, is
 >>>sponsoring a landmark archeological excavation at the 1947
 >>>Roswell Crash Site. SCI FI Channel's recently announced an
 >>>initiative to bring scientific, congressional and media
 >>>attention to the UFO phenomenon. Remote sensing technologies
 >>>from the University of New Mexico, will be used to excavate the
 >>>alleged crash site of an alien craft. Working under top secret
 >>>conditions, skilled archeologists will attempt to find physical
 >>>evidence of an extraterrestrial craft. "THE ROSWELL CRASH:
 >>>STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE" will be hosted by Bryant Gumbel on
 >>>Friday, November 22, beginning at 8 PM (ET/PT). Sci.Fi.com

 >>George, List, All:

 >>George Filer leaves the impression that the Roswell
 >>archaeological dig sponsored by the Sci Fi Channel has yet to
 >>happen. Actually, the dig was conducted in September and will be
 >>part of Sci Fi's new, two-hour documentary on Roswell which will
 >>air on Friday evening, November 22nd

 >Good Morning, Tom, List, All -

 >Say Tom, were you actually in the room when Don Schmitt lied
 >about the CUFOS archaeological dig at the debris field or are
 >you unaware of this? And for those keeping score at home, this
 >resets the "statute of limitations clock" that Schmitt is so
 >fond of mentioning to 2009.

Kevin, List all,

What exactly was the DS (or is that BS?) lie about the CUFOS
archaeological dig at the debris field?

Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:42:21 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:10:21 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:17:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:00:34 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:42:17 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:55:14 +0000
 >>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

 >>>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500
 >>>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing


Hello UpDate savants all,

 > Or do I just detect envy of somebody's book contract with NASA?

Yes, I am envious. NASA should have chosen me.

The trouble is that as the author of four published books, my
charges are extremely high, if only because I don't write school
essays. I doubt if NASA could afford to engage me. Oberg's
$15000 would not keep me in booze and girls for a month, never
mind any extras. As a writer proper I tend also to use images,
and that kind of thing would scare NASA to death, as it scares
most flat-footed people of this Earth, hollow or otherwise.
Still, sorry for breaking the rationalist utilitarian law of
thou shalt not imagine! Thank you sir, for your comparison of my
List posting to the work "irrelevant" Norman Mailer. I went out
and bought a good vintage on the strength of that.

Regarding your claim that Menzel, Sheaffer, and Condon were
Fortean thinkers, as a feature writer and reviewer for the
Fortean Times and the author of a recently published book on
Charles Fort, Politics of the Imagination, I was somewhat taken
aback by this, and I do not believe a word of it, just as there
are some who do not believe that a Moon landing took place. But
you learn something every day, I suppose.

 >> The response, from anyone else, would be instantly
 >>farted off as totally evasive.

Please Larry, I assume this list is for scholars and gentlemen,
and this is street-fighting language. Yes, I have been known to
street fight myself, but only against WASP pelicans, and you are
far too intelligent to be a leafy Dark Age Anglo-Saxon pelican
(supersonic or otherwise), from the old pre-New Age Methodist
curiosity shop, although you probably have the same terminal
problems with regard to meeting elemental beings. You can remedy
this latter problem by reading my book, Looking for Orthon. It
will annoy you to death, but that is always a good start on the
road to Rome.

 >>> Sounds like what you'd get if Marshall McLuhan and
 >>>>Robert Anton Wilson were locked in a cupboard
 >>>>together for nine months.

I would like to thank Jim for the comparison of my humble
posting to that of Marshall McLuhan and Robert Anton Wilson.
This makes a total of no less than three famous names pronounced
in the same breath as mine own. If I can achieve that in a
single List post, then I am more than pleased. With such praise
ringing in my ears, last night I bought rather an expensive
cigar and took out both my wife and two ex-mistresses to dinner
on the strength of it. I thank you for selling a lot of my
books, sir, but the bad news for your good self (and many
others) is that there is worse to come. Having done Adamski and
Fort, I am now turning to Captain Ruppelt, but you will have to
hold your breath for a short while. You might like to know that
the book is entitled An American Demonology.

 >>>>Colin Bennett _ I am disappointed to
 >>>>see his solipsistic response on this List, as Bruce
 >>>>Maccabee has properly pointed out.

I am sorry not to live up to his expectations. I would like to
be judged by my peers. The trouble is I don't have any.

 >>>>I can easily say that both you and he exist only in my
 >>>>mind, but where does that get us?

Postmodernism is about the psychology of descriptions.
Suffering remains the same for all of us.

 >>>>As you should realize, I am a strong proponent of the
 >>>>scientific method, properly applied, not necessarily
 >>>>the way science is always practiced. I certainly don't
 >>>>agree at all with Bennett's view that there are no
 >>>>objectively established facts or truths.

In postmodernism, facts and truths are replaced by streams of
ever-changing and ever-evolving streams of information. Tragedy
remains the same for all of us.

Thus am I accused of solipsism.

Well, my ideas as originally expressed are not so much
solipsistic as a plea to the scientifically minded to question
the far too easily accepted idea of factual objectivity. We must
make an attempt to understand the words and concepts we use, and
try to understand something of their history and cultural
development. This is a very involved subject in which I am a
professionally involved specialist, but put briefly, Shakespeare
for example, would hardly have understood the idea of the
objective real at all. His world was a world of impacting
thought processes, just like NASA's book-commissioning
ambitions. Witness Hamlet's renowned struggle for what we term
the real, which must now be the struggle of James Oberg. It
could be said that Hamlet as a character was involved with the
classical Platonic problem of reality being shadows on a cave
wall seen by prisoners who cannot turn round to see what is
causing the shadows. This is Plato's model of mind, as well as
that of Charles Fort, and it now must feel familiar to James
Oberg.

If all this smacks of Eastern mysticism (about which I know very
little), then so be it, but the idea is the essence of such
great subjectivist classics as Kapra's The Tao of Physics, and
Thomas De Quincey's work (he said in Confessions by the way,
that the word objective was no used much before 1822). These are
books that I heartily recommend to the List, together with
Patrick Harpur's Demoniac Reality and George Hansen's The
Trickster and the Paranormal. These books are an antidote to the
scientific outlook that to my mind has grave limitations as a
means of knowing anything. Well-adjusted rational folk are often
far too well protected, and one can be so well-adjusted and so
completely sane that it affects both their intelligence and the
critical perception, as it obviously has done in NASA's case. It
should be borne in mind that the idea of getting rid of the nut-
cases in order to reveal the shining truth has the most
atrocious moral reputation in all human history.

 >>>>>I have removed a lot of this `monotribe' or `word salad'
 >>>>>to get to the hard core of fact.

The term verbal salad is of course always applied to those who
have a touch of the poet and who always pose a dreadful threat
to nut-and-bolt folk. Bruce wants to reduce the imagery. It
disturbs and confuses him. He wants to get rid of all ambiguity.
Pictures are fuzzy. And they tend to talk back, which would
never for scientist. The trouble is that if ambiguity goes, so
does deep background. Thus does a bus full of fighting drunks
become a point moving down an inclined plane. The situation is
killed stone dead, in other words. In typical scientific
fashion, the event has been rationally denatured in order to
give a manageable answer. All explanations are structured in
this way.

The answer to your question, Bruce, is another question. Ask
yourself why is fact is always hard and not soft? Why is the
truth terrible, and reality awful, always a kind of punishment?
The answer is that we live in a certain cultural fluid that
worships pain and suffering. This fluid is moreover a rather
simple-minded trading entity reflected by its paranoid suspicion
of frauds and hoaxes. Inputs must equal outputs, and we must get
what has been paid for. Other cultures simply do not operate by
these paradigms_but lo, what is this coming through on the
Animalist Newsline on my other computer as I write this?

It has just been announced that NASA has cancelled its proposed
book commission. Well now, here is a new development indeed.
History is writing itself in the very moment of this debate. I
said originally "from the Fortean point of view, James Oberg's
coming book commissioned by NASA looks as if we now have
emerging a new branch of science. We might call it the Science
of Reinforced Virtualities. Given Oberg's daunting project as a
start, in the future, it may not be required to prove that an
event is "real" or "true" so much that it happened at all.

Now's there's a new paradigm indeed!

As if to prove my point, with the withdrawal of the said
commission, we now have a somewhat Borgesian situation where
within hours a solid claim to show up the virtuality of another
claim has turned into a virtuality itself.

 >>>>I believe that the Oberg commissioned book.
 >>>>is quite unique and unprecedented in the
 >>>>history of NASA publishing.

You say that again, Dick!So now, whither the real, in the light
of the embarrassment of both James Oberg and NASA? Put in modern
terms, and put also in relation to the interest sectors of List
members, "subjectivie intuition" means no less than not
believing science when it says that all that is happening is the
joining of flange B to A, or that the transistor reaches a
steady-state condition when the resistors of the bias chain are
properly adjusted, or that NASA means what it says when it
offers James Oberg a commission. Orwell's Newspeak nightmare was
that such statements would be accepted at their face value,
period. Mailer himself encounters an updated version of Newspeak
amongst NASA personnel when he writes of the Moon landing in A
Fire on the Moon.

Everything is OK, but don't mention the Nazis.

Newspeak briefly, is corporate language stripped of all nuance,
and hence of all character. Like legal language, the object is
to avoid all metaphysical implications, and thus to make any
"explanation" either political, social, or scientific, complete
within itself, and hence render the explanation appear to be not
worthy of further investigation. And don't mention the Nazis yet
again. Like NASA, we do this all the time as an ongoing mental
process, and we choose that system of description that allows us
to get some sleep at night. So at the time when you saw a
murdering Nazi in front of you at a Houston press conference,
you didn't see anything at all. Nobody complained about this
vanishing of Nazis as they now complain about the attempted
vanishing of the Moon Landing. Like abductions, such vanishings
happen all the time, they are part of our mental process. To
vanish a thing, you merely change its metaphors, as presumably a
fish does after it is thrown back into the water with an
astonishing tale that no other fish will believe. If I say for
example, that there are scores of thousands of alchemical
laboratories manned by celibate witch doctors active in both
Britain and America, perhaps the Catholic Church would not be
recognizable when described as such. If I did describe it as
such, then I would be accused of denying reality as much as if I
denied a Moon landing. This we argue about different systems of
descriptions rather than truth or fictions. Thus when I say that
the Catholic Church does not exist, I mean that I do not see
that animal usually described as the Catholic Church in the
terms it usually offers itself. Perhaps I want to do this for
some reason, perhaps penetrate its frontal agenda, that is the
way it would like itself to be seen That is what I mean when I
talk about denial of the Moon landing. Phony Hollywood moonscape
"explanations" are not for me. They are somebody else's
metaphor.

Thus when science says that FET transistor A is controlled by
light-dependent resister B firing thermistor C through diode D,
and that is all that is going off, period, I am entitled to be
suspicious, as when a woman is stoned to death in the name of
God, or NASA offers a commission.

As I said, I didn't see a Moon landing. I saw a WASP cathedral
being built, that's what I saw. I don't have a problem with
that, but certainly Oberg now has a problem with a book
commission that didn't turn out to be a book commission. The
authorities concerned didn't tell us about the construction of
this cathedral, and they didn't tell poor abused Oberg that the
carpet was likely to be ripped from under his feet quicker than
you could say deep space probe. But perhaps such implicit
conspiracy is so deep that NASA didn't even know that they were
constructing such a thing as a cathedral in the first place, and
perhaps they would not recognize a book commission proper if
they saw one. Let's face it, with the Oberg business, the Disney
face of NASA has cracked.

They have run off and left Oberg to face the music holding a
dead dog in his arms. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Big Science as General Groves called it, has blinked at high
noon and lost its nerve. If Oberg still wants to write publicity
for NASA, then he will be required to construct a defence of the
retracted defence, now flavoured by his own anger and blushes.
What a super-text that will be. Borges, thou should be living at
this hour!

Given this kind of changing goal-posts, what do rebel Forteans
such as myself then see when they consider the truth and
validity of the Moon landing, or indeed a NASA book commission
that turned out to be nothing of the kind? In addition to the
foil Stars and Stripes, the unbelievable courage, and the truly
spectacular science, I see a something much more interesting
than some possible Hollywood film set. I see a Pandora's box.
Out from this box tumbles no less than a hundred would-be film
sets, each far bigger and more spectacular than anything even
Hollywood has to offer. Out tumbles not only phony book
commissions, Oberg's shredded dignity, but the great national
fantasies involved in scientific and industrial financial
structures and technological developments, all which go right
under the hill of dreaming intrigue. Each element of the
Military Industrial Complex forms a demonological list of fraud
and criminality beyond all compass, though I have yet to hear
charges of cannibalism and incest, although they probably on the
horizon.

In this haze of Pythagorean intrigue, American rocketry was born
of subsidized and cosseted Nazism. Forget things like that? We
would be damn fools if did forget for the sake of objectivity.
In other words objectivity is a way of putting to sleep, just as
Oberg was put to sleep when he thought he had a book commission.
In such sleep, we tend to forget SS officer Von Braun's personal
supervision of the hanging from a crane of starved and tortured
skeletal prisoners at the Nordhausen V2 plant. The truth of
course is always involved with media and presentation, Von Braun
looked good on TV, and that, in modern society is that counts.
After Von Braun, after Oberg's withdrawn commission does anyone
think believe NASA when it says it is merely joining flange A to
flange B, period, and that is absolutely all that is going off?

Getting a fruit-machine event to cough up its doubtful offerings
like this is what is meant by the term deconstruction. This
process makes any event that poses as a simple, isolated, and
objective thing, yield up its covert agendas to the degree that
Matter itself is revealed as being made of Plot and Conspiracy,
just as does Oberg's virtual commission to render false what was
supposed to be a virtual claim. What price now your precious
objectivity ladies and gentlemen of the List? With the false
born of the supposed real and the supposed real rising from the
supposedly false, where is our objective arrow? If the
commission was a fact, then it transferred into a fiction very
quickly! All claims of objectivity can be questioned in this way
if only because there are hidden agendas, even in putting a comb
through the hair. Every single element of experience is built of
such things: play, hallucination, self-deception and complex
ego. This is the stuff of active mentality, and not school essay
"facts" which usually turn out to be made of the most outrageous
cultural camouflage.

The real (always an approximation) is thankfully is scandalous
beyond all conception. Such noise in the system can be
surprisingly functional, as both James Oberg and NASA have just
found out. What price clean scientific objectivity now? NASA's
action is dirty street fighting, and its withdrawal is a fine
example of a rationalist psychosocial panic. Here is born a new
self-defensive scientific sociology, born of need to develop
continuously the tribal vanishing mystique of a consumer
society.

After Oberg, we are now all like Hamlet at the end of the play,
with the stage littered with corpses, and a sense of d=E9j=E0 vu as
a new season of scenery-changes begins. Poor Oberg. The
organization he loved, lived and worked for has trashed him good
in the eyes of the world. If I were him, I would sue NASA from
bottom to breakfast time as they say in Portobello Cockney, if
only for loss of earnings, loss of credibility, and loss of
dignity, and loss of all factual objective purpose. The whole
sorry publishing endeavor is now in a typical Fortean region of
intermediate states, being neither fowl, flesh, nor good red
herring. The situation certainly gives a new meaning to the word
hypertext.

Thus when we talk about reality, like NASA book-contracts, we
refer to systems of highly unstable verbal descriptions. I
myself prefer the alchemical chamber idea as a "realistic"
description of the Catholic Church, and my WASP cathedral
description of the Moon landing to the very tricky "factoid" of
a NASA book deal, which turned out to be much more unstable than
my ghost cathedral, having a half-life of two weeks.

With publishers like that, the only question of which is the
real or which is the false is the question of which is the
biggest rip-off. But things are getting better. There is hope
yet. Poor Oberg may be re-commissioned, and then we will have a
super-super text, changing and developing like Orwell's wall-
slogans each morning. As I have said, Oberg will certainly make
approximations in this new manuscript too, but then again this
new text may be withdrawn and go back into the Kafka's castle of
NASA for repairs, further developments, and finer editing before
it emerges again as a fine-spun approximation to the real.

Do not doubt this. As we know, in our own time, anything can
happen. Even the sober and [politically-correct Fortean Times
has an article on a UFO chase by a fighter aircraft. My
goodness, the times they are a-changing!

End of Round Seven, or somewhere around there.

And still the Brentford Polonius has not yet spoken.

But there is time yet, methinks.


Colin Bennett

















   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                New Setback In Chilean Humanoid Investigation

From: Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:12:44 -0500
Subject: New Setback In Chilean Humanoid Investigation


New Setback In Chilean Humanoid Investigation

Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
Miami UFO Center
ufomiami@prodigy.net
11-9-2


The organization known as CIO (Corporaci=F3n para la Investigaci=F3n
OVNI, or Corporation for the Investigation of UFOs - ed), which
was recently responsible for the investigation of the tiny
creature discovered in Concepcion, Chile, has decided to
withdraw from the case. The announcement was made in light of
recent requests from the family members and owners of the
alleged creature also known as 'TOY'. The family is reportedly
'under pressure' to stop the investigation from going any
further.



SANTIAGO, NOVEMBER 8, 2002. Through an official statement, the
CIO organization announced the decision not to proceed with the
investigations regarding the alleged creature found near
Concepcion, Chile by family members from Santiago. The
information provided by CIO points out the following:

On November fifth of  2002, during a meeting of directors, an
unanimous decision was reached to retire from the investigation
of the TOY case, a phenomenon broadly covered by the news media.

This decision is based fundamentally because of pressures upon
the family members and even recently, on our own director. Given
these unfavorable circumstances, the required investigation of
this particular case cannot proceed.

We want to express our most sincere thanks to Veterinarian Enzo
Bossco and his team, for their unconditional participation and
support for CIO in Chile, clearly demonstrating their scientific
interest in the case.

We leave the case up to the family members and owners of TOY,
under their absolute freewill, to make the final decision. We
also want to let them know that there is absolutely no
commitment nor pressure from us to force them to make a decision
regarding this case. We want to express our gratitude for their
trust and for letting us manage the initial steps of the
investigation.

We apologize to all those who followed this case and somehow put
their trust in us, hoping to hear about the final results. We
truly hope you understand the reasons for our decision.


Enrique Sepulveda Sariego
President
CIO Chile


Translation by Mario Andrade







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                  Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:32:37 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:14:20 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Speiser


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:22:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>>From: John Cussen <john.cussen@btopenworld.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:40:33 +0000
 >>>Subject: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>>Source: BBC On-Line

 >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2424927.stm

 >>>"The US space agency (NASA) has cancelled the book intended to
 >>>challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings
 >>>were a hoax.

 >><snip>

 >>>Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an
 >>>official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a
 >>>certain credibility to the hoax theory."

 >>In other words, by pooh-poohing it, they were dignifiying it.

 >>Well, I can't say I disagree with their decision, although this
 >>is going to fan the flames even higher. There are some ideas
 >>that are so preposterous as to be beneath discussion or even
 >>comment. This is one of them, along with "The Holocaust never
 >>happened" and "The driver shot Kennedy."

 >Jim,

 >You forgot Adamaski's trip to Venus and how L. Ron Hubbard
 >visited the Van Allen Belt, not to mention ET going to land on a
 >mountain top in Arizona in Dec of 2000.... :)

Or (dare I say it?) Creationism...(woops! I said it!)

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:09:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:15:31 -0500
Subject: First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended


Source: The Pueblo Chieftain - Colorado

http://www.chieftain.com/sunday/news/index/article/10

Stig

***

Publish Date Sunday November 10th, 2002

True believers gather for UFO Conference

By Jon Michael Pompia
Special to The Chieftain

**

While the truth may be out there, a large portion of it could
be found in the Fortino Ballroom at Pueblo Community College
Saturday.

A solid gathering of true believers converged on the ballroom
for the first UFO Conference of Pueblo, a day-long event
coordinated by local UFO researcher Bill Winkler. The symposium
featured four presenters, including Tim Edwards, who says he has
documented a host of UFO activities in the Salida region; crop
circle specialist Ron Russell; Rev. Larry Resel, who spoke on
weird phenomena in the Las Animas area, and commercial pilot Don
Daniels, who is involved with both the Center for Search for
Extraterrestial Intelligence (CSETI) and the Disclosure Project.

"For the first-ever hosted UFO Conference in Pueblo, I believe
it was well attended," Winkler said. "We had attendees from
Pueblo and the outlying areas, Buena Vista, Trinidad, Woodland
Park and Canon City."

Winkler is hoping to hold conferences as frequently as twice a
year. "By staging these conferences, word will spread that the
conferences are a place to hear and visit people with similar
opinions and views," he said.

First on the agenda was Salida resident Edwards, who presented
testimony and videotape footage of an extraordinary daylight
sighting from August 1995. The renowned footage has appeared on
more than 10 television programs, including "Sightings" and
"Extra." Footage of other sightings in Salida also was shown.

Aurora resident Russell, a noted international crop circle
researcher, treated attendees to an amazing slide show of what
he termed "secret art" and "energy machines." While a few of the
circles have been created by skilled artisans, the majority,
Russell noted, are of unknown origin and possess energetic, even
mystical powers.

While Las Animas may not seem like a hotbed of strange activity,
Resel offered a lot of evidence to the contrary. Resel told
amazing tales - accompanied by videotape footage - of such
things as cattle mutilations, changing landscapes, houses that
move, unexplained lights and objects in the day and nighttime
sky, chemtrails or contrails left by passing aircraft and much
more.

Closing out the day was Evergreen resident Daniels, an associate
of Dr. Steven Greer, the force behind CSETI and the Disclosure
Project. Daniels shared techniques for contacting and attracting
extraterrestial craft as well as information on the Project, the
goal of which is to have Congress hold open hearings on the
existence of UFOs, zero-point energy devices and more.

**

=A91996-2002 The Pueblo Chieftain Online








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:25:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:19:35 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Hatch


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:22:56 +0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 06:09:24 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>Hi Jim:

 ><snip>

 >>It was easy enough to ignore the yahoos at first, that's my
 >>first inclination. Who cares what a few nuts think? But then,
 >>over time as memories dim and new generations arise, it starts
 >>to sound credible .. more and more people start to doubt we
 >>landed a man on the Moon.

 >>There are definite parallels to the Holocaust, a very similar
 >>denial, and the same sort of pot-boiler opportunism.

 >I think this is a very important point, and I wonder if it is
 >just "pot- boiler opportunism". I quote the following from Peter
 >Rogerson's review of a book, "Telling Lies About Hitler", about
 >the David Irving trial in Britain, which in on the Magonia
 >website. Irving sued the historian Deborah Lipstadt for naming
 >him as a Holocaust denier. Peter commented:
 >
 >"Evans points out that the holocaust denial strikes at the very
 >heart of historical knowledge, if we can start to doubt major
 >world events with thousands of witnesses, mountains of documents
 >of all kinds, all knitting together, then we never know any
 >about the past. (What comes next: there never was a First World
 >War; slavery in the USA was a myth; the Berlin Wall never
 >existed?). Of course, outside the ranks of the neo-Nazi faithful
 >full-frontal holocaust denial has not made many converts;
 >perhaps that is why the "revisionists" are now taking on less
 >emotive targets, such as the moon landing, as a sort of
 >seduction. If you can persuade someone that one of the central
 >events of the twentieth century never occurred, it makes arguing
 >others were fakes that much easier. You can also get
 >documentaries on TV channels which which would never entertain
 >the real hard stuff."

 >http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/sept02.htm for the full review

 >It might be interesting to examine the backgrounds of some of
 >those most forceful in promoting the "Moon Landing Hoax".

 >--
 >John Rimmer
 >Magonia Magazine
 >www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm

Hello John:

That is an interesting and well written review. I personally
doubt a much larger agenda to this, simple commercialism seems
the easiest, most likely explanation to me.

Try this on. Some relatively obscure writer, would like to
improve his beer budget and get onto the best seller lists. He
seeks out an issue that will resonate with a large readership.

Aha! There is no visual sign of the airliner that crashed into
the Pentagon on 9/11! Well now. He looks up material to support
the thesis that no such thing happened, ignores all the evidence
that is did indeed occur, gets on a few talk shows and whammo!
Champagne, fine cheeses, and a name to remember.

I am just now in some fruitful correspondence with the webmaster
of UFO-Wisconsin. That site had put up a statement that  was
second only to New Mexico for unexplained UFO sightings.

Earlier, I had posted results from my database which strongly
contradicted that claim, on this list. Not only is New Mexico
9th on my list of states and Canadian provinces (instead of
first, by raw events counts) But  is trailing sadly around 18th
or 20th place!

The webmaster found my name and emailed me with the explanation
that the information came from one Jay Rath who wrote a book
called "the W-Files". He has a few more, the I-Files for
Illinois and others in the US Midwest region. Each seems devoted
to a statewide target audience and is devoted to the general
paranormal (ghost stories etc.)

The webmaster indicated that she will contact Jay Rath for more
information. According to the webmaster in, the pertinent
quotation from the W-Files is:


"One U.S. Air Force summary shows that - with the exception of
a section of New Mexico - the north central region of the
country has the largest number of unexplained sightings. Of the
states in the north-central region,  has the most."

Taken from page 60 of "The W-Files" book, 1997, copyrighted by
Jay Rath


Hopefully Rath will indicate the provenance of that summary,
plus the customary qualifications, disclaimers, Aztec two-step,
what have you.

By making my sample size suitably small, restricting data to
hours or days, I can make most any place into a UFO Hotspot!

One newspaper and various discussion lists have given the
Wisconsin webmaster a severe roasting as you might well imagine.
It is not my intention to rub salt into the wounds. Lets see
what the W-Files author has to say.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:24:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:23:20 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Gates


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:22:56 +0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 06:09:24 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:51:32 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>Hi Jim:

 ><snip>

 >>It was easy enough to ignore the yahoos at first, that's my
 >>first inclination. Who cares what a few nuts think? But then,
 >>over time as memories dim and new generations arise, it starts
 >>to sound credible .. more and more people start to doubt we
 >>landed a man on the Moon.

 >>There are definite parallels to the Holocaust, a very similar
 >>denial, and the same sort of pot-boiler opportunism.

 >I think this is a very important point, and I wonder if it is
 >just "pot- boiler opportunism". I quote the following from Peter
 >Rogerson's review of a book, "Telling Lies About Hitler", about
 >the David Irving trial in Britain, which in on the Magonia
 >website. Irving sued the historian Deborah Lipstadt for naming
 >him as a Holocaust denier. Peter commented:

 >"Evans points out that the holocaust denial strikes at the very
 >heart of historical knowledge, if we can start to doubt major
 >world events with thousands of witnesses, mountains of documents
 >of all kinds, all knitting together, then we never know any
 >about the past. (What comes next: there never was a First World
 >War; slavery in the USA was a myth; the Berlin Wall never
 >existed?). Of course, outside the ranks of the neo-Nazi faithful
 >full-frontal holocaust denial has not made many converts;
 >perhaps that is why the "revisionists" are now taking on less
 >emotive targets, such as the moon landing, as a sort of
 >seduction. If you can persuade someone that one of the central
 >events of the twentieth century never occurred, it makes arguing
 >others were fakes that much easier. You can also get
 >documentaries on TV channels which would never entertain
 >the real hard stuff."

If I make an observation. From the historical evidence US Army
and others at the time I believe that a holocaust happened. That
being said let me ask this question: Did the allies actually and
in fact recover/retrieve 6 million bodies or was the number even
higher and this was some kind of an estimate? I guess my
question is what does the evidence show?

I ask this because somewhere in my education, I recall somebody
put out the number 10 million. What I find is the popular number
is 6 million and now some articles allegedly based on
excavations around the camps, not to mention historical records
allege that the total number of people killed during the
holocaust may be no greater then 2 million. Does not change the
fact it happened, just that the popular numbers everybody quotes
were allegedly wrong.

 >http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/sept02.htm for the full review

 >It might be interesting to examine the backgrounds of some of
 >those most forceful in promoting the "Moon Landing Hoax".

The theory that the moon landing was actually some giant hoax is
just as bad as the notions about ET going to land on a mountain
top in Arizona in December of 2000 and the alleged Mars photos
allegedly downloaded off of some server in Arizona that were
apparently manipulated coming and going. Just another theory.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                               UAVs vs 'Rods'

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:27:18 -0500
Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'


Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:

http://ifo.s5.com

and

http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm

the UFO in the FOX News footage from Albany, NY

http://wxxa-tv.clearchannel.com/ufo.rm

_seems_ to fly behind several clouds. Also, upon closer
inspection, the extensions or 'wings' on the object do not seem
to alternate as they do in images of alleged 'rods'.  The
extensions appear straight and immobile.

While working on various research projects yesterday, I came
across a UAV nameded "Broomstick" made by AeroVironment which
resembles the object captured in the Fox News video footage.
AeroVironment illustrates this UAV at:

http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html

between the Pointer and the Pathfinder.

In addition, check out the latest news about the Pointer in
Afghanistan and other UAV projects at:

http://www.aerovironment.com/news/news-archive/awpointer.html

Notice how the illustration of Singapore Technologies Dynamics'
mini-UAV (near the middle of the page) developed for horizontal
flight and vertical takeoff and landing looks something like the
object filmed by the Brighton Police in the Sussex skies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram.

I can't help but wonder if the "rods" phenomenon was created as
a diversion to increase the giggle factor in case witnesses
happened to photograph or film these UAV's and other similar
man-made craft.


A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers

From: William Sawers <best.wsawers@clear.net.nz>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:44:39 +1300
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:39:54 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >Hello To All,

 >I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.


Frank, List,

This is an interesting scenario, but without the details of how
long they had been coming.  If they have intervened or
manipulated our society, it is rather difficult to offer an
opinion...

Suffice to say,  it is all well and good to say "just be
honest". It goes deeper than that.

If for example there are religious overtones. We would have to
consider what the church... especially the Catholic Church would
say and how they would react. If  the bible is a manipulation by
aliens, how would the Vatican handle that. Suddenly all the RCs
in the world stop giving money to the church, because Jesus was
an alien or just a normal bloke. Would the Vatican with all
their power let  disclosure come about without a fight.

Not just RCs, but most Christians would feel cheated and even
put it down to 'the end times are on us' and Satan is sending
his minions to confuse and subdue the church. Yes would be easy
make  people believe, in a rational society, but we don't have a
rational perfect world and there are many many peeps that would
take disclosure as a "call to arms"

What about Muslims... would they stand by and let the Western
dogs tell them that Mohammad wasn't what they believe. That
their jihad was not sending their warriors straight to heaven
when they died?

It could be perceived, IMHO as a Western plot to further
undermine their _true_  religion! Could you see a billion
Muslims attacking with no regard to life or limb standing up for
their Koran in one last valiant stand against the infidel!?

And of course we must consider the Oil Co. ... standing by to let a
cheap, if not free energy resource take over from the power that
comes with controlling oil?

These are just a few ideas that I have pondered over the years
and would love to be proven wrong. In no way am I trying to
insult any religion or group, "just stating the facts maam, as I
see em"

I don't think we will ever get full disclosure!


Regards

William







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                                 John Keel?

From: Gregory Gutierez <greguti@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:09:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:42:43 -0500
Subject: John Keel?


Hi All,

As I recently finished a french translation of the famous
article by John Keel in 1966, I'd like to publish the French
text on my website.

Can someone give me the e-mail address of John Keel so I could
ask him for the rights?


Thanks for your help,

Gregory Gutierez
Paris, France
http://www.liste-aleph.org
French mail list for fortean weirdos






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                                 The Fallen

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:15:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:44:13 -0500
Subject: The Fallen


In Canada we call November 11, Rememberence Day and I believe
it's Veteran's Day in the United States.

Lest we forget.

For those who fell, for those who went through it and were
scarred by it.

Thank you for your sacrifice,


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                Photographer Captures More Than A Helicopter

From: John Meloney <betsyross@fcgnetworks.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:01:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:47:50 -0500
Subject: Photographer Captures More Than A Helicopter


 >From: AngelOfThyNight@aol.com
 >To: ParanormalBuffalo@yahoogroups.com
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:15:33 EST
 >Subject: [ParanormalBuffalo] Scottish Photographer Captures Something
More Than A Helicopter


Scottish Photographer Captures Something More Than A Helicopter

When Scotsman Stephen.P.Dymock heard what sounded like a low
flying aircraft he reached for his digital camera in order to
record the event. There had been recent reports of low budget
airlines flying their aircraft too low over towns while on
approach to an airport and having witnessed one such event the
night before, Stephen was on the alert.

Instead, what flew into view on the morning of June 27 above his
home in Cairnhill, Airdree, was a police helicopter used by the
Strathclyde police, but he decided to take a picture anyway.
Examining the image on his camera's LCD screen Stephen noticed,
"there were not one but two objects in the sky".

In an Inside Scotland news report published shortly after the
event, Stephen told how on transferring the image to his
computer he was startled to see what appeared to be a UFO in the
sky located just above the helicopter.

"Some people might say I uploaded the image onto the PC and then
put in the object. For that reason, I have kept the image on the
camera to prove it was in the sky at the time and not a fake or
doctored photo," said Stephen.

"It's too big to be a bird. It's going up or down at an angle -
  I think up - so it's not a balloon.

"It's not another aircraft and there are no visible signs of
wings and, if it was, then that would be a near miss as they do
not seem to be that far apart.

Stephen concluded: "So what it is, I don't know but since it's
unidentified, it's flying, and it's an object, for all intents
and purposes it's a UFO."

Following the incident, an Airdie police spokesman said they had
not received any reports of mysterious objects in the sky.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                          Re: John Keel? - Coleman

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:03:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:19:18 -0500
Subject: Re: John Keel? - Coleman


 >From: Gregory Gutierez
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:09:43 +0100
 >Subject: John Keel?

 >As I recently finished a french translation of the famous
 >article by John Keel in 1966, I'd like to publish the French
 >text on my website.

 >Can someone give me the e-mail address of John Keel so I could
 >ask him for the rights?

The communication situation for John Keel is limited. It is one
in which he prefers requests like this go directly via his
publisher of current record, Tor.

Please address correspondence to

John A. Keel
c/o Tor Books,
175 Fifth Avenue,
New York NY 10010.


Tor, as you may know, is re-publishing many of his works. They
maintain international links, as they are part of the
Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH.


Loren Coleman
Author, Mothman and Other Curious Encounters
(Paraview, 2002)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:28:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:57:45 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:11:48 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:51:31 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>>The witness stated, "It then turned west and dimmed, as though
 >>>it was thundering back into space. "

 >>I was unaware that Iridium satellites changed direction.
 >>However, the description is similar to those objects captured on
 >>video from the Space Shuttle. Russian Pravda is claiming the US
 >>has aircraft that operate in space

 >George:

 >When the witness assumed that it was, "thundering back into
 >space", he assumed that it turned west because it dimmed.

 >How would an "aircraft" operating in space "turn"?  It would be
 >in orbit.

 >Pravda, the old Communist Party paper, means 'Truth', in
 >Russian.  There is another paper, "Isvestia", meaning 'News'.
 >Back in the old days there used to be a joke in Moscow, "There's
 >no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News."

 >Just disinformation.


Really Bob,

Not every witness is an inveterate liar. You need more than you are
running with here before you can come to your conclusion.
You asked:

 >How would an "aircraft" operating in space "turn"?  It would be
 >in orbit.

That's the whole point Bob, space craft can turn in space but
not to the degree that this apparently did and not as swiftly.

You are trying also to get too much milage out of the "suddenly
speeding away from the witness object as being the light winking
out".

Time to show some proof of this effect.

Let's see some video examples and some verification of this
theory by some scientists please.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:29:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:34:21 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Warren


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >Hello To All,

 >I'd like to try an exercise if I may?

 >Here's the scenario:

 >For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? Opinions please.

 >Regards,

 >Frank

Hello To All,

For those of you who participated and offered your opinions in
this little exercise, I thank you! The goal here was to
stimulate intelligent, "positive" conversation on what I believe
to be a very important sub topic in Ufology. Some of the
replies, I'm sure most would agree, were very interesting.

I was also pleased to see the names of men I hold in the highest
regard taking the time to chime in.

Based on your replies, it has been pointed out that I set the
parameters for said exercise much too wide in order to give a
more definitive answer to the questions. To that end, let me
take this opportunity to narrow them a little more.

Here's the scenario:

Not only are most of the governments of the world aware that
there is intelligent life "all over" the universe, they have
come to this realization based on the visitations of
extraterrestials for the last sixty years. Our government , and
a few others have obtained crashed alien craft along with living
and dead occupants. Abductions take place regularly and we are
aware of it.

It has come time to make "full disclosure."

You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
be? What would public reaction be, and what events would follow
the disclosure. Opinions please.

Regards,

Frank








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:37:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:37:26 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Rudiak


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:25:15 -0800
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >I am just now in some fruitful correspondence with the webmaster
 >of UFO-Wisconsin. That site had put up a statement that was
 >second only to New Mexico for unexplained UFO sightings.

 >Earlier, I had posted results from my database which strongly
 >contradicted that claim, on this list. Not only is New Mexico
 >9th on my list of states and Canadian provinces (instead of
 >first, by raw events counts) But [Wisconsin?] is trailing sadly
 >around 18th or 20th place!

Larry, can your database generate an analysis of sightings
relative to population? A populous state like California or New
York might be expected to have more raw events than a sparsely
populated state like New Mexico. But perhaps N.M. has one of the
higher sighting rates when weighted by population.

(Maybe when the same analysis is applied to Wisconsin, it too
would move up in the ranks.)

 >"One U.S. Air Force summary shows that - with the exception of
 >a section of New Mexico - the north central region of the
 >country has the largest number of unexplained sightings. Of the
 >states in the north-central region, has the most."

My guess is that the "section of New Mexico" would be the White
Sands area. I know that a 1952 Blue Book briefing with the
Canadians had them stating that 5% of all their sightings came
from there, even though probably only .01% of the nation's
population lives in that region. In other words, when population
density is taken into account, the number of sightings there was
humungous.

What about other regions of N.M. with military bases or
important scientific facilities, such as around Sandia base in
Albuquerque or Los Alamos or even Roswell? Also breakdowns by
time period would be instructive. White Sands no longer has the
same importance as a research facility as it did back around
1950. There is no longer a military base at Roswell, etc.


Regards,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:39:46 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Velez


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:

 >http://ifo.s5.com

 >and

 >http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm

 >the UFO in the FOX News footage from Albany, NY

 >http://wxxa-tv.clearchannel.com/ufo.rm

 >_seems_ to fly behind several clouds. Also, upon closer
 >inspection, the extensions or 'wings' on the object do not seem
 >to alternate as they do in images of alleged 'rods'.  The
 >extensions appear straight and immobile.

 >While working on various research projects yesterday, I came
 >across a UAV nameded "Broomstick" made by AeroVironment which
 >resembles the object captured in the Fox News video footage.
 >AeroVironment illustrates this UAV at:

 >http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html

 >between the Pointer and the Pathfinder.

 >In addition, check out the latest news about the Pointer in
 >Afghanistan and other UAV projects at:

 >http://www.aerovironment.com/news/news-archive/awpointer.html

 >Notice how the illustration of Singapore Technologies Dynamics'
 >mini-UAV (near the middle of the page) developed for horizontal
 >flight and vertical takeoff and landing looks something like the
 >object filmed by the Brighton Police in the Sussex skies:

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram.

 >I can't help but wonder if the "rods" phenomenon was created as
 >a diversion to increase the giggle factor in case witnesses
 >happened to photograph or film these UAV's and other similar
 >man-made craft.


Hi Amy,

If the Albany recording had been made at or near a military
base, or a manufacturing/testing facility I would be more
inclined to agree with your candidate. But, this incident
happened at a busy commercial airport.

Legit question:

Why would _any_ outfit be flying or testing experimental craft
in the vacinity of a busy commercial airport. Doesn't make any
sense. It would endanger the lives of innocent travelers.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:42:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:57:45 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:11:48 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>>>The witness stated, "It then turned west and dimmed, as though
 >>>>it was thundering back into space. "

 >>>I was unaware that Iridium satellites changed direction.
 >>>However, the description is similar to those objects captured on
 >>>video from the Space Shuttle. Russian Pravda is claiming the US
 >>>has aircraft that operate in space

 >>George:

 >>When the witness assumed that it was, "thundering back into
 >>space", he assumed that it turned west because it dimmed.

 >>How would an "aircraft" operating in space "turn"? It would be
 >>in orbit.

 >>Pravda, the old Communist Party paper, means 'Truth', in
 >>Russian. There is another paper, "Isvestia", meaning 'News'.
 >>Back in the old days there used to be a joke in Moscow, "There's
 >>no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News."

 >>Just disinformation.

 >Not every witness is an inveterate liar. You need more than you are
 >running with here before you can come to your conclusion.

Don:

I'm sorry if I included two seperate ideas in one post. 1) The
witness was most likely mistaken, confusing a dimming with a
change in motion. Where did you get the idea that I thought he
was an "inteterate liar"? There are more possibilities than hoax
or TRUFO. 2) The source for George's information about US
aircraft and spacecraft has a history of passing out
disinformaiton.

 >You asked:

 >>How would an "aircraft" operating in space "turn"? It would be
 >>in orbit.

 >That's the whole point Bob, space craft can turn in space but
 >not to the degree that this apparently did and not as swiftly.

We may be talking about apples and oranges, here. An Iridium
satellite flash lasts a few seconds and satellite can dim to
invisibility, hence seeming to zoom away. There are satellites
which change orbits, but compared to the man Iridium flashes
visible daily, it is likely that this is the answer.

 >You are trying also to get too much milage out of the "suddenly
 >speeding away from the witness object as being the light winking
 >out".

 >Time to show some proof of this effect.

Go to:

http://www.satobs.org/iridium.html

put in your location and find out when these satellite flashes
will be visible at your location. Then go out and look.

If you want video examples for your files you can probably use
any hand-helf videocamera, but it would be better to put it on a
tripod.

I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
they were zooming away into space. I had proposed that this
dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.

 >Let's see some video examples and some verification of this
 >theory by some scientists please.

As for scientists verifying that satellites reflect the sun, and
that the changing aspect of the reflecting surface will cause a
varying amout of light to reach the oberver, you could probably
do a lit search yourself on the changing brightness of the Moon.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"The Driver Carries No Spoons." -- Seen on an ice cream truck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   Dr. Omand Solandt Interview - 06-08-91

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:00:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:46:57 -0500
Subject: Dr. Omand Solandt Interview - 06-08-91


Dr. Omand Solandt was Chairman of the Canadian Defense Research
Board until 1956. His Chairman position was at the same level as
the Chiefs of Staff, and the Deputy Minister of National
Defense. He is mentioned both in Wilbert Smith's Top Secret
flying saucer memo, and in the 1951 Smith/Canadian Embassy
Correspondence. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Solandt
was interviewed and exchanged a number of letters on UFOs. The
following is one of the key interviews.


Solandt, Dr. Omond Interview June 8, 1991

AV: Armen Victorian
OS: Omond Solandt


OS: Hello

AV: Dr. Solandt

OS: Yes?

AV: This is Dr. Victorian from England.

OS:  Doctor?

AV: Victorian

OS: Yes?

AV: I spoke to you a while ago if you recall.

OS: I don't recall. I am sorry.

AV: Yes. I called you around a month or so ago. That doesn't
matter Doctor

OS: What was the call about?

AV: It was at the time about the MKUltra Projects.

OS: I think it sounds like some sort of misunderstanding. It
doesn't ring a bell with me.

AV: It was about MKDelta. It was about a kind of work Dr.
Cameron did.

OS: Oh Yes. I am sorry. It is beginning to come back to me. Ah
yes.

AV: That is right. I have in my possession documents about a
person who had electrodes in his head.

OS: Have you?

AV: Yes. I have the actual x-rays that the man has sent me. He
still has three of them in his head.

OS: Well. I'll be damned. I did not even know about that. See,
as I told you before. I had nothing directly to do with Dr.
Cameron's work at all.

AV: Anyway the past is past. But, I thought to let you know that
these things are still bothering people after all these years.
Dr. Solandt, I am going to ask you about something entirely
different. I am going to ask you about Wilbert Smith.

OS: Y.E.S?

AV: And the work that he did, and at that time you were his
boss.

OS: No, I was never his boss. He never worked for me.

AV: He never reported to you anything about his work?

OS: Well, I knew about his work. This is when I was Chairman of
Defense Research Board. He was very keen with communicating with
outer space. He came to the Defense research Board to seek help
for his work for looking for these signals, and we gave him some
help, but it was entirely passive. We had a place in the country
that we had chosen for this. Fairly close for radio research. We
allowed him to use it, as I recall. It was a long time ago. We
allowed him to use a small building we had there. It was only
like a garage.

AV: Did he have any result with his work?

OS: No.

AV: I understand in one instance, when it was a bit foggy, he
managed to register something on his equipment.

OS: Not that I ever heard of.

AV: Oh, but you were aware at the time that the Americans were
doing some serious research on the same subject?

OS: Ah . . .not that they were doing any work on it. They were
watching it very carefully, as far as I knew.

AV: Especially Van Bush.

OS: Well, I was about to say . . .I got my information from Van
Bush. At that time we used to see him a couple of times during
the year, and that was a subject we sometimes discussed. But we
never did any joint work on it.

AV: Did he ever tell you what were their latest findings?

OS: Smith?

AV: No. Van Bush.

OS: Well, as far as I know, they had no findings other than
those, which appeared. What was the name of the head of the
Bureau of Standards? Wrote for it . . .before the American
Government. No I know there are continual references to secret
American work, but I certainly did not know of it.

AV: I see. Do you think in the position that you were in at the
time, and the relationship that your government had with the
Americans, that the Americans would have been prepared to share,
as you referred to?  That category of work? I mean work which
was very secretive or above top secret with you?

OS: They certainly would have, if we had shown interest in it
and the need to know. We have shared some above top-secret
information. This is not exactly what we regard as being very
important.

AV: Was there any interest there on your part?

OS: NO.

AV: This question might sound a little out on context, but I
would try to phrase it in the best possible way. Was there any
pressure or briefing from your more secret rank? I mean above
your level at the time, to ask you to find out what the
Americans are up to in those particular subjects, the UFOs?

OS: None at all.

AV: Did you have any interest yourself?

OS: No, well, I had just a watching interest. I personally never
saw any evidence of extraterrestrial, either machines or
communications. But we kept an open mind. We did not see any
great importance for actively trying to find out if there is
anything of that kind.

AV: How about Dr. Eric Walker? Does that name ring a bell with
you?

OS: Oh yes, I knew him. Not terribly well, but fairly well.

AV: Would you think that he is a credible person, or was a
credible person at the time? Would he have held an office that
would have had access to that type of information?

OS: Oh, he was a credible person, and I think he would have had
access -- yes.

AV: OK. What would you say if I told you Dorctor that I have
phoned Dr. Eric Walker, and that in his own words, he said that
yes they did work on crashed saucers. Yes, they did have
pathological report on the entities etc.etc.

OS: Well Iwould be very surprised. I would like to talk to Dr.
Walker. I do not know if he is still alive.

AV: He is still alive, and I can give you his number if you
want.

OS: No, I don't want thanks. I am 82 now and in poor health.

AV: In am sorry to hear that. But I can assure you that I have
his confirmation on a very serious note through several
conversations that I have had with Eric so far.

OS: Yes.

AV: That he has confirmed. In one particular instance when I
asked him did we learn anything from them, his answer was short,
sharp and to the point. "Sure". That was his word.

OS: Well I find it very interesting, but I am not going to do
anything about it.

AV: I understand Doctor. Could you do me a favor please? Could
you please give me some of the names of the boys who were
working with Dr. Walker at the time in the same office, together
with Van Bush?

OS: No I could not. I never worked in that office. I only
occasionally met them, when they came up here.

AV: What was their opinion about Wilbert Smith? Do you think if
they have had that information they would have shared it with
Wilbert, or would they have come through authorities higher than
Wilbert like yourself in order to share it?

OS: I think, probably they would not have shared it, unless we
would have shown an interest in it.

AV: Did Wilbert ever push you, via another office in order to
have access to higher-ranking information, on a need to know
basis?

OS: In Defense, there was not really any higher body except the
minister. I was at the top of the Defense research organization,
at the same rank as the Chefs of Staff. The Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces was a member of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
I cannot be sure whether any of the Armed Forces had any
communication with hi. That I would not know about.

AV: Would you say Doctor that Wilbert Smith had some sort of
suspicion at the time, that the Americans had the material that
he was desperately looking for?

OS: Oh, I think that he always had this feeling that he was
being held back from them. Everywhere that is typical of people
in this field.

AV: And would you not say that in a sense he was the cause for
his own downfall, because he shared some of his information with
some people. One particular person for example that he should
not have shared -- Maj. Keyhoe at the time?

OS: I don't see that sharing information did any harm.

AV: In a sense that I the Americans wanted, or had in their
minds in the future to share that information with him, since
they knew that he was doing some work. Since they noticed that
he had spread the word around with someone like Keyhoe, they
decided not to proceed.

OS: I do not know. See, I feel that if information of this kind
really existed, and had been in existence, now that after 20
odds years it would have spread around somehow. Or, if there
would have been other examples, or if there were landings, that
Eric walker was involved, and why have there not been others
since?

AV: Well, there have been others since. In fact I am in touch
with one such person, whose credentials are impeccable, but this
is not the point. I totally agree with you, but then again since
you held that high office. Therefore you are also quite familiar
that there are areas of information that would never become
public. It is so much compartmented that if you even get a piece
of the jigsaw that it does not mean much anyway. Don't you agree
with me?

OS:  No, not really. I think all this compartmentalization only
lasts for a few years. Then it starts to disintegrate, if the
information's of real importance.

AV: I see.

OS: That is just a personal view.

AV: But the situation in the US government is even tighter than
those years, back in the 40s or circa 50s. It is much tighter
now.

OS: It is?

AV: Much much tighter.

OS: Good luck with what you are digging.

AV: I try my best. You have been of great help, and I thank you.

OS: Not much.

AV: Doctor, look after yourself, bye.

OS: Bye.





--







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                          Secrecy News -- 11/11/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:18:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:49:48 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/11/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 112
November 11, 2002


**      UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CIA YEMEN STRIKE
**      DARPA'S TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS
**      THE MYTH OF CYBERTERRORISM
**      CIA REJECTS "CENSORSHIP" CHARGE


UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CIA YEMEN STRIKE

The attack last week in Yemen by a CIA unmanned aerial vehicle
that killed six al-Qaeda suspects including an American citizen
has mostly been welcomed as a success in the war against
terrorism.  But it also leaves a host of unanswered questions in
its wake.

Under what conditions will the United States initiate lethal
operations away from a recognized battlefield?  Under whose
authority?  Does CIA Director George Tenet now literally have a
license to kill?  Can an American lose all vestiges of his
constitutional protections, and then lose his life, on the CIA's
say-so?

"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised
here," said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Fox
News.  "The President has given broad authority to US officials
in a variety of circumstances to do what they need to do to
protect the country" and he is "well within the balance of
accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional
authority."

"I'm not going to talk about Yemen at all," said Pentagon
spokeswoman Victoria Clarke last week.

The attack "may not have violated the U.S. ban on
assassinations, but the Bush administration's new rules on
America's right to self-defense in the uncertain battlefield of
the war on terrorism need to be sharply defined, according to
former intelligence officials and experts," wrote Pam Hess of
UPI.

See "Yemen Strike Not Assassination" by Pamela Hess, United
Press International, November 8:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID021107-042725-6586r


DARPA'S TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is working
to create a "visionary" new computer monitoring system known as
"Total Information Awareness" that would search for terrorists
by probing through networked databases of private
"transactional" information.

"We must be able to detect, classify, identify and track
terrorists so that we may understand their plans and act to
prevent them from being executed," said John Poindexter,
director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) Information Awareness Office.

"Total Information Awareness -- a prototype system -- is our
answer," he said in an August 2 speech describing the
initiative.

"If terrorist organizations are going to plan and execute
attacks against the United States, their people must engage in
transactions and they will leave signatures in this information
space," Adm. Poindexter said.

Of course, anyone who does anything must also "engage in
transactions" and "leave signatures," raising immediate
questions about the implications of Total Information Awareness
for data security and personal privacy, among other issues.

See Adm. Poindexter's August 2 speech here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/poindexter.html

The new initiative was further described in "Pentagon Plans a
Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans"
by John Markoff in the New York Times, November 9:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09COMP.html


THE MYTH OF CYBERTERRORISM

While computer security needs to be an everyday concern for
anyone who transmits or maintains valuable data online,
"cyberterrorism" is a word that has no right to exist.

"There is no such thing as cyberterrorism," writes Joshua Green.
There is "no instance of anyone ever having been killed by a
terrorist (or anyone else) using a computer."

Green's article "The Myth of Cyberterrorism" in the November
2002 Washington Monthly marks the growing skepticism about the
prospects of an "electronic Pearl Harbor" and echoes a critique
that has been voiced notably by George Smith of The Crypt
Newsletter for years. See:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.green.html

A somewhat more credulous view of the subject was offered by the
Congressional Research Service in "Critical Infrastructure:
Control Systems and the Terrorist Threat," updated on October 1:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31534.pdf


CIA REJECTS "CENSORSHIP" CHARGE

Central Intelligence Agency spokesman Bill Harlow lashed out at
author David Wise last week after Wise wrote a New York Times
op-ed that accused the CIA of attempting to censor his book.

Mr. Wise described CIA's efforts to discourage him from
disclosing the name of a CIA counterintelligence officer who had
been falsely suspected of espionage.  Mr. Wise said that the
pressure he faced to withhold the name exemplifies how the
Agency uses secrecy to avoid embarrassment and to conceal its
failures.  The officer's name was nevertheless published in
Wise's recent book about the Robert Hanssen espionage case.

"It seems clear that the C.I.A. attempted to censor the book
merely to avoid embarrassing publicity," Mr. Wise wrote.  See
his November 7 op-ed, "Spies as Censors," here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/07/opinion/07WISE.html

That is "complete and utter nonsense," said the CIA's Harlow.
  "Mr. Wise misleads the readers of the New York Times by
suggesting that the CIA was trying to avoid embarrassing
publicity.  On the contrary, the officer involved, through his
lawyer, even offered to be interviewed for the book.  His only
condition was that his true name be withheld."  See the CIA
statement and related correspondence from DCI George Tenet to
Mr. Wise's publisher here:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/pr11072002.html

What seems clear in this case is that the CIA is right, and Mr.
Wise is wrong.

There is no reason to believe, and Mr. Wise did not even try to
establish, that disclosing the name of the falsely accused CIA
officer could be, or was, a source of "embarrassment" to the
CIA.

The only embarrassment that may have resulted from Mr. Wise's
disclosure is to the officer himself, who is not a public figure
and who by all accounts has done nothing wrong.

CIA information policy is profoundly dysfunctional, and
routinely involves the abuse of classification authority.  But
measures to maintain the anonymity of clandestine service
personnel are not part of this problem.

_______________________________________________

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:10:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:51:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:12:59 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out


 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:02:54 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

<snip>

 >In the case of the Phoenix Lights, it was this curious
 >coincidence of a flare drop behind the South Mountains -
 >something that has not occurred before or since in the 17 years
 >I've lived here. (We also have a merry band of night flyers here
 >in Phoenix, and they've created their share of UFO reports... but
 >nothing so dramatic as the events of March 1997).

Actually there were similar sightings before March 1997. I
studied several from rearly 1998 in order to "learn" how to
analyze the videos.  You should see the Phoenix Iights paper on
my web site:

www.brumac.8k.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 11

             Re: First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended -

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:00:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:57:57 -0500
Subject: Re: First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended -


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:09:11 +0100
 >Subject: First UFO Conference Of Pueblo Well Attended

 >Source: The Pueblo Chieftain - Colorado

 >http://www.chieftain.com/sunday/news/index/article/10

 >Stig


Hello All,

 >Publish Date Sunday November 10th, 2002

 >True believers gather for UFO Conference

 >By Jon Michael Pompia
 >Special to The Chieftain

 >**

 >While the truth may be out there, a large portion of it could
 >be found in the Fortino Ballroom at Pueblo Community College
 >Saturday.

 >A solid gathering of true believers converged on the ballroom
 >for the first UFO Conference of Pueblo, a day-long event

Re: The use of the term; "True believers"

Mr. Pompia could stand to give some serious consideration to the
following comment from a senior fellow-journalist, the next
time he has occasion to report on the topic of UFOs:

"I hope that my business can ask better questions about those
kinds of things. To keep a more open mind about the subject and
spend a little less time 'winking' at the audience."

That was a quote from the senior correspondent of the 'News Hour
with Jim Lehrer', Ray Suarez. Mr. Suarez' remark not only caught
me by surprise, (on Friday at the GWU symposium) but it gave me
some hope. If an old school, conservative journalist like Ray
Suarez can see the media-fueled 'giggle factor' for the damaging
and obfuscating thing that it is, then _maybe_ there is hope for
others in the media.

I would also like to mention that the comments I quoted from Mr.
Suarez were made in regard to UFO abduction events. (!) He
started out talking about the 'giggle factor' in the media and
ended up by expressing (very candidly I might add) his own
questions and genuine curiosity about the subject of UFO
abduction.

Mr. Pompia... why don't you take a lead from one of your own
peers and try to keep a more open mind about the subject.
Catchy phrases like, "True believers" may make for snappy
copy, but what they really are is, a misleading and nasty form
of pre-judgement.

The term 'true believers' suggests 'cultists' and 'mindless
followers.' Perhaps if Mr. Pompia had taken the time to do some
homework on the topic of UFOs and those who research the subject
_before_ he wrote this article, he wouldn't have used such a
loaded, derisive and derogatory term.

He was 'winking' at the audience in an attempt to let the
readers know that after all; 'we're not supposed to be taking
this subject seriously and I (Pompia) know that'. As a member of
that 'audience' I just wanted him to know how very little his
'giggling' and 'winking' is appreciated by _this_ reader.

 >Closing out the day was Evergreen resident Daniels, an associate
 >of Dr. Steven Greer, the force behind CSETI and the Disclosure
 >Project. Daniels shared techniques for contacting and attracting
 >extraterrestial craft

Anyone want to take bets on how many poor saps ended up
wandering around in cow-pastures waving and blinking their
flashlights at the night sky because of Mr. Daniel's talk?

I hope that the ones who fell for it not only wore 'waders' in
the cow pastures, but during Mr. Daniels talk as well.  ;)

 >as well as information on the Project, the
 >goal of which is to have Congress hold open hearings on the
 >existence of UFOs, zero-point energy devices and more.

"... and more,"  = The political hot-potato that Greer tacked on
to the UFO agenda at the last minute; space based defense
weapons.

I have thought about this time and again. Trying desperately
each time to figure out why Greer would do such a thing at the
eleventh hour. The _only_ thing I can come up with that makes
any sense at all is; grafting the issues of 'free energy' and
'space based weapons' was the only truly efficient way to
_insure_ the failure of the UFO agenda.

I hope he didn't think that tacking on "free energy' and the
political football of 'space based defense weapons' was actually
going to help advance the UFO agenda. (?)  Duh!

The mind reels...


Regards,

John Velez, Innocent bystander







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                               Sci-Fi Channel

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:13:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:00:13 -0500
Subject: Sci-Fi Channel


Since Errol lives on Galactic Savings Time and I on Maryland
Local Time, I was not able to hear the Saturday night program
re: the Sci-Fi Channel initiatives.

Despite my previous, knee-jerk skepticism (cynicism?) I am
beginning to think that something at least potentially important
is going on here (despite having been badly burned a number of
times in the past for being overly optimistic).

Steve Kaeser pointed out something that had not registered with
me:

There was no attempt at the GWU conference to promote the
"Taken" series, no mention of it at all.

Furthermore, the FOIA efforts imply an ongoing commitment, and
we can only wait and see what the Nov. 22 broadcasts produce in
the way of significant information vs. self-promotion.

I am concerned that Don Schmitt has managed to position himself
in the center of the Roswell investigations (having personally
experienced some of the very off-putting behavior on his part
alluded to by Kevin Randle), but far more important will be
whatever objective information the archeologists have come up
with.

On balance, I am inclined to think that the Sci-Fi Channel (or
someone therein) is seriously interested in supporting some
thorough and objective investigations. If that incidentally
boosts their audience and their profits, I have no problem with
that.


   - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                           Re: John Keel? - Benson

From: Tom Benson <sparkle@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:58:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: John Keel? - Benson


 >From: Gregory Gutierez <greguti@free.fr>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:09:43 +0100
 >Subject: John Keel?

 >Hi All,

 >As I recently finished a french translation of the famous
 >article by John Keel in 1966, I'd like to publish the French
 >text on my website.

 >Can someone give me the e-mail address of John Keel so I could
 >ask him for the rights?




Hi Gregory:

Email me at spakle@earthlink.net and I will email you John's
postal box mailing address. I do not believe he has an email
address.

Tom Benson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers

From: William Sawers <best.wsawers@clear.net.nz>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:37:23 +1300
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:07:46 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Sawers


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:07:30 -0700
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >>Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >>Here's the scenario:

 >>For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >>universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >>It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >>You are the President of the United States, (or his boss)

 >Frank Sinatra's dead!

 >>how
 >>would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >>to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >I know what I _wouldn't_ do. I wouldn't make a big dramatic all-
 >networks speech about it. I'd start by testing the waters with a
 >few well-placed leaks, and then possibly let the cat out of the
 >bag by having a science advisor or something slip it into one of
 >his speeches as part of some other program. If there was a hue
 >and cry, I'd take it the next level and have the Press Secretary
 >address the issue in one of the regularly scheduled press
 >conferences. Then maybe issue some kind of report.

 >This approach would serve to minimize the impact, make it seem
 >"not that big of a deal." When it's obvious that society is not
 >torn asunder, _then_ I'd do a speech.


Jim, List

Excuse me for being a little behind on this thread...

I agree with Jim here about how to start your disclosure. We may
be a brave new sophisticated world, but there are still many
people with closed minds, and in third world countries that are
more preoccupied with getting food to feed starving families.

No matter what sort of evidence, barring a "fly-by" over all the
capitals of the world, that will be suspicious.

Those saying we can handle it are preaching to the converted. I
feel we would have to be much more objective and look at the
implications from other cultures and religions.

The US and Western Society may be open to disclosure, but we are
a minority(?).

We would have everything from... "it's Black Magic" to "Satan"
to "Western Plots to scare the bejesus out of us and undermine
our beliefs".

I'm sorry but I'm with Jim...caution at all costs! Test the
waters. Take _great_care_ before full disclosure could become a
reality.

Thank You for listening

William







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:32:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:18:55 -0500
Subject: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:47:50 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey@attbi.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

 >>>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
 >>>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
 >>>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
 >>>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
 >>>was in use at the time (1954).

 >>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
 >>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
 >>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
 >>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

 >Sorry Jan. What I said was quite correct. I am very familiar
 >with Secret Restricted data as I wrote many such documents. As I
 >noted in my MUFON 2000 paper, , the exact quote is "Date:
 >December 7, 1994, Ms. Laura Jackson and I reviewed records
 >pertaining to the Air Forces atomic energy projects and certain
 >mission and weapons requirements. These files were Calssified up
 >to and including top secret. The period covered by these records
 >was from 1948 to 1956. There was no mention of the Roswell
 >Incident. No information pertaining to the assignment was
 >obtained. In several instances we noticed the classification Top
 >Secret Restricted, used on several documents. This is mentioned
 >because in past references to this clas sification (Majestic 12)
 >we were told that it was not used during this period."

 >I spoke with the 3 GAO people involved. They could not make
 >copies of these documents because they were still classified.
 >Furthermore as I had noted in my paper I had earlier found a
 >number of Confidential Resricted and Secret Restricted
 >documents. No these were not SRD or CRD.

 >Please notice the term several. They did not say loads of or a
 >great many, but several .

 >>>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
 >>>RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED..... When I worked on
 >>>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
 >>>frequently saw SECRET RESTRICTED DATA and CONFIDENTIAL
 >>>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

 >>Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
 >>Restricted Data (SRD)

 >Wrong again. Why do you think so??? Can you not read what I
 >said? They were SR and CR NOT SRD or CRD. Whether we expect it
 >or like it or not,that is what they were. As noted above I was
 >very familiar with SRD and CRD documents.

 >>The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
 >>weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

 >Of course, but these documents were NOT SRD or CRD or TSRD

 >>One problem in researching at archives is that documents
 >>containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
 >>Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
 >>real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
 >>are involved.

 >>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
 >>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

 >>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
 >>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

 >This has been discussed here before. The Q gave me access to non
 >nuclear data as well. some of it at TOP SECRET level. in certain
 >circumstances when I had a need to know.

 >>Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
 >>mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little
 >>reading.

 >Jan, you make it sound like every installation follows the same
 >set of rules. They don't all follow the same rules. Some
 >documents have unusual classifications. Check out page 80 of the
 >big GAO equivalent to FOI volume re Roswell. I suppose I could
 >dig out some of the SR and CR documents. I believe I mentioned
 >this in my 1990 Final Report on Operation Majestic 12.

 >Absence of evidence in your hands is not evidence of absence.
 >Proclamation is not the same as investigation.

 >Yes, a little reading would be a good idea. You remind me of Ed
 >Stewart proclaiming that all TS documents had TS control numbers
 >on them. FALSE. He also proclaimed that all the documents in RG
 >341 were TS and all had TS control numbers. FALSE. Yes, a little
 >reading would have helped him as well.


First I don't wish to repeat debates that have been carried on
this List over and over again, in which the necessary
information to make an informed judgement has been given. In six
months or a year it is just like re-setting a video game the
whole debate starts off from zero again. It is my intention to
place a webpage on the Project 1947 site so people who want to
educate themselves on security matters may do and have
referenced information available. Unfortunately, ufologists are
not well informed in this area, and fall for baloney pedaled in
books, on the Internet and conferences over and over again.

However to comment here briefly. The GOA reference above appears
concerning 'Top Secret Restricted'. Appears to me to be a typo.
After an extensive web search with over 550 hits, I find that
any place that Top Secret Restricted, Secret Restricted or
Confidential Restricted occur other than in relation to MJ-12
documents. Other hits refers to Restricted Data which, of
course, is nuclear data covered under the Atomic Energy Act. I
have also consulted with three, more knowledgeable individuals
than myself in these matters, and they also doubt that such
things existed in 1954. Several hits during my web search also
concerned people whose job was safeguarding classified
information and their comments are similar to mine.

Since others have claimed to have seen formerly Top Secret
Restricted, Secret Restricted or Confidential Restricted
documents in the Archives that do not reference Nuclear Weapons
"Restricted Data" or "Formerly Restricted Data," here is my
challenge, and this should be quite simple fulfill, the first
person who provides me with a copy of such a document, I will
donate $100 US to their favorite charity in their name. I will
be happy to announce the results here if I am proved wrong!
(Also, the one document that I have been shown before to prove
this claim is a confidential document on FUGO balloons that was
downgraded to Restricted. The Restricted classification as part
of the US security classification scheme was deleted in 1953 by
Executive Order 10501.)

About five or six years ago when all these rather silly debates
about Top Secret Control Numbers and COSMIC Top Secret started
on this List there were no places people could go on the web for
references to actual security procedures and policies. Today
there is plenty of information concerning what is and is not
required on classified documents that can be easily verified by
interested parties.

Once again on the Q-clearance, it is not between anything. It is
an additional requirement by the Atomic Energy Act for access to
nuclear weapons data. Q-clearances allows the holder potentially
to see Secret and Top Secret nuclear data. The holder also
potentially may see Secret and Top Secret non-nuclear data. The
key here is 'potentially', the facility head or Security Manager
is required to publish a list in which the access level of
classified information is stated. The same is true within
Special Access Program. The access to material is defined and
delimited.

Some of this is rather arcane. However, there are three
components in the process to seeing classified data. The level
of investigation, the level of clearance granted by the
clearance authority and the access allowed by the local facility
or in the military's case, the command.

Until 1955, the military had to have Q or L clearances to see
nuclear data, but after that a system that evolved into the
current Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) started.

The PRPs I was involved with required that individual selected
for the program had to have a Background Investigation, and a
Secret clearance. The Army's Central Clearance Facility policy
is to grant the highest clearance possible for the type of
investigation done. A Background Investigation is required for
Top Secret clearance, therefore all candidates for the PRP
received a Top Secret clearance from the Central Clearance
Facility.

Here is where - access - the third component which allows people
to see classified data comes into play. To limit the number of
people who could see Top Secret information we, in the unit,
limited all but a few of these Top Secret clearance holders to
Secret access.

As a Q-clearance could allow Top Secret access and you said you
saw Top Secret data, I would conclude that your access was Top
Secret.

Top Secret Control Numbers are required for all Top Secret
documents in the military system and at other agencies. However,
as you noted, there are variations from facility to facility.
Each level of authority or command may impose additional
requirements or obtain authority to change or opt out of certain
requirements. My concern for Top Secret Control Numbers was with
SOM 1-01 since the copy presented was from a military base it
should have had a Top Secret Control Number.

Whether or not declassified documents have evidence of a Top
Secret control number is not relevant, as these have been
deleted crossed out, or in the case of the copy of AIR 203 found
by Robert Todd, the cover destroyed. SOM 1-01 purported to be an
active document.

I have found a number of former Top Secret documents dealing
with foo-fighters, ghost rockets and UFOs. All, except one
post-World War II document, had Top Secret control numbers,
since one was from a microfilm it is nearly impossible to make
out if there was originally such a number present. The Pentagon
message center used the message number and copy number of the
message to control Top Secret messages. The Army Air Force in a
similar manner used its record copy of Top Secret messages as
its Top Secret Control log noting the deposition of the other
copies of messages on the back. FUFOR has published excerpts of
my ghost rocket documents in The Ghost Rocket Files. In it one
may find a number of examples of Top Secret documents from
various AAF and Navy commands with different types of TS control
numbers. The point being that the requirement may be met in any
number of different ways.

A number of Air Force formerly Top Secret UFO documents may be
found on the Project 1947 website.

1948 documents contains the file of coversheet leading up to the
production of AIR 203, Analysis of Flying Objects Incident in
the U. S. (most coversheets are TS)

http://project1947.com/fig/48docdex.htm#top

An example of a Top Secret Control Log may be found at:

http://project1947.com/fig/tslog.htm

Background on AIR-203 including a discussion of TS control
numbers may be found at

http://project1947.com/fig/1948back.htm

AIR 203 maybe found at

http://project1947.com/fig/1948air.htm

A Top Secret document concerning an observation of an object
that crashed into a Swedish Lake by the chief of the Swedish
military maybe found at:

http://project1947.com/fig/usafe14.htm

Background on the above document may be found at

http://project1947.com/fig/jtt.htm

To updates on the investigation of this document a FOIA request
to the CIA returned negative results, a FOIA request made on my
behalf by the USAFE historian's office revealed that the records
for this period were no longer in Europe. This document is
absolute proof, not testimony offered by Ruppelt, Hynek and
Fournet, that there were Top Secret documents on UFOs at Wright
Field.

Finally, a 1949 document, REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF
INTELLIGENCE, USAF to the JOINT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE on
UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS may be found at:

http://project1947.com/fig/jic.htm

Background on this document maybe found at

http://project1947.com/fig/49docdex.htm

All of these formerly Top Secret documents had TS control
numbers. Within Records Group 341 there are indeed entries in
which documents are filed by Top Secret control numbers, not as
Ed Stewart wrote that all records within the RG 341 are filed
like that.


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:00:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:21:26 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:

 >http://ifo.s5.com

 >and

 >http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm

 >the UFO in the FOX News footage from Albany, NY

 >http://wxxa-tv.clearchannel.com/ufo.rm

 >_seems_ to fly behind several clouds. Also, upon closer
 >inspection, the extensions or 'wings' on the object do not seem
 >to alternate as they do in images of alleged 'rods'.  The
 >extensions appear straight and immobile.

 >While working on various research projects yesterday, I came
 >across a UAV nameded "Broomstick" made by AeroVironment which
 >resembles the object captured in the Fox News video footage.
 >AeroVironment illustrates this UAV at:

 >http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html

 >between the Pointer and the Pathfinder.

 >In addition, check out the latest news about the Pointer in
 >Afghanistan and other UAV projects at:

 >http://www.aerovironment.com/news/news-archive/awpointer.html

 >Notice how the illustration of Singapore Technologies Dynamics'
 >mini-UAV (near the middle of the page) developed for horizontal
 >flight and vertical takeoff and landing looks something like the
 >object filmed by the Brighton Police in the Sussex skies:

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo.ram.

 >I can't help but wonder if the "rods" phenomenon was created as
 >a diversion to increase the giggle factor in case witnesses
 >happened to photograph or film these UAV's and other similar
 >man-made craft.


Hi Amy,

I checked out some of the IFO sites claims of birds in flight.
It looks to me as if he went out and took pictures of birds in
flight-which they obviously were-and then identified them as
birds in flight. Some of the others were not so obvious yet he
claims they were birds in flight with no real proof of that.

I'd caution you in the use of UAVs as an explanation for the
Albany sighting and the Brighton Police sighting. The Albany
sighting still looks like a insect generated shutter abberation
on a video camera to me. The Brighton police sighting is harder
to explain. As for UAVs, check your aviation regulations FAA and
CAA and find me one that permits the military to fly these
things in anything but a war zone or a practice area known as a
MOA or Military Operations Area. Think what you are talking
about here, an unmanned test vehicle, in each case flying over
two heavily populated regions.

Number one - the law does not allow this and two - it's stupid
and irresponsible.And if you want three-what happens if it
malfunctions and crashes into one of these populated regions?

I'd advise everyone to think carefully before attributing UFOs
to UAVs and experimental test vehicles when it comes to densely
populated areas and violating high use control zones. Certainly
no UAVs would ever be permitted there.

Albany incidentally has a control zone that is 20 nautical
  miles in diameter with its center at Albany RCO. It has a
double ARSA [Airport Radar Service Area] each of which stretches
upward about 1 mile AGL.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

             Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Peterborough

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:27:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:23:24 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Peterborough


 >From: William Sawers <best.wsawers@clear.net.nz>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:44:39 +1300
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >>Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>Hello To All,

 >>I'd like to try an excercise if I may?

 >>Here's the scenario:

 >>For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >>universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >>It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >>You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >>would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >>to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >>Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >>be? Opinions please.

 >Frank, List,

 >This is an interesting scenario, but without the details of how
 >long they had been coming.  If they have intervened or
 >manipulated our society, it is rather difficult to offer an
 >opinion...

 >Suffice to say,  it is all well and good to say "just be
 >honest". It goes deeper than that.

 >If for example there are religious overtones. We would have to
 >consider what the church... especially the Catholic Church would
 >say and how they would react. If  the bible is a manipulation by
 >aliens, how would the Vatican handle that. Suddenly all the RCs
 >in the world stop giving money to the church, because Jesus was
 >an alien or just a normal bloke. Would the Vatican with all
 >their power let  disclosure come about without a fight.

Would really believe anything that aliens had to say simply
because they had better technology than we do? Vatican
representatives have spoken of the possibility of
extraterrestrial intelligent life and welcome it as more glory
to God for his creation. The Church also sees such as senario as
a possible evanglical exercise - spreading the word of Jesus
amongst the heathen, you see. Also, the Vatican sees it as an
interesting theological question, in that humans are considered
a 'fallen' race. Could there be other worlds out there where Eve
never ate the apple? Are they living in paradise? Would God
allow contact with them? Don't worry, the Church will have all
bases covered if contact is ever made.

 >Not just RCs, but most Christians would feel cheated and even
 >put it down to 'the end times are on us' and Satan is sending
 >his minions to confuse and subdue the church. Yes would be easy
 >make  people believe, in a rational society, but we don't have a
 >rational perfect world and there are many many peeps that would
 >take disclosure as a "call to arms"

 >What about Muslims... would they stand by and let the Western
 >dogs tell them that Mohammad wasn't what they believe. That
 >their jihad was not sending their warriors straight to heaven
 >when they died?

 >It could be perceived, IMHO as a Western plot to further
 >undermine their _true_  religion! Could you see a billion
 >Muslims attacking with no regard to life or limb standing up for
 >their Koran in one last valiant stand against the infidel!?


The Muslims are also receptive to life on other planets. After all, the
Koran talks of seven other worlds that God created besides earth.

 >And of course we must consider the Oil Co. ... standing by to let a
 >cheap, if not free energy resource take over from the power that
 >comes with controlling oil?

I wouldn't worry so much about oil companies and Space Brothers
bringing free energy sources for us. I'd worry about aliens
being bigger predators than we are.

Kelly






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                    Houston, British Columbia - 08-30-02

From: Brian Vike - HBCCUFO <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:23:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:05:46 -0500
Subject: Houston, British Columbia - 08-30-02


I just received this report this morning:


Houston, British Columbia

Date: August 30th, 2002
Time: 3:42a.m.
email report.

Brian Vike...

My name is (name deleted), and I am a life long resident of
Houston, B.C.. I will make this short and sweet. I have been a
paranormal and para-science 'freak' for my entire life, so the
recent events concerning 'UFO' sightings in the Bulkley Valley
have been of great interest to me as you can well imagine. I
soberly took the summer's sightings under careful consideration
as they happened this year, not getting too excited but trusting
that things were exactly as they were reported, especially
concerning the Quick area sightings which involved people of
impeccacble trustworthiness.

The morning of August 30th, 2002, changed everything in a big
way. What I witnessed that morning soberly seared me with a
realization that one can only experience with the background
that someone like you or I can understand based on many years of
solid scientific research mixed with the accounts of hundreds of
incidents ranging from the Roswell situation up until the Bob
Lazar story that I'm sure you have scrutinized as carefully as I
have.

It was Thursday night, which at 3:42am is technically a Friday
morning, August 30th. Two friends of mine had driven up from
Vancouver to visit, and on my lunch break I had gone to meet
them at the scale turn-off to HFP (where I work) to give them
the keys to my house. As I returned to work, I parked my car and
walked through the 'gate' to the yard leading to the sawmill.
This was exactly 3:42am. While walking through the gate where
people walk from the parking lot to the sawmill, I caught
something in my vision and saw it.

You surely have been to HFP, so you can envision the following
description. From the exact point where I walked through the gap
in the parking lot fence, I saw 'it'. I looked up to see a light
source travelling at an angle approximately 25 degrees downward
from a right to left position above the planer mill, on a
constant heading and speed from the burner to the planer roof
and out of view. I stopped dead when I saw it, and watched it
move in a perfectly straight and perfectly even speed until it
was out of view over the planer roof.

Picture the planer as being a building approximately 300 yards
from my position at the border of the parking lot. Beyond the
planer is a couple of railway tracks and a chip pile, and then a
beaver pond and then forest on a hillside. The light source was
clearly beyond those trees on the hillside, but not much. It was
an overcast night, so the object was clearly well below the
cloud level. As far as the size of the 'object', that is
obviously completely dependant on it's distance from my
position. I estimated that it was less than a quarter mile away,
which would have made it's size quite small, maybe three to four
feet in diameter. It moved on a perfectly straight line,
disappearing below the tree line. As for it's appearance, it was
a very even light source that was purely 'white' without
twinkling in any way. In other words, it was not a small bright
source but rather an actual round circle of perfectly consistent
light emitting from it's entire surface. As for speed, again
it's hard to say as it would be based entirely on it's distance
from my position. Let me say that what stood out was the
absolute 'evenness' of it's movement, which more than anything
else gave me an eerie sinking in my guts. At that time I knew
that it was moving faster than a Cessna would, but far slower
than any celestial object such as a shooting star would.

There's not much else to say. After seeing it disappear out of
sight I ran inside the mill, and grabbed a millwright that I
respect for his intelligence and open-mind. I basically dragged
him onto the roof of the sawmill where we stood and scanned the
sky for the next hour or so, without seeing anything but not for
lack of looking. With very little thought as to the consequences
I told everyone I met that night what I had seen, and at the
first opportunity I grabbed a compass specific map of the mill
site and plotted out the vector of what I had seen that night.
Taking into account a wide margin for the distance from my
position, I shaded a plot of land where the object would have
been, and the next day dragged two friends out to the are where
I spent upwards of three hours zig-zagging around the area on
the infinitesimal chance that there would be some ground based
evidence of what would have been the point where the light
source I saw met the Earth based on it's downward angle. While I
didn't find anything, it is interesting to note that amongst the
cattle range land in the area there is a hydro R.O.W. that runs
perfectly parallel to and at a proper distance to my viewing
stance. It is not unreasonable to say that the light source I
saw was directly over this power line, which could bring into
discussion several elecro-magnetic possibilities for what I saw
(even though the object I witnessed would have been 500 feet or
more above the power lines when I first saw it).

That's about it, all I can say in summary is that what I saw was
quite obviously not a shooting star or sattelite (it was 'near'
in other words) and it was not a plane or any other kind of
craft that could explain what I saw. There was no tail of any
kind to what I saw, and all I can emphasize is that not only was
the light perfectly even in it's whiteness (no twinkling) it was
the steadiness of it's movement that was most striking. This was
not glare from something, this was not a celestial phenomenon
and certainly not a craft of any design I can imagine. Even
behind the direct glare of many bright halogen lights along the
roof of both the planer and the sawmill this light source stood
out, so you can get an idea of how bright this was to catch my
attention as it did. Feel free to use this information as you
see fit, and contact me if you think there is any more
information I can provide. If you have trouble visualizing the
area of my sighting, just think of something travelling from
South to North about a quarter mile East of the HFP parking lot.
Also, if you need to discuss UFO's in general, get ahold of me
because I assure you I am as educated as anyone can be in this
area.

Brian Vike  (Yogi)
Independent UFO Field
Investigator/Researcher

HBCC UFO Research
Box 1091
Houston, B.C.
Canada
VOJ-1ZO

Editor: Canadian Communicator (Paranormal Magazine)
Paranormal Magazine
Phone/Fax - 1-250-845-2189
Email - hbccufo@telus.net
hbccufo@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/home.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:13:14 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Tonnies


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:29:41 -0800
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

<snip>

 >Here's the scenario:

 >Not only are most of the governments of the world aware that
 >there is intelligent life "all over" the universe, they have
 >come to this realization based on the visitations of
 >extraterrestials for the last sixty years. Our government , and
 >a few others have obtained crashed alien craft along with living
 >and dead occupants. Abductions take place regularly and we are
 >aware of it.

 >It has come time to make "full disclosure."

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

I would focus on the positive aspects of ET visitation (i.e.,
reverse-engineered technology, possible medical breakthroughs
from analysis of ET specimens). I would frame this in its social
and scientific contexts, emphasizing that the aliens are likely
nonhostile (if they were here to invade in any traditional "War
of the Worlds" sense, they probably would have confronted us
much earlier).

The abduction phenomenon would be the difficult pill to get the
public to swallow. I would treat the aliens as a potential
source of knowledge as well as a potential wellspring of
xenophobia and fear. In this context, I would frame abductions
from an alien perspective, making it clear that the aliens are
not merely cosmic terrorists, but a truly nonhuman force with a
doubtlessly complex and correspondingly nonhuman psyche.

I would call on the American people to accept the ETs as a
challenge--not necessarily as "friends from space" or
manipulative invaders. Open acknowledgemnet of their reality
should help empower humans in their dealings with us.

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? What would public reaction be, and what events would follow
 >the disclosure. Opinions please.

I think the scientific community would be generally thrilled,
despite the negative prediction of the Brookings report.
Fundamentalist religions would either topple or else hastily
incorporate ET visitation into their own cosmologies. Conspiracy
theorists would be dancing in the streets. And can you imagine
Letterman and Leno?

I foresee some panic, but honestly think that this could be
minimized or averted entirely by a serious program of open
education--which is what "disclosure" should entail.

=====

Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                       SDI Audio On The GWU Symposium

From: Strange Days... Indeed <sdi@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:30:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:46:25 -0500
Subject: SDI Audio On The GWU Symposium


John Velez spent many hours on the road last week, to attend and
report on the 'Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena: Science Fiction or Science Fact?' Symposium, held at
George Washington University, in Washington, D.C. on Friday,
November 8.

On Saturday night's 'Strange Days... Indeed', John reported on
the Symposium and played clips from various speaker's
presentations.

John's report to listeners is on-line at the SDI program page,
as a RealAudio, file at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

in Program 214's listing - click the 'Play' button.

An appreciative round of applause in John's direction, please,
for once again putting his money where his mouth is in providing
another valuable service to the UFO community.


Errol Bruce-Knapp
Producer/Host
'Strange Days... Indeed'
Toronto






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:45:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:28:48 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >>insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:
 >>http://ifo.s5.com
 >>and
 >>http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm
 >>the UFO in the FOX News footage from Albany, NY
 >>http://wxxa-tv.clearchannel.com/ufo.rm
 >>_seems_ to fly behind several clouds. Also, upon closer
 >>inspection, the extensions or 'wings' on the object do not seem
 >>to alternate as they do in images of alleged 'rods'. The
 >>extensions appear straight and immobile.

 >>While working on various research projects yesterday, I came
 >>across a UAV nameded "Broomstick" made by AeroVironment which
 >>resembles the object captured in the Fox News video footage.
 >>AeroVironment illustrates this UAV at:
 >>http://www.aerovironment.com/area-aircraft/unmanned.html
 >>between the Pointer and the Pathfinder.

 >Hi Amy,

 >If the Albany recording had been made at or near a military
 >base, or a manufacturing/testing facility I would be more
 >inclined to agree with your candidate. But, this incident
 >happened at a busy commercial airport.

 >Legit question:

 >Why would _any_ outfit be flying or testing experimental craft
 >in the vacinity of a busy commercial airport. Doesn't make any
 >sense. It would endanger the lives of innocent travelers.

Hi, John:

After 9-11, what is the one thing that has increased the most at
commercial airports (besides the price to use the toilet)?

Security.

I don't know whether the object in the Fox News footage was
something man-made or a hoax. I just happened to notic that
AeroVironment's 'Broomstick' UAV illustration reminded me of the
object filmed in Albany, NY.

Whatever this object may have been, you will see more UAV's used
in both the military and private sectors in the future. They
can and will be used to patrol everything from shopping malls to
airports. UAV's may even become man's second best friend (next
to police dogs) when it comes to assisting the police in
locating, tracking and apprehending criminals.

When most people think of UAV's they think of large remote
controlled aircraft like the Predator or even the Bird Of Prey.
However, UAV's come in all shapes, sizes and abilities. If the
pilot (remote control) has been properly trained, there is no
reason why a UAV could not be used safely in, around or over
busy airports, civilian neighborhoods, metropolitan areas, etc.
  With MAV's (mini-air vehicles) and even micro-air vehicles, the
uses are endless. In fact, considering the potential threat we
face from UAV's/MAV's being used against us by terrorists and
other foes, it seems foolish to _not_ use these devices to
protect our cities, airports and homes.

As for what rights the price of security may cost us, we will
see. But if it saves the life of just one civilian or one
soldier, then it is worth it (IMHO).


A. Hebert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                    Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:31:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:31:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Speiser


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:10:01 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:12:59 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:02:54 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 ><snip>

 >>In the case of the Phoenix Lights, it was this curious
 >>coincidence of a flare drop behind the South Mountains -
 >>something that has not occurred before or since in the 17 years
 >>I've lived here. (We also have a merry band of night flyers here
 >>in Phoenix, and they've created their share of UFO reports... but
 >>nothing so dramatic as the events of March 1997).

 >Actually there were similar sightings before March 1997. I
 >studied several from rearly 1998 in order to "learn" how to
 >analyze the videos. You should see the Phoenix Iights paper on
 >my web site:

 >www.brumac.8k.com


Hmm. Interesting that I've never heard anyone report these flare
drops except on the night of March 17th, 1997.

In any case, I stand corrected... but the mystery of the
triangle endures. As does the mystery of why the military
authorities took so long to acknowledge the flare drop.

I've heard one explanation from local MUFON, that "these things
take time," but I can't see it taking _months_ for them to
simply say, Oh yeah, that was us.

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                 Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Heath

From: Gord Heath <gwheath@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:56:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:34:03 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET? - Heath


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:29:41 -0800
 >Subject: Re: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:23:05 -0800
 >>Subject: How To Inform The Public of ET?

 >>I'd like to try an exercise if I may?

 >>Here's the scenario:

 >>For arguement's sake there is intelligent life throughout the
 >>universe. Most of the governments of the world are aware of this.

 >>It has come time to make full disclosure.

 >>You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >>would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >>to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >>Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >>be? Opinions please.

 >For those of you who participated and offered your opinions in
 >this little exercise, I thank you! The goal here was to
 >stimulate intelligent, "positive" conversation on what I believe
 >to be a very important sub topic in Ufology. Some of the
 >replies, I'm sure most would agree, were very interesting.

 >I was also pleased to see the names of men I hold in the highest
 >regard taking the time to chime in.

 >Based on your replies, it has been pointed out that I set the
 >parameters for said exercise much too wide in order to give a
 >more definitive answer to the questions. To that end, let me
 >take this opportunity to narrow them a little more.

 >Here's the scenario:

 >Not only are most of the governments of the world aware that
 >there is intelligent life "all over" the universe, they have
 >come to this realization based on the visitations of
 >extraterrestials for the last sixty years. Our government , and
 >a few others have obtained crashed alien craft along with living
 >and dead occupants. Abductions take place regularly and we are
 >aware of it.

 >It has come time to make "full disclosure."

 >You are the President of the United States, (or his boss), how
 >would you proceed in this matter? What would be the best way to
 >to inform the American public, and the people of the world?

 >Based on your answer, what do you feel the consequences would
 >be? What would public reaction be, and what events would follow
 >the disclosure. Opinions please.

You are asking a series of questions that have no easy answer.

It may be that the government already has much of this
information in front of it and yet still knows not much more
than any of us about what is happening beyond the simple fact of
ET visitation, observation and interaction with the development
of civilization on this planet.

I feel for one thing that governments need to explain why they
have hidden the facts about ET interaction for over 50 years. In
this respect I am looking at the side of the issue pertaining to
the unsolved dissappearances of USAF pilots and crew since the
middle 20th century.

I feel a certain sense of anger that government has hidden this
information and perhaps done a sloppy job of investigating the
phenomenom because they are "protecting" a delusional viewpoint
of their own invincibility and techological superiority.

I think people are ready to face whatever the realities are
about this situation, especially the acknowledgement by
government that they simply don't know everthing and (hopefully)
are still out there trying to find the answers.

But if they wish to find the answers, they really should put an
awful lot more faith back into the general public who no doubt
have a collective ability to address these issues much better
than any amount of hidden and secret programs.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 03:30:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:37:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:13:40 +0000
 >Subject: Sci-Fi Channel

Hi Dick, Don Ledger, & All,

Dick wrote:

 >Since Errol lives on Galactic Savings Time and I on Maryland
 >Local Time, I was not able to hear the Saturday night program
 >re: the Sci-Fi Channel initiatives.

You can check it out by going to the Strange Days... Indeed
program webpage and clicking on the tiny banner marked,
'Audio' next to the program description. (It's the first program
on the list.)

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

 >Despite my previous, knee-jerk skepticism (cynicism?) I am
 >beginning to think that something at least potentially important
 >is going on here (despite having been badly burned a number of
 >times in the past for being overly optimistic).

Me too. I expressed my concern (privately) to Ed Rothschild
that I was afraid all the public effort and backing from the
Sci-Fi channel would dry up after the series 'Taken' airs.
That maybe all of this was just so much hype for the upcoming
programs. He assured me that that wasn't the case and that
everyone involved was in it for the long-haul.

We can only hope. The reason why I drove 500 miles round-trip
was because I felt it was important to lend support for this
effort by being there. To stand up to be counted and to show
(by my presence) my support of the courageous scientists and
others who were out there putting it all on the line.

I recorded most of the event. EBK will be playing audio clips
from the Symposium from time to time on SDI. Those who
are interested in hearing more of what was said at the GWU
event should try listen in to SDI as often as you are able to.

 >Steve Kaeser pointed out something that had not registered with
 >me:

 >There was no attempt at the GWU conference to promote the
 >"Taken" series, no mention of it at all.

True!

 >Furthermore, the FOIA efforts imply an ongoing commitment, and
 >we can only wait and see what the Nov. 22 broadcasts produce in
 >the way of significant information vs. self-promotion.

I agree.

 >On balance, I am inclined to think that the Sci-Fi Channel (or
 >someone therein) is seriously interested in supporting some
 >thorough and objective investigations. If that incidentally
 >boosts their audience and their profits, I have no problem with
 >that.

Neither should any one else.

It was a _pleasure_ to spend a few hours with you Mr. Hall. I
hope we get to do it again soon. And yes, the list of 'sames'
between us was as surprising to me as it was to you.

Painting, chess, cats, horses, UFOs, civil war buffs, the list
is long. Hey, what can I tell you, great minds think alike!  :)

*Don... EBK posted the segment online at the SDI archive. Get ye
over there and check it out. Let me know what you think of it
all.

Regards,

John Velez, SDI 'roving reporter'  ;)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:55:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:26:01 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:45:41 -0600
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

<snip>

 >After 9-11, what is the one thing that has increased the most at
 >commercial airports (besides the price to use the toilet)?

 >Security.

 >I don't know whether the object in the Fox News footage was
 >something man-made or a hoax. I just happened to notic that
 >AeroVironment's 'Broomstick' UAV illustration reminded me of the
 >object filmed in Albany, NY.

 >Whatever this object may have been, you will see more UAV's used
 >in both the military and private sectors in the future. They
 >can and will be used to patrol everything from shopping malls to
 >airports. UAV's may even become man's second best friend (next
 >to police dogs) when it comes to assisting the police in
 >locating, tracking and apprehending criminals.

 >When most people think of UAV's they think of large remote
 >controlled aircraft like the Predator or even the Bird Of Prey.
 >However, UAV's come in all shapes, sizes and abilities. If the
 >pilot (remote control) has been properly trained, there is no
 >reason why a UAV could not be used safely in, around or over
 >busy airports, civilian neighborhoods, metropolitan areas, etc.
 >With MAV's (mini-air vehicles) and even micro-air vehicles, the
 >uses are endless. In fact, considering the potential threat we
 >face from UAV's/MAV's being used against us by terrorists and
 >other foes, it seems foolish to _not_ use these devices to
 >protect our cities, airports and homes.

 >As for what rights the price of security may cost us, we will
 >see. But if it saves the life of just one civilian or one
 >soldier, then it is worth it (IMHO).


Hi Amy,

I had another submission to this list about the above however I must
respond to a couple of things here.

You stated:

 >Whatever this object may have been, you will see more UAV's used
 >in both the military and private sectors in the future. They
 >can and will be used to patrol everything from shopping malls to
 >airports.

I can't speak for the States but here in Canada, over my dead
body. The last thing I want flying over my city is some mindless
and remotely operated vehicle that has no other connection than
it's data stream to the operations base.

It will be a long time before anyone [FAA, Transport Canada,
Civil Aviation Authority [UK] is going to trust a computer to
watch over the flight pattern of some UAV.

I suggest to you that rather than security the greatest hazard
to the general public will be the UAV circling their city. Right
now there are no regulations that allow UAVs to operate in
civilian airspace which comprises 95% of the land area, and I
don't see that changing soon.

Incidentally, the Bird of Prey isn't a UAV. It's piloted and a
prototype [design, construction/materials, flight
characteristics and stealth possibilities] for other aircraft
and even UAVs coming down the road. From a Boeing press release:


"Fully funded by Boeing, the Bird of Prey project costs $67
million. A subsonic, SINGLE-SEAT technology demonstrator, the
aircraft completed 38 test flights as part of its flight-
demonstration program. Its first flight took place in fall 1996.
Bird of Prey has a wingspan of approximately 23 feet and a
length of 47 feet, and weighs nearly 7,400 pounds. Powered by a
Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan engine, the Bird of Prey has
an operational speed of 260 knots [300mph] and a maximum
operating altitude of 20,000 feet."


One of the reasons I carp on this tendency of others to consider
UAVs as a possibility for UFO reports is just that. It's
unnecessary noise and if it gets into the hands of the media,
they will blow-off sightings with good signal as this
possibility. We have enough problems as it is.

Caution.

Best,

Don Ledger


[And as this thread drifts away from UFOs we bid it a
  fond adieu, please --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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:59:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:29:56 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Hebert


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:00:14 -0400
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >>insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:

 >>http://ifo.s5.com
<snip>

 >Hi Amy,

 >I checked out some of the IFO sites claims of birds in flight.
 >It looks to me as if he went out and took pictures of birds in
 >flight - which they obviously were - and then identified them as
 >birds in flight. Some of the others were not so obvious yet he
 >claims they were birds in flight with no real proof of that.

Hi, Don:

That "he" is a 'she' and it is me. I created the IFO Database
and all the images, except where otherwise noted, belong to me.

That's the whole point of an IFO Database - to collect and
catalog images of IFO's or Identified Flying Objects for use in
comparing images of alleged UFO's to images of known flying
objects.

Much like chemists use databases of spectral analyses of known
substances to help identify the contents of unknown substances
and astrophysicists use spectroscopy to determine the chemical
composition of the stars (based on a database of the known
spectra of various elements), I am developing a database of
images of known or identified flying objects to assist in the
analyses of unidentified flying objects or UFO's as a research
tool.

I identified each flying object before I photographed or video
taped it so I would know what the image represented and thus
created a catalog of images of IFO's or Identified Flying
Objects. Although some of the images may not seem clear to you,
I was there, I was the photographer and I know what they were.

Common objects we see every day in the skies above us
can appear to be many things when captured in a photograph
or on video tape (or digital). If I had presented my images
of bird, bugs, debris and conventional aircraft as UFO's,
would you have known they were all really images of IFO's?

We may not be able to use images of IFO's to positively
identify all alleged images of UFO's but it helps to have a
database of images of known objects to begin our
analyses. I've learned a lot just from going out and
photographing IFO's and studying the visual and behavioral
characteristics of birds and other flying objects and how many
shapes, sizes and forms they can take when frozen in time and
captured on film. I highly recommend you try it. In fact, it
should be a required process for anyone wishing to become
a qualified observer, investigator or researcher of aerial
phenomena.

 >I'd caution you in the use of UAVs as an explanation for the
 >Albany sighting and the Brighton Police sighting. The Albany
 >sighting still looks like a insect generated shutter abberation
 >on a video camera to me.

As a part of the IFO Database, I have been studying the
characteristics of images of so-called "rods" and how these
images may have been produced. I would have quickly identified
the Albany UFO as an insect in flight except for the fact that
it _appears_ to go behind several clouds. Unless the footage has
been altered in some way to make it appear that the object is
flying above the clouds, we are left with a mystery object that
does not fit the typical profile of images of insects in flight
(I know, I've been studying and reproducing these images for
years - of insects in flight).

You may caution me about using UAV's as a possible explanation
for some UFOs but it makes more sense, to me, to consider all
possible explanations regardless of what the FAA regulations
state or what we have been _told_ about how the military
conducts it's operations. Considering UAV's as a possible
explanation makes a lot more sense than claiming it is from
another planet with little ETs running around inside. And since
we are studying phenomena, we need to include the most logical
explanations in our analyses no matter how much these
explanations may conflict with our belief systems.

 >The Brighton police sighting is harder
 >to explain. As for UAVs, check your aviation regulations FAA and
 >CAA and find me one that permits the military to fly these
 >things in anything but a war zone or a practice area known as a
 >MOA or Military Operations Area. Think what you are talking
 >about here, an unmanned test vehicle, in each case flying over
 >two heavily populated regions.

I never said it was a test vehicle. And how do you know it was
military? For all we know it could have been an operational UAV,
not an experimental or test vehicle, and it could have belonged
to non-military related agencies.

Anything is possible these days and if we are seeing it, it
could belong to just about anyone.

 >Number one - the law does not allow this and two - it's stupid
 >and irresponsible.And if you want three-what happens if it
 >malfunctions and crashes into one of these populated regions?

If they can make UAV's, rather MAV's, 6 inches in diameter and
smaller, how much more dangerous can these be than large birds
and seagulls that often fly in and around airports and populated
regions? I think there is more danger from uncontrolled large
birds and terrorists than there is from remote controlled UAV's
and MAV's.

But you're right, we must consider what might happen if one of
these objects malfunctioned and crashed into a populated region.
What would happen if we were not suppose to know they were
flying these things up there against FAA regulations and they
crashed? How might they recover these objects without alerting
the public or the press? Hmmm. But then, they would _never_ do
such a thing because the government _never_ lies to us and they
always follow the FAA regulations. Nope, they must be from
another planet because they cannot be ours, no way.

 >I'd advise everyone to think carefully before attributing UFOs
 >to UAVs and experimental test vehicles when it comes to densely
 >populated areas and violating high use control zones. Certainly
 >no UAVs would ever be permitted there.

Why are you so sure of this, Don?

 >Albany incidentally has a control zone that is 20 nautical
 > miles in diameter with its center at Albany RCO. It has a
 >double ARSA [Airport Radar Service Area] each of which stretches
 >upward about 1 mile AGL.

What about... below radar? How do they regulate flying objects
that do not show up on radar if they don't even know they are
there? What are the regulations concerning small objects that
fly below radar?

What if someone flies a remote controlled model airplane into a
busy airport or populated region with explosives or biochemical
agents on board? If they fly below radar, how can they be
detected and how can they be regulated?

Isn't it even remotely possible, Don, that there are UAV's
and/or MAV's being flown over populated regions despite what we
are being told and some of these objects could be identified as
UFOs?


Amy Hebert
(web master and creator of the IFO Database ;>)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                     Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:31:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >they were zooming away into space. I had proposed that this
 >dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.
 >Bob Young

Bob,

A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation
_below_ an airliner, make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon. Guess we
better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate such
"intelligent meteors."

- Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 46

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:44:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:47:53 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 46


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 7, Number 46
November 12, 2002
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


UFO FLAP BREAKS OUT
IN RUSSIA

       On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, four teenagers were
driving on the Moscow-Simferopol Highway when they
spotted an usual object in the sky.  The teens "observed
a red UFO while driving south on the highway near Kursk.
They were heading towards the city (Kursk--J.T.) when the
four witnesses spotted the UFO circling slowly in the
sky, looking like a glowing star."
       "The UFO's approach caused the car's radio to go
haywire.  They could no longer hear the Moscow radio
stations, just long, intermittent bursts of static.
Finally, the strange object continued its flight toward
the southern horizon.  As it passed out of view, the
car's radio returned to normal."
       Kursk is located about 500 kilometers (300 miles)
south of Moscow.
       Two days later, on Thursday, October 31, 2002, "a
series of UFO sightings was reported in Astrakhan," at
the mouth of the Volga River on the Caspian Sea.
       "For five consecutive days, a spherical UFO
performed aerial maneuvers above the rooftops in the
upper hillside section" of Astrakhan.  "Occasionally, the
UFO emitted small spheres of white or golden light."
       "Another UFO with the same characteristics was seen
by several witnesses in the town of Ortzonikitsk.  The
object fired beams of light at the ground.  The beams
were red, blue and green.  The UFO emitted these colorful
rays of light for several minutes and then disappeared
before the astonished gaze of the witnesses present."
(See NotiOVNI for November 3, 2002.  Many thanks to
Daniel Munoz for this report.)
(Editor's Comment:  And welcome to The Aliens REALLY
Strike Back Week at UFO Roundup.  The aliens are giving
us "a full court press" all over planet Earth, and our
newsletter has it all.  First let's check out the Black
Sea region...)


MOTORIST STALKED BY A
UFO IN THE CRIMEA

       On Monday, October 7, 2002, between 3 and 5 p.m.,
"Viktor A. Zdorov was on a business trip, driving his
Lada station wagon in the Belgorosk district of the
Crimea," in the southern Ukraine.  "Suddenly, he watched
a big circular object no less than 50 meters (165 feet)
in diameter, hovering stationary for more than one hour
over the forest-covered mountains 5 kilometers (3 miles)
southwest of the village of Zemlyanichnoye."
       "The circular UFO had a flat, cone-shaped upper part
(something like a Vietnamese or Chinese hat--A.N.), with
a smaller cone on top and a vertical antenna.  The lower
part was like a big deep saucer, with the upper part (of
the "saucer"--J.T.) wider than the lower.  It had a
segmented structure  with several vertical and horizontal
sections, marked by slightly visible lines.  The color of
the entire object was dull grey-metallic."
       "Many local residents saw the UFO, but there are
frequent sightings" in the Crimea "so many do not pay
much attention to the regularly-observed UFOs.  The local
press often refuses to publish UFO reports since they are
so common."  (See Filer's Files #45 for November 6, 2002.
Many thanks to Anton A. Anfalov for this report and to
George A. Filer for allowing UFO Roundup to reprint this
article.)


UFO FLOTILLA FLIES OVER
A TURKISH JETLINER

       On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 5:30 a.m., a Turkish
DC-10 jetliner was approaching Afyon, during its early
morning flight from Antalya to Istanbul.  The DC-10 was
flying at an altitude of 6,600 meters (22,000 feet), when
the co-pilot noticed something strange on the cockpit
radar screen.
       Looking out the cockpit's side windows, the pilot
and crew "saw a group of 15 UFOs, 'all the size of a
Boeing 747,' passing overhead, speeding by the airliner
at an altitude of 10,500 meters (35,000 feet).  The
circular objects were faintly self-luminous and left no
condensation trail in the upper atmosphere.  They flew
past Afyon and became lost in the darkness of the
northwestern horizon."
       Afyon is a mid-sized city about 250 kilometers (150
miles) southwest of Ankara, Turkey's capital.  (Many
thanks to Erkan S. for this report.)
(Editor's Comment:  When you have a global UFO flap this
big, you just know something's going on in South America.
Read on...)


SMALL ALIEN SIGHTED IN
SOUTHERN ARGENTINA

       On Sunday, October 20, 2002, "a resident of Junin de
Los Andes," a small city in southern Argentina, "made a
call to the local sheriff's office, reporting the
presence of 'a strange little person' at his house."
       "According to the informants, a police patrol
reached the site to verify the report and learned that
the resident had been visited by a small person who
knocked on the door of his home, requesting help, since
'someone was beating on one of his relatives.'"
       "The house's occupant stated that the creature was
short in stature, although given the fact that it was
nighttime, he was unable to identify it clearly.
However, he acceded to the mysterious little man's
request.  He left his house, but upon not hearing other
noises or cries for help, he chose to return home,
fearing (that) it might all be a ruse to commit burglary
during his absence."
       "Hours later, police received notice of a strange
presence in the 150-dwelling neighborhood, located to one
side of the Boulevard Juan Manuel de Rosas.  Once again a
patrol car reported to the scene without ascertaining any
developments."
       "Days later, an officer of the provincial police
decided to inspect the location at 4:30 a.m., due to the
incessant barking of dogs.  He discovered the presence of
a small person, some 80 centimeters tall (2 feet, 8
inches), who was on a pathway leading into a house.  Upon
realizing that it was being watched, the entity made a
quick getaway."
       "Concerned by what he had seen, and according to our
journalistic source, the officer made an Identikit
drawing of the suspect before reporting the incident to
his superiors."
       "Hugo Jara, the main officer at the Sheriff's
Department No. 25, was interviewed by a local (radio)
station and confirmed the information on both procedures,
although no evidence was found to corroborate the
presence of the small person at the site."
       "The news spread like wildfire throughout the city,
and residents provided confirmation of the strange event,
such as the odd behavior of dogs that evening with their
incessant barking."
       "The fact is, the 'goblin' or 'gnome,' as it has
become known, caused a sensation that shattered the
city's habitual calm, and has gone on to form part of the
gallery of mysterious characters in the area, such as El
Cuero of (Lago de) Huechulafquen, the marine creature
seen several times in the said lake."
       Junin de los Andes is located about 150 kilometers
(90 miles) north of San Carlos de Bariloche in southern
Argentina.  (See the Argentinian newspaper Junin Dice for
October 27, 2002, "Mysterious dwarf causes concern in
community."  Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y Guillermo
Gimenez para eso articulo de diario.)
(Editor's Note:  To give the Spanish a free translation,
El Cuero in this case would be something like
Leatherskin.  This is the first I've heard of a "Nessie"
in Lago de Huechulafquen.  However, a Loch Ness-type
monster has been seen repeatedly in Lago Nahuel Huapi,
the large lake near San Carlos de Brailoche.  If any of
our Argentinian readers have more information about El
Cuero, please send us an email at Masinaigan@aol.com.)


UFO FLOTILLA SIGHTED BY
THOUSANDS IN COLOMBIA

       Colombian ufologists are calling it "a UFO wave
without precedence."
       On Thursday, October 25, 2002, at 6:30 a.m.,
thousands of people in Bucaramanga saw "strange flashes
of light" on the mountaintops overlooking their city.
"Telephone calls flooded the TV studios of Caracol and
RCN in Bogota," the capital of Colombia.
       "UFOs were seen flying over the city of Bucaramanga,
and thousands of witnesses reported that the sky over
their city 'was resplendent with the lights of the UFOs'
as they passed over slowly."
       "As a result of the UFO visitation, a new committee
has been formed, composed of veteran ufologists and local
residents, to study the unprecedented event in our city."
       Bucaramanga is located about 400 kilometers (250
miles) north of Bogota. (See NotiOVNI for November 3,
2002.  Muchas gracias a Daniel Munoz y William Chavez
Arriza del grupo Contacto OVNI para ese informe.)
(Editor's Comment:  We have one more story from South
America yet to come.  But for now, on to Norway for yet
another sighting in last week's worldwide flap...)


PULSATING UFO VIDEOTAPED
IN ROLLAG, NORWAY

       On Friday, November 1, 2002, Thomas Mogen was
outdoors in the small town of Rollag in Norway.  "It was
a clear night and his attention was drawn to a colorful
point of light."
       "Curious, he went home to find his binoculars.  The
light phenomena was evidently changing, shifting between
all the colors of the rainbow.  It also pulsated
somehow."
       "Thomas Mogen had discovered the UFO over Rollag."
       "'It looked very much like a disco light show,' he
said."
       "He also explained that the light changed size very
quickly, and that it slowly and barely noticeably shifted
from east to west."
       "He did not want to be alone in seeing the
phenomenon, and even though it was close to 4 a.m., he
called his pal Amund Henriksen.  Amund had a digital
video camera and started recording the light."
       "'In the beginning, it was difficult to record the
light.  I had to use zoom a lot, and it was hard to keep
the light steady in the viewfinder.  Finally, I decided
to just put the video camera on the second-floor
windowsill.  Then the picture became acceptable,' Amund
Henriksen explained."
       "The light disappeared at approximately 5:30 a.m.
over the east side of Numedal."
       "'The light disappeared behind a hill, but I left
the camcorder running. Half a minute later, it reappeared
but only for a few seconds.  This happened twice,' the
photographer said."
       "Amund Henriksen and Thomas Mogen have no good
explanation for the light.  'First I thought it had to be
a comet, but it wasn't.  It certainly is not a common
star,' Amund said."
       "'It was either the planet Jupiter or the star
Sirius that were videotaped in the sky over Numedal the
night before Saturday,' said Professor Kore Aksnes of the
University of Oslo, who has seen the video."
       "It is quite common to see Jupiter behave that way,'
Aksnes said."
       "Ayvind Tancen of the Norsk Astronomisk Selskap
(Norwegian Astronomical Society--E.P.) at Kongsberg
suggests it is the star Sirius, since this is the
brightest star to be observed in the Norwegian sky."
       However, "one of Norway's most experienced UFO
experts watched the ten-minute unedited recording of the
light phenomena over Rollag.  Erling P. Strand maintains
that the theories about planets and stars are wrong."
       "'The most interesting passage is the end of the
recording.  Here we see the light disappear, only to
return in another place.  The light goes away very fast.
That would not have been the case with a star or a
planet,' said Strand."  (See the Norwegian Broadcasting
Co. reports for November 4 and 5, 2002.  Many thanks to
UFO Roundup's Scandinavian correspondent, Erik Petersen,
for this news story.)
(Editor's Comment:  And we're not done with Europe yet.
Read on...)


THREE UFOs SIGHTED IN
NORTHERN ITALY

       On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 7:21 p.m., Italian
author and ufologist Roberto Malini and two companions,
D.F., a young art director, and A.C., a resident of
Cernusco sul Naviglio," were in that community, near
Milano (Milan) in northern Italy "when we sighted three
UFOs in formation."
       "The UFOs were disc-shaped, black, no lights,"
Roberto reported, "The discs had little wings, no
reflective surfaces and were visible before dark.  The
flying objects were rotating and moved slowly in a
horizontal flight path, with a peculiar tremor, from west
to east."
       "Suddenly, two of the UFOs vanished," he added, "The
third disc remained immobile in the sky, continually
rotating, for over ten minutes.  It seemed dark,
metallic, height (altitude) about 1,000 meters (3,300
feet)."
       "The UFO went straight up and vanished."
       Malini and his companions "shot two photographs of
the discs with a camera that lacked a zoom.  When I got
the photos back from the photo shop, the object appeared
like a glowing red light."  (Grazie a Roberto Malini per
questo rapporto.)

(The image can be seen at:
http:ufoinfo.com/roundup/v07/rnd0746.shtml


HOVERING UFO STARTLES A
COUPLE IN DIJON, FRANCE

       On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 10:22 p.m., the
female witness reported, "As we were pulling into our
building's parking lot" in Dijon, a large city in the
Cote d'Or department of eastern France, "my husband and I
perceived just in front of us at an estimated height of
30 to 50 meters (100 to 165 feet) an orange ball which I
first thought to be a helicopter."
       The witnesses soon decided that the object "could
not be one, not at this height, too close to the building
and with no noise.  Then I saw it rather in profile,
going noiselessly from left to right (i.e. north to
south--R.F.) looking like an orb enlightened from the
inside with a yellow-orange color, closing towards the
rear with a sort of short incandescence, leaving no marks
or contrails."
       "I had the impression that I could see something
inside (the object--J.T.) and, at the moment I
intensified my glance, lowering my head slightly,
thinking that there was something inside--it disappeared,
as if it were a light going out."
       "It lasted about four or five seconds, I think.
During that time, I said to my husband, 'But what is it?
What is this!?  Stop!'"
       "I remember more details.  It appeared in front of
us, then was seen from profile, shape like an enlightened
light bulb with someone inside, and towards the back some
incandescent features."
       "I questioned the Gendarmes (French military police
who operate outside the jurisdiction of the major cities-
-R.F.) but nobody reported anything like this, and I was
told to fill out a report at the Hotel de Police
(headquarters) in Dijon."  (Merci beaucoup a Robert
Fischer pour ces nouvelles.)
(Editor's Comment: And now, on to China...)


UFOs BUZZ JETLINERS NORTH
OF NANJING IN CHINA

       "Several airline pilots have reported sighting a
shining unidentified flying object (UFO) near the
southeastern Chinese city of Nanjing."
       "A Xiamen Airlines pilot reported the first sighting
on Monday," November 4, 2002.  He said he saw a bright
blue object hovering just beyond his plane."
       "At the same time, pilots of a Shandong Airlines
jet, which was 120 kilometers (75 miles) away from the
Xiamen Airlines jet, also reported a similar sighting.
They described the UFO as being 'a white and blue
skateboard-shaped craft.'"
       "The UFO was believed to be about 70 kilometers (42
miles) away, above the east side of Bengbu," a mid-sized
city in China's Anhui province.
       "A pilot 300 kilometers (180 miles) away also saw
the strange object and reported his sighting by radio to
the control tower in Tonglu, in Zhejiang province."  (See
the Chinese newspaper Wen Wei Po for November 7, 2002.
Many thanks to Chen Jilin and Jim Hickman for this
newspaper story.)


FOUR UFOs SEEN NEAR
PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA

       On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 8:45 p.m., M.R.B.
was driving from Ebro, Fla. to Panama City, Fla.
(population 36,417) when he "first saw a shooting star.
Then approximately two minutes later I noticed something
out of the corner of my eye.  We were traveling south,
and there were four lights about 100 feet (30 meters) in
front of the car, about 100 feet (30 meters) up in the
air.  Two of them would shoot toward the west.  Then the
other two appeared to chase them.  Then they would all go
around in circles.  Then they would all get together as
one light and explode out in four directions."
       "This went on for approximately 20 miles (32
kilometers).  When we got to the bridge at Panama City,
they disappeared."
       M.R.B. described the UFOs as "white lights, oval-
shaped--one end rounded, one end pointed.  Dense.  All
four were the same shape and size.  At first approach,
they were like a blur, but while they were dancing and
darting, they were fast but not so fast that they
blurred.  When they disappeared, it was like a light
going out--they did not dart off."
       Panama City is on Highway 98 on Florida's Gulf of
Mexico shoreline, located about 100 miles (160
kilometers) southwest of Tallahassee, the state capital.
(Email Form Report)


UNUSUAL METAL UFO SEEN
IN HOLLY. MICHIGAN

       On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 9:12 p.m., Nichole
L. and a friend "were driving to his house" in Holly,
Michigan (population 6,135) "when he pointed out a bright
orange light to the west."
       "We watched for about 15 seconds while it became
very bright," she added, "Like three to four times the
size of the average star.  Then it began to move toward
us, and we got spooked."
       "It flew really close to us and then did a 70-degree
turn to the southeast.  As it got further away, the
bright orange dot became three smaller dots.  We started
after them in the car.  But as we passed under a group of
trees, we lost sight of it.  When we came to a clearing,
the lights were gone."
       Nichole described the UFO as "orange, the size of a
star, before it split."  She added that, on its closest
approach, the object "looked like a (steel) jumping
jack," like the ones she played with as a little girl,
and that it "was as fast as an F-16."
       Holly, Mich. is just west of Interstate Highway I-
75, located about 50 miles (80 kilometers) northwest of
Detroit.  (Email Form Report)


UFO SPOTTED ON CAMPUS
IN HOUSTON, TEXAS

       On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:15 p.m.,
eyewitness M.R. was walking near Bellaire Boulevard and
Rice University in Houston, Texas when he saw a trio of
strange lights approaching from the west.
       "I was walking home when I noticed three lights
which resembled the landing lights of a plane," he
reported, "This is not unusual as I live in the flight
path of Hobby Airport in South Houston."
       "The three lights were about as bright as the stars
(it was an unusually cloudless night, and the stars were
visible, a rarity in Houston--M.R.).  The lights were
lined up and suddenly moved to my left, the southeast,
and the two lights on the right revolved around the one
on the left.  The lights then moved off to my right,
zigzagged and revolved around each other again before
fading.  The whole thing lasted only a minute."
       The mysterious lights traveled "at least several
hundred feet miles per hour and made very sudden shifts
left and right before fading from view."  (Email Form
Report)


FIVE ORANGE UFOs SIGHTED
IN LONDON, ONTARIO

       On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 1 a.m., eyewitness
J.A. "spotted five bright orangeish lights in a diagonal
line formation travelling slowly north" in London,
Ontario, Canada (population 325,646).
       "The lights were brighter than the brightest stars
that night but seemed slightly larger and more orange
than white," he added.
       "Normally, I would've assumed moving lights in the
sky are from a plane. The thing is, lights on planes are
never configured to the pattern I witnessed.  This line
of lights was neither parallel nor perpendicular to the
direction of travel.  It was diagonal.  The object was
silent.  The lights spanned too great a distance to be
from any earthly plane."
       "If it was flying low, then it was moving really
slowly.  But if it was flying high, then it was going
really fast and should have had to have been extremely
large."
       London, Ont. is located 132 miles (211 kilometers)
southwest of Toronto. (Email Form Report)


CONTACTEE: "I WAS A P.O.W.
ON THE MOON!"

       A contactee in Argentina came forward last week with
an incredible story.  He claims he was held prisoner on
the moon by aliens.
       "A local man claims having sustained contact with
beings from other worlds.  He claims that there is a
tunnel on the moon through which alien spacecraft can
pass."
       "Ramon Barraza was born in Tinogasta," in
Argentina's Catamarca province.  "He is 74 years old and
has lived in this city (Comodoro Rivadavia--J.T.) for
over fifty years, having retired recently from the YPF
Corporation, describing himself as a kind of 'mediator'
between 'Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the community.'"
       Barraza told the newspaper La Cronica "that his
mother prepared him for this task when he was only 15 and
still living in his native province.  She urged him to
sleep on straw instead of a mattress, and he did not
understand at the time the reason for her request.  Then,
after meditating on this period of his life, he concludes
that his mother was preparing him to be a mediator."
       Shortly afterward, in 1943, Argentina's civilian
government was toppled in a military coup masterminded by
then-Colonel Juan Domingo Peron.  It was then that
Barraza made the first of his trips to an alien base on
the moon.
(Editor's Note: Peron remained in power until he was
ousted in 1955.)
       "Barraza explained that aside from our (inhabited)
world, there are two more.  The second one is occupied by
beings having characteristics almost identical to humans,
with some differences in overall anatomy, and (they) are
lacking hair."
       "He showed a photograph of a drawing he made" while
on the moon.  He also said he "could see alien craft
shrinking in size" as they traveled down the lunar
tunnel, "adding that the alien beings asked him to step
aside (to avoid) the vehicle in transit.  He remembered
that (the UFO) had a reddish light."
       "The (lunar) tunnel he entered is divided in two.
The first part is known as B-1 and is located on the
visible side of the moon.  The second, B-2, is on the
lunar far side, and (alien) spacecraft meet in the middle
on their way into space."
       "He said he is visited by Jesus and the Virgin Mary
on a daily basis...On a table in his dwelling, as well as
in his backyard, he has several sanctuaries and various
stones visited by people from different communities.  He
stated that in there it was possible to observe the
Virgin and Jesus at different stages of their lives."
       "He further added that before going to bed each
night, he asks, 'Jesus and Mary, are you there?'  And at
this time a small light illuminates the ceiling as a
response."  (See the Argentinian newspaper La Cronica of
Comodoro Rivadavia for November 7, 2002, "Contactee
claims discovery of 'tunnel' used by alien craft."
Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y Guillermo Gimenez para
eso articulo de diario.)
(Editor's Note:  Author David Hatcher Childress has
presented photographic evidence for anomalous structures
on the moon in his book Extraterrestrial Archaeology.
Two craters near the Sea of Fecundity, Messier and W.H.
Pickering, have features suggestive of a tunnel entrance.
See Extraterrestrial Archaeology by David Hatcher
Childress, Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois,
1999, page 102.)


NASA KILLS OBERG'S BOOK

       In a surprising turnabout, NASA, the USA's space
agency, has reversed its decision to hire science writer
James E. Oberg to write a book documenting the six moon
landings that took place between July 1969 and December
1972.
       "The nation's space agency sent men to the moon 33
years ago, but its plan to sponsor a mini-book
documenting that those Apollo landings really happened
blew up on liftoff.  Its mission was aborted last week by
bad publicity."
       "After decades of mostly ignoring those who were
skeptical about the moon landings, NASA hired Houston
author and aerospace engineer Jim Oberg this fall to
write a 10-chapter monograph for $15,000.  His mission
was to deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of conspiracy
theorists who say the six Apollo moon landings were
hoaxes."
       "Last year, FOX Television twice broadcast a show
titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?
and NBC's Today show staged a debate on the topic.  Last
month Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, punched a
conspiracy theorist who had been pestering him to swear
on a stack of Bibles that the landing was real."
       "After the FOX show first aired, NASA put out a one-
paragraph news release titled Apollo: Yes, We Did.
       "Yet a 1999 poll found that 11 percent of the
American public doubted the moon landing happened, and
FOX officials said such skepticism increased to about 20
percent after their show, which was seen by about 15
million viewers."
       "When Knight Ridder (newspaper chain) reported the
book deal, the resulting ridicule led NASA to kill the
plan, agency spokesman Bob Jacobs said.  NASA will pay
Oberg $5,000 for work he had already done."  (See the
Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for November 10, 2002, "NASA
scrubs book about moon landings," page 17A.)
(Editor's Note:  In the publishing industry, the money
Jim Oberg is getting is known as a kill fee.)


       That's it for now.  This has been the biggest
worldwide UFO flap we've had in a while.  The reports are
still coming in.  We'll have the latest updates next week
in "the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup."  See you in
seven days.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2002 by Masinaigan Productions,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from
UFO Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided
that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name
and list the date of issue in which the item first
appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                      A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey

From: Erol Erkmen <andromeda@ultratv.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:21:42 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:43:08 -0500
Subject: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey


"A Squadron Of UFOs." 4 Pilots of 4 planes saw them.

The pilots of four (One foreign, 3 Turkish) planes reported to
flight safety departments that they had encountered a "squadron"
of UFOs on November 1st over Afyon.

It is stated the 'squadron' of 10-15 UFOs had later been seen
over Antalya and Izmir Adnan Menderes Airports.


As big as a Boeing-747

The objects were observed at 05.30 AM, at 22-36 thousand feet,
between Afyon and Yalova. The pilot of the plane which was the
closest to the UFO squadron, Ercan Eken said, "Approximetely 10-
15 small objects (but when you calculate the distance, as big as
Boeing-747) were flying within, 1-2 miles of each other."


Pilots Say The Things They Saw Were UFOs

4 Pilots claimed that they saw 10-15 shiny objects at the same
time, and they claimed these were UFOs. This claim caused
  arguements. Captain Pilot Necmi Ekinci, the chairman of The
Turkish Airline Pilots Association (TALPA) said "Our friends are
confident people. We trust the information given by them."

The pilots said that they were sure the objects they saw did not
belong to earth, although they don't believe it so far. They
stated:

Vedat Gurbuz (Captain Pilot): On the morning of November 1st, we
were moving ahead to our plane at 05.40 - 05.45, in Yzmir Adnan
Menderes Airport. We saw 4-5 objects on the direction to Afyon,
in the sky. They were leaving traces 10-15 times bigger than a
plane's behind them. Going forward and down at 7-8 times faster
than a plane.

Yylmaz Atly (Captain Pilot): On the morning of On the morning of
November 1st, we set out for Germany form Antalya, around 05.00
in the morning. Around Afyon, we saw a very bright light in the
top-left quadrant. The light was getting brighter and closer.
Than it flew at us. We were seeing it but it wasn't on the
radar. Then it divided into 10-15 units and disappeared on the
right-bottom corner.

Sinan Yylmaz (Pilot): We had started out for Salzburg from
Antalya. At the 15 miles ahead, northwest of Afyon, we saw a
very bright light on the north. Stable yellow and white lights
continued flying to east. There were at least 10-15 traces. It
lasted for 40-45 seconds. Then this bright light divided into
10-15 lights, they flew at the same level and disappeared on the
right. I didn't belie in such things, but it was impossible to
not to believe.


Close examination and pictures upcoming.....

http://www.tuvpo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                              E-mail Addresses?

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opendf.com.br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:59:15 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:52:43 -0500
Subject: E-mail Addresses?


Hello friends,

I would like to know if you have these e-mails below:

- Budd Hopkins
- Jaime Maussan
- Stan Gordon
- Jacques Vallee
- David Jacobs.

Thank you very much.

--


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
EBE-ET
Brasilia/DF
Brasil








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:48:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >>pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >>dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >>the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.

 >A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation

Dick:

Lots of pixs of these, see the front cover and Plate 3b of Uncle
Phil's excellent reference, UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)

 >_below_ an airliner,

They were always seen against the sky

 >make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon.

No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 >Guess we better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate
 >such "intelligent meteors.

Yup, you could. The only thing intelligent about this meteor was
that the witnesses of its 10-12 second flight (intererrupted
when the pilot moved around in the cockpit) sat down afterward
and tried to reconstruct what they assumed had happened near
Wallops Island test range.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:54:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:16:20 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:42:21 -0000
 >Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:17:06 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:00:34 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

<snip>

 >Hello UpDate savants all,

<snip>

 >>>The response, from anyone else, would be instantly
 >>>farted off as totally evasive.

 >Please Larry, I assume this list is for scholars and gentlemen,
 >and this is street-fighting language. Yes, I have been known to
 >street fight myself, but only against WASP pelicans, and you are
 >far too intelligent to be a leafy Dark Age Anglo-Saxon pelican
 >(supersonic or otherwise), from the old pre-New Age Methodist
 >curiosity shop, although you probably have the same terminal
 >problems with regard to meeting elemental beings. You can remedy
 >this latter problem by reading my book, Looking for Orthon. It
 >will annoy you to death, but that is always a good start on the
 >road to Rome.

Sorry for the gutter talk, but you completely sidestepped the
little matter of whether you thought man had walked on the Moon
or not, and now do so for the 3rd time.

Again, coming from anybody else this would be considered totally
evasive by any reasonable person.

I asked two questions really:

1) Do you think that American astronauts walked on the
    moon or not?

2) Do you believe there even is a Moon, as opposed to
    something illusory?

If you choose not to answer, or feel that there is no such thing
as objective reality, then please just say as much.

It saves us all so much time.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                  Sci Fi Channel Support Of UFO Disclosure

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:23:19 -0500
Subject: Sci Fi Channel Support Of UFO Disclosure


Dear Friends,

I applaud your courageous initiative to call for disclosure of
information about UFOs. I have been interested in this subject
for over 30 years, and I am currently an active member of MUFON,
and have investigated UFO sightings on numerous occasions. There
is no doubt in my mind that this is a highly significant
subject, despite the shabby treatment it has received in general
from the major media.

I encourage you to stay the course of your efforts on behalf of
disclosure of this information. If your organization should find
that covert pressure is being brought to bear upon you to stop
what you are doing, remember that the people who engineer these
covert operations prefer to operate in the dark. They hate the
spotlight of public scrutiny.

You have the advantage of the broadcast medium to publicize the
situation. You also have the advantage of a strong base of grass
roots support, mostly connected on the Internet, who are very
concerned that your efforts not be stopped by anyone.

Right On!


Sincerely,

Tom Bowden
Gresham, OR







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                             Re: Sci-Fi Channel

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:21:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:21:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel


From: John Zupansic <zupansic@earthlink.net>
To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 01:17:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel


 >Despite my previous, knee-jerk skepticism (cynicism?) I am
 >beginning to think that something at least potentially important
 >is going on here (despite having been badly burned a number of
 >times in the past for being overly optimistic).

 >Steve Kaeser pointed out something that had not registered with
 >me:

 >There was no attempt at the GWU conference to promote the
 >"Taken" series, no mention of it at all.

 >Furthermore, the FOIA efforts imply an ongoing commitment, and
 >we can only wait and see what the Nov. 22 broadcasts produce in
 >the way of significant information vs. self-promotion.

 >I am concerned that Don Schmitt has managed to position himself
 >in the center of the Roswell investigations (having personally
 >experienced some of the very off-putting behavior on his part
 >alluded to by Kevin Randle), but far more important will be
 >whatever objective information the archeologists have come up
 >with.

Mr. Hall, I think you're initial "knee-jerk skepticism "(or
"cynicism") might have been correct. The fact that Donald Schmitt
is involved at all in this project is beyond my comprehension.
  The man has been proven to be a liar more than once in his
career in ufology.... embellishing his education, lying about
his employment, lying about his former partner Kevin Randle. He
has very little credibility left and the fact that he is
involved will taint the project in many people's minds right
from the start. Of all the people they could have come up with
for this... Schmitt shouldn't have been on the A list, he
shouldn't have been on the B or C list for that matter. There's
another list he should have been on, but it involves one of the
seven words you can't say on television.


John Zupansic








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:05:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:26:59 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:59:01 -0600
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:00:14 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

<snip>

 >Isn't it even remotely possible, Don, that there are UAV's
 >and/or MAV's being flown over populated regions despite what we
 >are being told and some of these objects could be identified as
 >UFOs?

Hi Amy,

Sorry about the confusion over your site.

Re your very last statement. No it is not possible. I'm afraid
you have to have an understanding of the world governing
aviation and the air regulations. Fly a model airplane into a
controlled airspace once and get caught and its a slap on the
wrist, do it twice and depending on the circumstances it could
be 5 years or 30 years. A 3-10 pound model airplane can knock a
Cessna 172 or a Lear jet out of the sky quite easily due to the
aircrafts speed.

I have a hard time trying to get people to understand just what
a big deal it is to violate controlled airspaces. No one is
immune. And no there were no UAVs being flown into the airspace
or anywhere else except in some test flight area designated by -
in your case- the FAA and NOTAMed [Notice to Airmen] to indicate
the same to any pilots that checked with either their local
Flight Service, FBO of some Automated Terminal Information
Service [ATIS].

You missed my point re the ARSA. That's from the ground up to
whatever the ceiling is for that control zone. The radar reaches
a heck of a lot further than that. No uncontrolled flying
within-by anybody without permission granted from the Controller
and it gets more intense that that at certain airports. For some
time [maybe even now-especially now] light aircraft [below a
certain gross weight] were not allowed to land at Logan Int. I
suggest to you right now, if the FBI was looking into this
Albany UFO it was to find out who was busting the security of
the control zone. UFOs are up to the airforce.

More later,

Gotta go.

Best,

Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                     Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:31:56 -0500
Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility


Hi Errol and List,

I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
bathwater.

What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
Disclosure Project?

Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
credibility of their disclosures?

Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         Open-Records Request To UNM

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:00:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:35:50 -0500
Subject: Open-Records Request To UNM


TO:  President
      University of New Mexico
      Albuquerque, NM  87131

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE:  November 12, 2002

This request under the N.M. Open Records Act centers on the
contractual arrangement between the SciFi Channel and your
university's Office of Contract Archeology to excavate (and to
report upon) the debris field associated with the UFO-crash-
landing/retrieval near Roswell, N.M., in July 1947 (known to
some researchers as the Roswell Incident -- the N.M. excavation
site now numbered 1000000).

Please provide me a copy of the entire OCA project case file on
that excavation (which I understand took place in September
2002) -- said records to include: the BLM/N.M.-state-approved
"standard archeological plan"; all contracts executed by the
project's originators; the certificate granting the OCA
excavation team's application for assignment of a project code
for "alien cultures"; all intergovernmental memoranda of
understanding; all military-intelligence analyses; all forensic-
evidence reports (including DNA analyses); all key principals'
non-disclosure agreements (including those acquired from all
participating UFO researchers); the excavation team's entire
daily-events log/diary; the project's cost-analysis
documentation; the team's travel records; the project's
statement of excavation protocols; and the excavation's after-
action report.

Since I submit this request on behalf of the public's right-of-
access to, and right-to-disseminate data about, such records as
generated/received by this (partially) public-funded project, I
ask that your fulfillment of it waive all associated records-
search/reproduction fees.

Please note that I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of
this e-formatted request.


LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy


Copy furnished to:

Editor-in-Chief, http://www.ufocity.com (for publication in the
columnn "LWB Chronicles")







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                              UFOs Down Planes?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:30:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:38:53 -0500
Subject: UFOs Down Planes?


Source: Pravda,

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/12/39415.html

Stig

***

2002.11.12/20:50

UFOs Down Planes

Mysterious plane crashes that can never be explained

**

Everyone is used to news about plane crashes. This kind of
tragedy has already become a usual thing to hear about.
Nevertheless, governmental committees nearly always conclude
that this or that air crash happened due to a technical
malfunction or a pilot's mistake. Sometimes, a crash remains a
mystery forever.

Some mysterious accidents happen due to something totally
unbelievable, or anomalous, as ufologists say. Therefore, what
kind of anomalous events can be dangerous for planes? They are
UFOs, balls of lightening, meteorites, energy fields that humans
know nothing about, or even unknown forms of life in the upper
layers of the Earth's atmosphere.

Is there anything funny about such a supposition? Well, a person
is entitled to believe anything he wants. Let's try to find out
as much as we can anyway.

First of all, planes can be downed by UFOs. We will not dwell on
the origins of these objects. It is a fact, though, that they
are present in the skies of our planet. This has been proved so
many times with video tapes, photographs, and radar systems. The
vast majority of ufologists believe that UFOs do not show any
aggression against civil planes. In this connection, they are
basically safe. However, there were six accidents registered
during the period of 1991-1993, when UFOs were flying very close
to passenger jets.

In the beginning of 1995, a Boeing 737 crew was shocked when the
plane was about to slam into a triangle-shaped UFO, which flew
past the jetliner at a very high speed. The same year, the crew
of another Boeing 737 plane saw a ball-like object on a radar
screen. The flight security system of the plane gave a warning
of a possible collision. A UFO's friendliness can be rather
problematic. According to a well- known Russian ufologist,
Vladimir Azhazha, a plane disappeared in Siberia in April of the
year 1970. About 20 large UFOs were registered on the site of
the plane's supposed crash.

UFOs and fighter planes are a completely different subject to
talk about. Fighter planes are supposed to down all kinds of
trespassers, which inevitably leads to conflicts situations when
it comes to UFOs. In 1967, there was an unidentified spherical
object seen above Cuba. Two MiG-21 planes were ordered to pursue
and down the mysterious trespasser. However, all the navigation
equipment of the jets went out of order, including missiles and
targeting systems. The UFO did not like the pilots' persistence,
because the plane, which got too close to it, blew up. A Russian
Su-27 vanished in 1992 in Russia's Far East. No one knows what
happened to it.

Balls of lightning also pose a big threat to planes, and this
danger can hardly be rejected even by disbelievers. A plane was
damaged with ball of lightning in 1981 at a height of 1300
meters. Boris Korotkov, the pilot of the plane, said that the
lightning was huge -- about five meters in diameter.
Nevertheless, Korotkov managed to land the plane and remained
alive. It is worth mentioning here that such large balls of
lightening can also be categorized as an anomalous phenomenon. A
meteorite not destroyed completely in the atmosphere can also be
very dangerous to planes. It is not ruled out that several
mysterious crashes were caused by meteorites.

A Tu-154 passenger jetliner disappeared in 1995, a Boeing 737
blew up in the air not far from New York in the summer of 1996,
and a MiG- 31 pursuit plane burned in the air in the Arkhangelsk
region of Russia. The pilots of all those planes did not report
any malfunctions or state of emergency. Everything was going
normal, and then a plane would disappear from radar screens,
that's all. The flight recorders found after such strange
crashes actually said the same: normal flights and then no
records at all. Catastrophes happened all of a sudden.

Engineer Yevgeny Voronin from St. Petersburg offered his own
theory to explain such tragedies. As he thinks, certain kinds of
energy fields can fall in the Earth atmosphere from space. If a
plane finds itself inside such an electromagnetic field, all of
its equipment and black boxes stops working, and the plane
starts spinning and then blows up. The fragments of a plane can
be scattered over a very extensive area.

There is also a hypothesis, according to which active zones of
the Earth crust (geological splits and their crossings)
sometimes produce powerful energy bursts. These bursts then
causes eddy flows and other anomalous phenomena in the
atmosphere. If a plane flies above the site of the ejection, it
will inevitably crash.

A man-made factor is also a reason of unexpected plane crashes.
However, a situation, which is caused by this factor can be
anomalous at times as well. This includes incidental or
unauthorized missile launches, flying into a weapon-testing
area, radiation, etc. An American professor determined that
automatic piloting of planes is sometimes disabled with an
incidental electromagnetic impulse from powerful ground
antennas. Malfunctions can also be caused by battle planes that
generate those impulses.

There are two other possible reasons for such crashes, but may
people won't believe them. The first one is connected with the
evil eye. There can be a longer title given to it too: "distant
extrasensory impact on a human being with the goal of causing
damage to health."

It is not ruled out that flight crews can be subjected to this
kind of impact, when someone wants a plane to crash for some
reason. There have been articles published stating that
extrasensory individuals can exert distant influence on electric
devices and computers.

As far as unknown forms of life in the upper layers of
atmosphere are concerned, a weird accident happened to a small
private plane in 1964 in Alaska. The pilot of that plane sent a
SOS and managed to say something about very bright light and
some weird creature in the sky. Then the connection stopped.

A satellite took a picture of a strange throbbing amoeba-like
form, which looked like a living object. The satellite
registered the creature in the upper layers of the Earth
atmosphere. Ufologists believe that there are some unknown forms
of life that inhabit the atmosphere of our planet. Time will
tell if it is true or not.

Anomalia.Ru

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov

**

=A91999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in whole or in
part, reference to Pravda.RU should be made.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                  Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:37:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:42:49 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Maccabee


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:37:43 -0800
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:25:15 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

 >>"One U.S. Air Force summary shows that - with the exception of
 >>a section of New Mexico - the north central region of the
 >>country has the largest number of unexplained sightings. Of the
 >>states in the north-central region, has the most."

 >My guess is that the "section of New Mexico" would be the White
 >Sands area. I know that a 1952 Blue Book briefing with the
 >Canadians had them stating that 5% of all their sightings came
 >from there, even though probably only .01% of the nation's
 >population lives in that region. In other words, when population
 >density is taken into account, the number of sightings there was
 >humungous.

 >What about other regions of N.M. with military bases or
 >important scientific facilities, such as around Sandia base in
 >Albuquerque or Los Alamos or even Roswell? Also breakdowns by
t>ime period would be instructive. White Sands no longer has the
 >same importance as a research facility as it did back around
 >1950. There is no longer a military base at Roswell, etc.

Many years ago I wrote a long analytical paper on PRoject Blue
Book Special Report #14. There is a chart in SR#14 which shows
the number of sightings in each one degree square throughout the
USA. Note that one degree squares are all basically the same
size (slight variation with latitude) whereas the sizes of the
states vary widely!

I spent weeks of part time effort using an almanac which showed
the population by counties throughout the USA (if I recall
correctly). I managed to estimate the population in each (and
there are a lot!) one degree square.

Populations ranged from a few hundred (unpopulated areas of
western USA) to a few million (large cities like NYC, LA) The
reason for this 'monumental' effort was to determine whether or
not there was any correlation between the sighting number and
the population number.

The net result was... no correlation.

Example: the one degree square containing Albuquerque and
surround, with several hundred thousand people, had about the
same number of sightings as the one degree squares that
contained large cities like the Philadelphia, DC, New York City
and Los Angeles areas.

There was a correlation, however... the one degree squares that
contained military air bases or civilian airports had more
sightings that the square without airports.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                       Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:44:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:47:16 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >>insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:

 >>http://ifo.s5.com

 >>and

 >>http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm

 >>the UFO in the FOX News footage from Albany, NY

 >>http://wxxa-tv.clearchannel.com/ufo.rm

 >>_seems_ to fly behind several clouds. Also, upon closer
 >>inspection, the extensions or 'wings' on the object do not seem
 >>to alternate as they do in images of alleged 'rods'.  The
 >>extensions appear straight and immobile.

 >If the Albany recording had been made at or near a military
 >base, or a manufacturing/testing facility I would be more
 >inclined to agree with your candidate. But, this incident
 >happened at a busy commercial airport.

 >Legit question:

 >Why would _any_ outfit be flying or testing experimental craft
 >in the vacinity of a busy commercial airport. Doesn't make any
 >sense. It would endanger the lives of innocent travelers.


Dear friends,

Since I have had the opportunity to witness many UFO sightings
since 1974... and took time to think about these so-called
"Rods", I've come to the that they are some unknown lifeform
living in our atmosphere, akin to the plankton living in our
oceans.

Man does not have the ingenuity nor the resources to create
something like these "creatures".

Now that camcorders... digital or analogue... are commonplace,
these little buggers will be 'captured' again and again and
again... just watch!

Whether or not biologists will be able to study them in depth
remains to be seen.

Now, let's get back to UFOs and Flying Saucers!


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
Multiple 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Case

From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:35:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Case


[Non-Subscriber Post--ebk]

From: Edward Case
For:Submission to the UFO Mailing List

 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >bathwater.

 >What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >Disclosure Project?

 >Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >credibility of their disclosures?

 >Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?



Dear Don,

You have raised a very important point.  I think it is critical that people
who are interested in the truth about UFOs take a good look at the
credibility of the Disclosure Project witnesses. Some of them may be
unreliable - but the most important question is: "are any
of them telliing the truth, and if so, who?".

In response to your request I have posted a copy of a DP witness list and a
url for the website that I got it from.

Overall I have been very impressed with the high caliber of people and
content at this list - but when I read the post's on this list about Dr.
Greer, I was dissappointed. The responses were mostly negative and seemed
to miss the most critical point. By focusing on his possible shortcomings -
people were downplaying the importance of the Disclosure Project witness
testimony, and the National Press Club conference in May 2001.

I have heard Dr. Greer speak, spoken to him briefly and have read much
about him and by him.  There does seem to be ample evidence that Dr. Greer
has used bad judgement at times (especially in regards to copyright issues)
and that he may be off track with some of his beliefs about the UFO
phenomena. Everyone has shortcomings though and it is possible that some of
his more controversial beliefs may be turn out to be true. I thought that
Richard Dolan's article about Dr. Greer was a very balanced and well
written piece. I can find the url for it if any listerians are interested.

The Disclosure Project book has testimony transcripts. I think it is really
worthwhile to view the videotaped testimonies and read the transcripts also.

Donating a copy of both to the local library would make it possible for
others in your area to examine the evidence.

I think some of the best witnessness are: Gordon Cooper, John Callahan,
General Lovekin and Major Filer, but there are many more DP witnesses that
I find very credible.

DISCLOSURE PROJECT WITNESS LIST:

Source: www.cedar.at/mailarchives/infoterra/2001/msg00581.html

Testimony that Explains the Secrecy:

Brigadier General Stephen Lovekin: Army National Guard Reserves
Merle Shane McDow: US Navy Atlantic Command
Lt. Col. Charles Brown: US Air Force (Ret.)
"Dr. B"
Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt: US Marine Corps
Maj. George A. Filer, III: US Air Force (Ret.)
Nick Pope: British Ministry of Defense Official
Larry Warren: US Air Force, Security Officer
Sgt. Clifford Stone: US Army
Master Sgt. Dan Morris: US Air Force, NRO Operative
A.H.: Boeing Aerospace Employee
Officer Alan Godfrey: British Police
Sgt. Karl Wolf: US Air Force
Ms. Donna Hare: NASA Employee
Mr. John Maynard: DIA Official
Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer
Glen Dennis: NM UFO Crash Witness
Sgt. Leonard Pretko: US Air Force
Dr. Roberto Pinotti: Italian UFO expert
Dr. Paul Czysz: McDonnell Douglas Career Engineer

<snip>

John Callahan: FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations
Michael Smith: US Air Force Radar Controller
Franklin Carter: US Navy Radar Technician
Neil Daniels: United Airlines Pilot
Lt. Frederick Fox: US Navy Pilot
Captain Robert Salas: US Air Force, SAC Launch Controller
Prof. Robert Jacobs: US Air Force
Harry Allen Jordan: US Navy
James Kopf: US Navy Crypto Communications


Witness Testimony:

Overview:
Monsignor Corrado Balducci: September 2000

Radar and Pilot Cases:

FAA Division Chief John Callahan
Sgt. Chuck Sorrells: US Air Force (ret.)
Mr. Michael W. Smith: US Air Force
Commander Graham Bethume: US Navy (ret.)
Mr. Enrique Colbeck: Senior Air Traffic Controller
Dr. Richard Haines
Mr. Franklin Carter: US Navy
Neil Daniels: Airline Pilot
Sgt. Robert Blazina (ret.)
Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox: US Navy (ret.)
Captain Massimo Poggi
Lt. Bob Walker: US Army
Mr. Don Bockelman: US Army

SAC/Nuke:

Captain Robert Salas
Professor Robert Jacobs: Lt. US Air Force
Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson: US Air Force (ret.)
Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.)
Harry Allen Jordan: US Navy
Mr. James Kopf: US Navy/ National Security Agency
Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, US Air Force
Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell: US Air Force

Government Insiders/ NASA/ Deep Insiders

Astronaut Gordon Cooper
Brigadier General Steven Lovekin, Esq.: Army National Guard Reserve
Merle Shane McDow: US Navy Atlantic Command
Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown: US Air Force (ret.), October
Dr. Carol Rosin
Lance Corporal John Weygandt: U.S. Marine Corps,
Major A. Filer III: U.S. Air Force
Mr. Nick Pope: British Ministry Of Defense
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the
British Ministry of Defense
Security Officer Larry Warren: United States Air Force,
Captain Lori Rehfeldt
Sergeant Clifford Stone: United States Army
Major-General Vasily Alexeyev: Russian Air Force
Master Sergeant Dan Morris: US Air Force/NRO Operative (ret.)
Mr. Don Phillips: Lockheed Skunkworks, USAF, and CIA Contractor
Captain Bill Uhouse: US Marine Corps (ret.)
Lieutenant Colonel John Williams: US Air Force (ret.)
Mr. Don Johnson
A.H.: Boeing Aerospace, December 2000
British Police Officer Alan Godfrey
Mr. Gordon Creighton: Former British Foreign Service Official
Sergeant Karl Wolfe: US Air Force
Donna Hare: Former NASA Employee
Mr. John Maynard: Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Mr. Harland Bentley: US Army
Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer,
Dr. Alfred Webre: Senior Policy Analyst, Stanford Research Institute
Denise McKenzie: Former SAIC employee
Mr. Paul H. Utz
Colonel Phillip J. Corso, Sr.: US Army (ret.)
Mr. Glen Dennis
Lieutenant Walter Haut: US Navy
Buck Sergeant Leonard Pretko: US Air Force
Mr. Dan Willis: US Navy
Dr. Roberto Pinotti

Technology/Science:

Mr. Mark McCandlish: US Air Force
Professor Paul Czysz
Dr. Hal Puthoff
David Hamilton: Department of Energy
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden: US Army (ret.)
Dr. Eugene Mallove
Dr. Paul La Violette
Mr. Fred Threlfell: Royal Canadian Air Force
Dr. Ted Loder

---








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                    PRG Press Release - November 13, 2002

From: Stephen Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:27:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:41:08 -0500
Subject: PRG Press Release - November 13, 2002


..................PRG........................
...........Paradigm Research Group...........

Press Release
November 13, 2002

Washington, DC - The Paradigm Clock has been reset to 11:58:30
p.m. (one and one-half minutes to midnight). Based upon recent
developments shown below, the clock has been moved forward a net
30 seconds. Past settings and expanded item explanations can be
found at:

www.paradigmclock.com/timechangechronicle.html


November - The main advertising campaign begins for a massive
production - "Taken" - from Steven Spielberg. This 20-hour, 10-
part series will be aired on the SCI FI Channel in December and
accompanied by several documentaries. "Taken" will bring the
abductee/contactee/experiencer phenomenon to the attention of
tens of millions world wide. and will draw upon UFO/ET events
and evidence of the last 55 years.

See: www.scifi.com/taken ( > 10 seconds)


11/05/02 - The Republican Party gains control of the House and
Senate in the mid-term election ( > 5 seconds)

11/05/02 - A milestone is reached, when a candidate speaking
directly to the reality of an extraterrestrial presence, appears
on a November ballot in a federal election. The campaign is
titled Disclosure2003 and takes place in the Washington, DC
metro area in the 8th Congressional District of Maryland.
( > 5 seconds)

See: www.disclosure2003.net


10/22/02 - John Podesta, former key advisor and White House
Chief of Staff during the Clinton Administration, presents at
the SCI FI press conference as a principal in the retained
public relations firm, PodestaMattoon.

See: www.presidentialufo.com  ( > 5 seconds)


10/22/02 - The SCI FI Channel, owned by multibillion dollar,
multinational Vivendi Universal, launches a set of disclosure
advocacy initiatives - Coalition for Freedom of Information.

See: www.freedomofinfo.org ( > 10 seconds)


October to Present - A national and international effort to
motivate Iraq to disarm or undergo a regime change is conducted.
This adds to the domination of the news by national security
issues and poses much uncertainty for the first half of 2003.
( < 15 seconds)


10/01/02 - The Data Quality Act takes effect. This little-known
law passed during the last days of the Clinton Administration
may provide a new tool to pry information from the government.
It sets standards for the quality of scientific and statistical
information put out by federal agencies. It is expected that
UFO/ET research/activist organizations will put it to use
immediately, as they did with the FOIA. ( > 5 seconds)


10/30/01 - 10/31/02 - A year's worth of images from the Mars
2001 Odyssey orbiter Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS)
plus new images from the Mars Global Surveyor are intensely
scrutinized. The anomalies controversy remains alive. ( > 5
seconds)


The Paradigm Clock was last reset on January 16, 2002 in
response to the extraordinary events which began on September
11, 2001.

The Paradigm Clock resides at the Paradigm Research Group
website:

www.paradigmclock.com

It is a metaphor representing the proximity to formal
acknowledgment by the U.S. government of an extraterrestrial
presence manifest about the planet. It is modeled after the
"Doomsday Clock" first published in 1947 by the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists. Midnight on the Doomsday Clock meant nuclear
war had begun. Midnight on the Paradigm Clock will mean formal
disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence has taken place.

Clock History

April 30, 1998: Published to the internet, time 11:57:00 pm
July  27, 1998: Time reset back to 11:56:30 pm
July  28, 1999: Time reset forward to 11:57:15 pm
July  14, 2000: Time reset forward to 11:58:10 pm
May   17, 2001: Time reset forward to 11:59:00 pm
Jan.  16, 2002: Time reset back to 11:58:00 pm

The Paradigm Research Group is a lobbying/consulting project
serving the interests of UFO/ET research/activist organizations
around the country. It is dedicated to ending the government
imposed embargo on the truth of an extraterrestrial presence and
the convening of open, comprehensive congressional hearings to
take the testimony of government witnesses as regards UFO/ET
events and evidence.

Contact:
Stephen Bassett
301-990-4290
ParadigmRG@aol.com
_____________________________________________

Paradigm Research Group
URL: www.paradigmclock.com
E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
Phone: 301-990-4290
Cell: 202-431-2459
4938 Hampden Lane, #161
Bethesda, MD 20814






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         One Giant Hoax For Mankind

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:54:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:54:31 -0500
Subject: One Giant Hoax For Mankind

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2441469.stm


Monday, 11 November, 2002, 15:21 GMT

One giant hoax for mankind

BBC News Online's science editor, Dr David Whitehouse, himself a
Moon author, explains why he thinks NASA should have gone ahead
with its controversial book idea on the lunar landings

Am I the only one who thinks the US space agency (NASA) has
missed a good opportunity in cancelling the book planned to give
a rebuttal of the Moon hoaxers?

You know the ones. The people who believe that the lunar
landings were faked in a military hangar somewhere.

NASA said the aim of the book was to provide a resource for
teachers to answer pupils' questions about the conspiracy
theory.

The agency said it pulled out of the publication because it felt
the publicity surrounding the book was distracting from its
intended purpose.

You can understand NASA's thinking. It does not want to see a
headline, "NASA proves it went to the Moon", as it implies the
agency has something to explain - which it does not.

But the sad fact is the belief the Moon landings were a hoax is
a growing one, and if it is ignored then those with
unsupportable ideas are left unchallenged and given free reign
to convince others.

NASA should have produced the book and said: "that's that. End
of discussion." Not that it would have made the conspiracy
theorists see sense.


Manufacture a conspiracy

What always puzzles me about conspiracy advocates is their lack
of critical thinking and how they parade their deficiencies as
virtues.

It is as if the question is all important and the answer
irrelevant; as if the need to believe the conspiracy overwhelms
the evidence.

As for the evidence that the Moon landings were a hoax - there
is none. Or at least, none that stands up to anything more than
trivial investigation.

The fact is every single shred of so-called evidence put forward
by the Moon hoax theorists is either obviously stupid - a result
of their own ignorance of basic science - or has a
straightforward explanation.

But why believe a simple explanation when you can manufacture a
conspiracy?


They are not alone

The Moon hoaxers are not the only ones. There are also the UFO
conspiracies, the flat-Earth conspiracies and those who actually
believe that crop circles are made by some non-human
force/alien/entity.

So are they all true? Are there alien bodies held in a deep
freeze in Area 51 in the US? Does the US Government really have
a crashed UFO it picked up at Roswell in 1947? Are crop circles
made by aliens who, given their diverse descriptions, appear to
be having a convention on our small planet?

Also let us not forget the face on Mars, or those other strange
features in the Martian deserts which are artificial structures,
remnants of some ancient city now partially buried by drifting
Martian sand dunes.

Perhaps those who believe these crazy ideas think that the world
would be a more interesting place if the X-Files were true?
Perhaps they fervently believe they are on a righteous crusade
to uncover the "truth".

Laughing matter

The real truth is out there and it is a lot more interesting
than the conspiracy theorists realise. What they are doing is
imposing on the world their own suspicions of deceit, mass lies,
cover-ups and double dealings.

But they say: "Look at the past. History is full of people who
were laughed at by their contemporaries but who were later
vindicated".

What they fail to realise is that just because a few geniuses
were laughed at in the past does not mean that everyone who is
laughed at today is going to turn out to be a genius.

The next time you hear that we did not land on the Moon, the
correct response is to laugh.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:10:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:10:23 -0500
Subject: Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/fun_stuff/weird/ufo.shtml

UFO sightings

 From lights in the sky to flying saucers - UFOs come in various
guises. But are they the product of alien life, natural
phenomena or just a vivid imagination?

Watch these amazing images of strange phenomenon seen over the
south coast of England:

56K Modem http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_56.ram

ADSL http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_adsl.ram

[The DSL version uses substantially more screen area and renders
  a cleaner image --ebk]

The images were filmed by a police helicopter and the UFO was
followed for about 10 miles.

None of the crew members on board the helicopter had seen
anything like it before or since...

The footage has aroused the interest of UFO enthusiasts. So what
could it be? Well, some people think it could be a balloon or
some other simple explanation... What do you think?


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                      Mars Rectilinear Surface Patterns

From: Nathan <natethegreat2u_2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:16:18 -0500
Subject: Mars Rectilinear Surface Patterns



(Mars) Rectilinear surface patterns
An urban sprawl, By Nathan Schoeller

Source:

http://www.geocities.com/natethegreat2u_2002/rectilinear.html


This is an area which contains numerous rectilinear surface
patterns. These features range from 15 to 30 Meters across, and
most have a common directionality, running North/South -
  East/West. The objects that comprise these surface patterns are
heavily eroded and covered in a great amount of sediment.  Below
Are three sections of this area, including a close up view, and
a context image for better interpretation.


Upper section

At first, one may see this area (above) as natural patterned
terrain, But on closer view, you see this is NOT your average
terrain. This area has many sharp angles and edges, all running
in a uniform direction, similar to what you would see in a
typical "neighborhood" setting.  Also, looking at the close up
view of a section of this terrain, you see no image artifacts or
scan lines to potentially corrupt the image. WYSIWYG

Middle section

This is another large area a few Kilometers away. You can see
the patterns are very similar, and there edges/sides, run in the
same North/South - East/West direction...DISTINCTLY separate
from the natural flow of the terrain.  There are also more
rectilinear formations sparsely scattered in between the Three
large sections displayed on this page, as well as on several
additional nearby images, (although not as clear).

Lower section

This section is slightly different, but only by the overall
smaller size of the objects.

Upper section - Extra enhancement

"There is no natural explanation for what you are seeing"

"These rectilinear objects, do NOT align with the (natural) flow
of the terrain"

The objects that form these patterns become less regular toward
the top, perhaps caused by being buried deeper.


Comparison of images

Jersey City, New Jersey
This is a comparison of These objects/buildings, and a
section of Jersey City, New Jersey.  This image allows
you to quickly see and compare Urban geometry.

There are several other MOC images within the proximity of this
image, that may have similar rectilinear patterns with lesser
degree of clarity, But it is important to note that these
anomalous patterns are sparse, and can be easily confused with
the natural terrain.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:22:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:20:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Warren


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >bathwater.

 >What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >Disclosure Project?

 >Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >credibility of their disclosures?

 >Is there a list of these presenters and their topics,
 >somewhere?


Hi Don & All,

Here is the list of witnesses that spoke at the press conference:

  1. Major George A. Filer (Air Force Ret.)

  2. Sgt.Karl Wolfe (Air Force Ret.)

  3. Donna Hare (Display Designer Johnson Space Center)

  4. John Callahan (FAA Division Chief Ret.)

  5. Sgt. Clifford Stone (Army Ret.)

  6. Lt. Col. Charles L. Brown (Air Force OSI Ret.)

  7. Graham Bethune (Navy Commander/Pilot Ret.)

  8.Cpt. Robert Salas (Air Force Ret./Missile Launch Officer)

  9. Daniel Sheehan (Famed Defense Attorney)

10. Sgt. Michael Smith (Air Force/Aircraft Controller)

11. Don Phillips (Air Force Ret./Design Engineer For
     Lockheed Skunkworks)

12. Col.Dwynne Arnesone (Air Force Ret.)

13. Carol Rosin (Wernher Von Braun's Spokeswoman)

14. James Kopf (Navy Ret./Ex-NSA Employee)

15. Enrique Colbec (Air Traffic Controller/Mexico City)

16. Dan Willis (Navy Ret.)

17. Harlan Bentley (Army Ret.)

18. Sgt. John Maynard (Army Ret.)

19. Larry Warren (Air Force Ret.)

20.Dan Morris (Air Force Ret.)

21. Mark McCandlish (Defense Contractor Employee)

As to their respective "topics" I believe that can be found at
Greer's web-site.


Frank








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:24:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:42:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser


 >From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >[Non-Subscriber Post--ebk]

 >From: Edward Case
 >For:Submission to the UFO Mailing List

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >>Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >>agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired  where
 >>credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >>possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >>bathwater.

 >>What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >>disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >>Disclosure Project?

 >>Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >>credibility of their disclosures?

 >>Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?

 >You have raised a very important point. I think it is critical
 >that people who are interested in the truth about UFOs take a
 >good look at the credibility of the Disclosure Project
 >witnesses. Some of them may be unreliable - but the most
 >important question is: "are any of them telliing the truth, and
 >if so, who?".

<snip>

The question that has to be raised is whether or not the stories
being told by these witnesses make a difference, and so far they
have not (IMO).

Many of the witnesses were not new to researchers, who had
rejected some of them for credibility reasons and others because
their importance to the genre was very tenuous. A few raised
issues that should be properly investigated, but that hasn't
really taken place and I've not seen any effort in that regard.

Perhaps we should try to compile a list of those witnesses that
should be followed up on. As an example, reviewing Gorden
Cooper's beliefs and comments in regard to UFOs can be
interesting, but don't really add to the effort since that's
rather old news. When asked seperately, I think you'll also find
the individual witnesses do not necessarily support the
conclusions being promoted by the Disclosure Project group.

We've had many discussions regarding Dr. Greer, and we don't
need to rehash them now. I'd be very interested in identifying
specific witnesses that can add substance to this investigation,
but merely listing a number of people with titles isn't all that
impressive for me.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:25:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:43:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation

 >Lots of pixs of these, see the front cover and Plate 3b of Uncle
 >Phil's excellent reference, UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)

 >>_below_ an airliner,

 >They were always seen against the sky

 >>make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >>and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon.

 >No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 >>Guess we better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate
 >>such "intelligent meteors.

 >Yup, you could. The only thing intelligent about this meteor was
 >that the witnesses of its 10-12 second flight (intererrupted
 >when the pilot moved around in the cockpit) sat down afterward
 >and tried to reconstruct what they assumed had happened near
 >Wallops Island test range.

10 - 12 second meteors? Even your uncle Phil shouldn't have
bought that one Bob. That's baloney.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:35:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:33:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger


 >From: John Zupansic <zupansic@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 01:17:18 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

<snip>

 >>I am concerned that Don Schmitt has managed to position himself
 >>in the center of the Roswell investigations (having personally
 >>experienced some of the very off-putting behavior on his part
 >>alluded to by Kevin Randle), but far more important will be
 >>whatever objective information the archeologists have come up
 >>with.

 >Mr. Hall, I think you're initial "knee-jerk skepticism "(or
 >"cynicism") might have been correct. The fact that Donald Schmitt
 >is involved at all in this project is beyond my comprehension.
 >The man has been proven to be a liar more than once in his
 >career in ufology.... embellishing his education, lying about
 >his employment, lying about his former partner Kevin Randle. He
 >has very little credibility left and the fact that he is
 >involved will taint the project in many people's minds right
 >from the start. Of all the people they could have come up with
 >for this... Schmitt shouldn't have been on the A list, he
 >shouldn't have been on the B or C list for that matter. There's
 >another list he should have been on, but it involves one of the
 >seven words you can't say on television.


Has anybody asked the Sci-fi Channel why they chose Don Schmitt?

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:47:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:40:22 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Ledger


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:44:52 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>>Although most 'Rod' images have been demonstrated to be flying
 >>>insects frozen in flight - see the IFO Database:
 >
 >>>http://ifo.s5.com
 >
 >>>and
 >
 >>>http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm
<snip>

 >Since I have had the opportunity to witness many UFO sightings
 >since 1974... and took time to think about these so-called
 >"Rods", I've come to the that they are some unknown lifeform
 >living in our atmosphere, akin to the plankton living in our
 >oceans.

 >Man does not have the ingenuity nor the resources to create
 >something like these "creatures".

 >Now that camcorders... digital or analogue... are commonplace,
 >these little buggers will be 'captured' again and again and
 >again... just watch!

 >Whether or not biologists will be able to study them in depth
 >remains to be seen.

 >Now, let's get back to UFOs and Flying Saucers!


Hi Michel,

I though we were discussing UFOs. What are you, on some board
that sorts these things out? What is, what isn't?

What should or should not be flying in controlled airspace is
always of interest to me. I like to use the opportunity to
dispel the myths presummed by most about what aircraft are and
are not allowed to do.

Even respected, hardcore and longtime ufologists are not immune
to these uninformed presumptions. Debunkers as well.

If you aren't interested just hit your delete button.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:02:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:42:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Clark



 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >>pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >>they were zooming away into space. I had proposed that this
 >>dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >>the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.
 >>Bob Young

 >A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation
 >_below_ an airliner, make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon. Guess we
 >better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate such
 >"intelligent meteors."

Yeah, Dick, but you gotta admit that the idea _is_ hilarious.

These days I take my laughs where I can get 'em, and Bob Young
is always good for either a chuckle or a hearty belly laugh.

Remember, this is the guy who claims to believe - as far as I
can tell, his face is straight when he's typing - that the
Portage County case was caused by Venus, the Coyne CE2 by a
meteor, and the Valentich disappearance by a hoax. Bob's never
seen an absurd explanation he didn't like.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledge

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:00:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:43:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledge


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:22:08 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >>Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >>agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >>credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >>possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >>bathwater.

 >>What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >>disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >>Disclosure Project?

 >>Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >>credibility of their disclosures?

 >>Is there a list of these presenters and their topics,
 >>somewhere?

 >Hi Don & All,

 >Here is the list of witnesses that spoke at the press conference:

Thanks to Edward Case and Frank Warren for the "Disclosure"
list. Steve, I just asked for a list. Whether the Listers gets
into a discussion about Greer is their concern.


Regards,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                     Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:46:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >>>pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >>>dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >>>the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.

 >>A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation

 >Dick:

 >Lots of pixs of these, see the front cover and Plate 3b of Uncle
 >Phil's excellent reference, UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)

 >>_below_ an airliner,

 >They were always seen against the sky

 >>make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >>and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon.

 >No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 >>Guess we better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate
 >>such "intelligent meteors.

 >Yup, you could. The only thing intelligent about this meteor was
 >that the witnesses of its 10-12 second flight (intererrupted
 >when the pilot moved around in the cockpit) sat down afterward
 >and tried to reconstruct what they assumed had happened near
 >Wallops Island test range.


Bob,

Are you now into falsifying data to force-fit your (erroneous)
conclusions? You have the facts all wrong on this case. The
glowing red disc-shaped objects flew underneath the airliner
anfd made a sharp reversal of direction; the pilots were looking
down and saw the objects against the ground.

Your other "facts" are equally wrong as to location and other
details. Good God, at least get the facts right!


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids

From: Erol Erkmen <andromeda@ultratv.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:25:43 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:08:01 -0500
Subject: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids


Turkish UFO Researchers
Dismiss Sightings As Meteor Shower

In an e-mail report to UFO UpDates filed by Turkey UFO and
Paranormal Events Research Organization [TUVPO], the multiple
sightings of bright flying objects seen in that country on
November 1 have been identified as belonging to the Leonid
Meteor Shower, which peaks this month sometime between November
17 and 20.

Members of TUVPO's Afyon branch followed up on both the sighting reports
filed by the pilots of four aircraft in the vicinity at that time of the
incident, and additional eyewitness sightings from cities that
included Antalya, Balikesir and Afyon.

http://www.tuvpo.com/124.jpg (147 Kb.)

Photographs were obtained of the event, including this one taken
by Halil Yalcin, and these have been examined by the scientific
advisers of TUVPO, plus Prof. Dr. M.E.Ozel and Dr.Hafez Keypour,
of the Turkish National Observational House.

As a result of these findings, TUVPO has closed its file on this
event.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                   Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:28:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:10:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Maccabee


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >SDate: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:56:18 -0700
 >ubject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:10:01 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

 >>Actually there were similar sightings before March 1997. I
 >>studied several from rearly 1998 in order to "learn" how to
 >>analyze the videos. You should see the Phoenix Iights paper on
 >>my web site:

 >>www.brumac.8k.com/phoenixlights1.html


 >Hmm. Interesting that I've never heard anyone report these flare
 >drops except on the night of March 17th, 1997.

 >In any case, I stand corrected... but the mystery of the
 >triangle endures. As does the mystery of why the military
 >authorities took so long to acknowledge the flare drop.

 >I've heard one explanation from local MUFON, that "these things
 >take time," but I can't see it taking _months_ for them to
 >simply say, Oh yeah, that was us.

It is my impression, from reading the news articles and witness
testimony and the claims by the military (Eilieen Benz, public
information officer), that the March, 1997 flare drops were done
by the Maryland National Guard during training exercises.

When the nearby air force bases were queried about the lights
their PIOs were unaware of what the National Guard had done.

It wasn't until June or July 1997 that Ms. Benz carried out a
thorough investigation and learned about the National Guard
activities. Up to that point, apparently the AF simply shrugged
off all requests for info on the lights, saying basically that
they had no information.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

              Re: Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:29:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:17:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:10:23 -0500
 >Subject: Clearer Footage From UK Police Helicopter UFO


 >Source: BBCi

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/fun_stuff/weird/ufo.shtml

 >UFO sightings

 >>From lights in the sky to flying saucers - UFOs come in various
 >guises. But are they the product of alien life, natural
 >phenomena or just a vivid imagination?

 >Watch these amazing images of strange phenomenon seen over the
 >south coast of England:

 >56K Modem http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_56.ram

 >ADSL http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_adsl.ram

 >[The DSL version uses substantially more screen area and renders
 >a cleaner image --ebk]

<snip>

Hi Errol and all,

That was better. It appears to me that the chopper was circling
a balloon lit internally. The Lat. and Long. provided on the top
of the screen [now readable] indicates little over the ground
movement by the helicopter, but a circling of the lighted
object. This maneuver makes it appear that the object is moving
swiftly when it's realy stationary. At the end the chopper moves
away a bit and that's reflected in the [fuzzy looking]
longitudinal change as the chopper moves eastward. Some one was
"having it off" with the Brighton Police it seems.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                         Filer's Filer's #46 -- 2002

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:54:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:26:05 -0500
Subject: Filer's Filer's #46 -- 2002


FILER'S FILES #46 -- 2002, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 13, 2002, Majorstar@aol.com. Webmaster: Chuck
Warren -- My new website is at: http://www.georgefiler.com


SIGHTINGS INCREASE WORLDWIDE

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space. Features this week are: Pravda claims US has
Aurora space planes. US Air Force 'ISOON' Becomes Declassified,
New Hampshire sphere sighted, Pennsylvania diamond pink light,
Virginia glowing disk and 'V' craft, North Carolina chevron,
Alabama two chevrons, Michigan large object over water,
Wisconsin lights, Illinois speeding craft, Iowa five lights form
a triangle, Montana daylight disk, California small UFO, Strange
Oregon creatures, Washington photos continue, Canadian UFO
photos, England green lights, Russia flap, and China UFO spotted
by airline pilots.

Announcing the Grand Opening of our website with 100 stores for
all your Holiday shopping at fantastic prices. [
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com/

SECRET US AURORA SPACE PLANES TO DOMINATE SKIES

According to Pravda, the US has been working on secret, new-
generation of space planes. In the beginning of the 1990s,
Russian intelligence uncovered the fact that the US was testing
a super-secret plane. Russian agents attempted to see the new
object with their own eyes and take pictures of it, but all
attempts failed. The Americans provided incredible security for
their secret weapon, and they tested the plane only at night.
However, Russian agents managed to get some information about
the new plane, which the US calls Aurora, in honor of the
Goddess of the Dawn. The mystery aircraft is capable of flying
at a height of 40 plus kilometers at fantastic Mach 6,
supersonic speed using extremely powerful engines and the
special design of the plane's hull and wings. The Aurora flies
at a speed of two kilometers a second or faster. The aircraft
was based on Stealth technology, and is designed not be tracked
by radar. Pictures of the real Aurora aircr! aft are even more
rare than a picture of an UFO. So far, Russia has only one
picture of the mysterious American plane. The picture was taken
by a Russian intelligence officer when the Aurora was refueling
with a KC-135 aircraft prior to flying across Russia from east
to west. It was not detected by any radar systems.

Russian Su-2711, MiG-29, and MiG-31 cannot reach the altitude of
the Aurora which is a new kind of aircraft that can be used as a
spy plane, transport or fighter. The Aurora is able to fly from
the atmosphere into space and then return to Earth. The
Americans have developed several "star wars" projects and
already have the X-33, X-34, X-37, and X-38 planes. The X-33
uses titanic alloys and is equipped with oxygen-hydrogen jet
engines that use graphite and ceramic technologies that can fly
to 120 kilometers altitude. Some of this technology was either
bought or stolen from Russia. The X-34 is equipped with unique
electronic devices and special heat-shielding coating and
launches from a carrier aircraft and reaches speeds up to 5,440
meters a second and 150 kilometers altitude. The planes reduce
the cost of delivering satellites into orbit, and can carry
missiles and laser weapons. The US is working on the first ever
space army, which ! would avoid antimissile defenses and be able
to hit any target at any moment. Thanks to Anomalia.Russia
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov.

US AIR FORCE 'ISOON' BECOMES DECLASSIFIED.

For the first time mentioned publicly, the US Air Force revealed
a special developed solar telescope to monitor "solar flares
which puzzle scientists." This statement was made by Dr. Don
Neidig, solar physicist based at National Solar Observatory
above Alamogordo, New Mexico. On October 31, 2002, a rare
simultaneous solar eruption occurred on opposite sides of the
Sun. They were powerful enough to be classified as X-Class
flares. An X-Class flare has an explosive force equivalent to
millions of hydrogen bombs. Dr. Neidig believes the two
separate, but simultaneous flares which were separated by more
than one million miles, were connected by some sort of magnetic
cord. This has brought up the hypothesis of solar flares
erupting in a polarized manner. Since we are unable to monitor
the opposite side of the Sun, it is currently not possible to
prove this theory. Dr. Neidig believes that on Halloween night,
the Sun was perfectly positioned to view an 'east -- w! est'
polar explosion. This dual event could be happening every time
we see a solar eruption. The US Air Force instrument used to
capture the duel event was "ISOON" (Improved Solar Observing
Network). The Air Force has a keen interest in the Sun possibly
because solar activity can be dangerous to high flying craft,
satellites, and military operations. There have been heavy M4-
class explosions on the sun in recent days that may have set off
tornados in the US. The Air Force goal is to predict the solar
weather. Your weatherman may start giving forecasts that include
space weather since they seem to foretell storms and extreme
weather conditions. Equation is: Sunspots = Solar Flares =
Magnetic Shift = Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents =
Extreme Weather and Human Disruption. Thanks to Mitch Battros
ECTV http//:www.spaceweather.com


NEW MORNING PLANETS

The planet Venus is now a bright morning "star." Look for it
hanging low in the eastern sky just before dawn. Now that Venus
has emerged from the glare of the Sun, you can see four planets
before local sunrise: Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Visit
spaceweather.com for sky maps. Mars will over the next several
months, lead to the best viewing opportunity since Neanderthals
looked skyward.

NEW HAMPSHIRE SPHERE SIGHTED

DERRY -- Friends were sitting in there hot tub on November 1,
2002, when they sighted a bluish white sphere in the southern
sky. It was very low on the horizon at 7:30 PM, and
approximately the size of a tennis ball that suspended in one
spot clear of the clouds. It then shot westward extremely fast
leaving a bluish white trail. The sighting lasted 3-5 seconds.
Just long enough for me to query "Did you see that?" It appeared
much like a falling star with an exaggerated descent except for
the closeness and the size of the object. We both had never seen
anything like it. We both have had many years in aviation and
sky watching. This was a novel sighting for both of us. There
were aircraft in the sky at this time as well in that we live
close to MHT airport. Thanks to Peter Davenport
http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC


PENNSYLVANIA DIAMOND PINK LIGHT DEEP IN SPACE

READING -- We saw a single light, less brilliant than a star on
November 1, 2002, deep in space. The light was pink in color and
it darted all over the sky in a somewhat jagged pattern at 2:27
PM. It moved much too quickly to be any human craft that I've
ever seen. At some points in flight it seemed to stop and hover
for a moment much like a humming bird. This could not have been
a meteor because the pattern of flight was too controlled. Also,
I was most intrigued with this sighting because we saw it on a
mountain at a city overlook where light pollution is highest.
Thanks to Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

VIRGINIA GLOWING DISK AND 'V' SPOTTED NEAR BASES

WILLIAMSBURG -- My friend and I glanced up in the night sky at
what we thought was a flock of geese in 'V' formation on
November 1, 2002. But it was lights on a craft gliding slowly
and silently to the southeast at 9:45 PM. The silent 'V'-shaped
aircraft glided slowly over. One side of the 'V' was shorter
than the other and there were about seven pale yellow lights on
one side, about five on the other. The lights appeared oblong,
not circular. Our line of sight was obscured as it moved behind
a lone tree, but then it didn't come out from behind the tree.
It disappeared without sound. We are located close to Camp Peary
and Langley Air Force Base.

VIRGINIA BEACH -- On November 4, 2002, the witness reported, My
wife exclaimed, "Look! What's that in the sky?" I looked up and
saw a strangely lit disk shape with a white or blue light
blinking on top and bottom. The UFO was lit in a very peculiar
manner. It seemed every inch was perfectly lit, as if the object
itself was glowing. I checked my watch it was 6:45 PM. The color
was a pale greenish. there seemed to be a ring around the disk
that was a darker color, perhaps black, though it still was
completely visible against the night sky. The only light source
I can imagine was from the UFO itself that hovered. The tree
line blocked our view, so we lost sight. If the UFO was moving,
it was doing so very slowly and in a kind of sliding manner. As
soon as we got out of the car, we heard jets roaring by from
Naval Oceania Air Base. The jets were flying in two pairs, away
from the direction we saw the craft. The speed and throttling of
the jets! seemed to be slightly abnormal for the weather and
night situation. Thanks to Peter Davenport
http://www.ufocenter.com/ - NUFORC


NORTH CAROLINA CHEVRON SHAPED CRAFT SPOTTED

WILMINGTON -- The witness was standing on a picnic table on
November 1, 2002, and was looking up at the stars when out of
nowhere appeared unidentified flying objects. At first I thought
it was a shooting star, but then two more appeared. At first I
thought, "Well that is odd" and then a fourth appeared. They
were all a glowing orange in a chevron shape and about the size
of large stars. The first three flew in a V, one in front and
two on either side and slightly behind. The fourth flew to the
right of the three and just before disappearing fell into
formation and the four were a diamond. I don't think that they
were Earthly craft because of how fast they flew and the odd
orange glow they gave off. It was a clear night and they just
were there, flew over my head and were gone. Thanks to Peter
Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC


ALABAMA TWO CHEVRON SHAPES IN FORMATION

ENTERPRISE -- The witness was standing on the flight line on
November 1, 2002, watching the sky for shooting stars that were
out in force at 6:30 PM. Directly overhead I spotted what looked
like two chevron shaped objects glowing faintly red/orange. They
moved from northwest to southeast at astonishing speed and were
visible for three seconds before they disappeared. They moved at
the speed of a shooting star and appeared to be at very high
altitude. The objects were in an echelon right formation. This
was the first time I ever saw something in the sky I could not
identify. Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC


ILLINOIS SPEEDY OBJECT WITH LOW MURMUR OVERHEAD

HOMER GLENN -- On November 2, 2002, the witness got home, parked
his car and got out and heard a strange noise at 2 AM. It
sounded like a generator or the engine of a diesel truck but
with a deeper sound and intervals that were not as fast as you
would hear the revs of an idle engine. It was loud, but I could
tell it was from a distance. I couldn't pinpoint where it was,
so I went in the middle of the cul-de-sac looking down the
street thinking that someone had a generator hooked up to his
house, then I saw some red, white, and I think blue flashing
lights in the sky. I really couldn't tell exactly how high the
object was, maybe a mile or two high. I would have thought it
was a jet except I heard the murmur before I saw the object and
it did not sound anything like the sound jets make. I have never
seen jets go so fast before or fly this low. Over head I didn't
hear the murmur anymore, it made a higher steady pitch sound for
a brief moment and then it! was out of hearing range. It was
kind of like a diamond shape but not solid all the way through.
The lights were alternating strobes that flashed twice within in
a second. The object was flying east northeast and covered the
entire sky in ten to fifteen seconds. Peter Davenport found the
witness quite credible. Thanks to http://www.ufocenter.com/
NUFORC.

MICHIGAN LARGE, DARK OBJECT FLYING LOW OVER WATER

TRAVERSE CITY -- On November 1, 2002, the witness was sitting in
his car in a local parking lot, watching the snow clouds move
south; and saw a darker cloud moving, but realized it had a
shape, sort of like a wingless C-47 cargo plane. There was no
sound and it was moving AGAINST the southbound clouds at 07:20
PM. It moved first to the north very smoothly with no jerkiness
and moved toward my position and then moved south, and one more
time to the north, then it vanished without a sound. I've lived
next door to our local airport for 49 years, so I know it wasn't
a plane, nor do they move so smoothly, and obviously cannot
change direction so quickly. This object was no more than 500
yards away from me, and very low in the sky. I was facing Grand
Traverse Bay, and got out of my car as soon as I realized this
was something unusual and did not resemble plane engine noise.
The object would have been about the size of a commercial
airliner, flyi! ng at five hundred feet above the water. It made
no sound and moved much too smoothly nothing like a plane as it
changed directions. Nothing flies that low over the bay. Thanks
to Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC


WISCONSIN LIGHTS OVER LAKE MICHIGAN

SHEBOYGAN LAKEFRONT -- Morgan G. writes my wife and I were
taking our nightly walk on November 10, 2002, and we could
clearly see two strange lights on the eastern horizon over Lake
Michigan. The lights were not those of a ship, nor were they on
the water. They appeared to be just above the water, quite far
out in the lake. Upon first sight of the lights, we saw one
large shimmering red light accompanied by a smaller white light
just to its left. We sat on a bench and watched these lights
from 7:30 to 8:45 PM, during which time the red light stayed
stationary, but the white light disappeared from view. We began
our slow walk home, and as we reached the top of a hill, the
small white light was now visible again, only this time it was
to the right of the red light's location. About 20 minutes into
our observation of these lights, we could clearly hear the
rumble of a group of jets, flying over the lake. I am quite
certain that this was not a vessel. I h! ave worked on ships,
and I know what they look like from a distance, and these lights
were different, and above the water. I have seen lots of lights
over the lake through the years, but these lights are definitely
something that I can't easily put an explanation to. Thanks to
UFOWisconsin  http://www.ufowisconsin.com/


IOWA FIVE LIGHTS FORM TRIANGLE

CORALVILLE -- The witness was traveling west on I-80, on a
beautiful clear Friday evening on November 1, 2002, at around 5
PM, we noticed two bright lights low in the western sky. At
first we thought they were airplanes but they were not moving.
Then three other lights appeared with the other lights in a
curvy line similar to an S lying down. Then the five lights
moved around to form a huge triangle with the brightest light at
the top and two at the bottom and the two other lights at the
sides which turned into outward slashes similar to jet contrails
with a pinkish tint. A few minutes later the brightest of the
lights turned into a slash and headed to the left while the
other lights disappeared. This lasted around ten minutes. Thanks
to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

MONTANA DAYLIGHT SPHERE

Jerry writes, I saw a UFO while driving a rental truck in South
East Montana. I noticed it because the afternoon sun reflected
off it. It was a metallic, chrome like sphere hovering above the
clouds that accelerated off in a northerly direction so quickly
it was a blur, and disappeared. This has bothered me ever since
it happened on June 19th, 2002. I don't believe there is
anything on this earth that can accelerate that quickly aside
from a bullet. Thanks to Jerry dragonslayer313@hotmail.com

CALIFORNIA SMALL, HIGH-ALTITUDE REFLECTIVE OBJECT

SANTA CRUZ -- The witness a 24 year old waiter and substitute
teacher reports that on November 1, 2002, just after noon he
took out the trash. I looked up to spot an airplane and spotted
a strange small bright light in the sky. At first the light
looked stationary like a star, but then I perceived it slowly
moving towards me to the east. The object moved very slowly,
almost imperceptibly to the south. Then the object started
moving slightly more rapidly. The object seemed very far away
and appeared to reflect light much like a star or a satellite. I
called my neighbor who admitted that he found it strange. He
suggested that it was a balloon, but a balloon would not reflect
light like that. Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/
NUFORC


STRANGE ROBED CREATURES IN OREGON

Susan writes, I have been hearing about creatures (for lack of a
better description) that people have been seeing. My daughter
was bringing in some wood from the garage and when she was by
the front door it blew open and standing there was this figure
dressed in a black robe. Sort of like the grim reaper. She set
the wood down to get a better look but when she looked up the
creature it was gone. She went to work and told one of her
friends about the creature. Her friend said, her husband was
jogging and also saw a creature in the bushes. I am not sure
what they are or why they are here? I was wondering what you
thought. I have a feeling that whatever it is, isn't good.
Please respond. Thanks to Susan

Dear Susan, I receive fairly regular reports regarding these
robed creatures. Frequently they appear to have red eyes or at
least very strange eyes. They are often reported walking along a
secluded dark road. Their exact nature is unknown although they
are often associated with UFOs or demonic activity.


WASHINGTON A LARGE SPHERE SWAYING AND BOBBING

MARYSVILLE -- The witness saw a super bright red-orange light
over Puget Sound on November 2, 2002, at 7:55 PM. It was between
five to ten miles to our southwest hovering. It looked twenty
times bigger than an airplane light at the same distance. It was
bobbing up and down and swaying east to west. I called my family
outside to verify it. It hovered for about 5 minutes, and was
spraying down a red vapor that turned to white. It moved slowly
to the northwest upwards and then disappeared. At first we
thought it could be a flare, but it didn't go down it hung in
the air. (NUFORC Note: We spoke with this witness and found him
to be quite credible. Given his profession, he would easily be
able to establish whether the object had been any type of
aircraft. PD)

SPOKANE -- Ed writes, "I want to report a sighting I had on the
evening of October 29, at about 5:20 PM, of two triangle shaped
objects flying over my home15 miles SE of Spokane. Over the
hills to the East, I noticed a very bright light on an object
heading WSW. I observed what appeared to be the normal red and
green navigation lights on the wing tips, and a red and white
strobe in the bottom center of the craft. I also heard what
sounded like a muted jet aircraft engine. However, what seemed
out of place was the extremely bright single headlight on the
nose of the craft, not the normal two landing lights.

It was dusk, but there was still a band of sunlight, and as the
craft flew slowly overhead -- at an estimated height of 1200
feet above me . I could not discern a fuselage or wings. I DID
notice dim white lights on the underside, in locations which
would correspond to the three corners of a triangle flying with
the pointed end forward. I was kind of shocked because I could
not see a tail on the aircraft. I watched the object intently as
it moved to the band of fading sunlight, but I still could
discern only a triangle shape with no tail or defined fuselage!
Within a minute, I saw a second similar craft with three dim
lights in the corners, and no discernable fuselage.

I contacted Fairchild AFB and talked with a Public Affairs
officer. I asked whether the B-2 stealth bomber or F-117 stealth
fighter were operating in the Spokane area that evening. I saw
the B-2 here a couple of months ago. The airman stated none of
their aircraft were operating in our area on the 29th. About 15
minutes later, I got a call from a civilian, apparently working
in the Public Affairs office. I explained my observations, and
my concern regarding the security concerns which it raised. He
advised me that I sounded sincere, and said, after the Air Force
closed the Blue Book investigation, it no longer investigated
unidentified Ariel phenomena. He said that unless an
unidentified aircraft appeared on their radar, (and I'll use his
emphatic words) "We don't care !" He must have said that at
least three times during our conversation. The civilian advised
that perhaps I should contact the FAA. I stated that I had don!
e that previously and was advised that unless I could state a
"tail number" of the aircraft, there was nothing the FAA could
do. I then observed that it is hard to state a tail number of an
aircraft that has no tail. The civilian then started to get a
little agitated. He again advised that the Air Force did not
care, and that I might want " to get your pastor out there to
take a look at those lights or whatever". (Upon reflection I
think that statement could either be incredibly insensitive, or
incredibly perceptive). The civilian also advised that I may
want to get the media out there. But it was clear that the Air
Force was not interested.

I just want to emphasize that the B-2 and the F-117 fighter have
a distinctive "sawtooth' pattern to the trailing edge of their
wings. The craft which I observed appeared to have a perfectly
straight trailing edge -- just like a triangle and was at least
as large as the B-2.

MEDFORD --The Oregon UFO Review web site reports that a person
not that far from Spokane reported seeing a triangular shaped
object with white lights in the corners on the evening of
October 30, 2002. See Spokane photos at:
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/files/2002/index.php
Filer's Files UFO CENTER PHOTOS


CANADIAN PHOTOS OF UFO

QUEBEC -- Correction to the August 20, 2002, story about Jean L.
and his wife Lina in Saint-Jean-de-Matha. They took a photo of a
UFO. They saw a white sphere, reddish on the bottom which passed
over his house heading northeast. The sky was clear and the moon
was visible behind it. Correction -- The moon was BEHIND the
observers not behind the UFO. Thanks to Louis Y.

ENGLAND GOLD LIGHT PHOTOS

LIVERPOOL -- Three witnesses spotted a number of orange or gold
colored lights over Halewood, Liverpool on or around 17th-18th
October. I realize that a few weeks has passed since then but I
only got the picture off the third witness yesterday. The
picture isn't great because it is only low resolution but I am
trying to get a higher resolution picture from the witnesses.
Unfortunately, they have been slow at responding to requests so
I am not expecting anything in a hurry from them. Thanks to
Bimson Have a look at the picture on http://www.mara.org.uk


GRANDMOTHER'S EXPERIENCES

Scott writes: "We need a little contactee yarn every so often to
make life a bit lighter :-): Editor's Note: Here is a
interesting letter from a sincere contactee.

Sally T. writes, "I am a 54 year old grandmother of six. I have
had experiences on and off since I was a small child, with the
grey's and have been on their ships. I am not one of their
testing specimens, the alien I go to shows and tells me things.
I am not getting into everything here but I will tell you three
things I have been shown or told. 1) The being told me that they
collect plants from all over the earth, because all diseases can
be cured from the roots of plants. 2) The implant tracking
device is square and black, and smaller then anything that any
human could imagine and that it had to be greatly magnified for
me to see it. He said we would have to use our most
sophisticated equipment to locate it. It is in the back of the
head in the middle of the left lower lobe. 3) He said we are
safe and secure, there is NO equipment made on earth that can
reach us, we are in your water's, in the deepest of your water's
this is where the air is we can breathe. I'm sure you won't
believe what I have written so I will leave it at this, and
whatever is to be will be. Thanks to Sally. Editor's note: I
often receive letters like this. I can't prove them one way or
the other, but I thought you might be interested.


RUSSIA UFO FLAP BREAKS OUT

On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, four teenagers were driving on the
Moscow-Simferopol Highway when they spotted an usual object in
the sky. The teens "observed a red UFO while driving south on
the highway near Kursk. They were heading towards the city Kursk
when the four witnesses spotted the UFO circling slowly in the
sky, looking like a glowing star." "The UFO's approach caused
the car's radio to go haywire. They could no longer hear the
Moscow radio stations, just long, intermittent bursts of static.
Finally, the strange object continued its flight toward the
southern horizon. As it passed out of view, the car's radio
returned to normal." Kursk is located about 500 kilometers (300
miles) south of Moscow.

Two days later, on Thursday, October 31, 2002, "a series of UFO
sightings was reported in Astrakhan," at the mouth of the Volga
River on the Caspian Sea.  "For five consecutive days, a
spherical UFO performed aerial maneuvers above the rooftops in
the upper hillside section" of Astrakhan. "Occasionally, the UFO
emitted small spheres of white or golden light." "Another UFO
with the same characteristics was seen by several witnesses in
the town of Ortzonikitsk. The object fired beams of light at the
ground. The beams were red, blue and green. The UFO emitted
these colorful rays of light for several minutes and then
disappeared before the astonished gaze of the witnesses
present." (See NotiOVNI for November 3, 2002. Many thanks to
Daniel Munoz for this report and UFO Roundup Vol 7, # 46
11/12/02 Editor: Joseph Trainor http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


CHINESE PILOTS SIGHT SKATEBOARD-LIKE UFO

NANJING -- Several airline pilots have reported sighting a
shining Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) near the southeastern
Chinese City of Nanjing on November 6, 2002. A Xiamen Airlines
pilot reported the first sighting on Monday. He said he saw a
light blue object hovering past his plane. At the same time,
pilots of a Shandong Airline, which was some 120 kilometers away
from the Xiamen Airlines plane, also reported a similar
sighting. They described the UFO as being a white and blue
skateboard-shaped craft. The UFO was believed to be some 70
kilometers above the eastern Bengbu City in Anhui province. In
recent years, China has witnessed a surge in UFO sightings.
Thanks to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation C 2002

ROSWELL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIG ON SCI FI CHANNEL

The Roswell archaeological dig was conducted in September and
will be part of Sci Fi's new, two-hour documentary with Bryant
Gumble which will air on Friday evening, November 22nd.
Supposedly there are new revelations on Roswell.
wagnerart@hotmail.com writes:


YOU'RE A PREFERRED CUSTOMER AT 100 TOP STORES ONLINE

GET OUR DISCOUNTS: Why not have your cosmetics, clothes and
shoes made to fit exactly to your specifications? Consider
shopping at: FILER.unfranchise.com for your Holiday gifts. You
can shop on line in a hundred different stores such as Ashlane
Gift Baskets, Books, Brooks Brothers, Diamonds, Disney, Sweaters
from Elizabeth's by Liz Claiborne, Fragrances, Hallmark cards
and flowers, Jewelry, Spiegel, Customatix Shoes, Toy Chest, and
Wine.Com. For your Health and Nutrition Store there are
unbelievable products to feel fitter, and healthier again. My
hair is growing in darker and I feel younger. There is a store
for your every special need, and you qualify as a preferred
customer by reading these files, and you usually will qualify
for special discounts. FILER.unfranchise.com Click: Become a
Preferred customer [ http://www.filer.unfranchise.com/


BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate agents
are part timers and inexperienced while others are experts. When
you are selling or buying your home, you need to make sure you
have the best relocation agent, the wrong one can cost you
thousands! Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent
for your needs. To get a free copy of this report E-mail us at
Majorstar@aol.com.


UFO DEFENSE TACTICS - WEATHER SHIELD TO CHEMTRAILS

A. K. Johnstone, PhD., explores with evidence, the creation of a
weather shield to deter UFOs from entering earth's atmosphere,
as well as the erratic weather changes in recent years. Numerous
UFO sightings are examined from a scientific viewpoint and a
chemtrail correlation is suggested. Order illustrated book,
$14.95 from Hancock House 1-800-938-1114 or Fax 1-800-983-2262.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL. A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year. To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/. To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com. Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2002 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved. Readers may post the complete files on their Web Sites
if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue that the item appeared. These reports and
comments are not necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint. Send
your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically
grants permission for us to publish and use your name. Please
state if you wish to keep your name, address, or story
confidential. CAUTION, MOST OF THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS AND
REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Regards,

George Filer
http://www.georgefiler.com ]http://www.georgefiler.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:44:57 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:40:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle


 >From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility


 >[Non-Subscriber Post--ebk]

 >From: Edward Case
 >For:Submission to the UFO Mailing List

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >>Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >>agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >>credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >>possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >>bathwater.

 >>What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >>disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >>Disclosure Project?

 >>Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >>credibility of their disclosures?

 >>Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?



 >Dear Don,

 >You have raised a very important point.  I think it is critical
 >that people who are interested in the truth about UFOs take a
 >good look at the credibility of the Disclosure Project
 >witnesses. Some of them may be unreliable - but the most
 >important question is: "are any of them telliing the truth, and
 >if so, who?".

I always hesitate to enter into these discussions because of the
hate email that always seems to follow, but these issues are
important and if we are ever going to get to the bottom of the
issue, then a house cleaning is in order.

So the question to me is: "If some of the disclosure witnesses
are unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from
the project?"

That means, if Dr. Greer couldn't be bothered with verifying
these tales, why should we even listen?

 >In response to your request I have posted a copy of a DP
 >witness list and a url for the website that I got it from.

 >Overall I have been very impressed with the high caliber of
 >people and content at this list - but when I read the post's on
 >this list about Dr. Greer, I was dissappointed. The responses
 >were mostly negative and seemed to miss the most critical
 >point. By focusing on his possible shortcomings - people were
 >downplaying the importance of the Disclosure Project witness
 >testimony, and the National Press Club conference in May 2001.

Or maybe by concentrating on the negative we hoped to have the
lists revised with the names of those who couldn't be trusted
and whose testimony is unreliable removed. To date Dr. Greer has
shown no desire to update the lists, removing those who have
been proven to be unreliable, even after he was informed of
investigative results.

 >I have heard Dr. Greer speak, spoken to him briefly and have
 >read much about him and by him.  There does seem to be ample
 >evidence that Dr. Greer has used bad judgement at times
 >(especially in regards to copyright issues) and that he may be
 >off track with some of his beliefs about the UFO phenomena.

But doesn't those copyright issues speak to character and isn't
character of importance here. We have only so much in the way of
physical evidence so that the character issue becomes more
important. Here, Dr. Greer has failed...

 >Everyone has shortcomings though and it is possible that some of

 >his more controversial beliefs may be turn out to be true. I
 >thought that Richard Dolan's article about Dr. Greer was a very
 >balanced and well written piece. I can find the URL for it if
 >any listerians are interested.

Yes, everyone has shortcomings... but many of us attempt to
overcome those. We try to listen to others, hear what they say,
and make changes based on the best evidence. Dr. Greer talks
right over you and then offers lame excuses about these
shortcomings.

And, no, I don't believe there was a battle between aliens and
American military police in Colorado... just one of the more
outrageous claims.

 >The Disclosure Project book has testimony transcripts. I think
 >it is really worthwhile to view the videotaped testimonies and
 >read the transcripts also.

And what good are transcripts when the person is not telling the
truth... and what good are they when edited?

<snip>

I've snipped the witness lists because we've seen it before. I
will point out that Larry Warren was not an Aif Force Security
Officer, but was, in fact, a low ranking member of the security
force whose total military service was eight months...

Cliff Stone now claims to have participated in some fashion in
every major UFO event, even those that took place before he was
born. His military record, while undistinguished, is certainly
commendable. He spent twenty-two years in the Army serving the
United States, but contrary to what he has said, he was trained
as a clerk and every assignment in his record was as a clerk,
admin specialist or as an admin supervisor. He has no
specialized training and no evidence of his many fantastic
claims...

Dr. Robert Wood, while a well respected engineer, only
contributes his opinion on MJ-12... many of the documents he has
are clearly fakes and others are retyped versions of authentic
documents. Discussion of MJ-12 just confuses the issue...

Glenn Dennis' tale of the missing nurse has been seriously
compromised by the failure to find Naomi Self  (or Selff), and
his admission that he had invented the name. There is no
corroboration for this story...

Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso couldn't even be honest about
his own rank in the Army. His tale of how he saw the alien
bodies is completely bogus and other evidence about his
"insider" knowledge is going to surface in the next few days
(sorry about this, but check the CUFOS website after November
22.)...

And would someone tell Dr. Greer that Walter Haut was in the
Army and not the Navy...

It is clear to me that Dr. Greer grabbed everyone who has a tale
to tell and thrown them into the public arena. The details about
many of these witnesses appear on the Internet, and had Dr.
Greer asked, I would have been happy to supply both my opinions
and the evidence. While opinions might not matter, evidence
does... at least to some of us.


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 13

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:57:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:43:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Velez


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >Hi Errol and List,

 >I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >bathwater.

 >What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >Disclosure Project?

 >Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >credibility of their disclosures?

 >Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?


 >Best,

 >Don Ledger

Hi Don,

In my own posts regarding Dr. Greer I have always been very
careful to keep my comments focused on him and not on the
disclosure witnesses. One of things that I have been most upset
about is; the witnesses are an invaluable resource that (I have
always felt) Greer has been squandering.

Mostly by his not having properly vetted the witnesses in the
first place. And secondly, by diluting the focus on them by
artificially grafting hot-potato issues like star wars defense
systems (along with non-issues like 'Free energy') onto the
original UFO agenda.

Last year Kevin Randle and a couple of others volunteered to
help vet the disclosure witnesses. (properly) No one from the
disclosure project ever took this experienced investigator up on
his offer. There are many good, solid witnesses on that list,
(one of my personal favorites is former chief of Investigations
for the FAA, John Callahan,) and if the very few but real
'clinkers' can be removed from the list, it will be a formidable
tool in the effort for disclosure.

For one of the 'unsung heros' in all of this:

For my money one of the very few individuals that has
consistently kept the focus where it properly belongs, on the
witnesses and their testimony, (as opposed to 'space based
defense weapons' and 'free energy') is Victor Vigianni. Week
after week (on EBK's SDI program) Victor has presented for the
public's edification the recorded testimony of the more credible
witnesses in the group. He hasn't introduced any politics or
side issues, just the straight, unadulterated and very powerful
testimony of these brave and competent volunteers. If Victor had
been in charge of the disclosure effort I would have backed him
with my life. By keeping the focus on the witnesses we could
have been a lot further along on the path to disclosure.

I hope someone like Kevin Randle gets to vet the witnesses at
some point so that we can all stand solidly behind those who can
pass the acid test. 'Unity' is not something that happens out of
thin air. It is something that has to be worked (hard) for and
earned. If the business of vetting the witnesses can be
performed in a timely manner and the 'new' resulting list agreed
upon by a healthy majority, the disclosure project would take on
new life and be able to 'finally' enjoy the support and unity
that it initially 'expected' would automatically be there. Real
life/real people don't work that way.

Glad you raised the point 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                   Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:48:26 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:50:14 -0500
Subject: Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton


 >From:ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date:11/13/2002 9:01:31 AM Central Standard Time
 >Subj: One Giant Hoax For Mankind


 >Source: BBC News

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2441469.stm

 >Monday, 11 November, 2002, 15:21 GMT

 >One giant hoax for mankind

 >BBC News Online's science editor, Dr David Whitehouse,
 >himself a Moon author, explains why he thinks NASA should
 >have gone ahead with its controversial book idea on the
 >lunar landings

 >Am I the only one who thinks the US space agency (NASA) has
 >missed a good opportunity in cancelling the book planned to
 >give a rebuttal of the Moon hoaxers?

 >You know the ones. The people who believe that the lunar
 >landings were faked in a military hangar somewhere.

 >NASA said the aim of the book was to provide a resource for
 >teachers to answer pupils' questions about the conspiracy
 >theory.

<snip>

Interesting article.
I too, think NASA should have produced the book.

There's no doubt in my mind that we went to the moon - multiple
times. I've read the challenges - most of which are so silly,
one wonders how anyone could take them seriously. For 1 or 2 of
the challenges, I didn't know the answers and had to get
explanations - explanations which made perfect sense, by the way
- which I did just so I would know the answers.

The author's statements about moon hoaxers' lack of critical
thinking, and the paramount importance they place on the
question over the answer rings true to me. In the case of any
answers by NASA to a moon hoax, one would be able to see science
and rationality in action. Such answers would be "good, solid,
logical, provable". I'm presuming here, of course, but the
answers are so easily obtainable, I'm confident NASA could
handle the task with the utmost ease. Talk about an easy
assignment for NASA! Almost trivial for that agency...

Conversely, however, one would be able to see what a load of
garbage certain government reports really are. Reports such as
"The Roswell Report: Case Closed", and others. Talk about the
need to suspend critical thnking!

Perhaps the "Cinderella" of a moon hoax book by NASA might cause
some people to realize how really ugly her sisters are. One
would be a beautiful, explanatory, clear report addressing all
the idiotic challenges of the moon hoaxers, fitting the "glass
slipper" of the moon landings. Some other government reports
would look like the ugly sisters straining and sweating like
hogs, trying to force-fit their feet into a true explanation.
The differences would be glaring and probably embarrassing to
some government agencies - including NASA itself.


Dave Morton






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                          Secrecy News -- 11/13/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:21:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:52:07 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/13/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 113
November 13, 2002


**      NEW PENTAGON INTELLIGENCE POST ESTABLISHED
**      DOD COVERT OPS ON THE RISE
**      SECRECY IN THE NEWS


NEW PENTAGON INTELLIGENCE POST ESTABLISHED

Congress has enacted legislation to create a new Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence, a senior U.S. intelligence
community position whose occupant must be confirmed by the
Senate.

"The establishment of this new position does not supercede or
modify the authorities of the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of Central Intelligence as established by the National
Security Act of 1947," according to a congressional report on
the measure.

Nevertheless, the move represents a shift in the center of
gravity of U.S. intelligence away from the Central Intelligence
Agency and towards the Pentagon, which already controls the vast
majority of the intelligence budget.

The provision establishing the new position, which was included
in the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Act, is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/usdint.html


DOD COVERT OPS ON THE RISE

"The secret side of the U.S. military's war on terrorism is
quietly growing," writes Robert Burns of the Associated Press,
following up on reports by William Arkin and others over the
past month.

With new money, new personnel and a "front" that extends around
the globe, clandestine military operations are poised to expand
further.

See "Pentagon Takes Quiet Aim at Terror" by Robert Burns,
Associated Press, here:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/13/secret.warriors.ap/

Relatedly, see "Hellzapoppin' at the Pentagon" by Bill
Berkowitz, WorkingForChange.com, here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14076

Both items refer to the Defense Science Board DSB "Summer Study
on Joint Forces and Operations in Support of Countering
Terrorism." (Secrecy News erroneously attributed this work to
Ashton Carter in the October 28 issue).

The full 78 page DSB PowerPoint briefing on the Summer Study,
minus a few classified slides, is now posted here (1.7 MB PPT
file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsbbrief.ppt


SECRECY IN THE NEWS

Some U.S. agencies are refusing to declassify information that
would highlight the serious nature of terrorist threats,
outgoing Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Bob Graham
told the Miami Herald. "There's a considerable amount of
material that can and should be declassified," said Graham.

See "Graham: FBI lacks focus in terror fight" by Frank Davies,
Miami Herald, November 13:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4505512.htm

The U.S. Government's attempts to block the publication of
former Los Alamos official Danny Stillman's manuscript on
China's nuclear weapons program persisted this week with the
Government arguing that Stillman should not even be allowed to
show the manuscript to his own attorney, Mark S. Zaid.

See "Author of Chinese nuclear arms book fights U.S. censors" by
Deborah Charles, Reuters, November 12:

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News/11/13/us.china.book.reut/

GlobalSecurity.org's robust collection of satellite imagery and
other resources on Iraq and the buildup of U.S. forces in the
region is extolled by Robert Windrem of MSNBC in "Nice Digs, Mr.
Hussein" (flagged by Cryptome.org):

http://www.msnbc.com/news/832218.asp

The controversy regarding the still-undefined information
control category "sensitive but unclassified" is now percolating
well beyond Washington, as individual university campuses and
others try to sort out its implications.

See "New federal policy may restrict research access" by
Jonathan York, Daily Texan, November 11:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/11/3dcf6edeb7a0b


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                Nov 1, 2002 UFO Encounter Over Mediterranean

From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos@yahoo.es>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:36:51 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:55:15 -0500
Subject: Nov 1, 2002 UFO Encounter Over Mediterranean


On November 1, 2002 up to 6 different air crews in Turkey saw
the trail of several lights in the sky. Having checked with the
space decay sources, it seems that there was a re-entry that
could have been the cause of the sighting, see:

http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Nov-2002/0001.html

Decay Report Nov 01
From: Harro Zimmer (Harro.Zimmer@t-online.de)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 16:43:00 EST

Next message: Daniel Deak: "Disco balls and fast flashers TLE,
Nov. 01" Previous message: sattrack@hal-pc.org: "Epoch Date Age
Analysis" Next in thread: Harro Zimmer: "Re: Decay Report Nov
01" Reply: Harro Zimmer: "Re: Decay Report Nov 01"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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

Report time 20:00 UTC

Since Oct 31, 15.30 UTC - there was a silent period for OIG
  until Nov 01, 13:00 UTC. My program following in general SCC'S
prediction technique and shows 24 hours before decays also a too
late reentry.It looks that in this case simpler methods delivers
a better result.


2002-050B (#27553) SOYUZ RB
  SCC'S FINAL REPORT - prepared Nov 01, 03:41 UTC - shows the
decay on 01 November, 03:41 UTC, +/- 07 minutes (38.0=B0N, 26.0=B0E)
ascending over the Mediterranian Sea.

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

The RB is the rocket body, i.e., the last stage of the booster
which launched Soyuz TMA-1 from Baikonur 2 days earlier.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                 8th Maryland Congressional District Results

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:25:00 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:59:02 -0500
Subject: 8th Maryland Congressional District Results


List:

Given the lead up List publicity to Stephen Bassett's run for
congress, I was surprised that the results have not yet been
posted (unless, perhaps, a message snuck through when I wasn't
looking). So, for those curious as to how it all turned out, and
assuming they have not yet been posted, here they are, courtesy
of the Washington Post:


Chris Van Hollen (D) 106,575
Constance Morella (R) 97,847
Other (1 candidate) 1,493


It's a shame the race wasn't just a bit closer than it was.
Think of the potential headline in the Post: "UFO candidate
swings race to Republicans"

Best,

Paul Kimball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:32:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:01:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - White


 >From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

<snip>

 >phenomena. Everyone has shortcomings though and it is possible
 >that some of his more controversial beliefs may be turn out to
 >be true.

<snip>

I'll second that. I'm very happy that in spite of the bad press
the Disclosure Project has received via this list, sound clips
from the DP witness testimony continue to get aired on Strange
Days Indeed.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                    Open-Records Request To UNM Response

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:16:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:07:36 -0500
Subject: Open-Records Request To UNM Response


Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:28:42 -0600
From: "frank d. martinez" <fmartine@unm.edu>
To: overtci@cavtel.net
Subject: records request


November 13, 2002 (via e-mail and U.S. Mail)

Mr. Larry W. Bryant
Director,
Washington D.C. Office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA  22302

Dear Mr. Bryant:

        This acknowledges receipt of your Nov. 12, 2002 request for
access to UNM public documents related to the University of New
Mexico's Office of Contract Archeology project cited.

        Your request is being processed and pursuant to the terms
of the Inspection of Public Records Act, you may expect a
response no later than Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2002.  Please note
there will be a .25 cents/page copying fee.

Sincerely,


Frank D. Martinez,
UNM Custodian of Public Records



cc:  William Doleman, Contract Archeology
        Nick Estes, University Counsel
        Ann Powell, Research Office






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                        Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:35:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:09:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:44:52 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:53:50 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:42:49 -0600
 >>>Subject: UAVs vs 'Rods'

<snip>

 >Dear friends,

 >Since I have had the opportunity to witness many UFO sightings
 >since 1974... and took time to think about these so-called
 >"Rods", I've come to the that they are some unknown lifeform
 >living in our atmosphere, akin to the plankton living in our
 >oceans.

 >Man does not have the ingenuity nor the resources to create
 >something like these "creatures".

 >Now that camcorders... digital or analogue... are commonplace,
 >these little buggers will be 'captured' again and again and
 >again... just watch!

 >Whether or not biologists will be able to study them in depth
 >remains to be seen.

 >Now, let's get back to UFOs and Flying Saucers!


Sounds to me like they are an artifact of videography.
Otherwise, they would have made themselves known sometime in the
past 175 years of still photography.

My money is on dragonflies. _Now_ let's get back to UFOs and
flying saucers!


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                     Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:56:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:12:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <UFoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:02:38 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >>>pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >>>they were zooming away into space. I had proposed that this
 >>>dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >>>the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.
 >>>Bob Young

 >>A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation
 >>_below_ an airliner, make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >>and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon. Guess we
 >>better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate such
 >>"intelligent meteors."

 >Yeah, Dick, but you gotta admit that the idea _is_ hilarious.

 >These days I take my laughs where I can get 'em, and Bob Young
 >is always good for either a chuckle or a hearty belly laugh.

 >Remember, this is the guy who claims to believe - as far as I
 >can tell, his face is straight when he's typing - that the
 >Portage County case was caused by Venus, the Coyne CE2 by a
 >meteor, and the Valentich disappearance by a hoax. Bob's never
 >seen an absurd explanation he didn't like.


Jerry,

I know but, it's just that I have this thing about trying to
reason with people.

What do you do when people with whom you are trying to reason
are, er, unreasonable?

I guess laughter is as good a reaction as any. That tends to be
my reaction every time he lists Donald Menzel, Phil Klass, and
Robert Sheaffer (Scheafer, Scheaffer) as his idols.

How could anyone that totally undiscriminating ever be right?

As you have pointed out on this List, though, even a stopped
clock is right twice a day. So here's to chronically stopped
clocks and lots of laughter.

  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:34:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:23:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Ledger


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:44:57 EST
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>[Non-Subscriber Post--ebk]

 >>From: Edward Case
 >>For:Submission to the UFO Mailing List

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >>>Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>>I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >>>agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >>>credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >>>possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >>>bathwater.

 >>>What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >>>disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >>>Disclosure Project?

 >>>Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >>>credibility of their disclosures?

 >>>Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?

 >>You have raised a very important point. I think it is critical
 >>that people who are interested in the truth about UFOs take a
 >>good look at the credibility of the Disclosure Project
 >>witnesses. Some of them may be unreliable - but the most
 >>important question is: "are any of them telliing the truth, and
 >>if so, who?".

 >I always hesitate to enter into these discussions because of the
 >hate email that always seems to follow, but these issues are
 >important and if we are ever going to get to the bottom of the
 >issue, then a house cleaning is in order.


Kevin, Edward and John V.,

Kevin mentioned the tainting of the Disclosure process by
questionable practices and testimony of some of the witnesses.

John mentioned Kevin's offer to vet the witnesses before the
whole affair began, a wise suggestion in any event.

Kevin, in his last email, has already mentioned some of the
obvious 'offenders' and I'm sure that there are more.

There are those on this List who, no doubt, have the same
concerns about other witnesses. Chances are we could boil the
list down to a 'precious few' - the nuggests.

This is not critical, but one likes to know what resources are
out there to draw on in the future.

It's been 10 years and I'm still catching up.

With interest,


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                   Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:34:45 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:27:58 -0500
Subject: Re: One Giant Hoax For Mankind - Morton


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date:11/13/2002 9:01:31 AM Central Standard Time
 >Subject: One Giant Hoax For Mankind

 >Source: BBC News

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2441469.stm

 >Monday, 11 November, 2002, 15:21 GMT

 >One giant hoax for mankind

 >BBC News Online's science editor, Dr David Whitehouse,
 >himself a Moon author, explains why he thinks NASA should
 >have gone ahead with its controversial book idea on the
 >lunar landings

<snip>

Interesting article.

I too, think NASA should have produced the book.

There's no doubt in my mind that we went to the moon - multiple
times. I've read the challenges - most of which are so silly,
one wonders how anyone could take them seriously. For 1 or 2 of
the challenges, I didn't know the answers and had to get
explanations - explanations which made perfect sense, by the way
- which I did just so I would know the answers.

The author's statements about moon hoaxers' lack of critical
thinking, and the paramount importance they place on the
question over the answer rings true to me. In the case of any
answers by NASA to a moon hoax, one would be able to see science
and rationality in action. Such answers would be "good, solid,
logical, provable". I'm presuming here, of course, but the
answers are so easily obtainable, I'm confident NASA could
handle the task with the utmost ease. Talk about an easy
assignment for NASA! Almost trivial for that agency...

Conversely, however, one would be able to see what a load of
garbage certain government reports really are. Reports such as
'The Roswell Report: Case Closed', and others. Talk about the
need to suspend critical thnking!

Perhaps the 'Cinderella' of a moon hoax book by NASA might cause
some people to realize how really ugly her sisters are. One
would be a beautiful, explanatory, clear report addressing all
the idiotic challenges of the moon hoaxers, fitting the "glass
slipper" of the moon landings. Some other government reports
would look like the ugly sisters straining and sweating like
hogs, trying to force-fit their feet into a true explanation.
The differences would be glaring and probably embarrassing to
some government agencies - including NASA itself.

Dave Morton









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                 CI: New D&M 'Spine' On Night Infrared Image

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:34:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:34:10 -0500
Subject: CI: New D&M 'Spine' On Night Infrared Image

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CI: New D&M 'Spine' On Night Infrared Image


Cydonian Imperative
11-13-02

New D&M "Spine" Shows Up on Nighttime Infrared Image
by Mac Tonnies

See: http://mactonnies.com/cydonia.html


Donovan Colbert has noted an intriguing feature on the recent
nighttime infrared image of Cydonia (see article above) that
lends support to a possible artificial origin for the D&M
Pyramid.

When the Odyssey's visible-wavelength camera captured the D&M in
unprecedented resolution, researchers were startled by the
appearance of a "new," previously unnoticed diamond-shaped facet
emerging from the D&M's northwest quadrant. This partially
buried feature revitalized interest in the geometry of the D&M,
suggesting a highly symmetrical "arrowhead"-like appearance (see
animation below.)

[image]

Animation courtesy Mark Carlotto/New Frontiers in Science.

Colbert noticed that a white line extended down the center of
the newly revealed facet in the IR image, terminating abruptly
at the exposed corner (the tip of the "arrowhead" configuration,
as seen above). This was invisible in the visible-light image,
and appears to be a ridge separating the "new" facet into two
distinct shapes.

Like the IR features discussed in the previous installment, the
line is consistent with an exposed edge, cleared of debris by
Mars' tenuous (but patient) winds.

[image]

Donovan Colbert's reconstructive overlay of the D&M.
Note centerline extending to "tip," as seen in the
nighttime IR image.

Interestingly, the ridgeline visible in the IR image is an exact
match for Colbert's reconstructive overlay, produced before the
IR image was taken. If the D&M Pyramid is wholly geological in
origin, the ridge's placement would appear to be extremely
fortuitous. But viewed as the work of ancient architects, it
makes aesthetic (as well as structural) sense.

[image]

Stereoscopic view of the D&M. Centerline is invisible in
visible-wavelength light. Image courtesy Chris Joseph.

The D&M Pyramid is the next logical target for the Mars Global
Surveyor's high-resolution camera. While repeated images of the
Face are invaluable, they fail to pass muster with debunkers who
will continue to chalk the formation up "seeing faces"
regardless of quantitative data favoring artificiality (i.e.,
nonfractal terrain signature).

The D&M's morphology is relatively hard-edged (not dissimilar to
pyramidal structures built by extinct terrestrial cultures) and
perhaps more acceptable to archaeological investigation.

-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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns

From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:58:17 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:28:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns


Hey all,

Thanks for the responses on my inquiry about Dorothy Izatt. Here
are some links for those who requested them - sorry I didn't get
them posted sooner.


http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/StrangePhotos/

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufocan05.htm


Chris Burns







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

              Re: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids

From: Cinde Costello <MUFONSBCO@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:37:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:41:40 -0500
Subject: Re: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids


 >From: Erol Erkmen <andromeda@ultratv.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:25:43 +0200
 >Subject: A 'Squadron' Of UFOs Over Turkey Were Leonids

 >Turkish UFO Researchers
 >Dismiss Sightings As Meteor Shower

 >In an e-mail report to UFO UpDates filed by Turkey UFO and
 >Paranormal Events Research Organization [TUVPO], the multiple
 >sightings of bright flying objects seen in that country on
 >November 1 have been identified as belonging to the Leonid
 >Meteor Shower, which peaks this month sometime between November
 >17 and 20.

 >Members of TUVPO's Afyon branch followed up on both the
 >sighting reports filed by the pilots of four aircraft in the
 >vicinity at that time of the incident, and additional
 >eyewitness sightings from cities that included Antalya,
 >Balikesir and Afyon.

 >http://www.tuvpo.com/124.jpg (147 Kb.)

 >Photographs were obtained of the event, including this one taken
 >by Halil Yalcin, and these have been examined by the scientific
 >advisers of TUVPO, plus Prof. Dr. M.E.Ozel and Dr.Hafez Keypour,
 >of the Turkish National Observational House.

 >As a result of these findings, TUVPO has closed its file on this
 >event.


Hello Mr. Erkmen,

Can you please tell me how it was you arrived so quickly to the
conclusion that these objects, which the four separate pilots
saw on November 1st, were Leonids?

The Earth doesn't even enter the Leonid Debris Stream until
November 14th. The total run of the Leonid Streams are from
November 14 to November 20, peaking on the midnight/morning
of the 19th.

Perhaps you should re-open your event file?


Sincerely,

Cinde Costello







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

              Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Zupansic

From: John Zupansic <zupansic@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:47:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:04:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Zupansic


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:44:57 EST
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

<snip>

 >So the question to me is: "If some of the disclosure witnesses
 >are unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from
 >the project?"

 >That means, if Dr. Greer couldn't be bothered with verifying
 >these tales, why should we even listen?

 >But doesn't those copyright issues speak to character and isn't
 >character of importance here. We have only so much in the way of
 >physical evidence so that the character issue becomes more
 >important. Here, Dr. Greer has failed...


Touche' Mr. Randle.

Earlier Mr. Ledger mentioned something about not throwing out
the baby with the bathwater, but I think this is a relatively
unrealistic hope.

In the case of Greer, and perhaps the upcoming Sci-Fi special,
the baby should and will get thrown out with the bathwater,
rightfully so I think. Precisely because, as Mr. Randle so
eloquently put it "If some of the disclosure witnesses are
unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from the
project?"

Far too often people in this field give debunkers, skeptics,
investigative reporters, and assorted media types ammo with
which to shoot giant holes in UFOs and the ETH in the minds of
the general public and perhaps as or more importantly,
prospective scientists and researchers. Hyperbole and sweeping
generalizations, sadly, play pretty well to the masses and to
the those in the scientific community who don't have time to
study UFOs in-depth.  It doesn't much matter if 90% of Greer's
witnesses are credible (which they probably aren't) if 10% are
liars.  It doesn't much matter if Schmitt's claims about Roswell
are completely 100% accurate when it is so easy to discredit him
on character issues. People stop listening (rightly or wrongly)
no matter how great the data is, after they find out the person
in question has a history of lies/embellishments/exaggerations
in their past.

Incidentally, I have tried to contact both Sci-Fi and MPH
Entertainment to ask why Schmitt is included in their upcoming
special, but haven't received a response.


John Zupansic








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:09:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:32:31 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:19:42 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>I believe that Dave Clarke called our attention recently to
 >>>>pilot's reports of reentering space debris where they thought
 >>>>dimming as meteor debris burned out is a possible explanation to
 >>>>the famous 1952 Nash-Fortenberry saucer "formation" case.

 >>>A truly breathtaking observation! Meteors that fly in formation

 >>Dick:

 >>Lots of pixs of these, see the front cover and Plate 3b of Uncle
 >>Phil's excellent reference, UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)

 >>>_below_ an airliner,

 >>They were always seen against the sky

 >>>make a sharp angle turn, reverse direction,
 >>>and fly away out of sight over the visible horizon.

 >>No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >>giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >>their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 >>>Guess we better start spending zillions of dollars to investigate
 >>>such "intelligent meteors.

 >>Yup, you could. The only thing intelligent about this meteor was
 >>that the witnesses of its 10-12 second flight (intererrupted
 >>when the pilot moved around in the cockpit) sat down afterward
 >>and tried to reconstruct what they assumed had happened near
 >>Wallops Island test range.


 >Bob,

 >Are you now into falsifying data to force-fit your (erroneous)
 >conclusions? You have the facts all wrong on this case. The
 >glowing red disc-shaped objects flew underneath the airliner
 >anfd made a sharp reversal of direction; the pilots were looking
 >down and saw the objects against the ground.

 >Your other "facts" are equally wrong as to location and other
 >details. Good God, at least get the facts right!

Hmmm,

It appears facts don't matter, as long as it can be tied to some
non-ET explanation... no matter how much of a stretch of reality
it takes.

If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement, then we fall
back to the theory that someday, some time, at some point, some
non-ET explanation will come forth.


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                   Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:08:49 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:10:57 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book - Young


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:37:00 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA Scrubs Moon Hoax Book

<snip>

 >There was a correlation, however... the one degree squares that
 >contained military air bases or civilian airports had more
 >sightings that the square without airports.

Hi, Bruce:

An interesting research project. I wonder if this would have to
do with 'hidden' IFOs that were planes, the second largest
category of misses.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Gates

From: Robet Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:15:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:16:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Gates


 >From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility


 >[Non-Subscriber Post--ebk]

 >From: Edward Case
 >For:Submission to the UFO Mailing List

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:44 -0400
 >>Subject: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>I've noted much about Dr. Greer on this and other Lists. Most
 >>agree that Greer himself leaves something to be desired where
 >>credibility is concerned. However what concerns me is the
 >>possibility that the baby might be being thrown out with the
 >>bathwater.

 >>What is the concensus on this List regarding the quality of the
 >>disclosures by those witnesses that appeared during Greer's
 >>Disclosure Project?

 >>Has anyone broken down the presenters into groups as to the
 >>credibility of their disclosures?

 >>Is there a list of these presenters and their topics, somewhere?

 >You have raised a very important point. I think it is critical
 >that people who are interested in the truth about UFOs take a
 >good look at the credibility of the Disclosure Project
 >witnesses. Some of them may be unreliable - but the most
 >important question is: "are any of them telliing the truth, and
 >if so, who?".

Edward,

Some of Greer's witnesses are high caliber, verifiable etc etc.
Some are not and can't be verified. Supposedly at one point
Greer claimed that they were going to check out these witnesses,
then at another point his people emailed me about not having the
time or money to check out the stories and more importantly was
to get the stories out in public etc., etc. In yet another email
his people were claiming they were going to let the
Congressional investigators investigate the backgrounds of the
witnesses.

Can you imagine the foolishness of that? Lets say hearings are
actually scheduled. One party or the other will be against them,
blathering about how they are a waste of time, why we should be
spending time and money on more earthly problems. Picture what
happens when some of these Congressional people get wind of the
fact that witness backgrounds are not checking out? It will be
used as a weapon to discredit any and all storys told.

 >In response to your request I have posted a copy of a DP
 >witness list and a url for the website that I got it from.

 >Overall I have been very impressed with the high caliber of
 >people and content at this list - but when I read the post's on
 >this list about Dr. Greer, I was disappointed. The responses
 >were mostly negative and seemed to miss the most critical
 >point. By focusing on his possible shortcomings - people were
 >downplaying the importance of the Disclosure Project witness
 >testimony, and the National Press Club conference in May 2001.

Not 'possible shortcomings' but actual credibility problems...
which need to be addressed before, not after.

Not to mention Greer's apparent bias that 'all ET's are
essentially saviours' so to speak, just waiting to help us poor
earthlings and any evidence that suggests more sinister intents
is manufactured by the US govt to make ET look bad etc etc.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                           Italian UFO Conference

From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:34:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:25:40 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Conference


Just in case there is anyone on the List from Italy I thought
you might be interested to know that I'll be speaking at a UFO
conference in Bologna next week on the subject of the Alien
Autopsy Film and a separate presentation on the Rendlesham
Forest Incidents.

I might just see you there.

All the best,

Philip Mantle.

www.beyondpublications.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:08:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:27:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:35:23 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >Has anybody asked the Sci-fi Channel why they chose Don Schmitt?

 >Don Ledger

While the SciFi Channel has contracted to air the Roswell show
as part of its current effort, I believe the program is actually
being produced by someone else.

One would have to investigate that group's relationship with Don
Schmitt and Tom Carey.

One also has to question where the concept of the archeological
dig came from in 1999, when the University was first approached.
It would be interesting to see if the SciFi Channel's initiative
dates back that far.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                           Fireball Over Aberdeen?

From: Jason McIlvenny <Jason.McIlvenny@ScottishWater.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:50:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:32:27 -0500
Subject: Fireball Over Aberdeen?


Hello,

Have there been any more reports on the fireball which streaked
over Aberdeen, Scotland? It appeared on the News on Friday the
8th with a video someone shot.

They said it may have been "space debris", however for such an
event there has been no further 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:38:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:52:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Kaeser


 >From: Robet Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:15:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

[snip>

 >Some of Greer's witnesses are high caliber, verifiable etc etc.
 >Some are not and can't be verified. Supposedly at one point
 >Greer claimed that they were going to check out these witnesses,
 >then at another point his people emailed me about not having the
 >time or money to check out the stories and more importantly was
 >to get the stories out in public etc., etc. In yet another email
 >his people were claiming they were going to let the
 >Congressional investigators investigate the backgrounds of the
 >witnesses.

 >Can you imagine the foolishness of that? Lets say hearings are
 >actually scheduled. One party or the other will be against them,
 >blathering about how they are a waste of time, why we should be
 >spending time and money on more earthly problems. Picture what
 >happens when some of these Congressional people get wind of the
 >fact that witness backgrounds are not checking out? It will be
 >used as a weapon to discredit any and all storys told.

Actually, Congressional Hearings wouldn't be scheduled prior to
extensive investigation by support staff to check out the
allegations and verify the credibility of the witnesses. Most of
them probably wouldn't make the cut, and I'm not sure what kind
of story you could tell (or prove) without their involvement.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 371

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@libero.it>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:35:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:55:31 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 371

ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 371 -  18 OCTOBER 2002

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:


- September Sightings In Italy
- The Mysteria Exhibit In Rome
- CISU Congress In Florence


SEPTEMBER SIGHTINGS IN ITALY

The usual monthly (and annual) recap of UFO sighting reports in
Italy, gathered by the Italian Center for UFO Studies, has been
data-assembled by the special telematic working group on the
case log.

There are a good 82 Italian sightings for September, but this
data has been heavily influenced by the double "flap" caused by
the passage of the French stratospheric balloon that crossed
Northern Italy between the 20th and the 21st: in fact, a good
44% of the month's observations (a percentage without precedent
for this year) is attributable to this. Filtering out this
factor, the number of sightings for September is comparable to
that for the months of May and June. Meanwhile, August remains
the leader: thanks to new reports which surfaced in the
following month, the cases for August saw an almost 50% increase
and, overall, surpassed the 100 number  while the provisory
total for the year has already climbed above the 500 mark.

At the regional level, the areas most greatly affected by the
September "flap" were Liguria and Emilia-Romagna.

Compared with the preceding annual statistics, there was a
slight increase in the percentage of identified cases (this also
a consequence of the "temporary waves" of sightings). Meanwhile,
the hourly distribution does not offer anything particular in
the way of surprises: only 10% of the observations occurred
during the daytime.

As usual, tables, statistics, graphics and case lists have
already been made public on the CISU Internet site, at:

http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/casi2002.htm

[UFO-Italia, 17 October; data reports by Giorgio Abraini]



THE MYSTERIA EXHIBIT IN ROME

"Mysteria: The First International Exhibit on the Boundaries of
Reality," opened on 12 October in Rome.

Conceived or organized by Michele Montereali with artistic
direction by Maurizio Baiata, Mysteria
(www.mysteriainternational.com) is being presented as the "First
International Exhibit on the Boundaries of Reality" and
comprises a wide overview linked to various mystery and occult
themes. There are UFOs, but also: ghosts, archaeological
enigmas, prophecies, miracles, unexplainable phenomena,
extraordinary events, and the entire usual hodgepodge of
mysterious subjects. There are also special effects;
reconstructions of extraterrestrials, paranormal phenomena and
archaeological findings; and the assistance of films, photos and
multimedia contributions.

Mysteria is located at the Warner Village, and will be open to
the public through 19 January, with hours from 9 am to 11 pm
(admission is 8 Euro).

[Corriere Della Sera, Il Messaggero, La Repubblica, Il Tempo,
12 October; UFO-Italia, 12 to 15 October; collaboration by
Gildo Person=E8]


CISU CONGRESS IN FLORENCE

On 23 November, the XVII National Congress of Ufology, organized
as in every year by the Italian Center for UFO Studies  (CISU)
will be held in Florence.

The theme of the conference will be: "CISU 2002: Projects,
Investigations and Ongoing Activities." The conference will not
be open to the public, but UFO students and enthusiasts
(including those who are not CISU members) may attend the works,
pending previous arrangement.

Greater details will be communicated in the coming weeks. All
members of the Italian Center for UFO Studies will receive in
the mail a detailed invitation, which will also include
notification of the annual Members' Meeting (taking place on
Sunday the 24th).

[Collaboration by Fabrizio Dividi and Alessandro Fedi]


Collaborators on this edition were:
Giorgio Abraini, Fabrizio Dividi,
Alessandro Fedi and Gildo Person=E8.


- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free phone/Internet
information service on UFOs edited weekly by  Edoardo Russo for
the Italian Center for UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi
Ufologici), available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294, or
by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website at
http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di informazione
ufologica", published by the Italian Center for UFO Studies,
registered at Tribunale di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.

Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance IT-EN Translator/Proofreader
1123 Revere Beach Pky., # 12
Revere, MA 02151 USA
Tel.: ++ 1.781.485.1683, Fax: ++ 1.781.485.1684
ICQ: 110502923, E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2002  by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing (just send a
blank message to:

cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                        Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:48:33 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:56:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:35:23 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >Has anybody asked the Sci-fi Channel why they chose Don
 >Schmitt?


Don:

It may simply be a case of the production company not knowing
the facts with respect to Don Schmitt. While this may seem
improbable to readers of the List, who are well versed in
Schmitt's record, the researchers employed by the production
company may not have known, which means the production company
may not have known (whether they should have is a different
matter entirely). It wouldn't be the first time that a
production company, and the network broadcasting their material,
simply goofed.


Paul Kimball










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

             Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer\Young - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <cohenufo@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:47:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:03:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer\Young - Cohen


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:30:32 EST
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >Errol:

 >Please post this response to Jerry Cohen from non-subscriber
 >Robert Sheaffer.

 >Thanks.

 >Bob Young

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

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >Jerry Cohen reveals how little he has researched the Jimmy
 >Carter UFO case when he says (Nov. 3),

 ><"Then I found myself asking 'I wonder who Bob Scheaffer
 ><interviewed?' No supporting evidence was given to make it
 ><possible for others to check what he says in this regard."
 ><Had he bothered to read my book 'UFO Sightings' (or its earlier
 ><incarnation, "The UFO Verdict"), he would have found a long
 ><chapter on the Carter UFO, explaining exactly who I interviewed
 ><and what they said.
 >
 >He might have even spelled my name
 >correctly.

 >(In fact, I interviewed even more Leary residents
 >than I mentioned, but to keep a reasonable length I left out
 >several.)

 >Once again, we find a "serious" UFOlogist arguing
 >against an analysis he hasn't even read. Jerry, you gotta at
 >least READ what the people you don't like have to say, if you
 >want to argue against them without looking like a fool.

 >So, Carter said that the UFO was in the west, instead of the
 >southwest? He said it was 30 degrees up instead of 25? Nobody
 >ever makes errors like this in estimating an object's position,
 >do they? If Carter had also seen Venus, he could have said, "the
 >object was just to the left of Venus, and above it,"  and that
 >would have ruled out Venus as a suspect. But he didn't. In all
 >probability,  Venus *was* his mysterious UFO.

 >I invite anyone who thinks this case is so great to look at a
 >1978 newspaper story on my web page:

 >http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

 >about this case, "Learyites leery of Carter's encounter." It
 >says, "As it happens, however, there is no one in Leary who
 >remembers sighting a UFO in company with the future president.
 >Carter insists that the object's brightness attracted a crowd,
 >but it appears it only attracted him. Not one resident recalls
 >anything unusual about that particular January evening.....
 >Mayor Stanley Shepard says he has talked with everyone who
 >might have attended the Lions Club meeting on the night in
 >question, 'and nobody remembers anything about flying saucers.'
 >People recall that Carter's speech was dull - but as for spaceships,
 >no...". Remember, I didn't write that, a reporter did.
 >
 >Whatever Carter 'thinks' that he might have seen that evening in
 >Leary, he's the only one who thought he saw anything out of the
 >ordinary. If there were truly something amazing flying around
 >the sky that night, the others with him would surely have
 >remarked on it, and remembered it.

 >Robert Sheaffer
 >robert@debunker.com
 >Skeptical to the Max!



Hello Robert,

Sorry I haven't responded a little sooner but we had family
obligations this past week with multiple events occurring
simultaneously and long trips to complete them. I have some
points to make concerning some of the things you say, but first
let's dispense with the silly stuff so we can get to the more
pertinent areas.

As far as the spelling of your name, you have me there. However,
it was a typo as I was composing my post and I already stated
this and apologized immediately in a succeeding post. Clicking
below will take you to it.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m26-021.shtml

You can also note it is spelled properly in succeeding posts.
Also, if you take the time to examine my web site at

http://www.cohenufo.org/

you'll notice I'm pretty meticulous in this regard and that it
is not a normal occurrence.

As to your research, I certainly give you the benefit of the
doubt that it was an honest effort. Getting out there and
investigating is not an easy task and I give you credit for that
and for your efforts in publishing your book. These are by no
means easy things to accomplish.

As far as my not reading your book I guess I missed it due to
the presentation of the information that Bob Young had us look
at.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

It was to that information provided that I was responding
to in my post.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m25-016.shtml

I'm saying this next part with respect and as a suggestion, not
as a put down. I didn't realize it was your web site until you
said it just now. Of the five articles he had us look at, two of
them were on Rosalynn Carter's haunted house. (3 pages on my 18"
screen) When you see something like that, it doesn't inspire
confidence in the rest of the research. I don't see how
attacking Carter's wife can have anything to do with his
reported sighting or his case and is no more effective than
attacking his children or his pet canary (if he has one). I
guess it is possible you don't realize this tends to cloud the
actual issue of his specific sighting and is less than a
professional presentation to offer the internet community. If
the rest of your research is legitimate, the "Rosalynn Haunted
House" part actually takes away from what you have researched
and would tend to make intelligent people shy away from reading
it.

I certainly am going to read your book(s). However I believe,
from what you did present on the net, the other points I made
are still valid. I'll list what I believe are our areas of
agreement and disagreement.

Agreements:

__The corrected date of the sighting: January 6, 1969
__Place and time: Outside the Lion's club, approx 7:15
__The technical data as to where the UFO was sighted.
__The technical data as to where Venus was at the time.
__The fact that most people didn't remember it.

__"The only Leary resident who recalled the incident at all was
Fred Hart, 1969 president of the Leary Lions Club, who faintly
recalled standing outside with Carter watching a light in the
sky. Mr. Hart believed that the object might have been a
"weather balloon" and said that the incident did not leave much
of an impression on him."

Disagreements:

Portions of your solution do not match exactly with the
details Carter gave us.

Details from Carter's sighting:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  From the report to the International UFO Bureau,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Carter was given 3 choices for his description:
Fuzzy or Blurred, Like a bright star, sharply outlined
He chose "sharply outlined"

Hand wrote: "Bright as the moon, luminescent, not solid"

Did it speed up & rush away - "yes"

When asked the size of the object, he was given 6 choices:
nickle, half dollar, silver dollar, orange, grapefruit, larger.

Carter hand-wrote: "about same as the moon, maybe a little
smaller"

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

Robert, these descriptions do not sound like Venus to
me, even after reading what Bob Young wrote at

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m08-001.shtml

Bob Young wrote:

"Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO
Verdict - Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books,
1981, pp. 4-12), states, "When I obtained the weather
records from the nearby Albany airfield, they revealed
that the weather was cold and clear, although a few
scattered clouds were present that evening."

Sheaffer reports that Carter's sighting report filed with Heyden
Hewes' International UFO Bureau described the object as, "bluish
at first - then reddish," it "seemed to move toward us from a
distance, stop, move partially away, return then depart."

This could describe the planet gradually fading and brightening
behind clouds."

Robert, in the last sentence of paragraph 2 of your description
of the case (President Carter's "UFO" is Identified as the
Planet Venus) you yourself say "Weather records show that the
sky was clear at the time of the sighting." This does tend to
make one think that cloud cover would be reduced to a severe
minimum and hardly be a factor. I find this to be an
inconsistency.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

You also mentioned that if Carter didn't mention seeing Venus
and it was in the general area, it must have been Venus he saw.
I thought about this a little further and have been finally
forced to decide that just because Carter didn't mention Venus
is definitely no guarantee that what he saw _was_ Venus.

My reasoning:

At bit more concerning the clouds: If Carter's attention was
focused on the "object" he probably would have noticed it going
behind a cloud, if the cloud even existed in the first place.
Carter never once mentioned anything about clouds. If you want
to use the fact he never mentioned seeing Venus, you also have
to use the fact he never mentioned anything about clouds. You
can't have it both ways, again, especially since as you said
"the sky was" (jc basically) "clear at the time of the
sighting."

Additionally, if the object was much larger than Venus as
in his description, his attention would have been focused
on the object, not on the planet.

In regard to mistaking Venus for a UFO, I would be interested in
any cases you have where where people have both mistaken Venus
for a UFO and described it in size similar to what Carter has
said (i.e. almost as large as the moon) and combined with the
other details he gave. I was wondering if you provided any for
us in your book(s)? If not, can you possibly supply this for us?
I'm sure you most likely have this data.

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

I also have information to submit which may explain why
the people you surveyed did not remember the event. It
concerns two things; as mentioned in previous posts, my
wife's reaction to my own personal sighting and the effect
of the publishing of the Condon Report on the general
public prior to the time of Carter's sighting:

My sighting:

My own sighting (with my wife present), her reaction to it
as compared to mine, demonstrates that people can see
an object and have totally different reactions to it,
especially if one person is technically oriented and the
other(s) not.

http://www.cohenufo.org/Carter_Clark.html#mysighting

Carter's was a nocturnal light case. My sighting was a daylight
sighting much more detailed than Carter's and was also witnessed
by my wife. Yet it eventually left her mind as if she had never
seen it, I might add, to my great anger over time. If the other
people who Carter says witnessed his "nocturnal" (i.e. less
detailed) UFO thought to themselves "it has to be something
else, it can't possibly be a UFO," it probably would fade from
their minds a lot easier than our sighting faded from my wife's
mind, especially if most if not all of them were less
technically schooled than Carter who had a degree in Nuclear
Physics. With all the questions I asked her, and her failing to
answer them, I felt she should have at the very least questioned
it. She did not. I have since discovered this is a typical
reaction of any person that does not believe UFOs can possibly
exist.

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

Public reaction to, and the effects of, the Condon Report
released prior to the Carter sighting:

At the time of Carter's sighting, the Condon Report had already
been issued and the public was being told UFOs didn't exist.
NICAP was in the process of refuting this but the general public
never saw the rebuttal, which went out to NICAP members. A
posting I wrote to Bruce Hutchinson covers all this in great
detail and includes a rebuttal NICAP made to that study.

http://www.cohenufo.org/condonsturrock.htm

Relating all I've said above to the Carter sighting:

If you don't think there is any possibility for something to
exist, it is impossible for you to ever contemplate analyzing
it. This is certainly a good reason why other people may not
have remembered the sighting. (i.e. they never analyzed it in
their minds when they saw it.) Carter's credentials indicate he
would have been an "above average" observer. Additionally, since
he stated the UFO disappeared from view approximately 2 hours
before Venus had actually set, and his description doesn't quite
jive with the explanation given, I can't in good conscience
state definitely to myself that what Carter saw was Venus.

I read Bob Young's post concerning the brightness and position
of Venus on the evening in question.  Whether or not Rudiak was
correct concerning the brightness of Venus on the night in
question (and I am going to check further for my own knowledge
and for what I display on my web site), what I've said in the
paragraphs above is still reason enough for me to not be able to
simply stash Carter's sighting away in a neat "Venus" box.

Since it took place approximately a year and two months after my
own sighting, and the people he claims saw it with him didn't
support him, I had no choice but to relate to it. To me, it is
not impossible that Carter is telling the truth. It is not that
I think the case is great (it is basically a nocturnal light
case), but that I still truly haven't been able to fully resolve
it to my full satisfaction. The varied circumstantial evidence
(pros & cons) surrounding it cancel(s?) each other out for me.
  We will probably never know what he really saw.  I certainly
don't expect you or Bob Young to agree with me but perhaps
others out there will understand why I feel the solution you
have given is not written in stone.

Respectfully,
Jerry Cohen

http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:34:41 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:38:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Randle


 >From: John Zupansic <zupansic@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:47:21 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:44:57 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 ><snip>

 >>So the question to me is: "If some of the disclosure witnesses
 >>are unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from
 >>the project?"

 >>That means, if Dr. Greer couldn't be bothered with verifying
 >>these tales, why should we even listen?

 >>But doesn't those copyright issues speak to character and isn't
 >>character of importance here. We have only so much in the way of
 >>physical evidence so that the character issue becomes more
 >>important. Here, Dr. Greer has failed...


 >Touche' Mr. Randle.

 >Earlier Mr. Ledger mentioned something about not throwing out
 >the baby with the bathwater, but I think this is a relatively
 >unrealistic hope.

 >In the case of Greer, and perhaps the upcoming Sci-Fi special,
 >the baby should and will get thrown out with the bathwater,
 >rightfully so I think. Precisely because, as Mr. Randle so
 >eloquently put it "If some of the disclosure witnesses are
 >unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from the
 >project?"

I think you misunderstand here. The second part of that, which
followed, was about Dr. Greer not worrying about the reliability
of the witnesses and couldn't be bothered with checking. It
isn't hard to find the truth, but here the truth is that if he
eliminated some of the credulous witnesses, he would be left
without tales of 57 alien species, an abduction at Bentwaters
and MJ-12.

 >Far too often people in this field give debunkers, skeptics,
 >investigative reporters, and assorted media types ammo with
 >which to shoot giant holes in UFOs and the ETH in the minds of
 >the general public and perhaps as or more importantly,
 >prospective scientists and researchers. Hyperbole and sweeping
 >generalizations, sadly, play pretty well to the masses and to
 >the those in the scientific community who don't have time to
 >study UFOs in-depth.  It doesn't much matter if 90% of Greer's
 >witnesses are credible (which they probably aren't) if 10% are
 >liars.

But you see, we don't have to put up with the 10%. All that had
to be done was to properly investigate the backgrounds of those
making their claims. Had that been done, then we wouldn't be
having this discussion  because they would all pass.

So, why didn't they try to verify the backgrounds?

 >It doesn't much matter if Schmitt's claims about Roswell

 >are completely 100% accurate when it is so easy to discredit him
 >on character issues.

But, you see, there is nothing that Schmitt knows that we don't
know from other, better sources, which is the point. And we know
that Schmitt's claims weren't 100% accurate.

You need an example? He claimed that Dr. Jesse B. Johnson was
the pathologist at Roswell in 1947. Schmitt said that he had
consulted the ABMS Compendium of Medical Specialists which
showed that Dr. Johnson had trained as a pathologist... well,
that was true, but what we also learn is that Johnson trained
from 1948 to 1949, after he had left the service and Roswell.
Schmitt had to know this, but ignored it. So, his claim was, I
suppose accurate, but the rest of the information also showed
that it was irrelevant. His information was 100% but it meant
nothing.

That example not good enough? How about claiming that one of the
Roswell witnesses had been Colonel when, in fact, the man never
rose above Staff Sergeant... and yes, that man lied about his
military career because he had claimed to be a Master Sergeant.

So, we can eliminate Schmitt from the equation and we still have
the same information as it was developed by others. In other
words, the messenger here is not important. It is the message.
And, if the messenger can't be trusted, then neither can the
message.

 >People stop listening (rightly or wrongly)

 >no matter how great the data is, after they find out the person
 >in question has a history of lies/embellishments/exaggerations
 >in their past.

But if the information is great, then a single individual is not
important. And if the person has a history of
lies/embellishments/ exaggerations, why should we believe that
this happens to be the one time that he or she is telling the
truth?

 >Incidentally, I have tried to contact both Sci-Fi and MPH
 >Entertainment to ask why Schmitt is included in their upcoming
 >special, but haven't received a response.

I'm not sure why this has become so important, but the reason,
simply, is that Schmitt happened to be in the Roswell museum
when a couple of representatives came through. Say what you
will, Schmitt can (a) be charming  (b)  seem knowledgeable and
(c) and talk a good ball game.

KRandle







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                          Secrecy News -- 11/14/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:46:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:41:16 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/14/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 114
November 14, 2002


**      HOUSE APPROVES HOMELAND SECURITY BILL
**      SECRECY IN THE NEWS


HOUSE APPROVES HOMELAND SECURITY BILL

The Homeland Security Act that was hastily approved by the House
of Representatives on November 13 is a daunting stew whose
dimensions and import are hard to comprehend.

"We do not even know the full implications of what we are doing
in this bill," said Rep. Henry Waxman, who urged unsuccessfully
that it be deferred until next year.

Among many other problematic provisions, the House bill includes
a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption for "voluntarily
shared critical infrastructure information" submitted to
government agencies by industry (section 214).  A more narrowly
circumscribed Senate version of the exemption was not adopted in
the House bill.

"The changes made to the Freedom of Information Act are overly
broad and restrictive," said Rep. John Dingell (D-MI).  "By
including Section 214 as part of the backroom agreement, this
body is ignoring the bipartisan compromise that was reached in
the Senate."

"I am... very concerned that this new Department [of Homeland
Security] will develop and operate in a culture of secrecy
without adequate and proper public accountability or
Congressional oversight," Rep. Dingell said.

Proponents of the new exemption alleged that the Freedom of
Information Act was a tool of terrorists.

"As we discovered when we went to the caves in Afghanistan, the
Al Qaeda groups had copies of GAO reports and other government
information obtained through FOIA," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA).
"While we work to protect our nation's assets in this war
against terrorism, we also need to ensure that we are not arming
terrorists."

Extended excerpts pertaining to information policy --
  information analysis, information sharing, freedom of
information, cyber security, information security, etc. -- from
the Homeland Security Act as passed by the House are posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/hr5710-111302.html

A critique by the Society of Professional Journalists of the bill's
Freedom of Information Act exemption may be found here:

http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=299



SECRECY IN THE NEWS

The ACLU, EPIC and other public interest groups asked a federal
court to expedite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for
Justice Department records on government surveillance activities
under the USA PATRIOT Act.  See this November 13 press release:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11276&c6

Pentagon policies on covert operations, including the recent
proposal for a so-called Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group
(P2OG), were discussed by David Isenberg in "P2OG Allows
Pentagon to Fight Dirty," Asia Times, November 5:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK05Ak02.html

Thousands of historical intelligence satellite images, formally
declassified a couple of months ago, are now becoming publicly
available, writes Leonard David in " U.S. Spy Satellite Images
from the Cold War Released," Space.com, November 13:

http://www.space.com/news/secret_sat_021113.html


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.



OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:20:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:42:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:58:17 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >Hey all,

 >Thanks for the responses on my inquiry about Dorothy Izatt. Here
 >are some links for those who requested them - sorry I didn't get
 >them posted sooner.

 >http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/StrangePhotos/

 >http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufocan05.htm


 >Chris Burns

- - - -


Thanks Chris:


I checked out the two links, photos etc.

That's all I needed to know.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:44:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>>No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >>>giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >>>their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

<snip>

 >If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
embarrassment?

Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:57:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:46:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Hall


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:32:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Edward Case <sloweddy@peak.org>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:50 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>phenomena. Everyone has shortcomings though and it is possible
 >>that some of his more controversial beliefs may be turn out to
 >>be true.

 >I'll second that. I'm very happy that in spite of the bad press
 >the Disclosure Project has received via this list, sound clips
 >from the DP witness testimony continue to get aired on Strange
 >Days Indeed.

 >Eleanor White

Eleanor,

When they are perceived to be credible witnesses (independently
of Greer) they deserve to be widely heard.

However, Greer's lumping them in with liars and frauds, and then
wrapping the whole affair in controversial politics is
indefensible.

For the most part, Greer didn't even discover these witnesses.
He is simply exploiting them for his own duboious purposes.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:05:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:53:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>Your other "facts" are equally wrong as to location and other
 >>details. Good God, at least get the facts right!

 >Hmmm,

 >It appears facts don't matter, as long as it can be tied to some
 >non-ET explanation... no matter how much of a stretch of reality
 >it takes.

 >If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement, then we fall
 >back to the theory that someday, some time, at some point, some
 >non-ET explanation will come forth.

Obeying Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking:

_Any_ explanation is better than none.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                   NY Times to Run Alien Encounter Article

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:18:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:54:29 -0500
Subject: NY Times to Run Alien Encounter Article


Something I jotted down for a site I run... thought it would be
of interest since it refers back to the List's recent discussion
which appeared under the header of "Starship Memories." Please
note the Update at the very end:

New York Times to Run Alien Encounter Article Soon

12 Nov: The New York Times, which seemingly never runs any
stories about alien encounters unless it is to discredit them
with even the most feeble arguments, may be about to do so
again, this time by promoting a rather weak study conducted by
Susan Clancy at Harvard (described last week in the Harvard
Gazette). Her experiment showed that experiencers tend to have
more recall errors when recalling thematically grouped lists of
words. The study author claims this is evidence that
experiencers create and believe in "false memories," but the
connection between remembering events and word-lists (and the
confidence in those memories) seems rather slender even to non-
scientists.

In a thematic word-list experiment one is given a list of words
such as pillow, sheet, mattress, comforter, alarm clock, teddy
bear (for example). Later, after a suitable distraction such as
arithmetic equations, one is asked to recall the words, at which
time one may or may not erroneously include the inferred word
"bed," and even feel confident that was one of the words.

Elsewhere on the web, in a rebuttal you will likely never see in
the Times (even though it and two accompanying rebuttals were
provided to the Times*), doctoral student in theoretical
neuroscience Catherine Reason explains why Clancy's study is
inherently weak:

<snip - link to Reason's November 9th statement on the UFO
Updates List in which she explained that "inferring from
context" is not an error, it is part of how a functional mind
navigates in the world>

Assuming her study was accurate, why would experiencers have a
greater tendency towards "inferring from context"? Are
experiencers simply more conceptual than verbal? Have they
always been this way, or does it track with experiences? It is a
provocative, though weak, study _ but not for the reasons the
researcher believes.

Watch the Times, see if they do their usual. Perhaps we'll be
surprised, and they'll include some of the rebuttals. (This
upcoming article should not be confused with upcoming Times
coverage of the Taken miniseries, which is also being prepared
now).

Nov 14 Update! If the article does not present this, the Times
ability to fairly report the news will be soundly put into
question:

If the article does not present this, the Times ability to
fairly report the news will be soundly put into question: The
Times reporter today spoke with Daniel Brown, Ph.D., an
assistant clinical professor of psychology at Harvard Medical
School and an expert on the subject of trauma and memory (Dr.
Brown has worked alongside such luminaries as Bessel A. van der
Kolk, M.D, exploring how memories are organized at different
stages of development, and the differences between recollection
of ordinary and traumatic events in adults and children. He also
has written with Ken Wilber on aspects of Tibetan culture, as he
is fluent in Tibetan). I have it on good authority that he
shared with the Times reporter his assessment of Clancy's study;
relating his view that her study was weak. He may have reminded
the reporter that the type of study Clancy used is sometimes
used in legal settings to "prove" that childhood sexual abuse
had not taken place, even when other material evidence proves
that it had. This type of study, he reportedly explained, is
fundamentally poor, even when followed with the precision
expected of a Harvard student.

So in conclusion, I hope that by presenting this behind-the-
scenes process in how a Times story is created, we may all learn
more about whether the Times is a reputable source of balanced
information. I've presented evidence that the reporter has
received four rebuttals to the Clancy study; three written
statements and one long interview with a top-grade expert. We
will soon see what the reporter deems worthy of inclusion.


*I directed the reporter to the Updates archive at
virtuallystrange.net for rebuttals, and asked her to contact the
people if she intended to use their quotes, as my own efforts to
reach them via email for permissions was not succesful. (Doesn't
everyone check their email every hour? Hm?)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

               Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:19:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Bowden


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:38:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Robet Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:15:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 ><snip>

 >>Some of Greer's witnesses are high caliber, verifiable etc etc.
 >>Some are not and can't be verified. Supposedly at one point
 >>Greer claimed that they were going to check out these witnesses,
 >>then at another point his people emailed me about not having the
 >>time or money to check out the stories and more importantly was
 >>to get the stories out in public etc., etc. In yet another email
 >>his people were claiming they were going to let the
 >>Congressional investigators investigate the backgrounds of the
 >>witnesses.

 >>Can you imagine the foolishness of that? Lets say hearings are
 >>actually scheduled. One party or the other will be against them,
 >>blathering about how they are a waste of time, why we should be
 >>spending time and money on more earthly problems. Picture what
 >>happens when some of these Congressional people get wind of the
 >>fact that witness backgrounds are not checking out? It will be
 >>used as a weapon to discredit any and all storys told.

 >Actually, Congressional Hearings wouldn't be scheduled prior to
 >extensive investigation by support staff to check out the
 >allegations and verify the credibility of the witnesses. Most of
 >them probably wouldn't make the cut, and I'm not sure what kind
 >of story you could tell (or prove) without their involvement.


Steve,

I disagree with your assumption that "most of them wouldn't make
the cut". Certainly there are several who are not credible, but
I believe that well over half the witnesses whose testimony has
been documented by DP are credible.

For some of them, documentation might be a problem due to covert
acts to interfere with verification, but it would seem
reasonable that at least some members of Congress would realize
that concessions should be made for such cases.

It certainly would make the strongest case to bring forth the
most credible witnesses with the best credentials.

Tom Bowden










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                       Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:57:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:23:04 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Deschamps


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:35:14 -0700
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:44:52 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

<snip>

 >>Now, let's get back to UFOs and Flying Saucers!

 >Sounds to me like they are an artifact of videography.
 >Otherwise, they would have made themselves known sometime in the
 >past 175 years of still photography.

 >My money is on dragonflies. _Now_ let's get back to UFOs and
 >flying saucers!

Think about what you wrote:

 >Sounds to me like they are an artifact of videography.
 >Otherwise, they would have made themselves known sometime in
 >the past 175 years of still photography.

Cameras of yester-year are nothing in comparison to those of
today. And a still photograph only captures a split-second image
in time. On the other hand, videos can be slowed down, frame by
frame, in order to see the movement of these
"creatures"...unlike a single-frame photograph.

Could it be possible that a still camera cannot "pick up" these
things because of their (lightning-fast) speed?

The naked eye cannot even "catch" these things in flight. Since
these "creatures" were not known before the advent of the
camcorder, how would anyone know to "shoot the sky" in the hope
of getting one of these things on a single-frame photograph?

One must also remember that "they" were caught on film entirely
by accident. Had Jose Escamilla not video-taped them, they would
have remained unknown until the next perceptive videographer
came along!

They are not an artifact of videography!

I've never captured anything like this on my own video camera,
by acident or on purpose...but I'm willing to test whether or
not I can... now that I know what to look for!

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns

From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:18:44 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:26:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Burns


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:20:46 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?


 >Thanks Chris:

 >I checked out the two links, photos etc.

 >That's all I needed to know.


Larry (and List),

Uh-oh! Am I right to assume your reaction to the links was one
of either distaste or disregard? If so, I am interested in why.
Also, I came upon a picture of Dorothy with Dr. Hynek, which
jogged my memory that I did read about some interest he had in
Ms. Izatt. Anybody know anything about this? Bueller?

Truthfully I did expect some negative reactions to the topic of
Ms. Izatt. Her tale is a UFO story that bleeds over into realms
more frequently associated with ghost research, and it certainly
seems UFO researchers keep a good distance away from the land of
ghosthunters. Well, it also seems that ghost-heads react mighty
violently to the topic of UFOs, so the feelings are mutual, I
guess. In regards to Ms. Izatt though, I have never read or
heard one criticism about her claims. Rare in itself, and
supposedly she has been quite willing to have her films
analyzed. Of course the question is who did the analysis and how
was it done?

Well that's enough of this. Next topic, Berthold Schwarz!


Chris Burns








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:04:10 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:31:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:05:14 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>

<snip>

 >Obeying Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking:

 > _Any_ explanation is better than none.

And Young's Corollary:

When debunking a proposed prosaic explanation for a UFO sighting
report, it is permissible to use at least one miracle and one
violation of the rules of physics.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:42:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:33:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


<snip>

 >>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >reversed their direction instantly

Sloppy, inprecise language is a debunkers playground.  What
exactly do you mean by "instantly?"  Does "instantly" mean 0
seconds?  0.1 seconds?  1.0 seconds?

"Instantaneous" by itself means absolutely nothing without
defining what you mean.  Strictly speaking, in physics or math
"instantaneous" would be 0 or no time at all.  But to a human
being, "instantaneous" is vague and basically means too quick to
be seen clearly with the naked eye, like a magician's sleight of
hand.

(This reminds of similar sloppy debunking language of physicist
Lawrence Krauss, who has claimed  that interstellar travel
requires the "energy of a star." This is also completely
meaningless without specifying the mass of the interstellar
spacecraft being accelerated, it's final speed, the energy
output of whatever star Krauss is referring to, what length of
time the star outputs this energy, etc.  Turns out. e.g., that
the energy to accelerate something with a mass like the World
Trade Center twin towers to 10% of light speed is about 0.001
seconds of the sun's power output, or about one month of solar
energy here on Planet Earth.  That's much more precise than
Krauss' "energy of a star" and gives a much better idea of the
magnitude of the problem.)

 >at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour without violating
 >the laws of physics

More sloppy language?  What do you mean by "violating the laws
of physics?"  Which laws of physics do you mean?  Please tell us
precisely.

Have you ever had a physics class?  Judging from the normal
nonsense that you spout here on Updates, I seriously doubt if
you would know a "law of physics" if it came up and bit you on
the ass.

Reality check:  Very rapid reversal of direction does not
"violate" any "laws of physics."  What it does mean is that high
accelerations are involved.  But high accelerations by
themselves do not "violate" any "laws of physics."  A bullet
shot out of a rifle barrel probably has an initial acceleration
in excess of 100,000 G's when the gunpowder first explodes.  No
"laws of physics" are "violated" in the process.

NASA/NACA aeronautical engineer Paul Hill, in his book
"Unconventional Flying Objects," pointed out that the WWII
antitank Bazooka missile missile had a linear acceleration of
several hundred G's.  Cannon-launched missiles have
accelerations measured in thousands of G's.  Hill gave one
example of a guided cannon-launched missile cited by Aviation
Week & Space Technology in 1975 with an acceleration of over
7000 G and designed to withstand 9000 G, including its optics,
electronics, and guidance gyroscope.

Again, despite these huge accelerations, no "laws of physics"
were being "violated."

Many air-to-air missiles are designed to practically turn on a
dime.  60G turn design specs are not uncommon.  This is in the
vicinity of some reported UFO sightings, such as Hill's own 1952
sighting where he calculated two "saucers" circling one another
at about 100G's.

(Must have been one of Bob Young's meteorites.  Or maybe it was
"Venus" dipping behind some clouds.)

At 100 G's, or a change in velocity of 980 meters/second in one
second, or 3200 feet/second/second, or about 2200 mph/second, an
object traveling 2200 mph or about Mach 3 can come to a dead
stop in one second or accelerate from 0 to 2200 mph in one
second.  Or it can be traveling 1100 mph, slow to zero, reverse
direction and go streaking off in the opposite direction at 1100
mph, all in one second.

These changes are so rapid and dramatic they appear to be
practically "instantaneous" to the relatively sluggish human eye
and visual system.  But they are not truly "instantaneous" in
the sense that they happen in no time at all.  They are simply
too fast to be seen clearly. And I guarantee you, no "laws of
physics" are being "violated."

 >_is not an embarrassment?

The only "embarrassment" here is your typical inability to think
clearly.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young

Clear thinking,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:11:58 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:35:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Gates


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?


Do you ever notice that when a witness steps forward and says I
saw a "meteor" the skeptibunkers are silent, generally yawn and
don't question the account, the witness's story, background, or
anything else.

Yet if a witness steps forward and says I saw a UFO, these same
skeptibunkers would be all over the account, questioning it,
denouncing it, proclaiming various and sundry explanations and
so forth.

Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Jacobson

From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:31:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:38:31 -0500
Subject: Re:  Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Jacobson


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>
 >
 >>>>No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >>>>giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >>>>their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 ><snip>

 >>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >embarrassment?

 >Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

I may be in the minority guys, but it seems kind of pointless to
me to go on and on arguing back and forth about "possible" and
"probable" explanations for reports which lack the necessary
information to to decide one way or the other, e.g. little
lights far away that flick on and off in different orders.

After all "probably," "possibly," "could be," do not really
advance knowledge.

Maybe more productive to toss such cases in the "insufficient
data" bin and move on to those for which more evidence is at
hand.

Eric Jacobson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

             Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer/Young - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:29:14 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:41:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer/Young - Gates


 >From: Jerry Cohen <cohenufo@optonline.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:47:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter Sighting - Scheaffer\Young

<snip>

 >I also have information to submit which may explain why
 >the people you surveyed did not remember the event. It
 >concerns two things; as mentioned in previous posts, my
 >wife's reaction to my own personal sighting and the effect
 >of the publishing of the Condon Report on the general
 >public prior to the time of Carter's sighting:

 >My sighting:

 >My own sighting (with my wife present), her reaction to it
 >as compared to mine, demonstrates that people can see
 >an object and have totally different reactions to it,
 >especially if one person is technically oriented and the
 >other(s) not.

 >http://www.cohenufo.org/Carter_Clark.html#mysighting

 >Carter's was a nocturnal light case. My sighting was a daylight
 >sighting much more detailed than Carter's and was also witnessed
 >by my wife. Yet it eventually left her mind as if she had never
 >seen it, I might add, to my great anger over time. If the other
 >people who Carter says witnessed his "nocturnal" (i.e. less
 >detailed) UFO thought to themselves "it has to be something
 >else, it can't possibly be a UFO," it probably would fade from
 >their minds a lot easier than our sighting faded from my wife's
 >mind, especially if most if not all of them were less
 >technically schooled than Carter who had a degree in Nuclear
 >Physics. With all the questions I asked her, and her failing to
 >answer them, I felt she should have at the very least questioned
 >it. She did not. I have since discovered this is a typical
 >reaction of any person that does not believe UFOs can possibly
 >exist.


Hi Jerry,

This is a excellent point which is generally totally lost on the
skeptibunker community. You can have a number of witnesses see
an incredible event. To some that event will forever be
remembered, never to be forgotten. To others it wasn't all that
meaningful or significant in their life at that point so over
time it will be forgotten about. This doesn't mean the even
didn't happen, just that it didn't mean anything to them at that
point.

For example at my office, next to a busy street, we generally
have the fire/ambulance/police scream by with sirens and lights
flashing 2-3 times a day. Being a former officer, I tend to
notice that. When I have made comments to the people in the
office next to me they give me the dumbfounded look and go on
about how they didn't hear/see anything that day and how they
were so busy in their office.

The same thing happens with various events, such as meteor
showers, eclipses and so on. To some people they are important
and time is found to observe them. To others the reaction is
something along the lines of "Gee whiz that was interesting... I
got to get in and turn on the football game....."

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                 Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 [was: Re: UFO

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:53:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:45:08 -0500
Subject: Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 [was: Re: UFO


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:50:02 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45

 >>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:58:17 +0000
 >>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45

 >>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.
 >><Masinaigan@aol.com>

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

 >>UFO ROUNDUP
 >>Volume 7, Number 45
 >>November 5, 2002
 >>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

 ><snip>

 >>HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN
 >>NORTHEASTERN BORNEO

 >>On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 7 p.m., a male
 >>witness in Kota Kinbalu, a port city on the northeastern
 >>tip of the island of Borneo, part of Malaysia's Sabah
 >>province, spotted a UFO hovering over the area.
 >>The witness reported, "While I was at the factory,
 >>coming out for a smoke, I saw the craft hovering with
 >>lights in the sky. At first I didn't pay much notice to
 >>it because I thought it would be a helicopter flying
 >>around the area. Then I realized that the object wasn't
 >>making any sound."

 >>"It was hovering slowly like a normal helicopter
 >>would do. But after two minutes looking at the object,
 >>it suddenly disappeared with trails of light following
 >>it. That is the very last I saw of this object, and that
 >>was when my spine started to shiver."
 >>"Two days later, the Sabah Express had a front-page
 >>picture of the object." (See the Sabah Express for
 >>October 10, 2002, "UFO over Kota Kinbalu." See also
 >>Filer's Files #44 for October 30, 2002. Many thanks to
 >>George A. Filer for allowing UFO Roundup to reprint this
 >>story.)

 >Hello John & fellow UpDates Listerions,

 >Anyone who may be interested in reading the news story and
 >checking out the pictures of this UFO can go to the Sabah
 >Express website by clicking on the following URL:

 >http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=14205
 >Interesting stuff. Enjoy,

 >John Velez
- - -

Hello John:

Thanks for providing a clickable link.

Interesting indeed. While it may well have some sort of
conventional explanation, I'm at a loss to provide one.

The news article describes a flying coffin. The separate witness
cited by Roundup thought he was looking at a silent helicopter.
Yet, the surveillance camera image looks like something else
entirely.

What I see, is a silvery long slender cylinder, with maybe a
hint of an exhaust or smoke trail. More surprising is the long
white rectangle directly above it, almost like a sail, but
unlike any sail I have ever seen on air or marine craft!

Am I looking at this all wrong? Can others describe what they
see? I wouldn't expect to see an object like that at a funeral
nor a heliport. Too bad it didn't land where anyone could get a
better look.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                 Pentagon Superhacker Sought Evidence Of UFO

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:44:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:06:28 -0500
Subject: Pentagon Superhacker Sought Evidence Of UFO


Source: The Advertiser - Adelaide South Australia

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5489376
%255E912,00.html

Stig

***

Pentagon hacker on a different planet

15nov02

**

WASHINGTON: Friends of Gary McKinnon had often thought he was
living on a different planet.

At school, he dressed like his hero David Bowie, singer-
songwriter of the hit single Space Oddity.

Neighbours talked of a reclusive man who would spend hours
hunched over his computer.

In truth however, Mr McKinnon, 36, found his career as a
computer engineer tedious.

What he failed to mention was his specialised internet hobby:
trying to prove the existence of UFOs.

He was desperate to prove the US had mounted a huge cover-up to
deny their existence -- and his belief that aliens had visited.

Giving himself the online alias Solo, his passion seemed
harmless.

But now Mr McKinnon has become the computer geek who shook the
world, and faces a possible 10 years in jail.

He has been accused of hacking into top-secret Pentagon
databases from his North London home, and crippling vital
computer systems at a naval weapons base.

He was indicted in his absence in two US courts yesterday. The
US is now seeking his extradition.

Mr McKinnon refused to comment last night after he was accused
of hacking into 92 NASA and US military networks in the year
from March, 2001, hitting systems across 14 states. The case has
shaken US Government officials, who will have to explain how a
flying saucer fan from Britain was able to pierce the heart of
the US's security systems.

Mr McKinnon, who lives with his girlfriend Tamsin Thomas, 35, a
librarian, is accused of scanning thousands of computers at once
to download sensitive information about navy shipbuilding and
munitions in what is being called the biggest military computer
hack.

**

=A9 Advertiser Newspapers Ltd








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                     'Prehistoric Cyborgs' & Modern Man?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:57:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:15:01 -0500
Subject: 'Prehistoric Cyborgs' & Modern Man?


Source: Pravda,

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/13/39456.html

Stig

**

2002.11.13/16:07

Prehistoric Cyborgs and Modern Man

**

Recently, a group of German and American geneticists headed by
Professor Tabo from Munich University made a sensational
discovery. As it turned out, Neanderthal man, who was considered
to be in the intermediate position between the pithecanthropus
and the modern human, has nothing to do with our genealogy.

Professor Tabo and his colleagues extracted the main heredity
carrier, DNA, from remains of a Neanderthal man of about 30.000
years. When the ancient DNA was compared with a similar fragment
of a contemporary man, the scientists saw that Neanderthal man
wasn't an ancestor to modern man.

The discovery made by geneticists was confirmed by
anthropologists Shmit and Tissen from Germany and scientist
Stringer from Great Britain. Neanderthals completely dominated
Europe for 200,000 years. However, 40,000 years ago, a new
competitor appeared on the scene. Cro-Magnon with a higher level
of intellect and better weapons invaded from the East. The Cro-
Mags killed the majority of Neanderthals, and those who remained
alive escaped to remote parts of the planet. It was a very
severe fight, as the mass burial places of Neanderthal men with
broken sculls and other injuries prove.

The scientists compared the data obtained and made the
conclusion that there was no interbreeding between the direct
ancestors of modern man and the Neanderthals. Now, mankind can
thank science for the fact that it unexpectedly was deprived of
its ancestors. If a mummy wasn't discovered, the problem of Homo
sapiens origin would be open once again.

The mummy isn't from a Pharaoh grave; it was discovered in a
block of eternal ice in a mountainous area in Central Mongolia
in 1995. It was in the ice within four thousand years. The mummy
had long, red hair reaching its shoulders and massive tattooed
forearms.

What is especially interesting, it is supposed that some of the
internals and several parts of the brain were made of unknown
artificial materials. It may be that they were created in a
step-wise manner in the course of very complicated operations;
the operations were performed on a more perfect level compared
with today's operations. Scientists Justin Manners (the USA) and
Kent Jennings (England) studied the mummy; they say that the
surgical manipulation performed on the mummy was designed for to
create a perfect cyborg, which could carry out observations and
collect data. The scientists say that during its life, the mummy
could have been a cyborg, a creature made by a combination of
features of a robot and a hominoid. The notion "hominid" denotes
a representative of the primates class, which includes fossil
man as well as contemporary people (don't mix it with "a
humanoid", an extraterrestrial resembling a human by its
appearance).

Currently, we have no scientific data proving that aliens come
to Earth from other planets. However, the first idea that comes
to mind is that UFOs are from other planets. If we rely upon
many statements and the evidence of UFOs or extraterrestrial
visits to Earth, we can consider our planet as a space colony.
And different space centers are very active here. They send
their robots, cyborgs, and hominids to the Earth to collect
information and materials, to perform experiments on human
beings, including even complex surgical operations. In many
cases, these operations resulted in mutilations later treated as
abnormalities by pathologoanatomists and archeologists. The
experiments were evidently performed with a view to create new
cloned creatures. These facts allow one to say talk about the
alien origin of Homo sapiens.

Famous scientists, such as Tsiolkovsky and Valle, have stressed
several times that man is first of all a space phenomena, and
only after that, they mentioned he was an earthly phenomenon.
The above-mentioned facts contradict the official theory of
man's origin, saying that the man came from apes. However, it
seems that new, even non-traditional hypothesis on human origin
won't be very shocking at all.

Russian UFO Portal

**

Related links:

PRAVDA.Ru Neanderthal man killed with stone weapon 36,000 years ago
CNN : Baby Neanderthal skeleton rediscovered
Washington Post : Behaving Like Neanderthals
BBC : New evidence of Neanderthal violence
CBC : Cracked skull shows aggressive, merciful nature of Neanderthals

**

=A91999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in whole or in part,
reference to Pravda.RU should be made.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                           First Mothman Festival

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:06:37 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:16:34 -0500
Subject: First Mothman Festival


Source: Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2002111450/

Stig

***

The Mothman craze

Mason County takes its claim to fame a step further with the
first Mothman festival

Chris Stirewalt <cstire@dailymail.com>
Daily Mail Staff

Thursday November 14, 2002; 10:30 AM

**

POINT PLEASANT -- The Mothman has returned to this sleepy river
town, but this time residents hope he will portend economic
growth rather than disaster.

Town merchants are hoping to cash in on a national trend, called
crypto- tourism by some, that has seen tens of thousands drawn
to places where unexplained or paranormal events occurred.

"There's a hunger out there for answers or even just a
connection," local Mothman expert, author and entrepreneur Jeff
Wamsley said. "People want to see something or touch something
that was part of the whole mystery. We've got to find a way to
tap into that."

 From the site of alleged alien abductions in Roswell, N.M., to
the home of purported prehistoric underwater creatures in
upstate New York, Americans are willing to travel far and spend
big to be part of the excitement.

This weekend, Point Pleasant will host the first Mothman
Festival in its downtown with rides for children, props from
last year's hit movie "The Mothman Prophecies" and even a
hayride out to the old explosives storage area where the
ghastly, winged being allegedly was first seen 36 years ago on
Nov. 15.

In the 13 months that followed, the town, all of Mason County
and much of the state were gripped with fear as more and more
people came forward to say they had seen a gray creature,
standing 7 feet tall, with bright red eyes and wings like a
bird.

Witnesses reported being visited by the creature, being pursued
by air at high speeds as they drove along country roads and
experiencing interruptions in radio and television signals by an
unearthly squeal.

The sightings abruptly ended on Dec. 15, 1967, when the Silver
Bridge that connected Point Pleasant to Kanauga, Ohio, collapsed
under the weight of a holiday shopping traffic jam, killing 45
and injuring many others.

The Mothman legend faded into the background and Point Pleasant
slipped into relative anonymity over the next 30 years, with the
scars of the Silver Bridge disaster and the terror caused by the
Mothman gradually receding.

When John A. Keel, a journalist who came to town to report on
the bizarre occurrences of 1967, published his book "The Mothman
Prophecies" in 1975, it caused only a minor stir but offered a
more benign explanation of what had occurred.

In Keel's telling, the possibility was raised that the Mothman
came to warn people about the impending disaster. Keel found
other incidents around the world where similar sightings were
reported before disasters.

As the book circulated and the stories became part of local
legend, the Mothman became less of a sinister character and more
of a local celebrity -- a claim to fame for a town that had seen
little else in recent years to celebrate.

By the time the movie based on Keel's book starring Richard Gere
premiered in 2001, most Point Pleasant residents were ready to
embrace the connection to the paranormal.

"I started keeping a guest book after a while because I wanted
some kind of a record to show people at the chamber of commerce
how much interest there was in this," said Carolyn Harris, the
owner of the diner that was recreated in the movie. "We've got
people from all over who see the sign for Point Pleasant as
they're driving along and pull off to see where it all
happened."

Wamsley and Harris are leading the charge to make Point Pleasant
Mothman country. They hope a new river museum, a refurbished
waterfront and other unrelated projects will add to the
experience.

"We have a chance to do something here," said Wamsley, who owns
a record store that is also a Mothman gift shop and center for
paranormal studies in town. "There's still some people in town
who just dismiss what we're trying to do. But you have to
remember that they dismiss everything. It's a lot easier for
them just to shoot down every idea than to get out and do
something."

This weekend's festival is intended to show businesses and city
leaders that the Mothman need not be simply a curiosity. Wamsley
and Harris think he can become an economic engine.

"Even if we just had a few hundred people show up," Harris said,
"that would really say something."

Point Pleasant has some examples to follow when it comes to
crypto- tourism, including the leader in the field, Roswell,
N.M.

Julie Shuster, director of the UFO Museum in Roswell, said their
annual festival held over the 4th of July holiday, the
anniversary of the 1947 UFO sightings, has been a hit for years.
She said the museum itself draws more than 200,000 visitors each
year.

Shuster said the UFO Festival draws more than 10,000 visitors to
Roswell each year with a mixture of fantasy and serious study.

"If they want to dress up as Klingons, they can," Shuster said.
"Or if they want to come down and hear a free lecture from the
leaders in the field, they can do that, too."

Roswell officials credit the fascination with aliens for
creating a tourism boom in their town and eagerly cooperate with
any effort to bring in alien hunters.

Locals in Willow Creek, Calif., also have learned to embrace
their unexplained resident -- Bigfoot.

The Bigfoot Days Festival, held every summer since 1960, draws
as many as 2,000 people every year to the tiny town in the
northern part of the state that bills itself at the "Gateway to
Bigfoot Country" and features a huge statue of a sasquatch.

The festival features fun for believers and non-believers alike,
with costumes, parades and ice cream socials.

"It's just a real hometown kind of festival," Nita Rowley of the
Willow Creek Chamber of Commerce said. "Tourists like it because
it has that homey feel to it. They pour in. And there's the
museum and the like for the more serious folks."

On Lake Champlain in the Adirondack region of New York, locals
love their local paranormal resident, Champ, the Lake Champlain
Monster. Think of him as a smaller and more lovable Loch Ness
Monster.

While there is much disagreement over the actual existence of
Champ, many locals are adamant in their belief that the creature
exists and even assists stranded fishermen. It is considered
something of an honor to have your name listed on a board
listing confirmed sightings.

"The Champ Day celebration is always great fun," event organizer
Teresa Huestis said. "And there is generally a pretty positive
response from local merchants. Everyone sort of gets involved.
We have a townwide yard sale and crafts."

Now that Point Pleasant can claim a creature that may have been
a protector rather than a ghoul, perhaps Wamsley and Harris can
get their town to get behind a festival celebrating the Mothman.

"We need to try something here," Harris said. "We can't just all
sit around on our hands and complain. We'll have to leave that
to them that have been doing it for years around here."

Writer Chris Stirewalt can be reached at 348-4824.

**

=A9 Copyright 2002 Charleston Daily Mail






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

             Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:06:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:21:04 -0500
Subject: Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>>>No, seemed to move away because they were burning out. The
 >>>>giveaway was that they blinked out _randomly_, not in order of
 >>>>their "formation", because the sizes of the debris were random.

 ><snip>

 >>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >miles per hour without violating the laws of physics - is not an
 >embarrassment?

The laws of physics have nothing to do with it. Biology would be
the concern. There is measured data showing that the shorter the
duration the higher the acceleration one can stand.

For example, properly constrained, one can withstand 30Gs for 1
second. That is roughly 600mph/second. Electromagnetic fields
can create enormous forces for short periods of time as in
magnetoforming. Lasers are used to attach retinas with very
short bursts or drill holes with longer ones.

A trained pilot can withstand 14Gs (300mph/sec)for 2 minutes
while performing a tracking task..... Yes, he must be healthy
and restrained and the forces must act in the right direction
(Back to front not toe to head).

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                    UFO Seekers Search for Respect At GWU

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:15:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:32:02 -0500
Subject: UFO Seekers Search for Respect At GWU


Source: Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56334,00.html

UFO Seekers Search for Respect

By Mark Baard


02:00 AM Nov. 15, 2002 PT

WASHINGTON -- Aliens may be right under our noses -- we're just
not smart enough to see them.

That was the message last week from Ufologists at a symposium
hosted by The George Washington University, in Washington, D.C.

Speakers at the meeting, "The Potential for Interstellar Travel
and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena," reviewed the evidence for
UFOs, from eyewitness reports and photographs to radar blips and
chunks of molten metal.

The speakers also insisted that Ufology is a science, not a
superstition, and called on the scientific community to quit
ridiculing them and instead join them in the search for
extraterrestrial life.

"Scientists," said Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., director of the
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, are more
closed-minded on the subject of UFOs than the general public.
Many of them have little or no respect for Ufology."

Dr. Haisch, who studied to be a priest before becoming an
astrophysicist, said many scientists are repelled by UFO stories
because they attract mystics and religious leaders, who have a
lousy track record for promoting scientific inquiry.

"Many scientists," Dr. Haisch said, "may still be reacting to
the (Catholic) Church's cruelty toward scientists back in the
16th century."

But today's theologians may help resolve some of the questions
raised by UFO discoveries, said Dr. Haisch.

"Religion," said Dr. Haisch, "may deepen our insight into UFO
phenomena. There may well be deeper things at work than what
we've already touched upon."

But UFO skeptics, whom the Ufologists prefer to call cynics,
believe UFOs are strictly a religious phenomenon.

"Everyone wants to believe in something greater than
themselves," said Pat Linse, co-founder of the Skeptics Society.
"It's a part of human nature."

Linse, who believes that Ufology is a retelling of the Christian
myth, also said the U.S. military secrecy has also encouraged
the faith of UFO believers.

"If you've ever been to Roswell, New Mexico," Linse said, "with
all of these strange aircraft flying around, you'd see that it's
not such a great leap to start believing in UFOs."

The speakers at the GWU symposium seemed to take their
inspiration from a more recent, American myth, however. Many
dotted their presentations with images and references to the
spacecraft and species of Star Trek.

But Ufologists said they are serious about finding real
scientific evidence of visits to Earth by extraterrestrials.

And that evidence may be lurking just outside the range of our
current sensors.

"Aliens," said City University of New York physicist Michio Kaku
"may be here now, in another dimension, a millimeter away from
our own."

Dr. Kaku theorizes that the universe exists in 11 dimensions, of
which scientists have identified only four.

But scientists, said Dr. Kaku, may also want to take another
look at the UFO evidence in our own dimension.

Dr. Kaku said a galactic civilization capable of visiting Earth
would have to be as advanced as Star Trek's Borg, and would
likely use nanotechnology to visit Earth.

"We're always looking for space ships," Dr. Kaku said. "But what
if they are using nanoprobes to explore Earth instead?"

Dr. Kaku asked astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, Ph.D., to consider
reexamining Vallee's samples of UFO fragments for microscopic
structures he might have overlooked.

Physicians, Dr. Kaku added, should also be allowed to examine
self-described alien abductees for traces of alien DNA.

"If we could find a piece of nanotechnology," said Dr. Kaku, "or
alien DNA, we would nail this to the wall. There would no longer
be a debate."

But a search for UFOs down to the microscopic level will take
resources that Ufologists do not have.

"Scientists," said Stanford University physicist Peter Sturrock
"are not being encouraged, supported or funded in their UFO
research."

Dr. Sturrock, who has received funding from philanthropist
Laurance Rockefeller, said that Ufologists would gain greater
respect if reputable academic journals opened their editorial
pages to their research.

Universities also discourage research by not granting tenure to
scientists who go out on a limb to study UFOs, said Dr. Kaku.

"It's a good idea," Dr. Kaku said, "to start asking these
questions only after you get tenure."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

              Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:25:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:36:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility - Friedman


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:18:09 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:38:00 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >>>From: Robet Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:15:55 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

 >><snip>

 >>>Some of Greer's witnesses are high caliber, verifiable etc etc.
 >>>Some are not and can't be verified. Supposedly at one point
 >>>Greer claimed that they were going to check out these witnesses,
 >>>then at another point his people emailed me about not having the
 >>>time or money to check out the stories and more importantly was
 >>>to get the stories out in public etc., etc. In yet another email
 >>>his people were claiming they were going to let the
 >>>Congressional investigators investigate the backgrounds of the
 >>>witnesses.

 >>>Can you imagine the foolishness of that? Lets say hearings are
 >>>actually scheduled. One party or the other will be against them,
 >>>blathering about how they are a waste of time, why we should be
 >>>spending time and money on more earthly problems. Picture what
 >>>happens when some of these Congressional people get wind of the
 >>>fact that witness backgrounds are not checking out? It will be
 >>>used as a weapon to discredit any and all storys told.

 >>Actually, Congressional Hearings wouldn't be scheduled prior to
 >>extensive investigation by support staff to check out the
 >>allegations and verify the credibility of the witnesses. Most of
 >>them probably wouldn't make the cut, and I'm not sure what kind
 >>of story you could tell (or prove) without their involvement.

 >Steve,

 >I disagree with your assumption that "most of them wouldn't make
 >the cut". Certainly there are several who are not credible, but
 >I believe that well over half the witnesses whose testimony has
 >been documented by DP are credible.

 >For some of them, documentation might be a problem due to covert
 >acts to interfere with verification, but it would seem
 >reasonable that at least some members of Congress would realize
 >that concessions should be made for such cases.

 >It certainly would make the strongest case to bring forth the
 >most credible witnesses with the best credentials.


Why not bring forth the government's own documents such as
Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, The Congressional
Hearings of 1968 with testimony from 12 scientists including Jim
MacDonald's 41 excellent cases, or the 30% of the Condon Report
cases that could not be identified according to the AIAA?

Let us focus on the forest not the trees.

If one wants to make a case for the coverup how about the
blacked out UFO documents from the CIA and NSA and the whited
out docs from the NSA?

Don't forget that the 75% censored 21 page Affidavit for Judge
Gesell was cleaned up to only 20% censored apparently without
revealing sources and methods.

Does anybody really believe that 98% of the 156 NSA UFO Documents
refer to sources and methods?

Why not note General Bolender's comments about "reports of UFOs
which could effect National Security are not part of the Blue
Book System".

These are the ones congress should be interested in, aren't
they?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:58:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:15:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >embarrassment?

 >Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

We don't know what "flying saucers" can or can't do. We do know
what meteors can and can't do.

Example of a similar explanation: Capt. Terauchi and crew on
the JAL1629 airliner saw two UFOs... they said. (This case
recently resurrected from history.)

Without paying attention to the testimony of the witnesses
(other than the claim that they saw something in front of their
airplane), CSICOP a la Klass publicised the explanation: Mars
and Jupiter near the horizon.

Hmmmmm..... but the testimony included the following statment:

The objects were initially seen one above the other for about 2
minutes. Then the quickly reoriented so that they were side by
side for the next few minutes.

Mars and Jupiter would find it difficult to perform that sort of
maneuver in a space of a few seconds... or minutes... or
hours... or days, years centuries... etc.

No wonder CSICOP came up with another explanation several months
later (moonlight reflected from clouds). ROFLMAO








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                          Re: Dorothy Izatt? - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:24:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:18:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - King


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net, larry@larryhatch.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:18:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:20:46 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >>Thanks Chris:

 >>I checked out the two links, photos etc.

 >>That's all I needed to know.

 >Larry (and List),

 >Uh-oh! Am I right to assume your reaction to the links was one
 >of either distaste or disregard? If so, I am interested in why.
 >Also, I came upon a picture of Dorothy with Dr. Hynek, which
 >jogged my memory that I did read about some interest he had in
 >Ms. Izatt. Anybody know anything about this? Bueller?

 >Truthfully I did expect some negative reactions to the topic of
 >Ms. Izatt. Her tale is a UFO story that bleeds over into realms
 >more frequently associated with ghost research, and it certainly
 >seems UFO researchers keep a good distance away from the land of
 >ghosthunters. Well, it also seems that ghost-heads react mighty
 >violently to the topic of UFOs, so the feelings are mutual, I
 >guess. In regards to Ms. Izatt though, I have never read or
 >heard one criticism about her claims. Rare in itself, and
 >supposedly she has been quite willing to have her films
 >analyzed. Of course the question is who did the analysis and how
 >was it done?

 >Well that's enough of this. Next topic, Berthold Schwarz!

Chris,

Information on Izatt is hard to find. I have a videotape of and
old "Hard Copy" show were she has film/tape of aliens caught on
tape. It looked like they were looking out of a window I guess.
It was interesting to me but probably not most on the list. She
probably keeps a low profile in the UFO community because
they'll just rip her apart without investigating her sightings.

The internet has spawned thousands of armchair UFO pundits. Time
and time again I here of UFO cases dismissed by so-called UFO
researchers that spent all but five minutes investigating a case
(over the internet) then spending 30 minutes typing up why they
dismiss it. I guess its cool to dismiss UFO cases without
investigating them nowadays.

Case in point. The UFO helicopter video case.

56K Modem http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_56.ram

ADSL http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/realmedia/video/news/ufo_adsl.ram

I don't know of anyone that has actually seen a "good" copy of
the video or interviewed the pilots. The only information around
is from one website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/fun_stuff/weird/ufo.shtml

I can't trust the words of a news reporter because they
reporting skills are only two notches above that of an armchair
UFO researcher. The event is being dismissed without proper
investigation because something about it "don't look right" from
people that probably never saw a UFO in their life. There maybe
only a handful of people on this list that might stick their
neck out and pick up the phone, make some calls, get off the
internet and investigate something without a computer.

I guess most sheeple don't care for any real meat in the UFO
field. They find Roswell and FOIA docs more worthy of armchair
research than people with a UFO sightings.

Thanks for the links.

Tom King
www.ufovideo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:20:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:20:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee


 >From: YoungBob2@aol.com
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:04:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:05:14 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2002
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>

<snip>

 >>Obeying Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking:

 >> _Any_ explanation is better than none.

 >And Young's Corollary:

 >When debunking a proposed prosaic explanation for a UFO sighting
 >report, it is permissible to use at least one miracle and one
 >violation of the rules of physics.

It may be "permitted" but I have never found it necessary to use
miracles of violations of physics to debunk prosaic explanations
which themselves are "like miracles" or appear to violate laws
of physics.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                   Cydonian Imperative Website Navigation

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:21:37 -0500
Subject: Cydonian Imperative Website Navigation


Cydonian Imperative website navigation

----

I've received a few justified questions about the Cydonian
Imperative website's navigation.

As the site's grown, I've taken to highlighting the current news
item on the main page --

http://mactonnies.com/cydonia.html

-- under the "What's New?" heading.  Prior installments are
arranged in chronological order under the "Journal" heading.
  I've summarized the contents of each page below the page
numbers for quick reference.  As of this writing, there are 35
"Journal" pages, each with several articles.  From any given
page, you can visit the previous page by clicking the banner at
the top of the screen or visit the next page by clicking "Next"
at the bottom of the screen.

I've also installed a search engine (see the main page), which I
update periodically.

If you have any questions about this setup, let me know.

Thanks!

Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:29:14 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:54:31 -0800
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >Sorry for the gutter talk, but you completely sidestepped
 >the little matter of whether you thought man had walked on
 >the Moon or not, and now do so for the 3rd time. Again,
 >coming from anybody else this would be considered totally
 >evasive by any reasonable person.

 >I asked two questions really: (1) Do you think that
 >American astronauts walked on the moon or not? {2) Do you
 >believe there even is a Moon, as opposed to something
 >illusory? If you choose not to answer, or feel that there
 >is no such thing as objective reality, then please just
 >say as much.It saves us all so much time.


Sorry for the delay in replying Larry, but you will no be be
pleased to know that my computer had an argument with the real,
as did my mentor, Charles Fort.

In my opinion Larry you are far too binary. We are in a Fuzzy
age. No philosopher, or any thinker else for that matter (except
Young Bob and Mr. Rimmer perhaps) would claim to have found that
fabulous mythological beast called absolute reality. This is a
Loch Ness Monster of the intellect. You see Larry I am one of
those wretched creatures who have as great a problem with the
absolute as others have with the Loch Ness Monster.

Other people have problems with train-spotting, their car
insurance, or obtaining explosives to further their religious
cause, but I have a problem (don't tell anyone else please) with
people who ask me to solve the greatest philosophical problem of
all time in one pass of UpDates.

Your request is rather complimentary both to UpDates and myself,
if you do not mind me saying so. Mr. Errol-Knapp and Mr. Velez
must be pleased that they have aroused such cosmic expectations.
I blush with shame. Even I need a bit more time to locate
absolute reality, yes or no. You see I may think a lot of my
silly self, Larry but I don't think I am quite up to answering
the ultimate question you have asked, well not before lunch,
anyway. I blush.

I have always had this problem about disliking perfection. I
feel the need to reject perfection. I have thought about having
treatment for my sad condition, but there appears to be no one
qualified to help me. But now I blush again You are clever. You
have caught me out. I bow in shame. I am afraid that I am one of
those people who think all minds are a bit of an unrealistic
mess, rather like my own. But I am rather glad about this.

Those who do not have messy minds usually have terrifying plans
for us all, and are to be avoided.

The last attempts to straighten out the mess and get rid of
impurities left approximately eighty million corpses in the last
century alone.

Of course Larry I appreciate your difficulty, which is mine too.
Like yourself, I would prefer what we call reality to be clear-
cut, and readily accessible. If reality could be made thus, we
could market reality as a product, available at corner stores
and advertised on TV. We could hence develop and design it, make
reality into a kind of original packaged consumer dream, give
small packs of it out as free gifts with shampoos, false teeth,
silicone implants, and contraceptives.

However, we have a lot of work to do, because reality at the
moment is not nearly stable enough to come out of the
laboratory. At the moment, the test models of reality are
dangerous. None of the separate bits hang together or move
according to precise deterministic laws.

There are other deeper problems.

Reality it appears is alive, and not dead. That is rather
inconvenient. It raises the question animal rights and all kinds
of things. This remarkable discovery was made when it was found
that reality itself cheated, hoaxed and tricked, was indeed a
thoroughly scandalous entity whose behaviour was often quite
atrocious. And it ate like a horse. We couldn't control it. The
real got lost, fell in love, looped back into itself, swerved
and crashed, and made outrageous statements about itself.

Last but not least, sometimes reality withdrew its labour
altogether as a matter of principle. It seem that a noiseless
system was a something that we had to do a lot more thinking
about. In the small print of the electronic manual, if you look
carefully, you will find even the interface of the binary switch
is full of noise as old naval broadside.

Like you Larry, I would like a reality package that was a very
simple set of binary yes or no switches, but the definitions are
always crumbling at the edges. Who are we? I myself am analogue,
continuous tone, not digital. Do you know yourself so completely
as to say yes and no to anything at all? Do you know the
ultimate nature of the concept behind the word America?

Are you noiseless? Answer yes or no? Do you and I fully
understand the means by which we are at present communicating?
Do we understand the ultimate reality of good and evil, and more
to the point of the present question, do we understand the
nature of time and space, magnetism, gravity? What landed on the
Moon was a bundle of mysteries engineered around by American
genius but not solved by anyone at all. As such, the Moon
landing was pure wonder-management.

The Moon landing, like all experience, like you, like myself,
and everybody else, was a complete Fuzzy mess. It was full of
anomalous noise. There were old naval broadside everywhere. Like
the strange movements of the LEM, the equally strange behaviour
of the descent computer, and the equally strange disappearance
of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, there
were bits that were almost real, bits that could hardly be
believed, and in the middle a pot pourri of basic human averages
to take your pick from and live easily with as a reality
compromise, the lives most people live. But the demon reality is
always complex, made of all these ill-digested tit bits that are
in varying states of decay and growth, and finally infinitely
mysterious, stranger than we could imagine, as Haldane said.
Reality is dynamic, ever changing, and like our noisy selves,
will not stay still for a moment. To say that it is concrete,
fixed, and on occasion does not talk back to us would be very
foolish, although it might behave like that on occasion just to
please us or to hide from something.

It certainly does not consist of a cellular sequence of binary
switches of yes and no. Reality is an animal, and when we think
we create a form of life. Of course such complex live ambiguity
is very difficult to live with. So like the scientists, we chop
off bits of it until we get a proper yes and a proper no, and
give this half-dead mutilated creature the name reality. After
that, it doesn't wag its tail anymore. Some dreadful folk say
science is about control, not truth.

So to me the reality of the Moon landing is somewhat complex.
But I think we may be at cross-purposes here. I do not think
that nothing happened at all. Yes, certainly there was a very
significant event, but significant events tend to hit us like a
custard pie in the face and bits go all over the place, some to
be found behind settees years later. The custard pie cannot be
reassembled exact and complete in order to describe exactly what
hit us. Thus we make an noisy approximation. We haven't got all
the bits, but that really doesn't matter. We know that it was a
custard pie. But supposing some fine art connoisseur such as
your good self wants the real original pie, and like your good
self, will not satisfied by anything less? Since we are not
going to be able to find every crumb, you will have to be
satisfied with an approximation, or perhaps a simulation or a
model of the pie whose interior certainly will be full of
guesses and yet further approximations a to what happened to
what or whom and by what and when (an even more difficult
matter, especially with pies of this nature).

Don't worry, Larry. I am not of the "it didn't happen at all"
group, That is too absolute for me, as is the claim that NASA
did it without a little help. Something absolutely wonderful
happened yes, but I still don't know quite what it was, if you
see what I mean. The Moon landing was pure magic and please
Larry, do not ask me what magic is. You know very well what it
is. You are possessed by it, or you would not have an urgent
need to ask these questions. Your problem is like mine. We are
some of the few still alive and asking such questions.

And again you question: is there a moon at all, you ask? Well as
above, I say which one would you like, Larry? Would you like the
disappearing moon of John Keel's Mothman Prophecies, the moon of
Coleridge's inspirations, the moon of A Midsummer Night's Dream,
the Dylan Thomas moon of all legend's sweethearts on a tree of
stories, or the moon Aldrich put his boot down on? (a bit of an
admission there on my part I think, Larry).

As the Devil said to Faust, you have a choice.

Any good American salesman opens his magic box of products,
looks hopefully into a customer's eyes, and makes the same
statement. What is it today sir, would you like the brilliant
and beautiful minds of Rudiak, Maccabee and Aldrich and Hall, et
al, or would you prefer David Icke's under the counter stuff in
an anonymous brown paper envelope, really cheap just for you,
and absolutely guaranteed to thrill you to death?

What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an
answer. Don't dismiss this as verbal salad Larry. Without verbal
salad we are the walking dead, reduced like prisoners to silent
points without size or mass moving down an inclined plane.

What is reality, you ask? I sit here in London, in a pre-War
autumn, in what is called a Heightened State of Alert, writing
an Update posting about John Rimmer's chronic need to
disbelieve. With my stirrup-pump, hosepipe, and my dustbin full
of water I am a definitive twenty-first century citizen. With no
firemen and 19 Tube stations shut down, I look at my small stock
of tinned food and wait for those who worship an alien God to
try and kill me, and you ask me about reality?

Am I totally despicable because I reject both crude mechanical
reality, the alien God, and John Rimmer's claims that there is
nothing whatsoever in any manner extraordinary between here and
the Proxima Centuri?

Am I an inadequate because I am not only suspicious of Rimmer's
concept of the concrete but his recent recommendation that we
investigate our friends, colleagues to check that they behaving
themselves? Am I being unfair when I equate completely noiseless
systems with Nazi architecture: silent, monolithic, deserted,
built on the shaky foundations of the vast hordes of the dead?Am
I mad because I not only see several moons, I see for my sins,
several different Moon landings according to the cut of the
advertising cloth?

Which one is the real one is the biggest sixty-four dollar
question of all time.

As they say on TV, the choice is yours.

Christmas blessings to all UFO UpDates savants, and those heroes
who pursue the true Grail of the absolute real!


Colin

PS UFO UpDates will be undoubtedly the cave painting of the
future. Eyes will gaze through cave-wall shadows and wonder who
was John Rimmer and who was the man waiting in London for the
alien God to attack, with his eye on a stack of Smithson's Best
Pork & Beans labeled with offers of a cheap weekend in sunny
Skegness Butlins Holiday Camp with free garage space and full
security.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                        Re: Laws Of Physics - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:03:02 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:30:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Rimmer


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:06:13 -0400
 >Subject: Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]


 >The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.

Well certainly not with ufology a la Stan Friedman!

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                         Re: Laws Of Physics - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:12:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:33:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Hall


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:31:57 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >>Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >>reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >>miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >>embarrassment?

 >>Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >>over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

 >I may be in the minority guys, but it seems kind of pointless to
 >me to go on and on arguing back and forth about "possible" and
 >"probable" explanations for reports which lack the necessary
 >information to to decide one way or the other, e.g. little
 >lights far away that flick on and off in different orders.

 >After all "probably," "possibly," "could be," do not really
 >advance knowledge.

 >Maybe more productive to toss such cases in the "insufficient
 >data" bin and move on to those for which more evidence is at
 >hand.


Mr. Jacobsen,

With all due respect, you must also be unfamiliar with the facts
of this case. There is nothing "insufficient" about the data.
These were not little lights in the distance that flickered on
and off, they were glowing red discs of appreciable apparent
size that flew beneath the airliner, and also were observed by
ground witnesses. The pilots were looking DOWN and saw the
objects against the terrain.


  - Richard Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

              CCRN News: 'The Prairie Circular' Newsletter Now

From: Paul Anderson <psa@look.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:07:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:37:29 -0500
Subject: CCRN News: 'The Prairie Circular' Newsletter Now



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

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

November 15, 2002

_____________________________


'THE PRAIRIE CIRCULAR' NEWSLETTER NOW AVAILABLE

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/prairiecircular.html


Premier Issue, Winter 2002: Canadian Crop Circle Summary Report
2002

The Prairie Circular is the new quarterly print newsletter of
CCCRN; the name reflects how the prairies have become
increasingly synonymous with this phenomenon. As a companion
publication to the web site and CCCRN News, it is ideal for
those who do not have internet access, but want to be kept up to
date on crop circle information in Canada. Of course, it also
provides a convenient means for anyone to read up on the latest
information at their leisure. The winter issue each year will
feature the annual summary report for that year.

Subscription - 4 issues per year, including the annual summary report
(winter issue)
(Canadian funds, including postage)
Canadian Customers: $16.00
USA Customers: $18.00
Other Foreign Customers: $20.00

Single Copies
(Canadian funds, including postage)
Canadian  Customers: $4.00
USA  Customers: $4.50
Other Foreign  Customers: $5.00

Single copies also available at presentations and conferences
for $3.00 each (copies will be available in the Bookstore at the
upcoming 'Signs of Destiny' conference in Tempe, Arizona,
November 22-24, 2002).

Payments can be made by cheque or money order and sent to:

202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9
Canada
(Please make payable to Paul Anderson)

Or by PayPal:

Please use the PayPal link on The Prairie Circular page (scroll
down) or go to the main PayPal web site, click the Send Money
button and enter psa@look.ca as the requested e-mail address:

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/prairiecircular.html

or

http://www.paypal.com

NOTE: As PayPal is a US company, please enter the payment amount
in the equivalent US dollars when logging on to the PayPal web
site:

Subscription - 4 issues per year, including the annual summary report
(winter issue)
Canadian Customers: $10.30
USA Customers: $11.60
Other Foreign Customers: $12.90

Single Copies
Canadian  Customers: $2.60
USA  Customers: $2.90
Other Foreign  Customers: $3.20

In a separate e-mail (mailto:tpc@look.ca), please indicate the
subscription or copies you are requesting.

NOTE: Customized online payments with PayPal will be available
in the near future (payments in Canadian dollars and separate
button links for subscription and single copy prices; some
technical bugs being worked out).

The sale of the newsletter and related material helps the
research work to continue and provides a means of bringing
information to people who do not have internet access to the web
site, including many farmers, etc.; while CCCRN is not in the
business of selling merchandise as such, it is necessary to
cover increasing research related expenses involved including
maintaining the web site, field investigations, follow-up,
presentations, etc. Thank you for your support!

Also a welcome to new Ontario coordinator Joanna Emery (former
coordinator Drew Gauley will continue to assist with field
research when able to) and new field research assistants Laurel
Leaman-Konrad, Jo Slingerland and Tim Chisholm in BC.

____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing e-mail updates with the latest news
and reports on the crop circle phenomenon in Canada, as well as
other information on CCCRN-related projects and events, sent
free to your e-mail.

To subscribe, send an e-mail with Subscribe CCCRN News
in the subject line to:
cccrnnews@look.ca

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with Unsubscribe CCCRN News
in the subject line to:
cccrnnews@look.ca

The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
research organization which has been investigating and
documenting the crop circle phenomenon and other possibly
related phenomena in Canada since 1995, creating a liason
between researchers, farmers, the public, the media and
scientists in trying to solve this ongoing enigma.

Main Office

202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9 Canada
Tel / Fax: 604.731.8522
Cell: 604.727.1454
E-Mail: cccrn@look.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Copyright Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 2002






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                      Pacaccini & The Varginha Incident

From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:15:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:50:48 -0500
Subject: Pacaccini & The Varginha Incident


On 20th January 1996 a series of events around a town In Brazil
indicated the possibility of a crashed UFO and the capture of
"Alien beings" by the military.

Professor Pacaccini is one of the foremost investigators into
what has become known as 'The Varginha Incident'. As a UFO
Researcher the Professor has been consulted by media
organisations including T.V. and the press.

Read his conclusions, see "Professor Pacaccini - Varginha"

http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk


Regards

Geoff Richardson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                         Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:57:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Ledger


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:48:33 EST
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:35:23 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>Has anybody asked the Sci-fi Channel why they chose Don
 >>Schmitt?

 >It may simply be a case of the production company not knowing
 >the facts with respect to Don Schmitt. While this may seem
 >improbable to readers of the List, who are well versed in
 >Schmitt's record, the researchers employed by the production
 >company may not have known, which means the production company
 >may not have known (whether they should have is a different
 >matter entirely). It wouldn't be the first time that a
 >production company, and the network broadcasting their material,
 >simply goofed.


Hi Paul,

Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
committee for the media and production companies and then send
out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

Best,

Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                        Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:24:50 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:32:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kimball


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:48:33 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:35:23 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>>Has anybody asked the Sci-fi Channel why they chose Don
 >>>Schmitt?

 >>It may simply be a case of the production company not knowing
 >>the facts with respect to Don Schmitt. While this may seem
 >>improbable to readers of the List, who are well versed in
 >>Schmitt's record, the researchers employed by the production
 >>company may not have known, which means the production company
 >>may not have known (whether they should have is a different
 >>matter entirely). It wouldn't be the first time that a
 >>production company, and the network broadcasting their material,
 >>simply goofed.

 >Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
 >committee for the media and production companies and then send
 >out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
 >it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
 >be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
 >worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
 >a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
 >field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

Don:

You know, it's interesting who gets on television. Late last
night I was watching an episode of Ricki Lake (don't ask why!)
where the subject was people with strange obsessions. One of the
women had an 'obsession' with aliens, claiming several sightings
and contacts over the years. The expert they had on the show?
Joe Nickell. Cut away shots? To those members of the audience
snickering as the woman spoke. The other guests? Witches and
people who believe Elvis is still alive (in the literal, as
opposed to the figurative or commercial sense). The message?
This lady, and others like her, are nuts!

The point is that many production companies and other
entertainment entities have already made up their minds about
what is 'true' and what is not (as well as the corollary 'what
will sell and what will not') before they begin shooting, and
will slot in whoever best serves their purpose. Kevin Randle,
Stan Friedman, Richard Hall, or any one of a number of people
I've met or read, could have offered much more to the
discussion, or at least been there to balance things out with
Nickell, but that's obviously not what the producers wanted.

There are a lot of serious companies out there, however. A
suggestion - a notice of some sort to all production companies
and applicable broadcasters in the US and Canada (there's a lot
- never said it would be easy!) of the UFO UpDates might be the
way to go. Seems like a read through this List would be a pretty
good place for someone who's serious about the subject to start
their research.

Best,

Paul Kimball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:32:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:35:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel - Kaeser


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

<snip>

 >Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
 >committee for the media and production companies and then send
 >out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
 >it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
 >be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
 >worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
 >a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
 >field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

Agreed. But there's the other side of the coin where production
companies take as much from the researcher as they can and then
slice it and dice it to fit their program objective. I've spoken
with those who've chosen to not work on projects where they
simply feel they're being used.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                       Re: Laws Of Physics - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:54:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:38:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Friedman


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:03:02 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:06:13 -0400
 >>Subject: Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]

 >>The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.

 >Well certainly not with ufology a la Stan Friedman!


What is the matter John, jealous of my getting the UFO Lifetime
Achievment Award, in the UK at that? Or are we now being given a
new Rimmer and Young Law having no basis in reality?

But then that typifies the debunker creed.

Please explain to us lesser mortals what the laws of physics
have to do with whether or not flying objects can rapidly
accelerate and decelerate?

Please also explain what is wrong with my physics as expressed
in many papers.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                 Canadians Sent Vannevar Bush Saucer Article

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:02:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:43:56 -0500
Subject: Canadians Sent Vannevar Bush Saucer Article


Source: www.presidentialufo.com/keyhoe_redraft.htm


In November 1950, Major Donald Keyhoe sent a six-page draft
paper on flying saucers to the Canadian Defense Research Board
(DRB), and Wilbert Smith, through the Canadian Embassy in
Washington, D.C. The DRB was a Canadian defense group
responsible for all weapons development in Canada, and a group,
which provided "full cooperation" to the Canadian government
official flying saucer investigation, which became known as
"Project Magnet".

Keyhoe's intention was to publish the article in "True"
magazine. It was an article that dealt with the Canadian
government effort to investigate flying saucers, and was based
on an earlier interview that Keyhoe had been done with Wilbert
Smith, who would go on to head the Canadian Government saucer
study. Dr. Omond Solandt, then the Chairman of the DRB realized
that the article was going to present problems, so he forwarded
the article on to Smith.

In a reply letter to Keyhoe, written on November 24, 1950, Smith
thanked Keyhoe for "letting us see this advance document and to
comment upon it." He stated, however, that he felt "the
presentation might cause considerable embarrassment to the
Canadian Government since they would be required to make some
sort of official statement shortly after the release of the
article, which they are not, at the present time, in a position
to do."

On the same day Smith wrote back to Dr. Solandt notifying him
that he had sent a five-page revision of the flying saucer paper
to Keyhoe along with a letter explaining the Canadian position.
In his memo to Solandt, Smith also suggested that "the article,
as revised, be scrutinized by others in the group" for any
further revisions they might suggest.

The reference to a "group" associated with the Defense Research
Board, dealing with UFOs, directly opposes letters and
interviews with Dr. Solandt in the eighties and early nineties.
During a 1991 interview, for example, Solandt claimed the
Defense Research Board support of Smith was "entirely passive",
consisting only of supplying a garage size building in 1953,
which was used for the "flying saucer observatory."

In the memo to Solandt, Wilbert Smith also stated that the
article had been sent to the U.S. Research and Development
Board, which was the U.S. equivalent to the defense research
Board.. "The publication of this material," wrote Smith, "if
permitted by the United States Research and Development Board,
would be in the public interest."

Most importantly, it should be noted that the following five-
page draft was sent not only to the Research and Development
Board, but to a key member of the Board Vannevar Bush, who Smith
had identified in a Top Secret memo as the head of a small group
was making a concentrated effort on the modus operandi of the
saucers. This Bush role in the article was described in January
1951 correspondence between Wilbert Smith and the Canadian
Embassy in Washington, D.C.

No document has yet surfaced as to exactly what Bush's opinion
of the article was. We do know that it was cleared for public
distribution though. The Canadian military liaison to the
Research and Development Board, Arnauld Wright, got the article
from Vannevar Bush and returned it to Keyhoe. It did not make
the 1950 issue of "True" as intended, but was published in Major
Keyhoe's `1954 book "Flying Saucers from Outer Space" p. 133-
136.

The Smith revision of the Keyhoe article forwarded to Vannevar
Bush "for clearance" was found in Smith's files at the
University of Ottawa. It reads as follows.


DRAFT OF PROPOSED REVISION OF "TRUE" ARTICLE ON FLYING SAUCERS

A group of Canadian Scientists has been working for some time on
certain problems connected with the earth's magnetic field.
These investigations appear to point the way to new technology
in magnetics, and if the initial conclusions are correct, they
offer a ready-made explanation for many of the striking
features, which have been reported in connection with the
sighting of flying saucers. The basic promise is that it is
possible to produce a magnetic "sink" within the earth's field;
that is, a region into which the magnetic flux will flow at a
controlled rate, giving some of its potential energy in the
process. Such a sink would have many interesting properties,
such as the following;

1.      Electrical power could be obtained from the collapse of the
earth's magnetic field into the sink. 2.        Powerful reaction
forces could be developed into a conducting ring surrounding the
sink and offset from it, sufficient to support a suitably
designed ship and to propel it. 3.      If the rate of flow of
magnetic flux is modulated the resulting magnetic disturbance
could be used for communication purposes.

It is curious to note that most of the descriptions of flying
saucers are in accordance with the design, which would be
necessary to exploit the properties of a magnetic sink. For
example, the saucers are described as consisting of a large
circular disc, slightly dished, with a small central cabin. In
this sense, the sink could be located in the upper central part
of the cabin, and the collapsing field in cutting through the
surrounding magnetic ring would induce in it an electric
current, which would react with the magnetic field that induced
it, producing a force, which would have a substantial vertical
component. Support and propulsion of the ship would then be a
combination of this resultant force, the airfoil action of the
disc, and the interaction between currents in the disc by its
rotation and the main field.

Rotation of the disc may be either deliberate, for induction of
eddy currents or may be incidentally caused by the electronic
drag of the very large current circulating around the disc. In
any case, there is good observational evidence that the disc
appears to rotate. Since the lift on the saucer will be
proportional to the product of the earth's magnetic field and
the field produced by the current induced by the disc, it
follows that when the saucer is accelerating upwards, a greater
force is required and hence a greater circulating current. If
the circulating current is sufficiently large and the cooling of
the disc is inadequate, it may become red or even white hot,
which is in line with several reported observations. Also, under
certain conditions of operation a very high voltage may be built
up between the center and the rim of the disc, which would
result in corona discharge through the surrounding air if the
saucer were at a sufficiently high altitude. Such a discharge
would resemble the northern lights but would be very much more
intense. This also seems to be confirmed by observations.

Navigation of such a flying saucer would be a very complex
process indeed. In the first place the earth's magnetic field
makes all sorts of angles with the horizontal, depending upon
geographical latitude, and upon peculiar local conditions. Thus,
the direction of the force, which results from the interaction
of the earth's field and the field of the disc, may be in almost
any direction.

Furthermore the tilt of the saucer to get the reaction force in
the wanted direction most probably will result in aerodynamic
forces in some other direction. Navigation therefore would
resolve into a determination of the field direction, comparison
with the direction in which it is desired to move, and an
analysis of the aerodynamic forces, which would result from such
a motion, and the suitable correction in the initial tilt of the
saucer and the flow of magnetic flux. It is doubtful if a human
pilot could manage to do all this at the speed that which would
be necessary to maneuver a saucer at the speeds and through the
intricate motions, which have been observed.

It is therefore highly probable that the saucer control systems
are semi if not totally automatic, and most likely a push button
effort. There are many reports of saucers hovering in one spot
for some time. For a saucer designed to operate as described,
this would probably be its easiest maneuver, as it would be
necessary merely to adjust the flux flow and tilt until the
resultant force exactly balanced the weight of the saucer. There
would be little or no aerodynamic problem in this case.

The only sound, which would be expected from such a saucer,
would be a swish as of any object passing through the air, plus
any incidental noises, which might originate with the internal
machinery of the saucer. There would be no roar of engine
exhaust or jets, or beat of propellers, or any other noises
usually associated with aircraft. It would be quite possible for
a saucer such as has been described to leave vapor trails if it
happened to pass through a region of supersaturated air, with a
sufficient voltage on the disc to produce a corona discharge.
The ions produced by the discharge would form nuclei for the
condensation of droplets of water or crystals of frost, and the
path of the saucer would be marked by the resulting visible
cloud.

There is no indication that accelerations to which a saucer crew
would be subjected would be any different from the accelerations
going on through the same maneuvers. Those authorities that have
been consulted say that gravity can be neutralized or the
inertia of matter overcome. Where saucers have been observed to
execute close turns and other maneuvers which would result in
large accelerations, it is most probable that such saucers are
remotely controlled and do not contain living matter as we know
it.


Grant Cameron

--







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:44:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:45:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:20:52 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:48:03 EST
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >embarrassment?

 >Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

I have to ask, which is more likely to be able to violate the
laws of physics (as we know them), a meteor, or a product of an
advanced technology?

Just asking...

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                        Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:07:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:48:46 -0500
Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods' - Speiser


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:57:23 -0500

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:35:14 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:44:52 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: UAVs vs 'Rods'

 ><snip>

 >Cameras of yester-year are nothing in comparison to those of
 >today. And a still photograph only captures a split-second image
 >in time.

But I would venture to say that the number of photographs taken
since 1826 would be in the billions. One would think somewhere
along the line these creatures would have shown up by now. In
fact, I would venture to say that they have, but in the context
of a still photograph, are recognized as bugs and quickly
forgotten.

 >On the other hand, videos can be slowed down, frame by
 >frame, in order to see the movement of these
 >"creatures"...unlike a single-frame photograph.

 >Could it be possible that a still camera cannot "pick up" these
 >things because of their (lightning-fast) speed?

We've had lightning-fast shutters and film for some time now...
we can even photograph lightning itself!

 >One must also remember that "they" were caught on film entirely
 >by accident.

So was the "devil" cloud coming out of the World Trade Center. I
fail to see how this legitimizes the rods theory.

 >Had Jose Escamilla not video-taped them, they would
 >have remained unknown until the next perceptive videographer
 >came along!

You mean, the next... never mind. Keep it cordial, Speiser.

 >They are not an artifact of videography!

And how has this been ruled out?

And what is the definitive rebuttal to this page:

http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:17:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:56:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:11:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >>over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

 >Do you ever notice that when a witness steps forward and says I
 >saw a "meteor" the skeptibunkers are silent, generally yawn and
 >don't question the account, the witness's story, background, or
 >anything else.

 >Yet if a witness steps forward and says I saw a UFO, these same
 >skeptibunkers would be all over the account, questioning it,
 >denouncing it, proclaiming various and sundry explanations and
 >so forth.


I think we've been down this road before. It's not in their job
description to question meteor sightings. That's for someone
like S.E.A.N. or whatever.

If I were to tell you I saw the mayor of Glendale yesterday, you
would yawn and go silent. If I told you I saw Elvis yesterday,
you'd be questioning it, denouncing it, etc.

Now I don't for a second compare Elvis sightings to UFO
sightings. But my point is that they (the skeptibunkers) do. So
their reactions are perfectly understandable, within the context
of their own perspectives. Their perspective may be wrong, but
their reaction within that perspective is correct.


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                       Re: Laws Of Physics - Jacobson

From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:36:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 02:00:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Jacobson


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:12:39 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics

 >>From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:31:57 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>>>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >>>Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >>>reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >>>miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >>>embarrassment?

 >>>Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >>>over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

 >>I may be in the minority guys, but it seems kind of pointless to
 >>me to go on and on arguing back and forth about "possible" and
 >>"probable" explanations for reports which lack the necessary
 >>information to to decide one way or the other, e.g. little
 >>lights far away that flick on and off in different orders.

 >>After all "probably," "possibly," "could be," do not really
 >>advance knowledge.

 >>Maybe more productive to toss such cases in the "insufficient
 >>data" bin and move on to those for which more evidence is at
 >>hand.

 >Mr. Jacobsen,

 >With all due respect, you must also be unfamiliar with the facts
 >of this case. There is nothing "insufficient" about the data.
 >These were not little lights in the distance that flickered on
 >and off, they were glowing red discs of appreciable apparent
 >size that flew beneath the airliner, and also were observed by
 >ground witnesses. The pilots were looking DOWN and saw the
 >objects against the terrain.

Richard,

Then that's a more substantial case. Obviously I didn't go back
and read the preceding posts carefully enough.

Any way my point was not so much about that particular case as
about the endless back and forth with Bob about what's
"possibly" "probably" "maybe" an explanation.

This is an activity which I myself have engaged Bob in at length
in the past, but it really doesn't seem to advance anything.


Best wishes,

Eric








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:20:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:20:30 -0500
Subject: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=entertainmentnews&StoryID=1751094

Archeologists Look for UFO at Famed Roswell Site

November 15, 2002 8:34 PM ET


By Zelie Pollon

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - In trying to unravel a
mystery that may involve the war of the worlds, cable TV's SCI
FI Channel has turned to a group of educated men and women with
shovels and set them loose on the southern New Mexico desert.

In an effort to verify once and for all whether a UFO crash-
landed in New Mexico more than 50 years ago, the cable TV
channel sent a team of archeologists to conduct an in-depth
study of the legendary crash site.

And just like the alleged government conspiracy by those who say
aliens landed near Roswell, New Mexico, the results of the
scientific study are top secret. That is until Nov. 22, when SCI
FI airs "The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence", which will
include what network representatives are calling a "smoking
gun".

Until then believers and debunkers will just have to wait, said
Bill Doleman, the principal investigator with the University of
New Mexico archeology team.

Doleman, along with three other archeologists and six volunteers
were hired by the SCI FI Channel to conduct the research, which
took place over 10 days last September.

"We found things -- some things I still don't know what they are
-- but they surprised me," Doleman said, reiterating his
confidentiality agreement with SCI FI.

SCI FI representatives say the program promises never- before-
seen eyewitness interviews, late-breaking revelations and a
"smoking gun bombshell," which does not necessarily coincide
with the archeological findings.

"The smoking gun is fascinating and compelling. It's going to
raise a lot of questions afterwards," said Thomas Vitale, a
senior vice president of programming at the SCI FI Channel.

The supposed crash of an alien ship in Roswell on July 3, 1947
has become legendary. According to some accounts, the ship
crashed in an empty field with several aliens on board.
Witnesses claim to have seen extraterrestrial beings, which were
taken away by military personnel never to be seen again.

Those who believe an alien craft landed are adamant the incident
involves a huge government cover-up. The government, in turn,
says the incident involved a weather balloon and the accounts of
aliens comes from anti-military conspirators.

Doleman says his team was directed to use purely scientific
methods, such as geophysical prospecting and archeological
testing of anomalies, to find any evidence of a crash.

They primarily investigated what is called the "skip site," the
second site of impact where the craft supposedly spewed debris
before skipping 17-25 miles away to its final crash site.

"We weren't out there to bunk or debunk. We were just scientists
using scientific methods," he said.

Along with evidence found at the scene, the "smoking gun
evidence sheds light on government truthfulness about this whole
event," Vitale said.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: Laws Of Physics - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:15:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:40:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Jones


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:03:02 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:06:13 -0400
 >>Subject: Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]

 >>The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.

 >Well certainly not with ufology a la Stan Friedman!

Good Morning Stan, John, Errol, Everyone else.

John, the "Laws" of physics have changed just about every time
there is a major scientific discovery. If you want, I could even
give you a list of things that have changed over a hundred
years.

Besides which, I can be on topic when I want to be <g>

When Chuck Yaeger broke the sound barrier, scientists said it
could be done because the human body could not withstand such
pressures. Scientists further went on to say man could not leave
the confines of this planet due to this and that, that was two
weeks before Neil Armstrong fluffed his famous line "One small
step (for a) man, one giant leap for mankind".

Oh but you might say this is merely one scientist versus
another, lets ask Newton shall we about the "laws" of gravity.
His gravity never extended outside of the Earth, and NASA _use_
extra gravitational forces to "slingshot" the various probes
around the universe.

As for UFOs being able to do amazing manoeuvres totally
impossible by today's laws of physics, think on this. NASA (and
others) have been working on an inertia-less drive since the
seventies, with one of those drives, UFO's really could do
ninety degree corners, stop on a sixpence and etc.

I would go on, (being that this is a pet of mine) but I think I
have made my point, the so called "laws" of physics are only
relevant to _current_ scientific thinking, which has been flawed
on many, many occasions.


Regards

"I know nothing"
Sean Jones

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:19:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:42:57 -0500
Subject: Re:  Dorothy Izatt? - Hatch


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net, larry@larryhatch.net
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:18:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:20:46 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >>Thanks Chris:

 >>I checked out the two links, photos etc.

 >>That's all I needed to know.

 >Larry (and List),

 >Uh-oh! Am I right to assume your reaction to the links was one
 >of either distaste or disregard? If so, I am interested in why.
 >Also, I came upon a picture of Dorothy with Dr. Hynek, which
 >jogged my memory that I did read about some interest he had in
 >Ms. Izatt. Anybody know anything about this? Bueller?

 >Truthfully I did expect some negative reactions to the topic of
 >Ms. Izatt. Her tale is a UFO story that bleeds over into realms
 >more frequently associated with ghost research, and it certainly
 >seems UFO researchers keep a good distance away from the land of
 >ghosthunters. Well, it also seems that ghost-heads react mighty
 >violently to the topic of UFOs, so the feelings are mutual, I
 >guess. In regards to Ms. Izatt though, I have never read or
 >heard one criticism about her claims. Rare in itself, and
 >supposedly she has been quite willing to have her films
 >analyzed. Of course the question is who did the analysis and how
 >was it done?

 >Well that's enough of this. Next topic, Berthold Schwarz!

 >Chris Burns

- - - - -

Hello again Chris:

Sorry for the delay, other matters intervened.

I will try to answer your questions in order, and as
tactfully as I can.

Yes, my reaction was one of thinly veiled distaste, not for you
of course, but for the materials found on the two links. Here
they are again so everyone can look for themselves:

The first one you gave is:

http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/StrangePhotos/

.. which has a short section about Dorothy Izatt
with two sublinks:

a) An article about Izatt by Graham Conway. Conway says that
"this upbeat lady has a latent psychic ability" and shows some
photos she took to "prove" it.

  http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/StrangePhotos/houswife.htm

b) Here is a series of photos taken by Izatt. Some look (to me)
like some lights in the dark, made to look supernatural by
jiggling the camera about with the shutter open. Others are
similarly vague and uncompelling. I would like to be the fly on
the wall when someone like Bruce Maccabee checks them out.

http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/StrangePhotos/dorothy1.htm

In the Second link you originally provided:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufocan05.htm

.. we learn that:

"Since her fateful 1974 UFO sighting, the 78-year-old Izatt
claims to have had almost daily contact with the "light beings"
and their craft. "

There's more, as you kindly pointed out. While I didn't see any
ghost stories, and I'm not about to go searching for them right
now, I did read this:

"Her Web site

http://www.manari.com

includes stills from her UFO movies, along with commentary from
UFO experts who have met Izatt."

I am anxious to see just which UFO experts met Dorothy Izatt,
and what they have to say.

I tried to make it easy for everyone to click on the links above
and look for themselves.

- - -

You are interested in why some people, myself for example, might
be put off with this sort of stuff?

I consider myself a ufo student of the nuts-and-bolts
persuasion. My position is that mixing the supernatural,
contactees, the occult (whatever that is) and mysticism in
general, will do nothing but muddy the waters in the already
difficult, almost impossibly confusing study of UFOs. I thought
that was blatantly obvious.

I'm surprised UFO-BC put up the Izatt pages.

You never heard any criticism of Izatt? Maybe that's
because many/most of us never heard of her .. I never
did. Maybe those who did felt it wasn't worth the bother.

Perhaps we should thank the "ghost heads", whoever they are, for
keeping their wagons out of the UFO arena. That is to their
credit, and I wish the proponents of other peripheral/paranormal
issues would do the same.

Finally, you mention Berthold Schwarz. I'm curious now. Did
you learn of Izatt via Schwarz, or was it the other way around,
or both via the pages of UFO-BC, or was it something else
entirely?

Maybe Izatt and Schwarz have something in common, but I can't
quite put my finger on it. I did a very cursory browse for
Berthold Schwarz (note spelling) and the first thing that popped
up was:

" Dr. Berthold Schwarz Attests to Pyrokinetic and
  Levitation Abilities of Joey Nuzum.." see link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/so/weird/guide_to/mind_gallery2.shtml

The phrase mind-mush keeps ringing in my ears for some reason,
but that's probably prejudicial on my part.

Please do not take offense at all this. I will try to answer any
further questions as honestly as I can.




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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                        EW: Ufology Gets Respectable

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior <eWarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 02:14:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:45:47 -0500
Subject: EW: Ufology Gets Respectable


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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log November 16, 2002
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> UfolOGY GETS RESPECTABLE
ufos & extraterrestrial intelligence

image: Classic Flying Saucer
http://www.electricwarrior.com/expose/ewClassicSaucer1Thumb.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - Ufology is getting a boost from a
handful of scientists who argue that topics like
extraterrestrial intelligence and the famous Roswell crashed UFO
case can be studied using purely scientific methods.

The SCI FI channel says they recently sent a group of
archaeologists to conduct an in-depth study into the alleged
crash of an alien spaceship at the legendary site of Roswell,
New Mexico.

"We weren't out there to bunk or debunk. We were just scientists
using scientific methods," says Bill Doleman, the principal
investigator with the University of New Mexico archaeology team.

The SCI FI channel told Reuters they have turned up fascinating
"smoking gun" evidence, but are keeping the details secret until
their TV program "The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence"
airs next Friday, November 22.

SO RESPECTABLE

"Scientists are more closed-minded on the subject of UFOs than
the general public." says Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., director of the
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. "Many of them
have little or no respect for Ufology."

The SCI FI channel tackled the so-called "giggle factor" of
Ufology by sponsoring a symposium of scientists at the George
Washington University in Washington, D.C. The speakers insisted
Ufology is a legitimate science and called upon the scientific
community to stop ridiculing their search for ET.

Wired News reports: Ufologists said they are serious about
finding real scientific evidence of visits to Earth by
extraterrestrials. And that evidence may be lurking just outside
the range of our current sensors.

PARADIGM CLOCK TICKS CLOSER TO DISCLOSURE

Those of you who have been following Big Media coverage about
the topic of UFOs and ET already know that a national opinion
poll says about two- thirds of the populace believe the
government is not telling everything it knows about ET & UFOs.

The younger you are, the more likely you'll agree. Furthermore,
most of you -- especially if you are male -- would say that if
national security isn't at risk then the truth should be told.

The poll was, once again, sponsored by the SCI FI channel.

It isn't too surprising then to learn that when Stephen Bassett
of the Paradigm Research Group moved his Paradigm Clock closer
to disclosure most of the seconds gained were due to the recent
efforts by the SCI FI channel.

Basset ran for Congress this past election on a platform called
"Disclosure 2003". Basset, who says his candidacy spoke directly
to the reality of an extraterrestrial presence, got 1% of the
votes in his district.

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

15-Nov-02
UFO leaves "smoking gun" in desert
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021116/od_uk_nm/ouko
e_life_ufo_1

(Reuters/Yahoo!) ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico - In trying to unravel
a mystery that may involve the war of the worlds, cable TV's SCI
FI Channel has turned to a group of educated men and women with
shovels and set them loose on the southern New Mexico desert...
"We found things -- some things I still don't know what they are
-- but they surprised me," Doleman said, reiterating his
confidentiality agreement with SCI FI.

15-Nov-02
UFO Seekers Search for Respect
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56334,00.html

(Wired News) WASHINGTON - Aliens may be right under our noses --
  we're just not smart enough to see them. That was the message
last week from Ufologists at a symposium hosted by The George
Washington University in Washington, D.C., and sponsored by the
SciFi cable channel... "Everyone wants to believe in something
greater than themselves," said Pat Linse, co-founder of the
Skeptics Society. "It's a part of human nature."

13-Nov-02
Basset: PRG Press Release
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m13-012.shtml

(PRG/UFO UpDates) - The Paradigm Clock has been reset to
11:58:30 p.m. (one and one-half minutes to midnight).  Based
upon recent developments shown below, the clock has been moved
forward a net 30 seconds.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
November 16, 2002
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
This text is freely distributable for non-commercial
purposes, provided you cite The Electric Warrior.
Web developers should link here...

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

Readers are strongly cautioned that The Electric
Warrior asserts it is OK to laugh and have a good
time with some of this stuff. Lighten Up!

The Electric Warrior is not responsible for the
content of Web links. Content reproduced here is
for informational purposes only. All copyrights
Acknowledged.

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 02:56:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:04:22 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000
 >Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:54:31 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

 >>Sorry for the gutter talk, but you completely sidestepped
 >>the little matter of whether you thought man had walked on
 >>the Moon or not, and now do so for the 3rd time. Again,
 >>coming from anybody else this would be considered totally
 >>evasive by any reasonable person.

 >>I asked two questions really: (1) Do you think that
 >>American astronauts walked on the moon or not? {2) Do you
 >>believe there even is a Moon, as opposed to something
 >>illusory? If you choose not to answer, or feel that there
 >>is no such thing as objective reality, then please just
 >>say as much.It saves us all so much time.

 >Sorry for the delay in replying Larry, but you will no be be
 >pleased to know that my computer had an argument with the real,
 >as did my mentor, Charles Fort.

 >In my opinion Larry you are far too binary. We are in a Fuzzy
 >age. No philosopher, or any thinker else for that matter (except
 >Young Bob and Mr. Rimmer perhaps) would claim to have found that
 >fabulous mythological beast called absolute reality. This is a
 >Loch Ness Monster of the intellect. You see Larry I am one of
 >those wretched creatures who have as great a problem with the
 >absolute as others have with the Loch Ness Monster.

<snip>

Dear Colin:


Absolutely amazing.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: Laws Of Physics - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:48:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:27:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Hatch


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:44:17 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

 >>Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
 >>reversed their direction instantly at hundreds or thousands of
 >>miles per hour without violating the laws of physics _is not an
 >>embarrassment?

 >>Or that bright meteors, a significant known cause of many IFOs
 >>over the past 55 years, are less likely to have been the cause?

 >I have to ask, which is more likely to be able to violate the
 >laws of physics (as we know them), a meteor, or a product of an
 >advanced technology?

 >Just asking...



Hello Jim:

I would put this a little differently.

As I see it, _nothing_ violates the laws of physics. Nothing at
all. If enough experimental evidence piles up, then (honest)
physicists are compelled to reformulate the 'laws'! This usually
takes a generation or so; physicists (like classical
musicians) are a conservative crowd!

What we have are 'models' of the real world or universe. These
models are all subject to revision, though that is slow in
coming.

I like to talk about gravity, because it may pertain to the
reported behavior of UFOs. What physics knows about gravity is
analogous (as I see it) to what physics knew about electricity
say 150 years ago. In those old days, they knew all about ohms
law. The telegraph and (soon) electric lights changed the world.
All the basic math was in place, but _nobody_ knew what
electricity actually was!

The 'electron' was finally isolated, its charge measured etc. in
the early 20th century. Nobody has done that with the
hypothetical 'graviton', and for good reason! Gravity is the
weakest force in nature we know of, by many orders of magnitude.

Maybe 150 years from now, earthlings will manipulate gravitons
like playing cards. Then we will have our own flying saucers and
other nifty vehicles.

For those less patient, there are the ravings of the religious,
the occult, the new-age, the mystic... [burp!]. I prefer the
sadly slow but diligent work of science. Nobody has produced
better more credible results.

Nothing I know of breaks the rules.

We just don't know all the rules yet!


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                  Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:27:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:32:34 -0500
Subject: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:24:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

<snip>

 >>Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
 >>committee for the media and production companies and then send
 >>out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
 >>it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
 >>be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
 >>worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
 >>a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
 >>field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

 >Don:

 >You know, it's interesting who gets on television. Late last
 >night I was watching an episode of Ricki Lake (don't ask why!)
 >where the subject was people with strange obsessions. One of the
 >women had an 'obsession' with aliens, claiming several sightings
 >and contacts over the years. The expert they had on the show?
 >Joe Nickell. Cut away shots? To those members of the audience
 >snickering as the woman spoke. The other guests? Witches and
 >people who believe Elvis is still alive (in the literal, as
 >opposed to the figurative or commercial sense). The message?
 >This lady, and others like her, are nuts!

 >The point is that many production companies and other
 >entertainment entities have already made up their minds about
 >what is 'true' and what is not (as well as the corollary 'what
 >will sell and what will not') before they begin shooting, and
 >will slot in whoever best serves their purpose. Kevin Randle,
 >Stan Friedman, Richard Hall, or any one of a number of people
 >I've met or read, could have offered much more to the
 >discussion, or at least been there to balance things out with
 >Nickell, but that's obviously not what the producers wanted.

 >There are a lot of serious companies out there, however. A
 >suggestion - a notice of some sort to all production companies
 >and applicable broadcasters in the US and Canada (there's a lot
 >- never said it would be easy!) of the UFO UpDates might be the
 >way to go. Seems like a read through this List would be a pretty
 >good place for someone who's serious about the subject to start
 >their research.


Hi Paul,

Joe Nickell has made himself a career out of being an uninformed
debunker. If it's on the cusp of believability this nutball has
a prosaic/kneejerk explanation for it - usually without any first
hand information.

Too often we see people getting a say who don't have a flying
clue what the hell they are talking about - but that doesn't
show up to the average viewer.

Maybe we don't do the time ourselves. We just show up. I and
several others raised some concerns, quite strongly, recently
with one production company's treatment of the phenomenon and
several refused to do the program on principle. I walked into it
like a Deer into headlights, not knowing the background. We
gotta stop being walked on - do our homework before hand. I
guess we are too trusting.

BTW - Paul, what the heck are you doing watching Ricky Lake? If
you are not careful its a short slippery step down the slope to
Jerry Springer. :)


Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                        Re: Laws Of Physics - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:35:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:34:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics - Kaeser


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:15:37 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:03:02 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Laws Of Physics

 >>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:06:13 -0400
 >>>Subject: Laws Of Physics [was: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002]

 >>>The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.

 >>Well certainly not with ufology a la Stan Friedman!

 >Good Morning Stan, John, Errol, Everyone else.

 >John, the "Laws" of physics have changed just about every time
 >there is a major scientific discovery. If you want, I could even
 >give you a list of things that have changed over a hundred
 >years.

 >Besides which, I can be on topic when I want to be <g>

I think it's probably more accurate to say that our
interpretation of the "Laws of Physics" have changed. But your
point is well taken.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                  Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:41:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:41:28 -0500
Subject: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina



SOURCE: Misiones On Line
DATE: November 15, 2002

CATTLE MUTILATIONS IN MISIONES
by Raul Romero


A veterinarian stated that there were several mutilation cases
in the province's southern reaches. Julio Frette was the only
professional who presented a report on an event which occurred
in the month of August in Concepcion de la Sierra. "There were
four more cases that were never made known," he remarked. He
added that they were not reported due to the ignorance of the
parties who made the discovery, and that the mystery has not yet
been solved.

Background: Frette remarked that cattle mutilations have been
recorded in the US for the past 30 years.

...the central offices of SENASA closed all cases in the
country, attributing the mutilations to a mouse of the
Oxymycterus genus, known as the "red-muzzled mouse." Three
months after the mysterious discovery of a mutilated cow in the
vicinity of Concepcion de la Sierra, Veterinarian Julio Frette
stated that in fact four similar cases had been recorded in the
province's southern reaches, and which were not made known.

The veterinarian, a resident of the aforementioned community,
was the only one to present a detailed report to the National
Health and Agroalimentary Quality Service (SENASA).

Frette explained that he did not witness the other findings, but
that the events were known to local residents. "At [the town of]
Apostoles, in the Las Tunas wilderness, a producer found a
mutilated animal and set it on fire," he remarked. .

The veterinarian explained that in the light of these events,
two conditions must arise for investigation to take place: that
the cattleman be aware that he is facing an irregular event and
that there should be a professional willing to visit the site.

The case which became public was the one in which Frette
participated and occurred on August 8, 2002. On that day, a zebu
hybrid cow was found dead with strange injuries at lot 245 of
the Concepcion neighborhood, in a small farm only a few meters
from the city limits.

The animal, which was about to give birth, had disappeared 4
days earlier and according to the report, suffered the
mutilation of several internal organs. "The absence of the
muscles of the left side of the jaw is evident, leaving the
maxillary bare of all tissue. Absence of larynx, pharynx and
upper portion of the esophagus and trachea. Absence of ocular
orb and left ear. Tongue was not found but the hyloides bone was
present and perfectly desiccated. Absence of mammary gland; the
abdominal cavity presented an opening corresponding to the
region and the calf that was soon to be born could not be found.
Absence of the rectum and large intestine, genitals, with the
dexterity of how said organs were extracted being a standout,"
says the report.

What drew the attention of those who saw the carcass--as in
other cases--was that the incisions were perfectly cauterized.
"An incision measuring approximately 20 cm was made in the
region of the brisket, showing red tissue as though it had been
dead for only hours, and within approximately 10 minutes, those
present attested that the tissue rapidly acquired an almost
shiny black coloration."

Witnesses to the event aside from the veterinarian were the
owner of lot 254, Emilio Fernandez, cattle rancher Osvaldo
Kreclevich (the animal's owner) and police officers from the
local sheriff's office. The delegation returned on the 9th,
12th, 17th and 19th of said month. During the last visit, the
carcass gave off such an intense odor that it was noticeable 70
meters away, says the report. No signs of a struggle or self-
defense by the animal were noticed at the site. The pasture
field was overgrown with an abundance of horsebrush (esparto
grass), but the area where the carcass was found was clean and
scorched. Although no new cases were recorded, these elements
led Frette to believe that the mystery is still unsolved.

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

Translation (C) 2002. Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Liliana Nunez O. and Guillermo Gimenez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                       UFO Landing in Southern Chile?

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:56:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:44:41 -0500
Subject: UFO Landing in Southern Chile?


Source: Terra.Cl

http://www.terra.cl/ovnis/index.cfm?id_reg=3D210591&pagina=3Dnoticias&catego=
ria=3Dnoticias


Date: November 15, 2002

Possible UFO Landing In Southern Chile

A 30 meter radius was completely scorched. According to
measurements made by the military, there were high levels of
radiation in the area.

SANTIAGO, November 15.- A circular imprint measuring 30 meters
in diameter was found by military personnel from the "La
Concepci=F3n" Regiment based in Lonquimay, in Chile's Ninth
Region. The forces isolated an area consisting of pasture fields
and trees in a radius of 1200 meters.

This information was made known to Terra.Cl's Ufology Channel by
researcher and retired Carabineros major Raul Gajardo Leopold..

In a telephone conversation from the city of Angol, Gajardo
noted that this case was given to him on October 27. "It was
approximately 2 months ago that a mounted patrol from the
Carabineros Barracks at Liucura, a dependency of the 5th
Sheriff's Office at Curacaut=EDn,  established that in a location
some 3 hours away from Angol there was considerable military
personnel belonging to the "La Concepci=F3n" Regiment of
Lonquimay. They isolated an area consisting of pasture fields
and trees in a 1200 meter radius, like a soccer field," he said.

According to the researcher, the reason for the show of force
was the discovery of a burned patch of grass. The phenomenon
extended over a diameter of 30 meters and burned tree trunks and
a substance similar to whitewash could  be observed.

"At equidistant points of the circle there were also 4 circles
measuring 15 cm, which were not scorched. They are like four
legs at the center of the circle. What is strange is that the
snow never got to cover the circle. The exact location of this
site shall be kept confidential in order to research it
carefully, explained Raul Gajardo. .

** Radiation at the Site**

A strange fact was that measurments made by the military through
a Geiger counter had recorded a high level of radiation in the
area.

Gajardo further added that he is the phase of collecting all of
the data and stated that the individuals who furnished the
information to him are completely trustworthy.

Another interesting fact is that Carabineros personnel were
barred entry to the site, while a member of the Army's upper
echelon visited the area by helicopter.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Translation (C) 2002. Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Liliana Nunez O.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -

From: Royce J. Myers III - The UFO Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 06:38:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:48:42 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:20:30 -0500
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'


 >Source: Reuters

 >http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=entertainmentnews&StoryID=1751094

 >Archeologists Look for UFO at Famed Roswell
 >Site

 >November 15, 2002 8:34 PM ET


 >By Zelie Pollon

 >ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - In trying to unravel a
 >mystery that may involve the war of the worlds, cable TV's SCI
 >FI Channel has turned to a group of educated men and women with
 >shovels and set them loose on the southern New Mexico desert.

<snip>

There's no business like show business, like no business I
know...

I really am hoping that Sci-Fi won't take a wrecking ball to
Ufology with their latest interest in UFOs.

I'm not at all impressed, other than the GWU symposium, with
what Sci-Fi has done to date. I'm sure that every commercial
with the Roswell special will be for 'Taken'.

What even bothers me more about the Roswell special and the
announcement about yet another "smoking gun" and more witnesses
is that Sci-Fi has chosen Don Schmitt as the voice of Roswell.

If Sci-Fi had wanted to generate any credibility for Ufology,
they would have done their home work on this one. We all know
the first place those of the skeptical mind, and anyone with any
common sense, will go: 'Why believe a proven liar?'... Wait,
this guy lied about this case and his background.' Et al.

So what's next for some Sci Fi UFO specials? Billy Meier?
Jonathan Reed? Sean David Morton? Perhaps we'll be lucky enough
to see Art Bell host something or maybe Jaime Maussan.

You can have your cake and eat it too. You can also produce a
very credible program that will produce ratings. Too bad it
looks like Sci Fi won't be doing that. Perhaps I'm being just a
bit judgemental at this point. I will, of course, be watching
the special. We'll see what happens.

The Amazing Myers' Prediction: The usual week of a few media
articles and then back to business as usual. At least if I'm
wrong I'll have the excuse that I'm not a psychic.....


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

               Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel] -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:45:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:52:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel] -


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:32:02 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 ><snip>

 >>Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
 >>committee for the media and production companies and then send
 >>out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
 >>it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
 >>be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
 >>worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
 >>a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
 >>field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

 >Agreed. But there's the other side of the coin where production
 >companies take as much from the researcher as they can and then
 >slice it and dice it to fit their program objective. I've spoken
 >with those who've chosen to not work on projects where they
 >simply feel they're being used.


Hi Steve,

You do get lied to. You never know what's going to happen in
post-production.

I think though that there is enough interest in the phenomenon
by the media and the production companies to allow the community
as a whole to apply some pressure and enforce a few guidelines.

If everyone insisted on some do's and don'ts and demanded
contracts - down the road we might see some improvements. But
since the phenomenon is scattered all over the landscape and
there are so many 'experts' that will be very hard to control.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                 ET Calls In On Lilydale Victoria Australia

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:59:09 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:04:52 -0500
Subject: ET Calls In On Lilydale Victoria Australia


Source: The Sunday Herald Sun - Victoria, Australia

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5501389%255E2862,00.ht
ml

By RUSSELL GOULD
The Herald Sun

17th Nov 2002

LIGHTS in the Lilydale skies have Wayne Winter and Adin Monks
convinced we are not alone.

Late on Friday night, the teenagers saw a group of yellow lights
above Chirnside Park Hill and are now questioning whether or not
stargazer theories are just science-fiction fodder.

"The lights were bigger than normal stars, they were moving, and
in a perfect triangle," Adin, 15, said.

"We followed them for a while and then they all disappeared."
They tracked them for 20 minutes, first on foot, then in a car,
before the lights vanished. Wayne, 19, said planes often flew
over the area, but the lights they saw were too closely grouped
to be aircraft, and were moving in the wrong direction.

He and his friend are not Star Trek groupies or UFO hunters, but
after the encounter, they could be converted. "It was just a
joke to begin with when we saw the lights and said, 'Yeah, UFO',
but then it became too real," he said. "We weren't out there
stargazing or anything, we just saw it by coincidence. "We don't
know what it was and there's no explanation for it."

Lilydale is a long way from Area 51, the root of all alien
conspiracy theories, but Mr Winter says that means nothing,
because these little green guys can go anywhere they want.

And so with "evidence" at hand, the question has to be asked:
"Is the truth out there, in Lilydale?"


-end-


Phenomena Research Australia (PRA)
Melbourne, Victoria








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:35:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:06:43 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000
 >Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

<snip>

 >I am not of the "it didn't happen at all" group

Whew. Thanks, Collin, we were all waiting for your answer.

 >That is too absolute for me, as is the claim that NASA
 >did it without a little help.

You mean from ex-German rocket scientists, and American
taxpayers?


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"There are always an odd number of socks when they come
out of the wash, so there's got to be some black hole that
swallows up all the socks, so we came up with a
way to study this in the laboratory." -- Jeffery Mitchell








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                        Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:47:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:11:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt? - Friedman


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:19:16 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

 >>From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net, larry@larryhatch.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:18:44 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Dorothy Izatt?

<snip>

 >I consider myself a UFO student of the nuts-and-bolts
 >persuasion. My position is that mixing the supernatural,
 >contactees, the occult (whatever that is) and mysticism in
 >general, will do nothing but muddy the waters in the already
 >difficult, almost impossibly confusing study of UFOs. I thought
 >that was blatantly obvious.

 >I'm surprised UFO-BC put up the Izatt pages.

 >You never heard any criticism of Izatt? Maybe that's
 >because many/most of us never heard of her .. I never
 >did. Maybe those who did felt it wasn't worth the bother.

 >Perhaps we should thank the "ghost heads", whoever they are, for
 >keeping their wagons out of the UFO arena. That is to their
 >credit, and I wish the proponents of other peripheral/paranormal
 >issues would do the same.

 >Finally, you mention Berthold Schwarz. I'm curious now. Did
 >you learn of Izatt via Schwarz, or was it the other way around,
 >or both via the pages of UFO-BC, or was it something else
 >entirely?

 >Maybe Izatt and Schwarz have something in common, but I can't
 >quite put my finger on it. I did a very cursory browse for
 >Berthold Schwarz (note spelling) and the first thing that popped
 >up was:

 >" Dr. Berthold Schwarz Attests to Pyrokinetic and
 >Levitation Abilities of Joey Nuzum.." see link:

 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/so/weird/guide_to/mind_gallery2.shtml

 >The phrase mind-mush keeps ringing in my ears for some reason,
 >but that's probably prejudicial on my part.

 >Please do not take offense at all this. I will try to answer any
 >further questions as honestly as I can.


Just briefly because I will be gone from Nov. 18-27, I met
Dorothy many years ago in British Columbia. Nice lady. I was not
at all impressed with her photos or her stories. I didn't think
she was lying, but overinterpreting what she was seeing.

I met Bert many years ago. A medical Doctor psychiatrist with
wide interests and the guts to publish in Medical Journals about
UFOs. He was also able to obtain medical records relating to the
Falcon Lake case.

Yes, he has very esoteric interests. But I can't hold them
against him. He has published a couple of books, at least. Lives
in Vero Beach, Florida the last I heard.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:16:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:45:13 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:32:02 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel

 >><snip>

 >>>Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory
 >>>committee for the media and production companies and then send
 >>>out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about
 >>>it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should
 >>>be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of
 >>>worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be
 >>>a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their
 >>>field of endeavour. I can't see it working though.

 >>Agreed. But there's the other side of the coin where production
 >>companies take as much from the researcher as they can and then
 >>slice it and dice it to fit their program objective. I've spoken
 >>with those who've chosen to not work on projects where they
 >>simply feel they're being used.

Hi Don, Steve, All,

Don wrote:

 >Hi Steve,

 >You do get lied to. You never know what's going to happen in
 >post-production.

Shades of NOVA! When Budd asked me to participate in the NOVA
segment I insisted on speaking with the segment producer myself
before I made my decision. At that meeting with Denise DiIanni
and her assistant I was assured that NOVA was going to take an
impartial look at the abduction phenomenon and that the
witnesses/abductees were going to be given a "fair hearing". I
even volunteered to take any kind of tests (physical,
psychological or otherwise) that may have wished to perform.

What we got was; a biased/slanted presentation where portions of
the interviews they taped with the witnesses were selectively
edited in between the comments of people like Robert Baker,
Elizabeth Loftus, and Michael Persinger (as if) they were
talking about us and our cases.

None of the researchers had ever met any of us, spoken to any
one of us or even requested to peruse our case files to find out
specifically what it was we were reporting. Yet they allowed
that broadcast to give the impression that they were discussing
us and our cases. The producers at NOVA had a debunking agenda
from the beginning. They lied to us about it. They
misrepresented themselves. And they had no problem deceiving
anybody they had to in order to accomplish their goal which was
apparently to assure the audience that there is nothing to any
claims of UFO abduction and that the public has nothing to fear
or worry about.

Which is simply not true.

 >I think though that there is enough interest in the phenomenon
 >by the media and the production companies to allow the community
 >as a whole to apply some pressure and enforce a few guidelines.

Not if it interferes with their own agenda.

 >If everyone insisted on some do's and don'ts and demanded
 >contracts - down the road we might see some improvements.

I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
'entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
three years.

'We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
that we are invited to appear in.

Without us... they have no Show.

Hmmm, but then, there are always a few who will do anything just
to see their own mug on the idiot box. Oh well, can't win em
all.


Regards,

John Velez, learning all my lessons the hard way.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:10:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:18:38 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000
 >Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >In my opinion Larry you are far too binary. We are in a Fuzzy
 >age. No philosopher, or any thinker else for that matter (except
 >Young Bob and Mr. Rimmer perhaps) would claim to have found that
 >fabulous mythological beast called absolute reality.

 >What is reality, you ask? I sit here in London, in a pre-War
 >autumn, in what is called a Heightened State of Alert, writing
 >an Update posting about John Rimmer's chronic need to
 >disbelieve.

 >Am I totally despicable because I reject both crude mechanical
 >reality, the alien God, and John Rimmer's claims that there is
 >nothing whatsoever in any manner extraordinary between here and
 >the Proxima Centuri?

 >PS UFO UpDates will be undoubtedly the cave painting of the
 >future. Eyes will gaze through cave-wall shadows and wonder who
 >was John Rimmer

As I had not even taken part in this thread so far, I was
astonished, impressed and flattered that my name should crop up
so often in Mr Bennett's elegantly incomprehensible essay. I
will take this opportunity to remind him that some time ago, in
this very forum, he promised to send me a copy of his most
recent book in an attempt, so far as anyone can understand his
prose, to improve my love-life.

I am still waiting eagerly.

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                           Mantell Refereed Paper

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:32:32 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:54:40 -0500
Subject: Mantell Refereed Paper


List, All -

The study of the Mantell case, or at least the first pass study,
has been completed. By checking the references you can see what
was used to put together the study. I have also included many of
the other references to Mantell and it seems to me that a
complete reference guide (or as complete as possible) might be
of value. So if you have additional references, even if they add
nothing to what we already know, let's have them.

The idea here is to build a "refereed" paper about Mantell.
While there are two journals devoted to UFOs, their publishing
schedule can be erratic and their space is limited. So this
paper will begin a tradition of using the Internet to create a
sort of library of refereed papers.

For those interested, read over the paper and then send your
comments along to Errol at UFO UpDates. Be sure to mention
that your email is part of the referee process so that he won't
post them. He'll strip the names and send the comments on to me.
After about a month, I'll take the comments and rewrite the
paper as necessary. We'll then post the final product for all to
read. In fact, I would like to see this product posted as far
and as wide as possible.

Errol will keep a list of who participated and what comments
were made, if that information should ever become necessary.
This will be the first of the internally, and Internet, refereed
papers.

For those interested, the paper is currently posted at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/ufoupdates/listers/mantell.html

All comments should be passed along to Errol.

If you have any questions about this process, let's post them to
UFO UpDates and I'll answer them there so that everyone has the
information.

Let's make this the beginning of a process in which we
scientifically, methodically and dispassionately review some of
the classic cases.


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:47:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:33:33 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:10:29 +0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000
 >>Subject: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

 >>In my opinion Larry you are far too binary. We are in a Fuzzy
 >>age. No philosopher, or any thinker else for that matter (except
 >>Young Bob and Mr. Rimmer perhaps) would claim to have found that
 >>fabulous mythological beast called absolute reality.

 >>What is reality, you ask? I sit here in London, in a pre-War
 >>autumn, in what is called a Heightened State of Alert, writing
 >>an Update posting about John Rimmer's chronic need to
 >>disbelieve.

 >>Am I totally despicable because I reject both crude mechanical
 >>reality, the alien God, and John Rimmer's claims that there is
 >>nothing whatsoever in any manner extraordinary between here and
 >>the Proxima Centuri?

 >>PS UFO UpDates will be undoubtedly the cave painting of the
 >>future. Eyes will gaze through cave-wall shadows and wonder who
 >>was John Rimmer

 >As I had not even taken part in this thread so far, I was
 >astonished, impressed and flattered that my name should crop up
 >so often in Mr Bennett's elegantly incomprehensible essay. I
 >will take this opportunity to remind him that some time ago, in
 >this very forum, he promised to send me a copy of his most
 >recent book in an attempt, so far as anyone can understand his
 >prose, to improve my love-life.

 >I am still waiting eagerly.


= = = = =

Dear John, Colin and whoever may be [burp!] up:

I asked for a Yes/No answer, a simple matter really, pertaining
to whether the Moon exists of not.

I got a philosophical snow-job in response, and not a short one
by any means.

The last part seems to indicate that those who believe that a)
the moon exists -or- b) the Moon does NOT exist; are not only
hopelessly "binary" [dull minded?] but lacking in imagination
itself!

Having no great love for Kings and Queens, I must admit that I
admired the Queen who imagined at least 6 impossible things
before breakfast! Freed of hooplah and ceremony, a woman like
that could have made a fine physicist.

In case anyone cares any more: No. Colin Benett did not commit
to any particular belief regarding the existance of the Moon,
nor the contrary.

If (fates forbid) Colin should be the prime witness to some
terrible crime, I would like to be in the courtroom when he is
cross examined. Try to envision this:

"Yes your Honour; I did indeed see this clearly, but I cannot
swear that it actually happened."

I dimly suspect, perhaps wrongly, that we are being toyed with.
If not, then we have a highly intelligent writer who believes
his own output.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                      Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 23:06:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:34:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Hall


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:32:32 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Mantell Refereed Paper

 >Good Afternoon List, All -

 >The study of the Mantell case, or at least the first pass study,
 >has been completed. By checking the references you can see what
 >was used to put together the study. I have also included many of
 >the other references to Mantell and it seems to me that a
 >complete reference guide (or as complete as possible) might be
 >of value. So if you have additional references, even if they add
 >nothing to what we already know, let's have them.

 >The idea here is to build a "refereed" paper about Mantell.
 >While there are two journals devoted to UFOs, their publishing
 >schedule can be erratic and their space is limited. So this
 >paper will begin a tradition of using the Internet to create a
 >sort of library of refereed papers.

 >For those interested, read over the paper and then send the
 >comments along to Errol here on UpDates. Be sure to mention that
 >you email is part of the referee process so that he won't post
 >them. He'll strip the names and send the comments on to me.
 >After about a month, I'll take the comments and rewrite the
 >paper as necessary. We'll then post the final product for all to
 >read. In fact, I would like to see this product posted as far
 >and as wide as possible.

 >Errol will keep a list of who participated and what comments
 >were made, if that information should ever become necessary.
 >This will be the first of the internally, and Internet, refereed
 >papers.

 >For those interested, the paper is currently posted at:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/ufoupdates/listers/mantle.html

 >All comments should be passed along to Errol.

 >If you have any questions about this process, let's post them to
 >Updates and I'll answer them there so that everyone has the
 >information.

 >Let's make this the beginning of a process in which we
 >scientifically, methodically and dispassionately review some of
 >the classic cases.


Kevin,

This is a very praiseworthy effort to go about things the right
way. I hope to participate, but if not able to do so I certainly
want to commend you for your efforts and to encourage full
participation by others who have knowledge and/or experise to
contribute.


  - Dick Hall







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:40:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

Dear Mr. Velez:

<snip>

 >I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >three years.

'>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >that we are invited to appear in.

As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
always open to negotiation.

A case in point: When we were doing the Stan Friedman film, one
of the interviewees refused to be interviewed unless we removed
the line from the release form stating that he could not sue us
for (among other things) defamation - a standard clause, which
usually won't hold up in court, but better to have than not from
a producer's point of view. I could have walked away, but I
wanted to interview the guy (we ended up not using his material
for other reasons), so I agreed to strike the clause.

We edited a lot of the material as well, but never in a way that
undermined the basic thrust of what the person was saying.
However, most people are not terribly adept at speaking in
soundbites, which is what television requires, so editing is
inevitable. For example, in the interviews for the Friedman
film, Dr. Benson Saler spent a lot of time talking about
anthropological theories; what I wanted was his take on Stan and
Roswell. That required some editing of what he said, because he
often put all of the anthropological stuff in between two bits
where he was talking about something we wanted to use.

Editing can also come into play in the choice of what to use and
what not to use. We interviewed Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle for
the Friedman film. They both had a number of nice things to say
about Stan. Almost none of them are in the film. We used the
bits with Karl tearing into Majestic 12 and Roswell, and Kevin
into Majestic 12 and Stan's CIA and NSA blacked out documents,
because we needed antagonists, and Stan was quite capable of
saying nice things about himself (I mean that in a good way!),
with the help of Don Ledger, Walter Haut, and Barry Downing.
Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film is
entertainment, even as it informs - even documentaries, and even
news (especially news!). And, as there is no consensus about
matters ufological, conflict more than acceptable - it is the
nature of the beast.

 >Without us... they have no Show.

Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
especially the news.

The question is whether ufologists want to make a contribution
to it, or sit on the sidelines. If taking your case and
presenting it to as many people as possible is the goal, then
sometimes you have to take your chances, and sometimes you might
get burned. It seems to me, however, that the potential reward
is worth the risk.


Best regards,

Paul Kimball







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina

From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 00:07:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:43:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:41:43 -0500
 >Subject: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina

 >SOURCE: Misiones On Line
 >DATE: November 15, 2002

 >CATTLE MUTILATIONS IN MISIONES
 >by Raul Romero

 >A veterinarian stated that there were several mutilation cases
 >in the province's southern reaches. Julio Frette was the only
 >professional who presented a report on an event which occurred
 >in the month of August in Concepcion de la Sierra. "There were
 >four more cases that were never made known," he remarked. He
 >added that they were not reported due to the ignorance of the
 >parties who made the discovery, and that the mystery has not yet
 >been solved.

<snip>

Guys,  I thought it was established some time ago that vets are
not scientifically qualified to differentiate dessicated
predator cuts from cauterized cuts?  Re: Mute Evidence.


Best,

Eric Jacobson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 17

              Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:01:20 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -



 >From: Royce J. Myers III - The UFO Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 06:38:16 -0800
 >Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:20:30 -0500
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'


 >>Source: Reuters

 >>http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=entertainmentnews&StoryID=
 >1751094

 >>Archeologists Look for UFO at Famed Roswell
 >>Site
 >
 >>November 15, 2002 8:34 PM ET


 >>By Zelie Pollon

 >>ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - In trying to unravel a
 >>mystery that may involve the war of the worlds, cable TV's SCI
 >>FI Channel has turned to a group of educated men and women
 >>with shovels and set them loose on the southern New Mexico
 >>desert.

 ><snip>

 >There's no business like show business, like no business I
 >know...

 >I really am hoping that Sci-Fi won't take a wrecking ball to
 >Ufology with their latest interest in UFOs.

 >I'm not at all impressed, other than the GWU symposium, with
 >what Sci-Fi has done to date. I'm sure that every commercial
 >with the Roswell special will be for 'Taken'.

 >What even bothers me more about the Roswell special and the
 >announcement about yet another "smoking gun" and more witnesses
 >is that Sci-Fi has chosen Don Schmitt as the voice of Roswell.

 >If Sci-Fi had wanted to generate any credibility for Ufology,
 >they would have done their home work on this one. We all know
 >the first place those of the skeptical mind, and anyone with any
 >common sense, will go: 'Why believe a proven liar?'... Wait,
 >this guy lied about this case and his background.' Et al.

Royce, listers all,

Gee, you mean Sci/FI won't introduce DS as working for the post
office and disclose the storys that he lied/misrepresented
information to people? I am just shocked, shocked mind you...
:)

 >So what's next for some Sci Fi UFO specials? Billy Meier?
 >Jonathan Reed? Sean David Morton? Perhaps we'll be lucky enough
 >to see Art Bell host something or maybe Jaime Maussan.

Hmm... Art Bell is retiring, so he could host a weekly TV show
and interview various people including alleged govt insiders who
will tell us stories of forth coming mass ET landings. You could
then have the Reed/Raith half hour, with the next half hour
topped off by Hoagland spilling the latest photo/information
that the government/private insiders have given him and the
final 5 minutes will be an Andy Rooney type commentary titled
"Meir moments.." :)

 >You can have your cake and eat it too. You can also produce a
 >very credible program that will produce ratings. Too bad it
 >looks like Sci Fi won't be doing that. Perhaps I'm being just a
 >bit judgemental at this point. I will, of course, be watching
 >the special. We'll see what happens.

They may actually do something very respectable, at least that
is my hope. If it is respectable some skeptibunker will blather
about how it was put on by Sci/FI channel which is Science
Fiction etc etc.

 >The Amazing Myers' Prediction: The usual week of a few media
 >articles and then back to business as usual. At least if I'm
 >wrong I'll have the excuse that I'm not a psychic.....

I agree with you on this prediction. I also would like to make
some predictions... and I hope I end up being wrong.

1) The special will leave more loose ends, i.e. after you have
watched 2 hours, and get bludgeoned with commercials on this or
that, you still will end up with more questions at the end of it
then you had at the beginning

2) Somebody that was interviewed for the show will wail about
how Sci/Fi did a slice and dice on the interview, and because of
that his/her remarks were misunderstood/misrepresented or
otherwise.

3) If the show concludes, or leads to the conclusion that it was
a space craft, the skeptibunkers will wail and cry about how
they should have been interviewed, how it is biased. They will
"likely" further blather about how if their hand picked
experts/archeologists/scientists could have examined the
discovery they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

4) Any "new" witness storys will be picked apart. If the story
is pro ET crash, then the story will be shredded by both the
mogelites and the skeptibunkers.

5) If it is pro space ship, and the archeological evidence comes
up with something, the skeptibunkers and others will somehow
someway find away to discredit either SCI/FI or the
archeologists or both.

6) Bottom line is that no amount of evidence presented will
_ever_ change a skeptibunkers mind.


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                  Pravda On Official Chilean UFO Commission

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:22:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:50:37 -0500
Subject: Pravda On Official Chilean UFO Commission


Source: Pravda.RU

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/16/39581.html

Stig

***

2002.11.16/15:27

Flying Cities Aren't A Fiction

**
  At the end of 1997, the Chilean Air Force Command announced
creation of a Commission for studies of anomalous atmospheric
phenomena; the Commission was to be attached to the Civil
Aviation central board. Director of the Civil Aviation College
colonel Enzo Dinosera was appointed head of the Commission.

Chile largest daily La Tercera revealed a tiny secret: the
Commission was created on the initiative of the Ex-Commander of
the Chilean Air Force Ramon Vega, who is currently a senator.
The senator himself saw UFOs twice and believes that UFO
actually exist. That is why he isn't going to waste time to
prove this fact.

In 1988, the crew of a spy plane saw "the lights of a city"
downward, they took the lights for the city of Antofagasta, the
largest port in the north of Chile. But suddenly the "city" took
off and flew! The plane crew was scared to death and immediately
made their way to the aerodrome.

Another flying city was seen in April 1996 in the southern part
of Chile. Aircraft mechanic Joaquin Himenes from the airport of
Los- Cerrilos in Santiago saw a huge UFO at the beginning of
October 1996. The mechanic told: "The UFO came at the speed of
about 50 miles per hour. The object was surrounded with a green
phosphoric glow; it approached the landing strip and hovered in
the air right before a cabin of air traffic controllers. Then it
lost height, and a red light was going through its bottom, but
it didn't touch the ground. Finally, the object soared upwards
and flew away northward. The whole event lasted for 15 minutes."

Himenes saw UFO even before that instance. He was member of the
crew of a plane following from Punta-Arenas to Puerto-Williams
on December 14, 1992. He says: "We saw an orange glowing ball of
about two meters in diameter, the ball followed us. The pilot
contacted the air traffic controllers and asked if they saw
anything beside the plane. The controllers answered that the
radar registered some object, but according to the flight
schedule no planes should be in the area. The orange ball
followed us right up to Puerto-Williams, and then it flew away
to the Atlantic coast."

Gustave Rodrigues, who had been working an air traffic
controller for 27 years, was appointed secretary of the newly
created Commission. Rodrigues told: "I have a taped conversation
between a pilot and an air traffic controller in the airport of
Ariki. The pilot said that when an UFO approached the plane,
there were some troubles with the communication system. When the
tape is played, it seems that the pilot had said a complete long
phrase, but only very beginning and its end were recorded."

The stories about so-called "flying houses" are the most strange
ones among the recently registered UFO cases in Chile. The first
occurred on April 16, 1990 when an UFO overturned a house.

Investigator Raul Hayardo says that he interrogated the
witnesses and took pictures of the incident site. "A red
semicircular object with white flashing lights flew directly
above one of the buildings at a very low height of about ten
meters." The Balboas were quietly sleeping in the house. The UFO
flew above the left side of the building and lifted it a little.
Then the house fell of one side, and the front door turned
blocked at that. The Balboas family had to break off some planks
to get out of the house. The saw the strange object go up and
hit against transmission facilities. A bright flash followed.
Finally, the UFO vertically soared up and disappeared in the sky
within several seconds.

Mister Balboa said: "The thing resembled a flaming ball. While I
was staring at it, our home collapsed." When the site was
examined later, the people saw that some plants on the
plantation were dried, some slightly or completely burnt.

Anomalia.ru

**

=A91999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in whole or in part,
reference to Pravda.RU should be made.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 372

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:12:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:55:42 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 372


ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 372 -  25 OCTOBER 2002

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:


- October: A Time For "Angel Hair"
- Italian Cases For 2000
- Para-UFO Books
- The Housewife & The UFO On RadioRAI


OCTOBER: A TIME FOR "ANGEL HAIR"

Right on schedule as with every October, we are seeing a return
of cases involving the falling of whitish filaments from the sky
known as "Angel Hair," often in association with UFO sightings.

Over the last few weeks, these phenomena have been reported in
the provinces of Alessandria, Vercelli and Palermo. In some
cases, large quantities of the filaments covered roofs and
lawns. Samples of filaments, collected by the witnesses, were
handed over to the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection
(ARPA) and local scholars, for the purpose of analyzing them.

[La Stampa, Alessandria edition, 20 October; reports and
communications by Roberto Labanti, Roberto Malini, Carmelo
Scuderi and Paolo Toselli; Fortiana, 18 to 22 October; Cicap-
Piemonte, 22 to 24 October; Chucara2000, 23 October]

Similar falls (also in abundance) were reported just this month
also on the other side of the Atlantic, in the American states
of California and Washington.

[AP, 8 October; UFO Updates, 10 to 24 October; Project-1947, 23
and 24 October.]

The Italian Center for UFO Studies has collected a complete
international bibliography and built a two-part case catalog
(national and international) on the subject, updated in
collaboration with American and Australian students who are
interested in the phenomenon.

[UFO  Rivista di informazione ufologica, No. 23, December 2000.]


                   ITALIAN CASES FOR 2000

The CISU telematic working group on the Italian case log has
come to a new step in its cataloguing work, begun by the CISU
two years ago.

After completing the 2001 cataloguing, a first phase has now
been completed in the cataloguing of Italian sightings for the
year 2000. The database has been structured with space-time
coordinates, typological data and cross-references to sources
for over 260 cases from that year, gathered by the Italian
Center for UFO Studies.

The monthly tabulations are already available for viewing on the
CISU Internet site (www.arpnet.it/ufo/casi2000.htm), as well as
some simple statistics.

[Communication by Sebastiano Ridolfi; UFO-Italia, 22 October]


                      PARA-UFO BOOKS

This Fall of 2002 is seeing a glut of books more-or-less
directly related to the UFO theme, published in Italian.

Following his previous volumes, Macro Publications in Cesena is
now bringing out the mother-lode "Figli di Matrix" ("Children of
Matrix"), from the known conspiracy author David Icke (620
pages, 18 Euro). His thesis is well known: for thousands of
years, a race from another dimension ruled over humanity,
carrying out its operations through secret sects, conspiracies
and governments the world over.

Once again, Macro is publishing "Il contatto =E8 cominciato"
("Contact Has Begun"), penned by the American journalist Phillip
Krapf who, in 1997, found himself suddenly transformed into a
contactee, and through whom the aliens who have been observing
us for thousands of years would be making revelations to us
about our future (173 pages, 12.90 Euro).

Only slightly UFO-related, on the other hand (but definitively
superior qualitatively), is: "Oltre Star Trek  - La fisica dalle
invasioni aliene alla fine del tempo" ("Beyond Star Trek -
  Physics From Alien Invasions To The End Of Time") by Lawrence
Krauss. It's published by Longanesi (266 pages for 15 Euro) and
dedicates a few strictly technical but very enjoyable pages to
UFOs and flying saucers.

[Reports by Paolo Fiorino and Maurizio Morini]


                 THE HOUSEWIFE & THE UFO ON RADIORAI

UFOs (or ufologists?) are the protagonists of a radio
dramatization broadcast for some weeks over the national radio
RAI airwaves.

A housewife from Tormeno who is a UFO enthusiast and a
journalist on the hunt for aliens, are the central characters in
the program entitled "Mister UFO", each Saturday and Sunday
between 9 and 9.30 a.m. on RadioDue. It's directed by Arturo
Villone and written by Edoardo Erba.

Actually, dazed witnesses and surreal UFO hunters are just the
pretext for a satire which concerns morals, not to mention being
original.

[Report by Paolo Toselli; SocioUFO, 15 and 23 October; La
Stampa, 21 October]


Collaborators on this edition were:
Paolo Fiorino, Roberto Labanti, Roberto Malini,
Carmelo Scuderi, Sebastiano Ridolfi and Paolo Toselli.


- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free
phone/Internet information service on UFOs edited
weekly by  Edoardo Russo for the Italian Center for
UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici),
available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294,
or by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website
at http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di
informazione ufologica", published by the Italian
Center for UFO Studies, registered at Tribunale
di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.
Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance IT-EN Translator/Proofreader
1123 Revere Beach Pky., # 12
Revere, MA 02151 USA
Tel.: ++ 1.781.485.1683, Fax: ++ 1.781.485.1684
ICQ: 110502923, E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2002  by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing (just send a
blank message to:

cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                     Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:13:34 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:01:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Mantell Refereed Paper - Randle


Good Evening List, All -

For those of you keeping score at home, I have identified the
fatal flaw in my refereed Internet paper idea. While I have no
trouble with having everyone look at it to make comment and
criticism, whether that person is only a high school graduate or
a Ph.D., that is only part of the process. There must be a final
arbitrator.

This came to me as I was going over some of the notes that Wendy
Connor so kindly provided. I realized that I had no obligation,
no, obligation is not right, I had no compulsion, to use her
comments. I could ignore them out of hand.

Now, I would hope that I am objective enough that I would read
all comments and respond to those that needed to be taken
seriously and ignore those that might have not been completely
thought out. Whatever they might be, I shouldn't be the finally
authority on this.

So now I have to ask someone, or three or four someones, to take
on a little extra work. What I purpose is that three, and no
more than five volunteer to be a clearinghouse for the comments
and criticisms. This means that they must commit to reading the
paper, and that they would be on a private email distribution
list to receive all the incoming comments. When I finish a final
draft, they would have to read it again and determine if I had
adequately addressed the comments made. If so, then they could
privately sign off on it, and the paper would be posted as the
final draft. If they all, or even one or two had some
reservations, then those would have to be resolved before the
final draft was accepted.

I can think of lots of names for this panel, from Dick Hall to
John Rimmer. It could run the course from believer to
nonbeliever. Jerry Clark, Dennis Stacey, Karl Pflock, Tom Carey,
Greg Sandow, all spring to mind as those who would be good at
this. These are merely the names that came immediately to mind
and if I thought about it, I'm sure that others would come up.

Anyway, I shouldn't know who has volunteered to review the final
draft in the light of the comments. All they would have to do is
make sure that all comments are properly addressed. There might
be a little extra reading, but certainly no extra work... except
maybe for Errol. Since the comments are directed at you, you'd
need to forward them to those who volunteered. Errol, I guess
you would be the final arbitrator on who was on this ad-hoc
committee, if you are willing to serve.

Let's remember that this is the first time something like this has
been tried so it might be a little rough, but we should get the hang
of it. I think this moves us forward in a way that doesn't rely on the
cult of personality. It should be a way to produce a final product
that could carry some wait.

This is my thinking to this point. I'm hoping that we can get
the necessary volunteers. Errol would know who you are, but I,
and our colleagues would not.

Any additional thoughts on this  would be appreciated.

KRandle







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:07:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Ledger


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:45:13 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]

<snip>

 >>You do get lied to. You never know what's going to happen in
 >>post-production.

 >Shades of NOVA! When Budd asked me to participate in the NOVA
 >segment I insisted on speaking with the segment producer myself
 >before I made my decision. At that meeting with Denise DiIanni
 >and her assistant I was assured that NOVA was going to take an
 >impartial look at the abduction phenomenon and that the
 >witnesses/abductees were going to be given a "fair hearing". I
 >even volunteered to take any kind of tests (physical,
 >psychological or otherwise) that may have wished to perform.

<snip>

Hi John,

Didn't realize that you were in on that production. But yes,
Budd was certainly screwed over in that case. It would have been
interesting to see the stuff they cut out. This just proves that
NOVA's integrity is only as deep as whatever credibility they
suck out of their other production talents.

As for dropping out of all productions to teach them a lesson,
I'm not sure who will be the ones who suffer. It's the mass
media that gets the "facts" out there, that is if they don't
change them to suit their model of a UFO story.

If we can believe the polls of late-there is some understanding
of what's going on amongst the general public. They must be
getting that somewhere. Hopefully it's the right information and
not just media and production generated hype.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                  Oberg's Mis-Statement Regarding Moon Hoax

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:51:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:11:56 -0500
Subject: Oberg's Mis-Statement Regarding Moon Hoax


The Houston Chronicle ran an article on the "Moon Hoax"
controversy in the Sunday edition ("Between a rock and hard
place. NASA dogged by skeptics claiming Apollo 11 hoax"
11/17/02) interviewing people who claim that NASA never landed
people on the Moon and included rebuttals from James Oberg and
Phil Plait.  All of the rebuttals given were perfectly sound, in
my opinion, except for the last one.

Aron Ranen, one of the moon landing skeptics, suggests,
according to the Chronicle, that "the U.S. government overseen
by independent scientists, could spin around a spy satellite to
get a shot of the Apollo 11 landing area on the moon to see
whether the base of the lander is still there."

The Chronicle article concludes with Oberg's rejoinder as
follows: "Not likely, Oberg said. Satellites are too far away to
get pictures of things that small, and even probes designed to
orbit the moon can't see that detail. 'You could see something
the size of an oil tanker,' he said, 'but not something the size
of the lander.'"

Now Oberg is certainly correct that a spy satellite orbiting the
Earth couldn't detect the lunar lander, which is what Ranen
apparently had in mind. But the assertion that "probes designed
to orbit the moon can't see that detail" is absolutely false.

The Lunar Orbiters of the 1960's, equipped with analog camera
systems, were capable of resolutions down to 1 meter from an
altitude of about 50 kilometers. The width of the Apollo lunar
lander was 4.27 meters, excluding the landing gear -- more than
four times the Lunar Orbiter's resolution. That's not quite
large enough to discern the shape or internal details of the
lander, but with the lander's reflective foil covering, it would
stand out quite clearly against the lunar background as an
anomalously bright spot in an image taken at the resolution of
the Lunar Orbiters.

And the technology of the Lunar Orbiter cameras has been
obsolete for decades. If employed on a satellite orbiting the
Moon at the same altitude as the Lunar Orbiters, an imaging
system similar to the one on the Mars Global Surveyor would be
capable of almost 10 times the Lunar Orbiter's resolution.
Objects a little larger than 6 inches in diameter could be
resolved. The windows, landing gear, main body of the craft, and
just about everything except the stars and stripes on the US
flag would be easily visible -- if that technology had actually
been used on a Moon probe in modern times.

The fact that it has _not_ been used and there don't even seem
to be any plans to ever use it may be close to the crux of the
whole "moon hoax" affair.  People who weren't even born at the
time of the last manned landing on the Moon are now over thirty
years old with the prospect of middle age looming nearby.  To a
whole generation,  manned missions to the Moon are ancient
history -- something that happened before their lifetime. It's
not particularly surprising that to some of them, the
distinction between history and myth is becoming increasingly
blurred with the passage of time. A manned mission to the Moon
may be out of the question for the foreseeable future due to the
costs, but a robotic probe with a camera capable of resolving
the Apollo landers and ending the moon conspiracy talk forever
would be relatively inexpensive. And not only would it improve
NASA's shaky public relations, but it would certainly be of
considerable scientific value to be able to image the moon at
high resolution.

As for the absurd misstatement that the Chronicle attributed to
Oberg, perhaps they misquoted him.  If so, he should demand that
the Chronicle print a correction. Or was it really something he
actually said? Perhaps it was a comment he tossed out in a
feeble attempt to explain the seemingly inexplicable: NASA's
abject retreat from lunar exploration.

NASA has sent exactly one robotic probe to the Moon since the
end of the Apollo program: the Lunar Prospector, which had no
cameras at all.  The Defense Department sent the Clementine. It
had two cameras, one with a resolution of about 100 meters and
the other with a resolution of 10 meters. The higher resolution
camera went unusused for most of the Clementine lunar mission
because it was designed for imaging asteroids under dim
lighting, not the bright glare of the lunar landscape.

If you suspect I'm leading up to something relevant to the list
here, I am. I think there may well be an explanation for NASA's
lack of interest in lunar exploration: their repeatedly
demonstrated aversion to looking too closely at things that show
possible indications of artificiality, things like the so-called
"Blair Cuspids" situated on the edge of a remarkably rectangular
depression in the lunar Sea of Tranquility (not far from the
Apollo 11 landing site that was the point of contention in the
Chronicle article). A Lunar Orbiter took two photographs that
showed these objects. Several years ago I put them up on a
  series of web pages. They can be seen at:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/lan/cuspids/cuspids.htm

These images were taken 36 years ago, and unless some commercial
enterprise or foreign government independent from NASA sends a
probe to the Moon, I think it will probably be at least another
30 years before we see any more images of them or other unusual
features imaged by the Lunar Orbiters a very long time ago in
those legendary days when humans walked on the Moon -- or so the
old folks tell their grandchildren.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                               Bill Spaulding?

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:08:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:16:54 -0500
Subject: Bill Spaulding?


Can anyone confirm (or deny) that Bill Spaulding of Ground
Saucer Watch is deceased, and has been for some time?

Or am I just remembering that he withdrew suddenly from Ufology
and I am confusing his professional demise with his ultimate
one?


Thanks,

==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                         GWU Symposium Photo Gallery

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 02:58:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:08:46 -0500
Subject: GWU Symposium Photo Gallery

Hi All,

I have put up a 'photo gallery' of some of the pix I took at the
GWU symposium last week. UFO UpDates List members will enjoy
'putting faces' on some of the names they are already familiar
with.

I will be adding more photos shortly so be sure to check the
page again in a few days. Use the clickable link below:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/aic/symposium.html

Enjoy.

Note: They used this glaring yellow lighting on the stage and in
the room itself. Please excuse the color quality of the photos.
Everything came out tinged in yellow and I did the best I could
in terms of color correction.


Regards to All,

John Velez
SDI Roving Reporter  ;)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                          Anyone Up To A Challenge?

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:15:49 -0500
Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?


Last evening, on Coast to Coast AM, host Barbara Simpson
interviewed astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has
written a boot titled "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men".

He is also a Christian minister, and offers the opinion that the
many UFO incidents where physical traces were observed on the
earth are in fact "angelic being" effects. His bottom line is
that since UFOs "can't get here from there", the answer is
probably real but non-material other dimensional beings.

Dr. Ross needs to be challenged, which is something Barbara
Simpson does not do. He is listened to by the public through
lectures and books.

Dr. Ross made three points in particular that curled my toes:

1. That the _only_ common factor among people who
   have "residual" UFO sightings or "those _alleged_
   abductions" is that those people are all involved in
   the _occult_ ! ("Residual" meaning "not explainable")

2. UFOs cannot travel faster than light because they
   cannot violate the laws of physics.

3. The government is hopelessly inept and cannot keep
   a secret for more than a short time.

I would love to hear, on SDI, a Dr. Joe Nickel style discussion
in which the researchers who have appeared there as guests could
challenge these assumptions. (For listers who didn't hear the
show, Dr. Joe Nickel of CSICOP was interviewed and challenged on
SDI some months ago.)

As to the "every residual experiencer is involved with the
occult" assertion, I have no data to rebut that, but I doubt
that is so, and one caller insisted he had two very vivid
sightings and has no occult connections nor does he drink or use
illegal drugs.

The biggest gap in the interview was that Barbara Simpson didn't
ask him for the _source_ of that data.

As to assertion 2, "can't violate the laws of physics", this is
particularly hypocritical because he stated that today's physics
community is pretty well convinced there are at least ten
dimensions. His position implied that he knows all there is to
know about physics, _including_what_physics_
might_be_discovered_once_access_to_other_dimensions_ is_
accomplished_. I'm surprised to hear any mainstream scientist
make such a claim.

As to assertion 3, that "the government is hopelessly inept at
keeping secrets", I do know something about that.

I follow activism efforts in a number of government crime
arenas, and am well acquainted with one of the most grievous
government crimes ever committed in the past and present. In
that particular arena, we have seen "seeming ineptness" used as
_deliberate_cover_ for illegal activity.

(Closely related to "seeming ineptness" is the "it didn't work
anyway so we stopped" assertion.)

Using ineptness as cover is clever because it keeps the public
primed with that impression. Unfortunately, Coast to Coast AM's
interviewers do not seem to know that ineptness is used as a
cover up method.

For these reasons, I'd like to ask if Errol and his regular show
participants might be interested in having another scientist on,
that some of his assertions might be at least partly challenged?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                      Washington Post, Nov. 18 Excerpt

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:39:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:17:58 -0500
Subject: Washington Post, Nov. 18 Excerpt



List,

Belated but very positive coverage of the George Washington
University space travel and UFOs conference today by staff
writer Guy Gugliotta. I'm sure others will be posting the story.
In the context of exotic theories about potential space travel
technologies and lots of quotes from Kaku, Sturrock, and others,
Gugliotta finally gets it right!

"If extraterrestrial life forms are visiitng from time to time,
somewhere some sentient beings must have figured out a way to
transit interstellar space. Discussions about [UFOs] march hand
in hand with the feasibility of interstellar space
travel....[and later]. If UFOs are real, then so is interstellar
space travel."

One might quibble about whether it is really "interstellar" as
opposed to "interdimensional" (or whatever), but at least he has
the logical horse before the logical cart.

  - Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                    Washington Post Article GWU Symposium

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:41:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:21:07 -0500
Subject: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium


Source:  The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62346-2002Nov16.html

A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow
Scientists Contemplate Ideas, Impossibilities of Interstellar Transit

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, November 18, 2002; Page A12


So: It's about 7:45 p.m. in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on a chill,
blustery December night, when this "big round thing" with
flashing red lights suddenly crashes in Big Lake Park, just off
North Eighth Street.

Eleven witnesses, including cops and firefighters, either see
the crash or rush to the scene within 15 minutes to watch the
flames from the molten metal - mostly carbon steel - that covers
the ground.

It happened on Dec. 17, 1977. The "big round thing" that local
resident Chris Moore saw hovering in the air 25 years ago has
never been explained.

No one knows if aliens are really blowing up their starships
over Council Bluffs. But if extraterrestrial life forms are
visiting from time to time, somewhere some sentient beings must
have figured out a way to transit interstellar space.
Discussions about unidentified flying objects march hand in hand
with the feasibility of interstellar space travel.

Earlier this month, George Washington University and the Sci-Fi
Channel sponsored a symposium at the university where serious
people took up these two topics. Scientists agreed that we won't
be doing star trips anytime soon, but "soon" may not mean much
in the context of the cosmos.

"The universe is 14 billion years old," said symposium panelist
Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist from City University of New
York. "Human civilization only began 5,000 years ago."

So give science a chance.

The trick, of course, is to be able to travel faster than the
speed of light - 186,000 miles per second - which is as fast as
anything travels in the world as we understand it, but not
nearly fast enough to commute to stars. Our nearest stellar
neighbor, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away.

There are glimmers about how this problem might be overcome.
They involve bending space-time in such a way that one could
scoot Enterprise-like through the cosmos.

One way is through "warp speed," implying that we can move
faster than light through space-time by distorting space-time
itself. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
likens warp drive to a moving sidewalk: A person walks at one
speed but travels much faster because the sidewalk moves as
well.

Another way to distort space-time is by harnessing an enormous
amount of energy - like that of an entire star -- to create a
pathway, or "wormhole," connecting two points that used to be
separated.

Suppose, Kaku said, "you wanted to get from one side of a rug to
the other, and instead of walking across, you used a big hook to
pull the other side of the rug close to you. Then you just
stepped over." By crumpling the rug, you built the wormhole,
Kaku said: "It's like Alice Through the Looking Glass - you
start in Oxford, then step through the wormhole and you're in
Wonderland."

Which is where all of this is right now. The theories are
neither proven nor discounted, the science doesn't exist to
describe these phenomena with the necessary rigor, and the
engineering needed to pull off the technological feats can't
even as yet be contemplated.

"I like to speculate about this stuff as much as the next guy,
but it's really hard to do," said Ralph L. McNutt Jr., chief
scientist for the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory. "There is no obvious way
of getting to warp drive out there."

Instead, McNutt would test the limits of the real world. He is
leading a team that has suggested to NASA's Institute for
Advanced Concepts the possibility of sending a 340-pound probe
powered by nuclear generators into interstellar space to a
distance of 93 billion miles from Earth. "It's still not far
away," McNutt said, noting that a light-year is more than 63
times farther, but it will test the current limits of
technology.

At NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, scientists have moved a bit
further with what the laboratory's Henry M. Harris calls the
"proof of concept" for a "beamed energy sail" that could cut
travel time to Proxima Centauri from 400 centuries (in a rocket)
to a mere 40 years.

Using a lightweight, high-temperature-resistant, carbon-based
sail material, the JPL proposal envisions a starship pushed deep
into the solar system by a huge laser: "We could get to Jupiter
in eight hours and be moving at a tenth of the speed of light,"
Harris said.

Harris said that JPL and the sailmaker, Energy Science
Laboratories Inc. of San Diego, have accelerated small sails in
vacuum chambers "at a few g's" and that "we can extrapolate that
material for a spacecraft accelerating at 100 g's." One g is the
measurement of the force of gravity on an object at rest on
Earth.

But 10 percent of light speed still isn't very fast, and "we
can't go much faster," Harris said, because even a speck of dust
"could do serious damage in a high-speed interstellar
collision."

So the message is that comfortable, interstellar space travel -
  at least by Earthlings - is not on for now. But will it ever
be?

This is a hard question to get at, but what evidence there is
suggests that thinking people believe it will. GWU panelist
Peter Sturrock, an emeritus physicist from Stanford University,
suggested that scientists tend to give credence to UFO reports -
  as long as they are polled by secret ballot.

Ted Roe, executive director of the privately funded National
Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, found in an
aircrew survey of a major airline that 25 percent of the
respondents had seen something they couldn't explain, but
virtually no one had reported it. Aircrews, like untenured
physicists, can get the sack for reporting a UFO sighting.

But if UFOs are real, then so is interstellar space travel, even
though "when you talk about going faster than light speed, then
you're talking about [harnessing] the energy of stars," Kaku
said.

For Earth, this is probably attainable in "100,000 to 1 million
years," Kaku added. "When I look at the age of the universe, I
see that we've attained technology in the blink of an eye.
There's plenty of time."

Others are not so sure. Princeton astrophysicist J. Richard Gott
III invoked the Copernican Principle - a bedrock tenet of the
scientific method - which holds that nothing is "special."

If interstellar space travel were common, then "the Earth would
have been colonized by extraterrestrials a long time ago," Gott
said. "The Copernican Principle tells us that a significant
fraction of the intelligent observers in the universe must be
sitting at home on their own planets, or they'd be special. If
they aren't, then we're special."


=A9 2002 The Washington Post Company







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:31:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:27:08 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &  Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >>However, if David Rudiak was correct in what he stated
 >>about Venus (perhaps you could help me here if he's
 >>not), I believe researchers may have just cause to think
 >>the "Venus" explanation though a little more carefully.

 >>[Quote]

 >>From: DRudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>[David Rudiak]
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:55:52 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Pres. Carter

 ><snip>

 >>c) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into
 >>the distance.

 >Jerry:

 >It would it the witness _interpreted_ Venus's fading to
 >motion away.

Fading is one thing... disappearing is another. Also, "slow
fading" is one thing . . moving rapidly is another. We have to
note what Carter says he observed. One question asked on the
form he filled out was "Did it speed up and rush away." Carter's
answer was "yes."

You can see this at the URL below (as you scroll down, it's
between the dotted lines), but I'm sure Bob Sheaffer probably
has copies of the original Heyden Hewes' International UFO
Bureau report he can show you.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m14-024.shtml


 >>At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have
 >>remained well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would
 >>not have disappeared.

 >Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO
 >Verdict - Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books,
 >1981, pp. 4-12), states, "When I obtained the weather
 >records from the nearby Albany airfield, they revealed
 >that the weather was cold and clear, although a few
 >scattered clouds were present that evening."

Bob, at the URL you had us visit, Robert Sheaffer himself had
stated the sky was basically clear that night. Here it is again
at: (Please see: end of second paragraph)

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

I have also discussed the cloud issue in the next paragraph of
that same post to Robert at: (Located below the hyphenated lines
and including "My Reasoning")

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m14-024.shtml

 >Sheaffer reports that Carter's sighting report filed with
 >Heyden Hewes' Internation UFO Bureau described the
 >object as, "bluish at first - then reddish," it "seemed to
 >move toward us from a distance, stop, move partially
 >away, return then depart."
 >
 >This could describe the planet gradually fading and
 >brightening behind clouds.

Concerning this I'd say "one possible solution" but also,
"certainly not written in stone" for this case. Other
descriptive factors make some of us question this
interpretation.


 ><snip>

 >>Rudiak continued:
 >>Lesser discrepancies are:

 >>a) Venus was in the southwestern, not western sky
 >>(between 237 and 240 degrees azimuth, not 270).

 >Close enough for a visual report without the aid of a
 >compass.

 >>b) If the time was correct, the elevation was between
 >>21 and 24 degrees, not 30 degrees.

 >Three finger widths. ...snip...

So Rudiak's calculations for the azimuth and elevation were
correct. Guess he's not all bad. I'll take a look at this as you
could be correct concerning the three finger widths.

Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
only as big as "your little fingernail."

Let's see what else we know here:

1)   As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
present.

2)   At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
it was never mentioned.

We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

3)   You also completely omit discussing the following from my
first post: (Rudiak)

"C) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the
distance. At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have
remained well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
disappeared.  It fact, it didn't set until about 9:20. You can't
have it both ways, with Venus supposedly being brilliantly
bright and otherwise highly visible (to supposedly account for
the report), yet supposedly disappearing as well."

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

I read the above and said to myself, "Hmmn, Rudiak has a good
point there." Bob Young says it was very bright. So how could it
completely disappear?"

4)   And omitted discussing this: (Cameron) (Long Cameron quote:
last paragraph of the at the URL below)  [jc emphasis added
below is mine.]

   "The witnesses declared that the object disappeared
   after 10 minutes or at 7:25 p.m. Venus, on the evening
   in question, was visible in the clear sky till 9:20 p.m. If
   it had been Venus, it would still have been visible for
   another 115 minutes after the witnesses claimed it had
   disappeared in a clear sky. ...snip... _Venus does not
   disappear_, and would have been eliminated as a
   suspect ....snip...."

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

I think most astronomers would agree, Venus doesn't "set" until
it "sets" That's why astronomers have assigned it a "setting
time." (i.e. it doesn't just disappear at whim.)

Behind a cloud, _if_ one was even there? It's my thought that
with the attention Carter had on "the object," he may well have
realized it. If you can't prove otherwise, that solution is not
written in stone either.

There is enough doubt here concerning both hypotheses to force
negation of this whole part for both sides.

5)   And you also omitted this important statement (Cameron);
found within that same post:

  "Carter described the object as being the 'size of the
   moon' or 'slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
   moon.' Venus never appears this way."
(Long Cameron quote: 4 paragraphs before the end of the )

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

It certainly doesn't. I'm fairly certain Carter, being a trained
observer for a number of years, had figured out the "relative"
size between stars, observed planets and the moon. None of us
need the moon present to remember the "relative" size. (i.e.
moon: large, star-like planet: small.) You can simply see the
other visible stars/planets and judge what you see from that.

6)   Was Cameron also incorrect when he said?
    [Long Cameron quote: Paragraphs 4-7 at URL below]

   "Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
   conclusions were wrong because they relied on
   eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony is
   unreliable. There are, wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of
   scientific analysis documenting unreliability of
   unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony." Yet
   Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
   eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the
   data that he collected to come to his Venus
   conclusion.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

7)   And was I really incorrect when I said ...?

"BTW, we get a hint of the lengths Sheaffer is willing to go to
debunk a case when we note his 'expose' of Rosalyn Carter.

Sheaffer wasn't able to completely disprove Jimmy Carter's UFO
report by legitimate means so what does he do? He writes a
negative article on his wife.

I'm afraid this doesn't inspire much confidence regarding
Sheaffer's research methods and scientific approach."

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m25-016.shtml

8)   Bob, after analyzing your post, it appears to me you've
missed a few points along the way. I believe this will be
obvious to others reading this post too.


 >>c) According to my planetarium programs, Venus
 >>wasn't even at its brightest on this date, much less an
 >>"unusually bright light." ....snip....

 >[End of quote]

 >This is ridiculous "armchair" astronomy, but typical for
 >David. Venus is _always_ the brightest object in the
 >heavens after the Sun, Moon and very bright meteor
 >fireballs.

 >According to the JPL Ephemeris Generator:

 >http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eph

Considering points 1-5 above, I think this is like the pot
calling the kettle black. However, the JPL EG can be used to
check this out and may well be as you say. I will definitely
check it anyway. Thank you for the URL.

 >On January 6, 1969 Venus was at magnitude -4.3
 >magnitude. The next brightest object, on the other side of
 >the sky, was Jupiter at -2.12 magnitude. Venus was
 >nearly 7and a half times brighter than Jupiter, the next
 >brightest astronomical object in the sky.

 ><snip>

 >>Then I found myself asking "I wonder who Bob
 >>Sheaffer interviewed? No supporting evidence was
 >>given to make it possible for others to check what he
 >>says in this regard.

 >Try getting his book, or its more recent edition, UFO
 >Sightings (Prometheus). He names a half dozen others
 >he interviewed.

I stand corrected on this even though these other names did not
appear the web pages you asked us to view at:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

My question was a legitimate one.

 >>So I performed a web search to see what else I might
 >>find regarding this case.

 >>Grant Cameron, who has posted a monumental
 >>analysis on Carter and an investigation of his UFO
 >>Report on his web site

 >>http://www.presidentialufo.8m.com/jimmy.htm

 >>had the following comments to make:

 >>[Begin quote]

 >>Carter had, in fact, described the UFO sighting many
 >>times in the years since it occurred. In every instance,
 >>including the latest known telling of the story at
 >>Emory University in 1997, Carter has never backed off
 >>on the spectacular nature of the event. He has also
 >>never conceded that was he saw was some
 >>misidentification of a natural phenomena.

 >So what? How may UFO sighting witnesses publicly
 >recant an observation, particularly after citing it at
 >speaking engagements for many years? Can you name
 >any?

The immediate above is a good point.

 >>Carter estimated that the object was three hundred to
 >>one thousand yards away.

 >It is impossible to estimate the distance of an unkown
 >object without clues of some sort.

Perhaps and perhaps not. The fact that Carter didn't explain how
he calculated the distance for himself does not mean he didn't
judge it using his observer skills. Has anyone asked him? If it
hasn't, this should certainly be asked _before_ his estimation
is totally discounted.

 >>Carter described the object as being the "size of the
 >>moon" or "slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
 >>moon." Venus never appears this way.

 >And certainly when the Moon wasn't visible at the same
 >time to make a comparison. By the way, the Moon is
 >only the apparent size of your little fingernail at arm's
 >length.

I already covered this one above. Talk about estimating; how can
you make the above statement if you don't know the size of my
hand. As I said, yours is obviously bigger than mine. :-)

 ><snip>

 >>Venus at the time was at between 15 and 21 degrees
 >>over the horizon at 7:15 p.m.

 >Please explain in detail how this is possible. If it were
 >true than Venus could be 14 times larger than the Moon.

A star never appears bigger than the moon, no matter how low to
the horizon the star is. But I seem to be missing your point
here.

 >>Carter, a trained observer stated the object was 30
 >>degrees above the horizon

 >Pretty close for a visual observation, but the JPL
 >Ephemeris gives 25.3 degrees up (from a perfect sea
 >horizon, not taking into account horizon obstructions
 >near Carter's viewing place).

 >>or almost double the height of Venus at the time.

 >That is, if Venus was actually within your 7 degree
 >"armchair" guess, which it wasn't.

 >This bring's a key issue into bright focus (pardon the
 >pun). Why didn't Jimmy Carter ever report seeing Venus
 >little more than a hand's width away?

If you were looking at something fairly large compared to a
star, and extraordinary, that really caught your attention and
kept it glued to it, and you were about to go into a meeting at
which you had to speak, would you positively have thought to do
this? My guess is perhaps not. Even if I'm wrong about you,
isn't it possible Carter might not have?

BTW, any astronomers out there that can verify what Bob says
above?


 >>Sheaffer described Venus as "being at it's brightest" on
 >>the date in question. It wasn't at its brightest.

 ><snip>

 >In fact, what Sheaffer said in his 1981 book (p. 10) is,
 >"nearing its maximum brilliance", and, "at about 25
 >degrees elevation".

As I said before, no matter which way you look at it, this was
well discussed in point #3 (of 8) above.

 >Jerry, when you use Grant Cameron as a source of
 >technical information about astronomy you will find
 >yourself off in blue space, as he is.

Also as I said before and detailed in points 1-5 above, this is
obviously, most definitely the pot calling the kettle(s) black.

 ><snip>

 >>During these 115 minutes the planet Venus would have
 >>increased in brightness (not disappeared) as it
 >>approached the horizon.

 >Cameron has got it completely backwards. Atmospheric
 >extinction _decreases_ the brightness of astronomical
 >objects as they approach the horizon, not the other way
 >around. Where in the world did he dream this up?

Even if he was wrong about the brightness, and _especially_ if
you were 100% right about it, Venus wouldn't have completely
disappeared until it was time for it to set. That's the main
thing. (Covered in #3 & 4 above.)

 ><snip>

 >>Grant Cameron also mentions:

 >>"Carter who had spent watches, while in the Navy
 >>doing watches in cruisers and destroyers, as a
 >>navigation officer, taking star shots with a sextant,
 >>stated the object was in the western sky."

 >Yeah, and he never noticed Venus, either. Doesn't this
 >strike you as odd?

No. (Covered about 4 "jc's" back)


 >Another witness, though, is cited by Sheaffer as
 >remembering a little blue light, which he thought might
 >have been a weather balloon, but no UFO. I wonder
 >what that could have been and why Cameron never
 >mentioned it?

I hope you would read what Robert Gates wrote in his 15 Nov.
2002 UFO UpDates post concerning the different views people can
have of an event when they don't feel something can exist or
they are too busy to think about it. It explains it quite
succinctly.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m15-008.shtml


Bob, I've left the following in this post so people can check
Robert Sheaffer's take on this for themselves.

 >>We do know, however, that proposing an estimated
 >>explanation is not the same thing as having a solid
 >>explanation. The IFO proposal" is exactly that, an
 >>estimated explanation. Therefore, it cannot be
 >>guaranteed as the correct solution for this specific
 >>case. Readers are free to form their own conclusions.

 >And I hope that they do, after reading Sheaffer in his own
 >words, and trying to come up with their own hypothesis
 >as to why he didn't see Venus when others present
 >reported a blue light or a star, but no UFO.

 >Please see:

 >http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

Bob, this is my wish as well. I believe they will see for
themselves that Robert Sheaffer's solution to the Jimmy Carter
case is not "written in stone" and that the designation of the
case should still remain "unidentified."


Respectfully,

Jerry Cohen






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                          Secrecy News -- 11/18/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:07:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:55:53 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/18/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 115
November 18, 2002


**      SECRECY IN 2001 REACHED AN ALL TIME HIGH
**      2003 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT
**      NEW NUKES CONSIDERED
**      CIA ON CAMPUS
**      SECRECY IN THE NEWS


SECRECY IN 2001 REACHED AN ALL TIME HIGH

National security classification activity during the first year
of the Bush Administration set an all time record, according to
the latest statistics of the Information Security Oversight
Office (ISOO).

The report tends to substantiate the perception that the Bush
Administration has a predisposition in favor of official
secrecy.

"The total of all classification actions reported for fiscal
year 2001 increased by 44 percent to 33,020,887," according to
the 2001 ISOO Annual Report to the President, published on the
web today.

The largest classification total ever reported by ISOO until now
was 22,322,895 for fiscal year 1985.   (No total was reported
for 2000, but it would have approached 23 million.)  The
smallest Classification total ever reported was 3,579,505
classification Actions for fiscal year 1995.

The huge new total classification figure is in part an artifact
of the reporting process, because it includes both new "original
classification" activity and secondary, "derivative
classification" which involves the incorporation or paraphrase
of previously classified information in new documents.  Such
derivative declassification has increased dramatically in recent
years due to the use of email and other electronic systems to
duplicate and disseminate classified materials.

Even so, the growth in classification is real, with a reported
increase of 18% in original classification activity, or new
secrets.  Most of this increase is attributable to the
Department of Defense, according to the ISOO report.

Remarkably, and less predictably, overall declassification
activity also increased, ISOO found.  During fiscal year 2001,
the executive branch declassified just over 100 million pages,
or 34 percent more than during the preceding year.

This means that the declassification infrastructure established
by the 1995 executive order 12958 remained functional, at least
through September 30 of last year, when fiscal year 2001 ended.

"It is reasonably clear that the [executive order's] automatic
declassification program will be affected by the events of
September 11, if only in the number of resources dedicated to
it," ISOO warned.

The Information Security Oversight Office, which reports to the
President annually on classification and declassification
policy, is a component of the National Archives and takes policy
direction from the National Security Council.  Its director is
J. William Leonard.

The new 2001 ISOO Report to the President is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2001rpt.html


2003 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT

The long-deferred Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2003
emerged from a House-Senate conference last week after agreement
was finally reached with the White House on the establishment of
a new independent Commission to investigate September 11.

The intelligence bill generally approves the President's request
for what it termed "the most substantial increase for programs
funded in the National Foreign Intelligence Program in history."

Among other points of interest and importance, the conference
report sounds a warning about the massive (and massively
expensive) modernization of U.S. spy satellites:

"With respect to the nation's imagery architecture, the
conferees are very concerned about the viability and
effectiveness of a future overhead architecture, given the
apparent lack of a comprehensive architectural plan for the
overhead system of systems, specifically in the area of imagery.
For example, the conferees believe the administration is facing
a major challenge in addressing technical and funding problems
with the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) program that could
force untenable trades between critical future capabilities and
legacy systems."

The new bill also amends the Freedom of Information Act to
prohibit intelligence agencies from complying with FOIA requests
submitted by foreign governments (Section 312).
Characteristically, this new provision was never the subject of
public hearings or any other form of deliberation that might
have permitted critical public input.

The new conference committee report on the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2003 is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/hrpt107-789.html


NEW NUKES CONSIDERED

The Bush Administration is quietly revisiting the question of
whether to renew nuclear explosive testing in order to ensure
nuclear weapon stockpile reliability and to permit the design of
new nuclear weapons, according to a recent Pentagon memorandum.

See "U.S. ponders resumption of nuke-weapons test" by Dan Stober
and Jonathan S. Landay, San Jose Mercury News, November 15:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/4530780.htm

The rationale for new nuclear weapons as an instrument of
counterproliferation was critiqued by Michael A. Levi of the
Federation of American Scientists in a paper prepared for the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  See his "Fire in
the Hole: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Options for
Counterproliferation" here:

http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/wp31.asp


CIA ON CAMPUS

The enduring question of the proper relationship between
academia, with its presumption of openness, and the CIA, with
its habitual practices of secrecy and deception, was ventilated
once again last week on the Pacifica radio program Democracy
Now.

Political scientists David Gibbs and Robert Jervis tackled the
issue from opposing points of view in a conversation that was
civil but direct and penetrating.

The 20 minute audio program can be accessed through this page
(towards the bottom):

http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021113.html

Related resources, critical of a CIA presence in academia, are
offered by Daniel Brandt's Public Interest Research here:

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/


SECRECY IN THE NEWS

The pending Homeland Security Act includes "the most severe
weakening of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] in its 36-
year history," Senator Patrick Leahy told the Washington Post.
  See "Disclosure Curbs in Homeland Bill Decried" by Dan Morgan,
Washington Post, November 16:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61385-2002Nov15.html

and "Homeland bill's secrecy rules criticized" by Tamara Lytle,
Orlando Sentinel, November 15:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-asecfoi15111502nov15.story

A November 14 New York Times column by William Safire galvanized
public concern about the privacy implications of DARPA's "Total
Information Awareness" initiative that would probe databases of
private transactions in search of terrorists.  A November 16
Washington Post editorial put the matter in some perspective:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61653-2002Nov15.html

By creating a new Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
the Pentagon has done approximately the opposite of what was
recommended by a classified review of U.S. intelligence headed
by Brent Scowcroft last year.  See "New Intelligence Post
Consolidates Rumsfeld's Clout" by Vernon Loeb in the Washington
Post online, November 18:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4439-2002Nov18.html


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:15:08 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:02:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >Dear Mr. Velez:

 >>I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>three years.

 >'>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>that we are invited to appear in.

 >As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >always open to negotiation.

 >A case in point: When we were doing the Stan Friedman film, one
 >of the interviewees refused to be interviewed unless we removed
 >the line from the release form stating that he could not sue us
 >for (among other things) defamation - a standard clause, which
 >usually won't hold up in court, but better to have than not from
 >a producer's point of view. I could have walked away, but I
 >wanted to interview the guy (we ended up not using his material
 >for other reasons), so I agreed to strike the clause.

 >We edited a lot of the material as well, but never in a way that
 >undermined the basic thrust of what the person was saying.
 >However, most people are not terribly adept at speaking in
 >soundbites, which is what television requires, so editing is
 >inevitable. For example, in the interviews for the Friedman
 >film, Dr. Benson Saler spent a lot of time talking about
 >anthropological theories; what I wanted was his take on Stan and
 >Roswell. That required some editing of what he said, because he
 >often put all of the anthropological stuff in between two bits
 >where he was talking about something we wanted to use.

 >Editing can also come into play in the choice of what to use and
 >what not to use. We interviewed Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle for
 >the Friedman film. They both had a number of nice things to say
 >about Stan. Almost none of them are in the film. We used the
 >bits with Karl tearing into Majestic 12 and Roswell, and Kevin
 >into Majestic 12 and Stan's CIA and NSA blacked out documents,
 >because we needed antagonists, and Stan was quite capable of
 >saying nice things about himself (I mean that in a good way!),
 >with the help of Don Ledger, Walter Haut, and Barry Downing.
 >Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film is
 >entertainment, even as it informs - even documentaries, and even
 >news (especially news!). And, as there is no consensus about
 >matters ufological, conflict more than acceptable - it is the
 >nature of the beast.

 >>Without us... they have no Show.

 >Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >especially the news.

 >The question is whether ufologists want to make a contribution
 >to it, or sit on the sidelines. If taking your case and
 >presenting it to as many people as possible is the goal, then
 >sometimes you have to take your chances, and sometimes you might
 >get burned. It seems to me, however, that the potential reward
 >is worth the risk.

 >Best regards,

 >Paul Kimball

Paul,

I disagree with your entire philosophy of news vs. entertainment
as espoused here, which is the reason that I have refused to
give interviews for several years now. When I turn on the
network news or CNN or Fox news, I don't want to be entertained,
I want to find out what is going on in the world. And if they
don't provide that, I exercise the "off" switch. When I watch
the Sci-Fi Channel specials on November 22, they damn well
better not be "entertainment". As a frequent victim of it, I
think the "news as entertainment" concept sucks and I won't have
any part of it. In your Friedman special you even admit seeking
conflict and "antagonism" rather than an informative story line
and serious facts. Shame on you!

A few years ago I was interviewed on one of the major network
evening news programs, and mine was the only segment on the
topic for which they introduced hokey background music and
showed totally irrelevant film footage of atomic bomb shelters
over my voice while I was trying to make some serious points in
the "sound bites" format (which, incidentally, is another
abomination and not really necessary as CNN demonstrates daily
with much longer pieces).

About the same time, I was virtually sneered at on a CNN daytime
news program in a studio (live) interview by a prominent anchor;
not just my impression either because one of the cameramen
volunteered the same interpretation to me later. He kept
interrupting me and not allowing me to complete a sentence, and
obviously thought UFOs were utter nonsense and pretty much said
so in his wrap-up. Why, then, even bother to ask me for my
views?

Sorry, I call this kind of treatment irresponsible, shabby, and
totally unacceptable. Having had similar experiences with TV
documentary and special producers, I also refuse to participate
in them without a very clear understanding (which they are
unwilling to give.) John Velez is right; we must boycott them.
You are right that "the show will go on," but it will go on
without the best informed and most experienced people as
interviewees and will suffer accordingly. I don't care to "make
a contribution" to garbage; I'll just sit on the sidelines,
thank you.


  - Very sincerely,

    Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

              Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -

From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:39:25 -500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:04:26 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:01:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III - The UFO Watchdog
 >><ufowatchdog@earthlink.net> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
 >>06:38:16 -0800 Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New
 >>Evidence'

 >>The Amazing Myers' Prediction: The usual week of a few media
 >>articles and then back to business as usual. At least if I'm
 >>wrong I'll have the excuse that I'm not a psychic.....

 >I agree with you on this prediction. I also would like to make
 >some predictions... and I hope I end up being wrong.

 >1) The special will leave more loose ends, i.e. after you have
 >watched 2 hours, and get bludgeoned with commercials on this or
 >that, you still will end up with more questions at the end of it
 >then you had at the beginning

Most of the bludgeoning will be done by ads for Spielburg's new
film. That there will be piles of loose ends is a given.

 >2) Somebody that was interviewed for the show will wail about how
 >Sci/Fi did a slice and dice on the interview, and because of that
 >his/her remarks were misunderstood/misrepresented or otherwise.

 >3) If the show concludes, or leads to the conclusion that it was
 >a space craft, the skeptibunkers will wail and cry about how they
 >should have been interviewed, how it is biased. They will
 >"likely" further blather about how if their hand picked
 >experts/archeologists/scientists could have examined the
 >discovery they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

OTOH, if the show concludes that the Roswell Crash was just a
case of mis-identification, then the saucer advocates will wail
and cry about how they should have been interviewed, how it is
biased. They will "likely" further blather about how if their
hand picked experts/archeologists/scientists could have examined
the discovery they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

 >4) Any "new" witness storys will be picked apart. If the story is
 >pro ET crash, then the story will be shredded by both the
 >mogelites and the skeptibunkers.

OTOH, if the story is against an ET crash, then the story will
be shredded by both the Roswellites and ET/UFO advocates.

 >5) If it is pro space ship, and the archeological evidence comes
 >up with something, the skeptibunkers and others will somehow
 >someway find away to discredit either SCI/FI or the archeologists
 >or both.

OTOH.... (Well, you get the idea <gr> )

 >6) Bottom line is that no amount of evidence presented will
 >_ever_ change a skeptibunkers mind.

Well- if the archeological evidence shows conclusively that
Marcel found Flight #4, how many ET crash advocates will change
_their_ minds?


Regards,

Bruce Hutchinson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:08:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >Dear Mr. Velez:

 ><snip>

 >>I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>three years.

 >'>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>that we are invited to appear in.

 >As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >always open to negotiation.

Although I do appreciate your comments Paul, I'm not surprised
that a lawyer would consider contracts as necessary as air.  :)

I was talking about out and out misinformation however. My
comment about contracts was an aside to the main topic of media
deception and manipulation. Those are the real issues.

Contracts? The only ones that can understand that kind of legal
Esperanto is 'other lawyers.' To the rest of us 'Great Unwashed'
it's all gibberish. What truly concerns me is the lack of
honesty and integrity in the reporting of certain members of the
media.

Contracts? I leave that to the guys in your profession. I was
merely expressing a layman's opinion of them. Maybe in an
idealized world a thousand years from now, a man's word will be
his contract. For now, I agree with you, we need contracts. We
just don't have to like it.  :)

 >Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film is
 >entertainment, even as it informs - even documentaries, and even
 >news (especially news!). And, as there is no consensus about
 >matters ufological, conflict more than acceptable - it is the
 >nature of the beast.

Sure, to a large extent the media provides what the public
wants. But... you have to admit that there is also a lot
pandering by the media to the lowest common denominator in many
instances.

The problem with all this is; when it comes to the subject of
UFOs the public is not getting the whole story. Rather, they are
more often than not exposed to whatever point of view a
particular producer may think will put asses in the seats the
night their program airs.

That, has nothing at all to do with, and very often conflicts
with, the honest representation and reporting of a phenomenon
that affects us all. And quite possibly affects us in a negative
fashion. There is an urgency to all of this that few are able to
fully appreciate. We simply don't have time to putz around and
play 'games.' Too much is at stake for us to indulge our own
continued ignorance.

 >>Without us... they have no Show.

 >Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >especially the news.

I wonder how 'entertaining' people would find being dragged out
of their homes in the middle of the night in their underwear by
non-human entities who subject them to all kinds of invasive,
terrifying and _dehumanizing_ procedures.

People better wake up, and soon. There's nothing amusing or
'entertaining' going on. What is happening to me and mine today
can be happening to you and yours tomorrow.

Laugh now... pay later.

 >The question is whether ufologists want to make a contribution
 >to it, or sit on the sidelines. If taking your case and
 >presenting it to as many people as possible is the goal, then
 >sometimes you have to take your chances, and sometimes you might
 >get burned. It seems to me, however, that the potential reward
 >is worth the risk.

I've been doing just that for over seven years now, Paul. And
I've been burned about as badly as anyone can be. I have
survived it all and managed to keep my focus only because I am
always acutely aware of the _urgency_ of the situation and
because I feel a _deep_ sense of responsibility to my fellow
man. People in my position cannot enjoy the luxury of disbelief.
My 'way' is always clear before me. I have no choice. I would
not be able to live with myself if I kept my mouth shut about
what I know and said nothing.

We (witnesses/abductees) are not (for the most-part) 'amused' or
'entertained' by what we see the media feeding the public. We
are even less amused when we are "used" in order to advance a
dishonest and completely self-serving agenda. There's going to
be a huge price to pay for all that 'entertainment' one day and
for all the dismissive and damaging snickering and ridicule.

I, for one, will not knowingly contribute to their efforts to
'entertain' the public in this fashion. It's a dangerous and
irresponsible road they walk down. I can only speak for myself,
but they'll all have to take the trip down that perilous road
alone and without my cooperation I'm afraid. Me and my 'truth'
will take that less travelled, little, dirt road off to the side
there thank you very much.

Regards,

John Velez, Victim of a 'hatchet job' perpetrated by NOVA







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                  Re: Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:02:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:12:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02 - Velez


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:53:28 -0800
 >Subject: Kota Kinbalu Malaysia 08NOV02

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:50:02 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45
 >
 >>>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:58:17 +0000
 >>>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 45

 >>>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.
 >>><Masinaigan@aol.com>

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

 >>>UFO ROUNDUP
 >>>Volume 7, Number 45
 >>>November 5, 2002
 >>>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>>http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

 >><snip>

 >>>HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN
 >>>NORTHEASTERN BORNEO

 >>>On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 7 p.m., a male
 >>>witness in Kota Kinbalu, a port city on the northeastern
 >>>tip of the island of Borneo, part of Malaysia's Sabah
 >>>province, spotted a UFO hovering over the area.
 >>>The witness reported, "While I was at the factory,
 >>>coming out for a smoke, I saw the craft hovering with
 >>>lights in the sky. At first I didn't pay much notice to
 >>>it because I thought it would be a helicopter flying
 >>>around the area. Then I realized that the object wasn't
 >>>making any sound."

 >>>"It was hovering slowly like a normal helicopter
 >>>would do. But after two minutes looking at the object,
 >>>it suddenly disappeared with trails of light following
 >>>it. That is the very last I saw of this object, and that
 >>>was when my spine started to shiver."
 >>>"Two days later, the Sabah Express had a front-page
 >>>picture of the object." (See the Sabah Express for
 >>>October 10, 2002, "UFO over Kota Kinbalu." See also
 >>>Filer's Files #44 for October 30, 2002. Many thanks to
 >>>George A. Filer for allowing UFO Roundup to reprint this
 >>>story.)

 >>Hello John & fellow UpDates Listerions,

 >>Anyone who may be interested in reading the news story and
 >>checking out the pictures of this UFO can go to the Sabah
 >>Express website by clicking on the following URL:

 >>http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=14205
 >>Interesting stuff. Enjoy,

 >>John Velez
 >- - -

 >Hello John:

 >Thanks for providing a clickable link.

 >Interesting indeed. While it may well have some sort of
 >conventional explanation, I'm at a loss to provide one.

 >The news article describes a flying coffin. The separate witness
 >cited by Roundup thought he was looking at a silent helicopter.
 >Yet, the surveillance camera image looks like something else
 >entirely.

 >What I see, is a silvery long slender cylinder, with maybe a
 >hint of an exhaust or smoke trail. More surprising is the long
 >white rectangle directly above it, almost like a sail, but
 >unlike any sail I have ever seen on air or marine craft!

 >Am I looking at this all wrong? Can others describe what they
 >see? I wouldn't expect to see an object like that at a funeral
 >nor a heliport. Too bad it didn't land where anyone could get a
 >better look.


Hola Laroo,

Looked like a cylinder to me too, Larry. With some kind of
exhaust/streak/flame emanating from underneath. It didn't look
like any kind of 'conventional' aircraft I have ever seen.

Interesting sighting report and photo.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
 >Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >Last evening, on Coast to Coast AM, host Barbara Simpson
 >interviewed astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has
 >written a boot titled "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men".

_Love_ the title...

 >He is also a Christian minister, and offers the opinion that the
 >many UFO incidents where physical traces were observed on the
 >earth are in fact "angelic being" effects.

These Christian UFO debunkers are a bizarre lot. They've got no
problem at all with the downright supernatural, but go into a
frenzy at the notion of the merely unusual or exotic.

 >His bottom line is that since UFOs "can't get here from there",

An utter fallacy, for reasons Stan Friedman (for one) has
tirelessly explained.

<snip>

 >Dr. Ross made three points in particular that curled my toes:

 >1. That the _only_ common factor among people who
 > have "residual" UFO sightings or "those _alleged_
 > abductions" is that those people are all involved in
 > the _occult_ !

How does he define "occult"? John Keel has said that ufology is
simply the demonology of the present day, in which case this
list is brimming with "occultists."

 >2. UFOs cannot travel faster than light because they
 > cannot violate the laws of physics.

Who said anything about superluminal travel? ETs could have
parked a "mothership" in our solar system thousands of years ago
and gone on to explore their immediate environment via small,
convenient probes. Why do debunkers expect each individual UFO
to be an interstellar craft?

 >3. The government is hopelessly inept and cannot keep
 > a secret for more than a short time.

Again, Friedman and others have shed some very interesting light
on exactly this point. It _is_ possible, and the reason it's
possible is the concept of "need-to-know."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

              Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:43:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:05:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Hall


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:41:13 -0500
 >Subject: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium

 >Source:  The Washington Post

 >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62346-2002Nov16.html

 >A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow
 >Scientists Contemplate Ideas, Impossibilities of Interstellar Transit

 >By Guy Gugliotta
 >Washington Post Staff Writer

 >Monday, November 18, 2002; Page A12

 >So: It's about 7:45 p.m. in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on a chill,
 >blustery December night, when this "big round thing" with
 >flashing red lights suddenly crashes in Big Lake Park, just off
 >North Eighth Street.

 >Earlier this month, George Washington University and the Sci-Fi
 >Channel sponsored a symposium at the university where serious
 >people took up these two topics. Scientists agreed that we won't
 >be doing star trips anytime soon, but "soon" may not mean much
 >in the context of the cosmos.


John is light years ahead of me in technological expertise. (-;

- Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

              Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:43:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:09:53 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -


I think we'll have to see how the SciFi Channel handles their
investigative efforts, and perhaps there are efforts that we can
undertake together. Obviously, there's going to be tremendous
scrutiny and so far I'd give them a passing grade.

For those who might be interested, there's another Symposium
being held in the New York area. It's taking place tomorrow
evening and you can hear it on a live audio webcast:

SCIFI.COM PRESENTS A SPECIAL LIVE AUDIO WEBCAST:
THE UFO ABDUCTION PHENOMENON: A SYMPOSIUM
TUESDAY, Nov. 19, from 7:30PM-9:30PM ET

Details can be found at: http://www.scifi.com/ufo/

I do not believe that the SciFi Channel is the answer to our
prayers, but they may have skills that can help and we both can
benefit from a joint pursuit. If their interest is no deeper
than exemplified by the new "Sightings", then it probably
wouldn't be a good fit. But so far the SciFi Channel can be
credited with the sponsoring of two Symposiums, the sponsorship
of CFI (Citizens for Freedom of Information), the upcoming
Roswell special, as well as the abduction related program to
follow. This may all be hype for TAKEN, but somehow I think that
would be overkill.

But, we'll see.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                    Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III - The UFO Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:54:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:14:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Myers


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
 >Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >Last evening, on Coast to Coast AM, host Barbara Simpson
 >interviewed astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has
 >written a boot titled "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men".

 >He is also a Christian minister, and offers the opinion that the
 >many UFO incidents where physical traces were observed on the
 >earth are in fact "angelic being" effects. His bottom line is
 >that since UFOs "can't get here from there", the answer is
 >probably real but non-material other dimensional beings.

 >Dr. Ross needs to be challenged, which is something Barbara
 >Simpson does not do. He is listened to by the public through
 >lectures and books.

Don't ever count anyone on Coast To Coast to challenge any of
the guests. It just doesn't happen. When plenty of evidence
points to fraud or guests that are completely misconstruing
facts, then Coast To Coast generally buries its head in the
sand. The program had plenty of info showing the Reed UFO Fraud
to be just that - all the info was ignored. Hell, the show
decided to not even comment on the fact that, even after giving
"Dr.Reed" _seven_ uncontested appearances, it was a fraud when
it was exposed. Coast To Coast has been given info about many of
its fraudulent guests, but that doesn't stop them from putting
them on the air.

 >Dr. Ross made three points in particular that curled my toes:

 >1. That the _only_ common factor among people who
 >have "residual" UFO sightings or "those _alleged_
 >abductions" is that those people are all involved in
 >the _occult_ ! ("Residual" meaning "not explainable")

I knew it, UFOs are a massive occult conspiracy!! Talk about
complete ignorance. Ross is smoking crack backwards. We all know
that he can't prove his ideological/paranoid fantasy. I have one
thing to ask Ross: Where's your hard data? We all know this guy
is full of it.

 >2. UFOs cannot travel faster than light because they
 >cannot violate the laws of physics.

Oh, right. And we'll never break the sound barrier, we'll never
go to the moon, the US Patent Office shouldn't issue any more
patents because everything possible has already been invented,
the earth is flat, blah, blah, blah. If this were Salem, Mass,
I'm sure Ross would be lighting fires and burning "witches"...

 >3. The government is hopelessly inept and cannot keep
 >a secret for more than a short time.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows better than this. I
am not a conspiracy nut, but if the Feds don't want info getting
out, it doesn't get out.

 >I would love to hear, on SDI, a Dr. Joe Nickel style discussion
 >in which the researchers who have appeared there as guests could
 >challenge these assumptions. (For listers who didn't hear the
 >show, Dr. Joe Nickel of CSICOP was interviewed and challenged on
 >SDI some months ago.)

I take back what I said about Coast To Coast hosts not
challenging guests - Nickell was the exception here. Though
Bell's attempt to challenge Nickell on the air was a dismal
failure, Bell did try at every painful turn to engage Nickell in
a debate.

 >As to the "every residual experiencer is involved with the
 >occult" assertion, I have no data to rebut that, but I doubt
 >that is so, and one caller insisted he had two very vivid
 >sightings and has no occult connections nor does he drink or use
 >illegal drugs.

 >The biggest gap in the interview was that Barbara Simpson didn't
 >ask him for the _source_ of that data.

Again, don't expect the folks at Coast To Coast to ask for any
hard proof or to go after it, it doesn't happen on that show.
Remember, these people are entertainers...oh, wait,
reporters...uh entertainers? Well, they really can't make up
their minds...

 >For these reasons, I'd like to ask if Errol and his regular show
 >participants might be interested in having another scientist on,
 >that some of his assertions might be at least partly challenged?

I'm of the opinion that Ross would try to turn it into a
religious debate, which Ross appears to base his "data" on.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:16:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO
 >Verdict - Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books,
 >1981, pp. 4-12), states, "When I obtained the weather
 >records from the nearby Albany airfield, they revealed
 >that the weather was cold and clear, although a few
 >scattered clouds were present that evening."

  Bob, at the URL you had us visit, Robert Sheaffer himself had
  stated the sky was basically clear that night. Here it is again
  at: (Please see: end of second paragraph)

  http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

Yes, you are right about the web site, on which he says,
"Weather records show that the sky was clear at the time of the
sighting." His 1981 book, however, cites the actual weather
report, "although a few scattered clouds were present that
evening."

<snip>

 >Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
 >comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
 >only as big as "your little fingernail."

 >Let's see what else we know here:

 >1)  As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
 >moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
 >quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
 >don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
 >moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
 >present.

Tonight the Moon is nearly full. Go out and hold up your little
finger at arm's length, and also hold up a quarter. The quarter
will be four or five times the size of the full Moon. It will be
abot 7 feet from your face to be the size of the full Moon - 1/2
degree of arc.

 >2)  At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
 >the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
 >have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
 >it was never mentioned.

This is a myth. There is some distortion of the Moon's shape but
this "Moon effect" is only an illusion caused by our brain
"seeing" the sky as a flattened dish-shape, probably due to the
size of the clouds we see in it. We assume that the Moon, which
is the same size as usual - 1/2 degree - is huge because we
expect it to be "away over there at the horizon". Try measuring
the width of the Moon at the horizon right now and then when it
is high in the sky about midnight. To prove that the Moon is not
huge at the horizon, do what we have little kids do at the
planetarium. Face away from the Full Moon at the horizon, spread
your legs and bend over and look at the Moon between your legs.
Your brain will not be fooled when you do it this way.

 >We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
 >horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
 >mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
 >extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
 >the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

Astronomical objects rarely just "blink out" at the real horizon.
Maybe at building roofs, etc. or perhaps at the top of a mountain.
They fade out. "Zooming away" is not an unusual way in which
Venus fades out.

 >3)  You also completely omit discussing the following from my
 >first post: (Rudiak)

 >"C) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the
 >distance. At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have
 >remained well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
 >disappeared. It fact, it didn't set until about 9:20. You can't
 >have it both ways, with Venus supposedly being brilliantly
 >bright and otherwise highly visible (to supposedly account for
 >the report), yet supposedly disappearing as well."

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

 >I read the above and said to myself, "Hmmn, Rudiak has a good
 >point there." Bob Young says it was very bright. So how could it
 >completely disappear?"

The sequence of events would have been:

1) Carter sees Venus
2) Carter sees Venus fading behind clouds
3) Carter no longer sees Venus and goes inside
4) Venus is no longer visible, or it might have become visible
again when Carter was inside.
5) Venus reaches the local horizon and would not have been
able to be seen any more

 >4)  And omitted discussing this: (Cameron) (Long Cameron quote:
 >last paragraph of the at the URL below) [jc emphasis added
 >below is mine.]

 >"The witnesses declared that the object disappeared
 >after 10 minutes or at 7:25 p.m. Venus, on the evening
 >in question, was visible in the clear sky till 9:20 p.m. If
 >it had been Venus, it would still have been visible for
 >another 115 minutes after the witnesses claimed it had
 >disappeared in a clear sky. ...snip... _Venus does not
 >disappear_, and would have been eliminated as a
 >suspect ....snip...."

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

Please refer, again, to my sequence of events, #2 through 5.

 >I think most astronomers would agree, Venus doesn't "set" until
 >it "sets" That's why astronomers have assigned it a "setting
 >time." (i.e. it doesn't just disappear at whim.)

Only those astronomers who observe on the airless, cloudless
Moon would make such a statement.

 >5)  And you also omitted this important statement (Cameron);
 >found within that same post:

 >"Carter described the object as being the 'size of the
 >moon' or 'slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
 >moon.' Venus never appears this way."
 >(Long Cameron quote: 4 paragraphs before the end of the )

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

Venus _always_ appears a "smaller" (dimmer?) than the apparent
"size" (brightness?) of the Moon.

 >None of us need the moon present to remember the "relative" size. (i.e.
 >moon: large, star-like planet: small.) You can simply see the
 >other visible stars/planets and judge what you see from that.

Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
IFOs.

 >6)  Was Cameron also incorrect when he said?
 >[Long Cameron quote: Paragraphs 4-7 at URL below]

 >"Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
 >conclusions were wrong because they relied on
 >eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony is
 >unreliable. There are, wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of
 >scientific analysis documenting unreliability of
 >unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony." Yet
 >Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
 >eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the
 >data that he collected to come to his Venus
 >conclusion.

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

The point is that many witnesses saw nothing exciting and only
one was excited.

 >7)  And was I really incorrect when I said ...?

 >"BTW, we get a hint of the lengths Sheaffer is willing to go to
 >debunk a case when we note his 'expose' of Rosalyn Carter.

You will note that Robert has little vignettes about other
politicians on his website.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:20:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
 >comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
 >only as big as "your little fingernail."

 >Let's see what else we know here:

 >1)   As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
 >moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
 >quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
 >don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
 >moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
 >present.

 >2)   At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
 >the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
 >have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
 >it was never mentioned.

 >We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
 >horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
 >mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
 >extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
 >the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.


Jerry,

When discussing sizes of celestial object with reference to such
items as a "quarter" or "fingernail", it is meaningless to
reference these items without a complete spatial reference.

I assure you that if you observe the largest full moon you can
see and compare it to a U.S. quarter dollar coin held at arm's
length, you will find that the moon appears much smaller.

In fact, the moon appears smaller than a dime held at arm's
length. This is well known to most experienced UFO
investigators.


Regards,

Tom Bowden







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                 'The Roswell Crash:...' Not Scheduled In UK

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:03:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:31:27 -0500
Subject: 'The Roswell Crash:...' Not Scheduled In UK


Hi List,

Just discovered the UK version of the Sci Fi Channel, which is
somewhat different and autonomous to the American equivalent,
does not have any scheduled plans to air 'The Roswell Crash:
Startling New Evidence' over here. So by the time it may feature
(?) the last wisp of smoke from the gun may have long dwindled
high in the sky.

It could prove a bit difficult for UK researchers to provide
input to any explosions or smoke that blows through Updates
after 22 November. May I suggest any interested parties in the
UK, on list, get in touch with UK Sci Fi online and request
purchasing and showing?


Best Regards

Gary Anthony








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                       MUFON 2002 Paper By Jeff Sainio

From: Jim Dilettoso <jim@villagelabs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:02:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:37:06 -0500
Subject: MUFON 2002 Paper By Jeff Sainio


From: Jim Dilettoso <jim@villagelabs.com>
To: Jeff Sainio <jsainio@qgraph.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:02:02 -0700
Subject: MUFON Paper by Jeff Sainio


Jeff,

I am in receipt of your paper from 2002 MUFON, which I received
via snail-mail from Bill Hamilton.

At first blush it seems very thorough and well thought out. You
make good points about both scientific procedure and ethical
insights that I was pleased to see for a general audience.

This is a paper that warrants and deserves, careful reading,
which I will do and provide technical comments in a later
communique.

I would be skeptical of your approach to UFO picture testing,
(if it were based only on your degreed studies in computer
science) were it not for your background in both broadcast
television and the complexities of pre-press and printing.

Your combination of academic and (advanced) practical
engineering implies that you have developed the requisite
antecedents to do this work.

I did read your Patents at the on-line Patent Office and I am
aware that you are a registered Patent Agent.

So... I am not skeptical of your capabilities to test images and
make proper postulates about how they may have been hoaxed.

Moreover, I am interested to discover the appropriate
application of your theories of image processing to the problem
of discovery of hoaxes in UFOlogy, be it Mexico City or New York
City.

Hopefully, the procedures that you prepared for this paper are
existent in the application of each and every picture that you
test.

I will continue to assume that the integrity you appear to have
prevails over your beliefs or your opinions when testing these
images.

Do expect to see a rather technical inquiry from me, after I
have read your paper in detail and concur with your techniques.

I will continue to send you images that I receive - for your
opinion.


Regards,

Jim Dilettoso







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:43:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:40:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:15:08 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

Mr. Hall:

 >Paul,

 >I disagree with your entire philosophy of news vs. entertainment
 >as espoused here, which is the reason that I have refused to
 >give interviews for several years now. When I turn on the
 >network news or CNN or Fox news, I don't want to be entertained,
 >I want to find out what is going on in the world. And if they
 >don't provide that, I exercise the "off" switch.

With respect, I think you may have missed my point. CNN and Fox
are structured as entertainment, which is why there are so few
positive and/or serious news stories aired, and so many violent
and/or worthless ones (does the question of Winona Ryder's guilt
or innocence really matter in the grand scheme of things?). I
prefer the BBC, or the CBC, which at least make an effort. As a
viewer, I am on your side. As a producer, I have no choice but
to walk a very fine line, because if I can't sell a project to
the network, it won't get made. Period. That's the system, and I
would suggest that it is the viewers themselves who have created
and perpetuated that system.

 >When I watch the Sci-Fi Channel specials on November 22, they damn well
 >better not be "entertainment". As a frequent victim of it, I
 >think the "news as entertainment" concept sucks and I won't have
 >any part of it. In your Friedman special you even admit seeking
 >conflict and "antagonism" rather than an informative story line
 >and serious facts. Shame on you!

I didn't seek conflict on the Friedman special - it existed in
spades. To deny that it exists - on all maters ufological - is
absurd, and a disservice to the inquiring minds that I suspect
you hope will take a closer look at your point of view. Within
your own field, as I discovered, people disagree vehemently
about things such as MJ-12 and Roswell, or the commercialization
of ufology. Shame on me for putting both sides of the argument
out there? The kind of film you suggest I make would be little
more than well-intentioned propoganda I'm afraid. Again, as long
as I don't misrepresent the views of the people in the film,
what should I be ashamed of? It's not like I put "Kevin Randle,
arch-debunker" under Kevin's image as he spoke. Rather, it was
"Dr. Kevin Randle, UFO author / investigator", who just happened
to disagree with Stan on a couple of key points.

Even with the 'conflict', I still had a reviewer from the Globe
and Mail (Canada's so-called 'national newspaper') criticize the
film for being too serious, and too earnest, which should tell
you just how fine a line it is that people like me have to walk.

On the other hand, another reviewer for the Glabe called it a
"hoot", right before he also said (approvingly) that 'it takes
the man and his message seriously'. The trick is always to do
both, and I'm sorry that you've apparently run across some of
the worst examples of people in my line of work.

The film is far from perfect, but the kind of review I always
look for goes thusly:

'a balanced portrait of the controversial UFO expert... an
entertaining and fast-paced documentary that makes a substantive
contribution to the UFO discourse.' - atlanticzone.ca

Sometimes, as a producer, you can have your cake and eat it too.

 >A few years ago I was interviewed on one of the major network
 >evening news programs, and mine was the only segment on the
 >topic for which they introduced hokey background music and
 >showed totally irrelevant film footage of atomic bomb shelters
 >over my voice while I was trying to make some serious points in
 >the "sound bites" format (which, incidentally, is another
 >abomination and not really necessary as CNN demonstrates daily
 >with much longer pieces).

In a 48 minute film - an hour for television, not including
commercials, which should remind you right there of why there is
a need to entertain - 'soundbites' are unavoidable. CNN, as a
news network, is no exception. FYI - I pitched Space (the
Canadian equivalent to the SCi-Fi Channel) an idea where it
would be a one on one debate between Stan and Karl Pflock vis-a-
  vis Roswell, just the kind of program you advocate. Not even
remotely interested. I have a sneaking suspicion that CNN would
say the same thing. If a private donor would give me the money,
I'd happily stage it without a broadcaster. I'm still waiting
for the cheque, however.

 >About the same time, I was virtually sneered at on a CNN daytime
 >news program in a studio (live) interview by a prominent anchor;
 >not just my impression either because one of the cameramen
 >volunteered the same interpretation to me later. He kept
 >interrupting me and not allowing me to complete a sentence, and
 >obviously thought UFOs were utter nonsense and pretty much said
 >so in his wrap-up. Why, then, even bother to ask me for my
 >views?

Because your views, as far as I can tell from my research,
matter, and should be heard by a wider audience. And because not
everybody who sees the piece is going to agree with the anchor.

 >Sorry, I call this kind of treatment irresponsible, shabby, and
 >totally unacceptable.

No argument there.

 >Having had similar experiences with TV documentary and
 >special producers, I also refuse to participate
 >in them without a very clear understanding (which they are
 >unwilling to give.) John Velez is right; we must boycott them.

While I have a great deal of respect your contributions over the
years to the field of ufology, your 'my way or the highway'
attitude, and failure to come to terms with the realities of the
film and television industry, probably guarantees that the only
people who hear of them are those already sitting in the
proverbial choir.

 >You are right that "the show will go on," but it will go on
 >without the best informed and most experienced people as
 >interviewees and will suffer accordingly. I don't care to "make
 >a contribution" to garbage; I'll just sit on the sidelines,
 >thank you.

I say once again, as a member of the great mass of people who
would vote yes on the 'balance of probabilities' and no on 'the
beyond a reasonable doubt' standards of proof with respect to
UFOs - that's a shame.

 >- Very sincerely,

 >  Dick Hall

With respect,

Paul Kimball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:06:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:44:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'


Dear Mr. Velez:

 >>Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film is
 >>entertainment, even as it informs - even documentaries, and even
 >>news (especially news!). And, as there is no consensus about
 >>matters ufological, conflict more than acceptable - it is the
 >>nature of the beast.

 >Sure, to a large extent the media provides what the public
 >wants. But... you have to admit that there is also a lot
 >pandering by the media to the lowest common denominator in many
 >instances.

I agree. See my post to Dick Hall with respect to the above, and
why the pandering exists.

 >The problem with all this is; when it comes to the subject of
 >UFOs the public is not getting the whole story. Rather, they are
 >more often than not exposed to whatever point of view a
 >particular producer may think will put asses in the seats the
 >night their program airs.

The producer is motivated by what the broadcaster wants. The
broadcaster is motivated by the need for ratings. The need for
ratings requires viewers, which requires entertainment,
conflict. The hope is that a good producer and director can
blend that in with a serious discussion of whatever the topic
may be, but, yes, the asses do have to end up in the seats.

 >That, has nothing at all to do with, and very often conflicts
 >with, the honest representation and reporting of a phenomenon
 >that affects us all. And quite possibly affects us in a negative
 >fashion. There is an urgency to all of this that few are able to
 >fully appreciate. We simply don't have time to putz around and
 >play 'games.' Too much is at stake for us to indulge our own
 >continued ignorance.

The honest representation of a story, I would hope you agree,
means that both sides should be heard. For abductions, that
means the abductees, treated with respect, and those who are
skeptical, treated with the same respect.

 >>>Without us... they have no Show.

 >>Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >>subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >>television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >>especially the news.

 >I wonder how 'entertaining' people would find being dragged out
 >of their homes in the middle of the night in their underwear by
 >non-human entities who subject them to all kinds of invasive,
 >terrifying and _dehumanizing_ procedures.

Not very entertaining at all, obviously. On the other hand,
there are many people who are convinced that there are a myriad
of other explanations for these experiences. Most of us, I
think, are just curious, and want to hear both sides of the
story. I couldn't agree more, however, that the media should
take the whole question of UFOs (and all related sub-topics)
much more seriously.

 >People better wake up, and soon. There's nothing amusing or
'>entertaining' going on. What is happening to me and mine today
 >can be happening to you and yours tomorrow.

 >Laugh now... pay later.

I think the term 'entertainment' is what is be-deviling us here.
If you define it as I do - something that people will want to
watch and that also puts forward both sides of a complicated and
unresolved (at least to the public) issue, I hope we would be
able to agree. If, as I suspect, you define it as a
trivialization of the issue, or a misrepresentation of your
views in order to make a pre-conceived point (ie. abductions are
bunk) on the part of the producer / director / network, or a
show where computer generated aliens and dramatic reproductions
are more important than what is actually said, then I agree
wholeheartedly with you.

 >>The question is whether ufologists want to make a contribution
 >>to it, or sit on the sidelines. If taking your case and
 >>presenting it to as many people as possible is the goal, then
 >>sometimes you have to take your chances, and sometimes you might
 >>get burned. It seems to me, however, that the potential reward
 >>is worth the risk.

 >I've been doing just that for over seven years now, Paul. And
 >I've been burned about as badly as anyone can be. I have
 >survived it all and managed to keep my focus only because I am
 >always acutely aware of the _urgency_ of the situation and
 >because I feel a _deep_ sense of responsibility to my fellow
 >man. People in my position cannot enjoy the luxury of disbelief.
 >My 'way' is always clear before me. I have no choice. I would
 >not be able to live with myself if I kept my mouth shut about
 >what I know and said nothing.

 >We (witnesses/abductees) are not (for the most-part) 'amused' or
'>entertained' by what we see the media feeding the public. We
 >are even less amused when we are "used" in order to advance a
 >dishonest and completely self-serving agenda. There's going to
 >be a huge price to pay for all that 'entertainment' one day and
 >for all the dismissive and damaging snickering and ridicule.

I'm sorry this has been your experience with film and
television. We're not all like that, as we try to navigate
between the need to entertain and the desire to inform.

 >I, for one, will not knowingly contribute to their efforts to
 >'entertain' the public in this fashion. It's a dangerous and
 >irresponsible road they walk down. I can only speak for myself,
 >but they'll all have to take the trip down that perilous road
 >alone and without my cooperation I'm afraid. Me and my 'truth'
 >will take that less travelled, little, dirt road off to the side
 >there thank you very much.

As someone who has spent the past two years lurking on the List,
who has enjoyed (in the best, 'search for the truth' meaning of
the word) reading your thought-provoking contributions, and who
admires your courage in sharing your experience, I regret that
your contact with film and television have led you to this
conclusion. It is our loss.

 >Regards,

 >John Velez, Victim of a 'hatchet job' perpetrated by NOVA


Best wishes,

Paul Kimball
Producer/Director who has never worked for NOVA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                    PRG/X-PPAC/D2003 Update - November 18

From: Stephen Bassett <Disclosure2003@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:23:04 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:06:37 -0500
Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003 Update - November 18


PRG
Paradigm Research Group

Update - November 18, 2002
[Sent to combined PRG/X-PPAC/D2003 mail list.]

Paradigm Clock Reset

PRG issued a press release on November 13 announcing the
Paradigm Clock had been reset to 11:58:30 pm - 30 seconds closer
to midnight. The explanations and events behind this move are
available in the release at:

www.paradigmclock.com/Press_Releases/Press_releases.html#11-13-02


The UFO Abduction Phenomenon: A Symposium

[Note: this symposium will be netcast live on Tuesday, November
19, at 7:30 pm EST at: www.scifi.com/ufo]

SCI FI Channel brings together the world's most highly regarded
abduction investigators/authors for the first time to explore
facts and theories of this controversial phenomenon. This is
prelude to the December airing of "Steven Spielberg Presents
Taken," a ten-part miniseries. Morton Dean will moderate the
panel composed of Dr. John Mack, Budd Hopkins and Dr. David
Jacobs.

Morton Dean is a highly regarded, award-winning news
correspondent. He is currently the voice of History Channel and
A&E Biography documentaries, host/reporter of a monthly 60-
minute cable network science show, and heard on National Public
Radio commenting on politics and terrorism. As a correspondent
he covered many historic, stories around the world for CBS News
(20 years) and ABC News (14 years). He anchored regular
newscasts for both networks. Dean also anchored hundreds of
network news specials, documentaries and breaking news stories
for both networks.

John Mack, M.D., is a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical
School and founder of the Department of Psychiatry at Cambridge
Hospital. His research into the spiritual and transformational
aspects of the alien encounter phenomenon was first presented in
his 1994 book Abduction and expanded upon in the 1999 book
Passport to the Cosmos. His other writings include the 1977
Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of T.E. Lawrence, A Prince of
Our Disorder.

Budd Hopkins pioneered the first systematic research into
accounts of human abductions. He is the author of Missing Time,
Intruders - The Incredible Visitation at Copley Woods, the basis
for a 1992 CBS miniseries, and Witnessed - The True Story of the
Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions.

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History at Temple
University, is one of the world's most respected UFO abduction
researchers. Jacobs' books include The UFO Controversy in
America, Secret Life: Firsthand Accounts of UFO Abductions, and
The Threat.


D2003 Report

A report on the Disclosure2003 campaign will be out shortly.


History/Learning/Discovery Channels

It has been noted that all three of these cable channels, have
cut way back on airing of archived and new UFO/ET documentaries.
  Also, PRG has been informed by a reliable source that the
Discovery Channel is no longer accepting documentaries which are
"pro UFO."

PRG considers this most interesting, but predicts that with the
election over and the SCI FI Channel making major moves, all
three channels will reverse course soon.


Continuing the Activism

With the D2003 Campaign over for now, the focus turns to keeping
the activism moving forward. In that regard PRG director,
Stephen Bassett, will continue speaking to the key issues in
venues across the country.

Efforts to raise money for X-PPAC and the D2003 campaign fund,
which remains open, will go forward.

Also, PRG is seeking the one-year donation of the use of an
unfurnished house in the Washington metro area (preferably in
the District itself), with an option to rent a second year.

Some of the D2003 staff have expressed a willingness to live and
work out of a central location in the fashion of Nader's Raiders
in the 1970's.


X-PPAC Congressional Alert

X-PPAC issued a Congressional Alert on November 6 highlighting
the developing SCI FI initiatives - symposiums, Coalition for
Freedom of Information, retaining of the PR firm,
PodestaMattoon, etc. It can be seen at:

www.x-ppac.org/Alerts.html


Data Quality Act

PRG is reviewing the work of Francis Knize who is in the process
of challenging NASA using the Data Quality Act, which just
became active on October 1, 2002. The DQA sets standards for
the quality of scientific and statistical information put out by
federal agencies.

As most of you know, the UFO/ET question is the most utilized
target for the submission of FOIA requests. Now there is
another tool to keep the pressure on.


'Close Encounter'/'Contact' Watch

As stated in earlier Updates, PRG believes one indication of a
pending disclosure event will be a substantial increase in the
airings of 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and 'Contact'.
Both movies are controlled by Turner. Here is the present
account for 2002. All times EST.

Contact - Friday, March 15, 02 8 pm Turner
Close Encounters - Friday, March 15, 02 11 pm Turner
Contact - Wednesday, May 8, 02 2 am Turner
Contact - Thursday, May 30, 02 10:30 pm Turner
Contact - Friday, May 31, 02 2 pm Turner
Contact - Saturday, August 3, 02 1 pm Turner
Close Encounters- Monday, August 26, 02 10 pm Turner
Contact - Wednesday, October 2, 02 8 pm FX
Contact - Fri. October 18 11 pm FX
Contact - Sun November 10 8 m FX
____________________________________________________

         Paradigm Research Group
        URL: www.paradigmclock.com
        E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
         Phone: 301-990-4290
          Cell: 202-431-2459
        4938 Hampden Lane, #161
         Bethesda, MD 20814
_____________________________________________________

   "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
     if you are willing to give away the credit."
_____________________________________________________

   "Intellectual passion is found at the intersection
        of fact and implication."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                        C.A. Honey Hunting The Truth

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:31:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:31:36 -0500
Subject: C.A. Honey Hunting The Truth

http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203%257E21481%257E998080,00.html

Article Last Updated: Monday, November 18, 2002 - 1:50:43 AM MST

Hunting The Truth
Ontario author says he knows where UFOs come from

By Brenda Gazzar
Staff Writer

ONTARIO -- Author C.A. Honey of Ontario calls himself a skeptic.
Many others, he says casually, think he's a wacko.

Honey, 74, has spent the last 45 years of his life seeking the
truth about UFOs and "space people.' His new book "Flying
Saucers: 50 Years Later,' published in yellow paperback by a
Canadian company, was released earlier this year.

http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0108.html

Honey, a television repairman and a former design engineering
supervisor at Hughes Aircraft Co. in Fullerton, wrote the book
because he needed the money and wanted to promote his agenda, he
said.

"It's exposing about 95 to 97 percent of the phony stuff in the
field and setting people straight as to what is going on,' he
said. "A lot of people are interested in UFOs and flying
saucers, but all they know is all this propaganda that is being
put out by so many people.'

Honey became interested in UFO phenomena after he spotted a UFO
in the late 50s while he lived in Seattle, he said.

Honey, who served in the U.S. Navy and Air Force and is also a
professional hypnotist, makes several claims in the book.

UFOs, he says, originate from another planet still unknown to
present day astronomers.

According to Honey, mankind did not originate on Earth through
normal evolution but is the result of a special creation
performed by the Nefilim who came to this solar system about
450,000 years ago as documented in ancient Sumerian writings.

He said the government has participated in a disinformation
campaign, including the use of hypnosis, to confuse the truth
and is concealing it from all those who could not accept it at
this time.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, space people do not look like
insects or reptilians, but in fact look like you and me, he
said.

Pat Linse, founder of the Altadena-based Skeptic Society, said
Honey's claims are more religious than scientific.

"If they were scientific, people in all these other fields would
agree with him more,' she said, citing geneticists, biologists,
archaeologists and biblical scholars. "He's just an isolated
figure whose come up with some very appealing ideas.'

Honey's knowledge is the the result of logic, years of personal
experience and research in the field, circumstantial evidence
and research from pundits like Zecharia Sitchin, a Sumerian
scholar, Honey said. Honey added that he does not like to talk
about his personal encounters since he has no way of proving
them.

"I think that what I write is logical, it makes sense and I
document very heavily just about everything I do and why I
believe the way I do on things,' he said.

Honey, the son of evangelists, said he is on a campaign against
"religious wackos' -- which he distinguishes from mainstream
religious denominations -- who say that flying saucers come out
of hellfire and are piloted by demons.

Honey, who adds that he believes in God, also makes the claim
that all religions are man-made. He does not know why the space
visitors are visiting Earth, he added.

Honey was a ghostwriter and colleague for the late ufologist
George Adamski until Honey dissolved their partnership in 1963.
He did so, he said, because he disagreed with some of the later
claims Adamski was making, including that he visited the planet
Saturn in a spacecraft.

Honey has published 81 articles in the field, close to 25 of
which are reprints of publications from other authors, which he
sends to people free of charge over the Internet, he said. His
writings have generated questions and comments from people
around the world. Honey writes from his office, which is full of
books and has a small section dedicated to flying saucers and
alien memorabilia.

"I'm sincere in my beliefs and I make a standing statement that
if anybody can come up with any documented evidence that I'm
wrong about some of these things, I want to know about it,
because I want to know the truth,' he said.

Brenda Gazzar can be reached by e-mail at
brenda.gazzar@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-9355.

http://hometown.aol.com/choneyufo/myhomepage/index.html

[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                 A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:36:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:36:06 -0500
Subject: A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62346-2002Nov16.html

Monday, November 18, 2002; Page A12


A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow
Scientists Contemplate Ideas, Impossibilities of Interstellar
Transit

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer

So: It's about 7:45 p.m. in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on a chill,
blustery December night, when this "big round thing" with
flashing red lights suddenly crashes in Big Lake Park, just off
North Eighth Street.

Eleven witnesses, including cops and firefighters, either see
the crash or rush to the scene within 15 minutes to watch the
flames from the molten metal -- mostly carbon steel -- that
covers the ground.

It happened on Dec. 17, 1977. The "big round thing" that local
resident Criss Moore saw hovering in the air 25 years ago has
never been explained.

No one knows if aliens are really blowing up their starships
over Council Bluffs. But if extraterrestrial life forms are
visiting from time to time, somewhere some sentient beings must
have figured out a way to transit interstellar space.
Discussions about unidentified flying objects march hand in hand
with the feasibility of interstellar space travel.

Earlier this month, George Washington University and the Sci-Fi
Channel sponsored a symposium at the university where serious
people took up these two topics. Scientists agreed that we won't
be doing star trips anytime soon, but "soon" may not mean much
in the context of the cosmos.

"The universe is 14 billion years old," said symposium panelist
Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist from City University of New
York. "Human civilization only began 5,000 years ago."

So give science a chance.

The trick, of course, is to be able to travel faster than the
speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- which is as fast
as anything travels in the world as we understand it, but not
nearly fast enough to commute to stars. Our nearest stellar
neighbor, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away.

There are glimmers about how this problem might be overcome.
They involve bending space-time in such a way that one could
scoot Enterprise-like through the cosmos.

One way is through "warp speed," implying that we can move
faster than light through space-time by distorting space-time
itself. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
likens warp drive to a moving sidewalk: A person walks at one
speed but travels much faster because the sidewalk moves as
well.

Another way to distort space-time is by harnessing an enormous
amount of energy -- like that of an entire star -- to create a
pathway, or "wormhole," connecting two points that used to be
separated.

Suppose, Kaku said, "you wanted to get from one side of a rug to
the other, and instead of walking across, you used a big hook to
pull the other side of the rug close to you. Then you just
stepped over." By crumpling the rug, you built the wormhole,
Kaku said: "It's like Alice Through the Looking Glass -- you
start in Oxford, then step through the wormhole and you're in
Wonderland."

Which is where all of this is right now. The theories are
neither proven nor discounted, the science doesn't exist to
describe these phenomena with the necessary rigor, and the
engineering needed to pull off the technological feats can't
even as yet be contemplated.

"I like to speculate about this stuff as much as the next guy,
but it's really hard to do," said Ralph L. McNutt Jr., chief
scientist for the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory. "There is no obvious way
of getting to warp drive out there."

Instead, McNutt would test the limits of the real world. He is
leading a team that has suggested to NASA's Institute for
Advanced Concepts the possibility of sending a 340-pound probe
powered by nuclear generators into interstellar space to a
distance of 93 billion miles from Earth. "It's still not far
away," McNutt said, noting that a light-year is more than 63
times farther, but it will test the current limits of
technology.

At NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, scientists have moved a bit
further with what the laboratory's Henry M. Harris calls the
"proof of concept" for a "beamed energy sail" that could cut
travel time to Proxima Centauri from 400 centuries (in a rocket)
to a mere 40 years.

Using a lightweight, high-temperature-resistant, carbon-based
sail material, the JPL proposal envisions a starship pushed deep
into the solar system by a huge laser: "We could get to Jupiter
in eight hours and be moving at a tenth of the speed of light,"
Harris said.

Harris said that JPL and the sailmaker, Energy Science
Laboratories Inc. of San Diego, have accelerated small sails in
vacuum chambers "at a few g's" and that "we can extrapolate that
material for a spacecraft accelerating at 100 g's." One g is the
measurement of the force of gravity on an object at rest on
Earth.

But 10 percent of light speed still isn't very fast, and "we
can't go much faster," Harris said, because even a speck of dust
"could do serious damage in a high-speed interstellar
collision."

So the message is that comfortable, interstellar space travel --
  at least by Earthlings -- is not on for now. But will it ever
be?

This is a hard question to get at, but what evidence there is
suggests that thinking people believe it will. GWU panelist
Peter Sturrock, an emeritus physicist from Stanford University,
suggested that scientists tend to give credence to UFO reports -
- as long as they are polled by secret ballot.

Ted Roe, executive director of the privately funded National
Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, found in an
aircrew survey of a major airline that 25 percent of the
respondents had seen something they couldn't explain, but
virtually no one had reported it. Aircrews, like untenured
physicists, can get the sack for reporting a UFO sighting.

But if UFOs are real, then so is interstellar space travel, even
though "when you talk about going faster than light speed, then
you're talking about [harnessing] the energy of stars," Kaku
said.

For Earth, this is probably attainable in "100,000 to 1 million
years," Kaku added. "When I look at the age of the universe, I
see that we've attained technology in the blink of an eye.
There's plenty of time."

Others are not so sure. Princeton astrophysicist J. Richard Gott
III invoked the Copernican Principle -- a bedrock tenet of the
scientific method -- which holds that nothing is "special."

If interstellar space travel were common, then "the Earth would
have been colonized by extraterrestrials a long time ago," Gott
said. "The Copernican Principle tells us that a significant
fraction of the intelligent observers in the universe must be
sitting at home on their own planets, or they'd be special. If
they aren't, then we're special."

Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company


[UFO UpDates thanks www.theanomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:48:31 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

  <snip>

 >I assure you that if you observe the largest full moon you can
 >see and compare it to a U.S. quarter dollar coin held at arm's
 >length, you will find that the moon appears much smaller.

 >In fact, the moon appears smaller than a dime held at arm's
 >length. This is well known to most experienced UFO
 >investigators.

Tom, Jerry:

Tom is right, I just compacted the nearly Full Moon to a dime
held at arm's length: the dime was about 3 Moon-widths, thus a
quarter would be about 4 Moons, or about 2 degrees across.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                     Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:16:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

Robert Sheaffer has asked me to post the following comment about
this discussion and one on another List about the Betty Hill
sighting.

Bob Young

---

"Bob,

Fundamentally, Greg Sandow is arguing that no witness of any
event, UFO or otherwise, ever makes the slightest error or
misperception in later recounting it. Therefore, if there is
even a minor discrepancy between what was _reported_, and the
proposed prosaic explanation, then the prosaic explanation is
excluded. It follows from Greg's line of argument that
eyewitness accounts, such as Mrs. Hill's, are not merely
reliable, but little short of _infallible_. (This, of course,
flies in the face of everything that is known about the
inaccuracy and malleability of human perception and memory.)

Similarly, people are arguing that since Jimmy Carter said that
his UFO was 30 degrees up, and Venus was only 25 degrees up,
Carter's UFO couldn't possibly have been Venus. Same argument,
same fallacy.

In both cases, the ufologists are ignoring an important
skeptical argument: If Betty Hill was seeing a real UFO, then
there would have been _3_ starlike objects near the moon:
Jupiter, Saturn, and the UFO. But she reported seeing only two.
Similarly, Carter did not say that he saw two bright objects
towards the west - Venus and his UFO - he saw only one."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:32:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:17:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Velez


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:07:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:45:13 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]

 ><snip>

 >>>You do get lied to. You never know what's going to happen in
 >>>post-production.

 >>Shades of NOVA! When Budd asked me to participate in the NOVA
 >>segment I insisted on speaking with the segment producer myself
 >>before I made my decision. At that meeting with Denise DiIanni
 >>and her assistant I was assured that NOVA was going to take an
 >>impartial look at the abduction phenomenon and that the
 >>witnesses/abductees were going to be given a "fair hearing". I
 >>even volunteered to take any kind of tests (physical,
 >>psychological or otherwise) that may have wished to perform.

 ><snip>

Hi Don,

You wrote:

 >Hi John,

 >Didn't realize that you were in on that production.

Doing NOVA was how my case first became public. It was also the
reason I was invited (originally) to participate in this forum.
I didn't _ever_ want to go public. I didn't 'volunteer' for any
of this.

I was drafted!

Budd called me and asked me if I'd participate because he wanted
to present the NOVA staff with the most 'solid' cases and people
that he had in his cache. Appearing on that program was one of
the hardest decisions I ever made. If I was going to 'come out'
I knew it was going to take an all out commitment. Not just for
the duration of the program but for a long time afterwards.
Because I have never been a 'half-stepper' about _anything_ I
have committed myself to... seven years down the road, here I
am.  :)

Originally I did it for Budd. Out of deep gratitude for all he'd
done to help me through a very rough patch in my life. And
simply because _he_ asked me to. _All_ of the TV and radio
programs and interviews (with few exceptions) that I have done
in the past were done because Budd asked me to and because I
felt a deep sense of gratitude to the man. At one time, the list
of things I wouldn't do for him was very short indeed. It had
absolutely nothing to do with 'getting on TV' or 'making a name'
for myself. I felt like I owed it to Budd to be there for him
the same way that he was there for me.

 >But yes,
 >Budd was certainly screwed over in that case. It would have been
 >interesting to see the stuff they cut out. This just proves that
 >NOVA's integrity is only as deep as whatever credibility they
 >suck out of their other production talents.

What they ignored (as opposed to 'cut out') was all the physical
evidence. The medical reports, the pictures of the scoop marks
and scars on the bodies of the abductees, lab reports on ground
trace evidence, and multiple witness cases. What the public
missed out on was the 'evidence,' circumstantial though it may
be, for what we were/are reporting.

Facts:

Short of invasive surgery, I was willing to volunteer for _any_
kind of tests that the NOVA experts may have wanted. They not
only lied to the public, they squandered a golden opportunity to
do some 'real' and socially relevant science reporting. You'd
think that anyone doing good science reporting would have jumped
on such an offer. They did nothing.

On top of which, they failed miserably with their attempt at a
hatchet job!

After the original airing, John Mack threatened to sue them
and they had to go back and re-edit the program in order to
remove libelous material. The segment that airs today as a
re-run is _not_ the original program that was aired the first
time.

That one, single program received the _highest_ (negative)
viewer response in the history of the series. WGBH had to put
on extra security because they were receiving 'threats' over
that presentation. It wasn't just the participants that were
unhappy with what they tried to pull, the public was pissed
too. And in very large numbers. The whole thing back-fired
on them. NOVA lost a lot of viewers and a lot of credibility
because of that segment.

 >As for dropping out of all productions to teach them a lesson,
 >I'm not sure who will be the ones who suffer.

Yeah, that's what keeps me coming back to the school-yard every
day. If we each don't lend our voices then who is going to say
the things we know _need_ to be said and that nobody else is
saying?  Until somebody comes along who can really speak for
me... I'll continue to speak for myself.

I can only hope that in the final analysis all the effort will
have done some good. That I will have made a small but useful
contribution.

 >If we can believe the polls of late-there is some understanding
 >of what's going on amongst the general public. They must be
 >getting that somewhere. Hopefully it's the right information and
 >not just media and production generated hype.

We can safely take 'some' of the credit for that. And why not?
We spend years working like slaves, using our own $ in order to
get the job of keeping others properly informed accomplished.

A friend used to tell me that, "no good deed ever goes
unpunished."

S.O.B. was right.   :)


Regards,

John Velez, in tattered but shiny armor







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

              Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:35:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:20:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:43:06 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:41:13 -0500
 >>Subject: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium

 >>Source:  The Washington Post

 >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62346-2002Nov16.html

 >>A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow
 >>Scientists Contemplate Ideas, Impossibilities of Interstellar Transit

 >>By Guy Gugliotta
 >>Washington Post Staff Writer

 >>Monday, November 18, 2002; Page A12

 >>So: It's about 7:45 p.m. in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on a chill,
 >>blustery December night, when this "big round thing" with
 >>flashing red lights suddenly crashes in Big Lake Park, just off
 >>North Eighth Street.

 >>Earlier this month, George Washington University and the Sci-Fi
 >>Channel sponsored a symposium at the university where serious
 >>people took up these two topics. Scientists agreed that we won't
 >>be doing star trips anytime soon, but "soon" may not mean much
 >>in the context of the cosmos.

 >John is light years ahead of me in technological expertise. (-;


Hi Dick,

All the credit belongs to you. I don't read the Washington Post,
you do. If it wasn't for your heads-up about the article this
morning I never would have known about it.

All I did was to copy & paste some hard-copy from a web
page. You were the one who found and read the article and
then alerted some friends about it.

So, thank _you_ Mr. Hall.  :)

And hopefully without starting to sound maudlin.....

I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly thank Stig Agermose
who is the guy who regularly posts articles that are _always_
topical, interesting and informative. I was only poaching on
Stig's territory by posting the Washington Post article.

Thanks Stig. All your hard work on our behalf is greatly
appreciated. If you think about it for a moment, each of us on
this List has their own little job/function that they perform
for the larger group. Stig's contribution has always been to
keep us all stocked with the most recent and relevant articles
relating to UFOs to appear in print from all over the world.

No one does it better.

Regards,

John (Sammy Maudlin) 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                       11-01-02 Turkish Re-entry Case

From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos@yahoo.es>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:43:02 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:23:41 -0500
Subject: 11-01-02 Turkish Re-entry Case


Comments from UFOnet's moderator Frits Westra:

-----

From: Frits Westra <fwestra@hetnet.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:12:19 +0100
Subject: Re: " BREAKING NEWS"  WORLD  EXCLUSIVE!

Hello all,

Recent message from Sirius ("Breaking News World Exclusive!") is
irresponsible reporting. By now, Sirius should have known that
the German satellite watcher Harro Zimmer has demonstrated
clearly that the light phenomenon over Turkey was caused by the
re-entry of the third stage of a SOYUZ rocket. This SOYUZ
launched a three men crew to the ISS on 30 October.

Among satellite watchers (like me :-) Harro Zimmer is well-known
for his precise satellite re-entry predictions and analyses of
past re-entries.

A soon as I receive permission from Harro, I'll post his full
analysis of this event in Turkey to this List.


Regards,

Frits Westra
UFOnet Moderator








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:51:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:52:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - King


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >Dear Mr. Velez:

 ><snip>

 >>I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>three years.

 >'>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>that we are invited to appear in.

 >As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >always open to negotiation.

 >A case in point: When we were doing the Stan Friedman film, one
 >of the interviewees refused to be interviewed unless we removed
 >the line from the release form stating that he could not sue us
 >for (among other things) defamation - a standard clause, which
 >usually won't hold up in court, but better to have than not from
 >a producer's point of view. I could have walked away, but I
 >wanted to interview the guy (we ended up not using his material
 >for other reasons), so I agreed to strike the clause.

Sounds like it could have been me. :) The Legalese the contracts
are written in is done purposely to be difficult to understand.
They are merely to screw the amateur person to be interviewed
and protect the production company of legal recourse. The
interviewee it typically given a basic 'waive your rights'
contracts. I consider these the first round contracts only the
suckers sign. If you read them carefully they describe a myriad
of ways you can be sued, screwed, tattooed all while giving up
universal rights to yourself, videotapes, or other wares. All of
this can be negotiated away or simply don't do the production.
If the contract was in plain English you'd learn about how
they're screwing you and you won't sign it. How come the
interviewee doesn't have their own separate contract and make
the network sign it? Everyone who signs a contract should place
in a date the contract expires and say it needs to be
renegotiated.

Most producers are pretty slick, they kiss your ass up and down
all while pretending to like you to get what they want. Low
production costs! Most try to win you over by a 'power ass
kissing session' in which you get the privilege of being on TV
for 3 seconds. While they get the privilege to make a small
fortune off the interviewee. They all claim they are broke and
production is over budget and you need to help the producer out.
That same old song and dance must be taught in TV producer
college or something.


 >We edited a lot of the material as well, but never in a way that
 >undermined the basic thrust of what the person was saying.
 >However, most people are not terribly adept at speaking in
 >soundbites, which is what television requires, so editing is
 >inevitable. For example, in the interviews for the Friedman
 >film, Dr. Benson Saler spent a lot of time talking about
 >anthropological theories; what I wanted was his take on Stan and
 >Roswell. That required some editing of what he said, because he
 >often put all of the anthropological stuff in between two bits
 >where he was talking about something we wanted to use.

 >Editing can also come into play in the choice of what to use and
 >what not to use. We interviewed Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle for
 >the Friedman film. They both had a number of nice things to say
 >about Stan. Almost none of them are in the film. We used the
 >bits with Karl tearing into Majestic 12 and Roswell, and Kevin
 >into Majestic 12 and Stan's CIA and NSA blacked out documents,
 >because we needed antagonists, and Stan was quite capable of
 >saying nice things about himself (I mean that in a good way!),
 >with the help of Don Ledger, Walter Haut, and Barry Downing.
 >Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film is
 >entertainment, even as it informs - even documentaries, and even
 >news (especially news!). And, as there is no consensus about
 >matters ufological, conflict more than acceptable - it is the
 >nature of the beast.

Editing can be where they'll make you nut job or a hero. Most of
these "UFO entertainment/news" shows are pre-scripted to some
extent.

Before the TV crew arrives in your town. The producer/director
probably already has some vision of what "they need you to say".
They're not really interested in what you have to say more what
you need to say. They read of a list of loaded questions to get
a measured response and trap you into saying sound bytes that
they need. Most like you get you to say something with 'Alien'
in a sentence. Much like making a real film they know what the
show is going to be about and just need to go get all the
soundbites and cheap UFO video clips to make the show.

These shows are not here to solve anything or present
ground breaking material. They're merely 48 minutes of filler in-
between the commercials($$money$$) and that's what its all about
to the TV producer, the network, and the 5 people that own the
media.

 >>Without us... they have no Show.

 >Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >especially the news.

There will always be the Art Bell UFO whores that never turn
down a TV interview, or radio spot to promote their garbage. So
you producers always have them to sell the conflict of your
shows.

 >The question is whether ufologists want to make a contribution
 >to it, or sit on the sidelines. If taking your case and
 >presenting it to as many people as possible is the goal, then
 >sometimes you have to take your chances, and sometimes you might
 >get burned. It seems to me, however, that the potential reward
 >is worth the risk.

Paul you summed it all up just like I thought. With or without
credible people the TV producers got a job to do. Their gonna
get their soundbites from somebody, anybody. I'll be sitting on
the sidelines most of the time. I've got burned enough I'm not
helping TV producers get rich off of me. I have the internet -
what do I need TV for?


Tom King
www.ufovideo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                    Skyhook, Mantell and Charles B. Moore

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:00:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:11:43 -0500
Subject: Skyhook, Mantell and Charles B. Moore


In response to Kevin Randle's compilation of material on the
Thomas Mantell case I thought I would do a little research on
Skyhook balloons and the history of these balloons when I ran
across an interesting reference to Charles B. Moore's connection
to the Mantell case. Not only has Moore claimed responsibility
in the Roswell event, but he seems to remember participating in
the launch of the Skyhook that foiled Mantell.

At first I found this reference that seems to indicate that a
Skyhook balloon was launched in 1948 from Clinton County Air
Force Base in Ohio as part of a Naval classified research
project (classification: Confidential).

"Clinton County Air Force Base was a Strategic Air Command
bomber alert facility in the early 1960s. The All Weather Flying
Center was based at the Clinton County Army Airfield during the
late 1940s. The big Skyhook balloons, part of a classified naval
research project, were launched from Clinton County AFB in the
late 1940s.

On 07 January 1948 newspapers across the U.S. carried headlines
similar to the Louisville Courier: "F-51 and Capt. Mantell
Destroyed Chasing Flying Saucer." The "Mantell Incident" was the
most thoroughly investigated sighting of that time. Captain
Thomas Mantell died trying to reach a Skyhook balloon, launched
from Clinton County AFB. He didn't know that he was chasing a
balloon because he had never heard of the huge, 100-foot-
diameter skyhook balloons, let alone seen one. Mantell's death
was ultimately caused by the hype over UFOs, which no doubt
caused him to chase after it at all costs.

In the late 1960s Clinton was the site of a UASF Special
Operations Squadron Field Training Detachment, preparing gunship
crews for deployment to Vietnam. In 1971, the Department of
Defense closed the Clinton County Air Force Base in Wilmington,
Ohio, eliminating over 300 civilian jobs and an annual payroll
of $9 million. Wilmington citizens and the business community
banded together and turned the 1,432-acre facility into a
commercial air park, the home of Airborne Express since 1980."

source:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/clinton_county.htm

This article does not tell us how the author determined that CC
AFB was the lauch center for the Skyhook. An analysis of wind
patterns over that region would be helpful as Moore's statement
conflicts with the statement above.

A 1952 article in Life magazine said this about the Mantell case;

"One was the calamity that befell Air Force Captain Thomas F.
Mantell on Jan. 7, 1948. That afternoon Mantell and two other F-
51 fighter pilots sighted an object that looked like "an ice-
cream cone topped with red" over Godman Air Force Base and Fort
Knox, Ky. Mantell followed the strange object up to 20,000 feet
and disappeared. Later in the day his body was found in a nearby
field, the wreckage of his plane scattered for a half mile
around. It now seems possible that Mantell was one of the very
few sighters who actually were deceived by a Skyhook balloon,
but the incident is still listed as unsolved by the Air Force
files.

Source:

http://www.roswellproof.homestead.com/LIFE_1952.html

It seems the Skyhook explanation was considered from the very
beginning, but due to its classification status, confirming
information was hard to come by.

This reference from CUFON seems to give us a valid description
of the Skyhook:

"A frequent cause of "unidentified aerial object" reports is he
sighting of "Skyhook" balloons at high altitudes. The huge
balloons (73 feet in diameter and 129 feet long) ascend to
altitudes as high as 100,000 feet. The translucent polyethylene
plastic of which the balloons are made gleams brightly in the
sun. At higher altitudes, Skyhook balloons tend to lose their
spheroid shape and undulate slowly in air currents, often
assuming the shape of eggs or discs. Skyhook balloons are
released regularly from west coast launching sites by the Air.
Force under Project "Moby Dick." They have been known to drift
across the entire United States on their mission of obtaining
weather data in the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere. The
launching of one of these sky monsters is shown in the photo at
left.(photo omitted) At right is a Skyhook balloon depicted
shortly after the launching as it begins its long trip skyward.
The smaller spheres to the left are three-foot weather balloons
which are used to compute winds aloft.

Source:

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/taf_1.htm

The interesting reference to smaller balloons to compute wind
speeds is interesting and I do not know if these were always
used, but this description of Skyhook leaves little doubt that
the Skyhook was capable of changing shape with altitude, but
generally had a spheroid shape that may assume a disc shape.

Personal sighting: I saw a bright spheroid object at 5:45 AM one
morning in Phoenix in 1997 when my next door neighbor called to
alert me (and awaken me a full hour before I usually get my
morning coffee) and I observed this unusual object in the
Northwestern sky where it was hovering at a high altitude and
appeared to be lit up from inside. When I focused my telescope
on it I observed that it was a spheroidal balloon reflecting the
morning sun (the sun was still below the Eastern horizon) and I
videotaped it for later identification. A little later this
object made the news as a possible UFO until it was identified
as a cosmic ray balloon released from the State of New Mexico.

Here is the interesting addition to this report. I ran across
this posting that Charles B. Moore may have been the culprit who
helped launch the Skyhook that deceived Mantell...

"When the call came, Mantell, 25, was leading a flight of three
propeller-driven Kentucky National Guard P-51s back from a
routine training mission to Atlanta. He and his fellow pilots
responded, but the two other planes, having no oxygen, abandoned
the chase. Mantell continued through the broken clouds.

  He radioed the tower: "I'm closing in now to take a good look.
It's directly ahead of me and moving at about half my speed. The
thing looks metallic, and it's tremendous in size."

Not long afterward, radio contact was lost, and about 35 minutes
later Mantell's P-51 exploded in the air as it was diving toward
earth, not far from Franklin in Simpson County.

The crash became one of the country's most famous UFO incidents
- chronicled by many news reports as the first UFO fatality in
the world. Air Force investigators later theorized that the
object Mantell described was either the planet Venus, which was
extremely bright at that time of year, or a weather balloon.

Now there may be new light on the mystery.

Last Thursday, from his home in Socorro, N.M., retired balloon
scientist Charles Moore, former engineer in charge of the Navy's
Project Skyhook, said he is all but certain that Mantell was
chasing a balloon that he helped launch.

Moore, 74, a professor emeritus of atmospheric physics at the
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, said that on
Jan.6,1948, at Camp Ripley, Minn., he helped prepare, launch and
track a Navy Skyhook balloon that, when fully inflated, was 105
feet tall and nearly 73 feet in diameter.

He said the helium-filled balloon lifted 90,000 feet into the
frigid sky, then flew to the southeast over Illinois, Kentucky,
Tennessee and South Carolina before it finally blew out to sea
and vanished without ever releasing a parachute that held its
payload of scientific information.

"It was a cosmic-ray balloon that carried a cloud chamber
designed to test high-energy particles that come in from outside
our atmosphere," Moore said. "It was not metallic. It was
polyethelene, like a garment-cleaning bag, about one one-
thousandth of an inch thick. But if you were at the right angle
relative to the sun, it could have appeared metallic. Otto
Winnzen (the project chief) essentialy tracked the balloon by
reports of an unidentified object. He was quite sure that the
sighting over Godman field, Ky., was the balloon.

"The Navy was not at all interested in having the idea put out
at the time that the flight that caused Captain Mantell's death
was a result of one of their experiments, but we strongly
believed it was so. My memory is that I was cautioned by local
Navy officers involved with the project not to say anything
about it," Moore said. "I deeply regret that someone got
killed... and I have a deep feeling against cover-ups. I'd like
to see my history correct."

A spokesman for the Office of Naval Research in Washington said
he could neither support nor deny Moore's statements. However,
he confirmed that Skyhook balloons, which were classified
"confidential," were being used for atmospheric testing by the
Navy during 1948 in central Minnesota.

Mantell's wife, Margaret, now remarried and still living in
Louisville, was not allowed to see the wreckage of her husband's
plane. She said she was told that pieces of it were sent to
Dayton, Ohio, for investigation, and that her husband had passed
out from oxygen starvation before the crash. Mantell, who had
been among the first fliers to cross the Cherbourg Peninsula on
D-Day and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism
during World War II, was buried at Zachary Taylor National
Cemetery in Louisville.

His oldest son, Thomas Mantell III of Louisville, was not aware
of Moore's account of the Skyhook balloon but said he had heard
mention of the Skyhook theory in some of the many stories on the
incident.

He is skeptical, however, that a balloon could have been flying
half the speed of a P-51, as his father's radio message
indicated.

"The cover-up is the big thing," Mantell said. "They were very
vague with my mom...She, like me, believed that he was too good
a pilot to have gone too high and blacked out from lack of
oxygen. He'd flown too many missions without oxygen, and he knew
his capabilities. I would really like to know the real cause of
the crash. That's what befuddles me more than anything."

From: From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean@primenet.com>
Subject: IUFO: [Fwd: Capt. Mantell Jr. [[1 of 2]]]
Date: 3 Aug 1998 13:47:00 -0400
To: iufo <iufo@world.std.com>, UASR UASR <UASR@MyList.net>

Could Otto Winzenn or Moore know where the records are for these
Skyhook launches? Perhaps one of these men could provide further
info that would actually lead to the resolution of this case
providing, of course, that Moore doesn't change the figures.

It seems to me that all the reports in the Mantell case point to
a Skyhook as the source of his sighting with a 99% probability,
but with a little more digging could be increased to about a
99.9% probability.

I have always accepted some accounts of the Godman Tower radio
communications that seemed baffling indicating a possible UFO,
but have now changed my mind and I do believe that the most
likely explanation is a Skyhook balloon.

-Bill Hamilton


--
http://fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                   UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:21:23 -0500
Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?


Hello List,

While inspecting the latest that the Sci-Fi channel has to offer
on the upcoming Roswell show, I noticed something interesting
in one of the pictures. Go here:

http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
shows the crash site.

Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
do you see?


Regards,

Frank





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:17:14 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:24:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com
 >Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:40:36 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film
 >is entertainment, even as it informs -
 >even documentaries, and even news (especially news!).

There you have one tiny part of the problem, folks:
"Entertainment is about conflict". (There's a bigger problem
than "conflict" and "entertainment", but I'll focus on this
small point).

I won't be satisfied until we have "Entertainment Funerals"
filled with humor, truth and lies (conflict) for deceased news
and documentary producers. When they die, the aggrieved will be
on hand to deliver eloquent anti-eulogies at their funerals, for
entertainment and conflict purposes of the aggrieved, and to
offer a more balanced perspective of the deceased. The funeral
would be carried on television, of course. The word "NOVA" comes
to mind...

I'd be happy to put my ass in a seat for that production - even
if I have to bring my own popcorn!

Dave Morton






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:01:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Aldrich


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>Dear Mr. Velez:

 >><snip>

 >I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>>only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >>'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>>three years.

 >>>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>>that we are invited to appear in.

 >>As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >>producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >>need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >>always open to negotiation.

 >Although I do appreciate your comments Paul, I'm not surprised
 >that a lawyer would consider contracts as necessary as air. :)

 >I was talking about out and out misinformation however. My
 >comment about contracts was an aside to the main topic of media
 >deception and manipulation. Those are the real issues.

<snip>

Hi Paul, John, and List,

Not quite on your topic about media, but in the ball park:

Well, on the last NOVA production, I think we have many things
that were working there. You have Sagan telling people that the
Hills' case was the best evidence for UFOs. Really? I have never
thought so and especially for a physical scientist like Sagan
how is it the best case? Who told Sagan that? How did he get
this idea?

Now, the second thing that probably offended Sagan, a seance
conducted by Betty Hill when he visited her home. I am sure that
didn't go very far to convincing him this was real evidence.
  The star map is all well and good, but it works only if you can
demonstrate conclusively that something is there, rather than
"looks like" some actual star positions. That gets you nowhere.

So you have one of America's most popular scientific authority
telling people there is nothing to the 'best evidence'. But what
do we expect? Do we, that is, ufologists or ufo proponents, have
any responsibilities here or is it only the big bad media or
High Culture that caused this type of situation?

I think the answer is, yes, ufologists bear some of the blame!

It is almost universal that UFOs are considered in the
paranormal category. So we have the same type of phenomenon as
ghosts, spirits, occults, etc.? Really? We have been pigeon
holed by various cataloguers and others here.

Yes, there are people in ufology that think so, too, but many
others do not. Many of the same people who decry the lack of
scientific attention seem not to care that this is how ufology
is perceived - a paranormal phenomenon. Where are the cries of
protest against such categorization? I think there are few, and
many are very satisfied to be so categorized, but our evidence
is so categorized by association.

I received a telephone call awhile back that went something like
this,

Caller: "Hello, is this the Aldrich who was active in UFOs and
paranormal phenomena?"

Me: "This is Jan Aldrich and yes, I am interested in UFOs, but I
don't think paranormal has anything to do with it. They, UFOs,
exist in the physical universe, that is my concern. Who is
this?"

Caller: "My mistake, I thought you were a UFO believer?" click.

How pitiful! But, then, again a good illustration of our
situation.

John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
line of that which should be considered in ufology.

First and foremost, despite the universal theories by many
abduction investigators, I don't think we know squat about what
is occurring here. Here is, what I see from my perch, one that I
will admit has a limited field of vision.

1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from
mental health professionals. I have letters from a very
intelligent woman who apparently is also member of upper
society, and who has serious mental problems. Her story is that
the Aliens and the Communists are chasing her and have been
since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She now rides
buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place for
more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
answers at such places.

2. Some 'abductees' have stories which are very similar to child
sex abuse stories. They are tortured or used sexually by
entities who have almost complete power over them.

3. Some 'abductees' are the voice of the abductors. I call these
the "queen bees" that will tell us all there is to know about
the aliens. While people hang around listening to every word
like recievied wisdom. And, of course, each story gets better
than the one before. "I have one abductee who murdered a Grey."
"The Greys are getting tired of the Rebel Reptilians! If things
do not change, there will be an interstellar war with earth at
the center in the next six months!" I didn't make this up, but
heard this at the 1996 MUFON Symposium, I promise.

4. Some 'abductees' are jumping on the band wagon. I received a
letter from a country and western singer. He had a UFO crash
story from 1947 in Colorado, and, of course, recently he had
been abducted. Do you think his stories might help his music
career? (I did an extensive search in Colorado for any evidence
of unusual activities there during the supposed crash.)

My friend took a telephone call from a fellow who wanted to know
"all about UFOs" because if he did, then he could be abducted,
and then, he could be in book about his abduction, go all over
the country lecturing, get on TV and become famous. Hmmm.

5. Finally, there are military or intelligence people going
around the country kidnapping, torturing and planting abduction
scenarios in people's heads as part of insidious mind control
experiments. The popularity of such ideas in the UFO community
astounds and disgusts me! The Viet Vietnam war brought out the
worst in some in the military. A great deal of soul-searching
went into development of senior leaders after this searing
national experience. That people of integrity would not step
forward and denounce such actions is hard to believe. The proof
of such paranoid ideas is thin indeed.

Recently, in trying to organize material which came from the
Brazilian physician, Dr. Olavos Fontes, I found a copy of a
letter he had written to Alexander Mebane, in 1958, concerning
the AVB case. Mebane, besides the Lorenzens, was one of the few
people outside Brazil who Fontes contacted about the case at
this time. This was well over a year after the AVB abduction
allegedly occurred.

Fontes' treatment is nearly clinical, he mentions his problems
with contactee, occupant and this abduction cases. Fontes is
careful to let Mebane know that he does not necessarily buy into
any such stories. He wants Mebane's input. (Now we have Coral
championing the "little men" cases as opposed to contactees, but
she did not come out with anything about the AVB case until
others had published it. Perhaps a wise choice. Look what
happened to McDonald after reviewing Bloecher's work saying we
might be interested in examining humanoid cases more carefully.
And my 'Disclosure' friends, look what happened to McDonald in
Congress--and at the hands of a Congressman who agreed and voted
with McDonald on his environment opinions.)

Two asides here. Child sexual abuse is very traumatic and
devastating to the victim. When this occurs within families,
many times the victim get no support or help from other family
members, this is the ultimate tragedy and betray. Victims are
told to "Get over it. Put this behind you." So the perpetrator
gets a free pass while the victim may get the blame that the
incident(s) happened. Sometimes therapists and activists in this
area do more harm then good. Despite how terrible child sexual
abuse is, there are also such crazy stories as Rose-Ann
recovering memories of child abuse when she was six months old
or pre-school kids telling a jury that they were forced to have
sex with animals. Of course, how the giraffes got into the build
was not explained. There is abuse, no question. To rid us of the
abuse, there is sometimes a witch hunt mentality that does more
harm than good.

Do abductee investigators sometimes exhibit the same zeal
mentioned above?

IMO, abductees could fall into the following categories:

1) People with deep seated mental health issues,

2) Charlatans and exploiters,

3) Band wagon followers,

4) People who are giving us symptoms of some other traumatic
experience in their lives,

5) People who are convinced by 'investigators' that their
problems or a mysterious incident(s) in their lives arise from
an abduction experience,

6) Now I don't know what to make of the AVB case, nor the Hills
case, nor say the Bluff Ledge case nor dozens nor scores nor
maybe hundreds nor even thousand of others. Something very
strange may be operating here, but I am puzzled as to what it
is. I certainly do not buy grand unified theories offered so
far.

The evidence for abduction being an extraterrestrial experiment
or breeding program is tenuous to say the least. Maybe there are
people who are convinced to their souls that is the case.
However, they must offer proof to someone who is not inside
their minds that such is indeed the case.

Now people like Gersten trying to use abductions as
Constitutional issue in the courts may play well to the UFO
community and make him an Hero of American Ufology, 1st Class,
but it has no traction in the general community.

The questions of UFOs is, as Robert Low of the Condon Committee
once remarked, a nested question. Is there something unique and
unknown in some UFO reports? Low's answer to his own question
was most probably, yes.

If so, are there current ideas about UFOs which might answer
what UFOs are? ETH for example. Maybe.

I would take this one step further. Do UFOs represent unknown or
little understood phenomenon (or phenomena)? If so, are some of
these phenomena actually intelligence directed probes by outside
forces? Are abductions part of the UFO experience? Nested
questions.

Many on this List have already made the connections above. They
want to evangelize it. Well, most people outside the UFO
community don't take this seriously; so these connections are
only quaint ideas to them, the subject of raw jokes and skits on
late night television.

Let's say that there are a few UFO cases that prove something
strange is going on here? Does that mean that we should mobilize
all the weirdos in the UFO community and assault High Culture
with every idea that has been put forth about UFOs in the last
50 years? No, most would answer.

But even if we take just a few weird ideas forward with our
evidence does that mean there will be a good hearing?

I think that is exactly what we are currently seeing. An
analogy, if you will, take a good, well written, closely
reasoned paper on some subject. Throw it in a garbage can with
rotting, composing, gooey trash, mix thoroughly and let sit
overnight. Then, carry the garbage can into some High Culture
venue, a scientific meeting, a Congressional Committee, etc.,
dump the stinking mess on the beautiful mahogany tables or desks
of the High Culture leaders, and tell them, there might be
something good in this garbage can, but it is to them to sort it
out.

No, it is up to us to take the best possible stuff, go over ten
ways from Thursday and take up there.

I don't think conspiracy theories, theories on secret planet X
strolling through the solar system foretold in Sumerian texts
or, sorry, the current abduction stories and ideas will do it.

That we are many times used as entertainment is not too
surprising, considering the actions and antics of some
'ufologists'. I would not expect too much from the producers of
NOVA or the like, they don't recognize that we are anything put
bunch of kooks or deluded children! You may make promises to
children that you don't intend to keep. It is like keeping the
attention of small children or getting good behaviour with
impossible promises that will temporarily divert the child.

Okay, I know that the above will cause some brickbats to come my
way. Please don't edit little snippets out here and there.
Please answer the whole thing or not at all. Thank you.

Speaking solely for myself.

Jan Aldrich

I will be in my bomb shelter as I know the 50 megaton nukes are
currently on the way to Northeast Connecticut!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                          Secrecy News -- 11/19/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:18:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:05:35 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/19/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 116
November 19, 2002


**      COURT EASES DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE RESTRICTIONS
**      DETAINEE SECRECY DEFENDED
**      WAS PENTAGON SUPPORT TO DC SNIPER HUNT ILLEGAL?
**      WISE REPLIES ON CIA, CENSORSHIP
**      E-GOVERNMENT, THERE AND HERE
**      WORLD BANK ON "THE RIGHT TO TELL"


COURT EASES DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE RESTRICTIONS

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in its
first decision ever, sided with the Justice Department this week
and reduced longstanding restrictions on cooperation between
intelligence and law enforcement personnel in domestic
counterintelligence and counterterrorism surveillance
activities.

"The Court of Review's action revolutionizes our ability to
investigate terrorists and prosecute terrorist acts," said
Attorney General Ashcroft enthusiastically, and he immediately
proceeded to announce a series of steps to implement the new
policy.See his November 18 remarks here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/11/ag111802.html

The new ruling bluntly rejected a lower court decision that
rebuked the Justice Department for exceeding its authority.

The Court of Review, whose three members are all Reagan
appointees, also took some swipes at the ACLU and other
organizations that filed friend of the court briefs in support
of the lower court position.(For example:the ACLU's "technique
[of legal argument], to put it gently, is hardly an orthodox
method of statutory interpretation.")

See the new order here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

The root of the matter, however, is not the court but rather the
USA Patriot Act, hastily adopted last year in an act of
legislative malpractice that resembles in some ways the passage
of the malformed Homeland Security Act.

See a discerning Washington Post editorial on the new decision
and the responsibility of Congress, "Chipping Away at Liberty,"
November 19, here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7807-2002Nov18.html


DETAINEE SECRECY DEFENDED

The Justice Department told a federal appeals court on Monday
that the names of hundreds of individuals who were arrested on
immigration charges after September 11, 2001, must remain
secret, contrary to a lower court ruling, because disclosing
them would assist terrorists.

See "U.S. Says Revealing Names Would Aid Al Qaeda," by Neil A.
Lewis, New York Times, November 19:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/national/19DETA.html

Paradoxically, however, a Justice Department spokeswoman
released a press statement indicating that the secrecy was
needed not for security against terrorists but in order to
respect the detainees' personal privacy and that "all detainees
... can disclose their identity to the public at any time."See:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/November/02_civ_681.htm

The case came before the court as a result of a request filed by
a coalition of groups under the Freedom of Information Act.For
more information see the website of the lead plaintiff, the
Center for National Security Studies, here:

http://www.cnss.org/


WAS PENTAGON SUPPORT TO DC SNIPER HUNT ILLEGAL?

The use of military equipment and personnel from U.S. Northern
Command to assist police in tracking down the sniper who
terrorized Washington, DC last month may have been a violation
of law and regulation, according to Eugene Fidell, a former
Coast Guard judge advocate general and expert in military law.

At issue are the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which generally
prohibits the use of military forces for law enforcement
purposes, and several other statutes and implementing
regulations.

Now that the sniper suspects have been apprehended and the
crisis has passed, this would be an appropriate moment to
consider the facts of the matter, the lessons learned and the
need, if any, for legislative or regulatory changes.But there is
little sign of official interest in any such deliberation.

Mr. Fidell's views and related issues were reported at some
length by Elaine M. Grossman in "Former JAG: Military Aid in DC
Sniper Pursuit May Have Broken Law," Inside the Pentagon,
November 14, reposted with permission here:

  http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/itp111402.html


WISE REPLIES ON CIA, CENSORSHIP

After author David Wise wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the
CIA had attempted to censor his book, the CIA press spokesman
issued an unusual statement, blasting Wise and his book, and
denying the censorship charge (SN, 11/11/02).

Mr. Wise replies in a statement posted on the web site of the
Counterintelligence Centre here:

http://www.cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hanssen_Aftereffects.htm


E-GOVERNMENT, THERE AND HERE

The U.S. State Department is sponsoring an international
conference this week for officials from over 35 countries on "E-
Government," which generally refers to the practice of making
government information and services available online.

"Properly implemented, e-government can improve government
efficiency, increase transparency, and provide a more welcoming
atmosphere for investment," according to a State Department
press release:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/15235.htm

Meanwhile, Congress has just passed an "Electronic Government
Act" that promises to enhance the online availability of
government information in this country.

See "E-Gov Act on Way to President" by Bill Matthews, Federal
Computer Week, November 18:

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/1118/web-ebill-11-18-02.asp


WORLD BANK ON "THE RIGHT TO TELL"

A vigorous and independent news media sector can boost economic
development around the world by promoting good government and
empowering citizens.

That straightforward but still challenging thesis is fleshed out
and validated in a new book entitled "The Right to Tell: The
Role of Mass Media in Economic Development" published November 7
by the World Bank.

The book's nineteen chapters discuss principles of transparency
and secrecy, and provide media critiques, as well as case
studies from a number of developing countries, written by an
unusual mix of contributors including Nobel laureates Joseph
Stiglitz and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, journalist Adam Michnik, as
well as other less celebrated but equally thoughtful writers and
researchers.

For further information on "The Right to Tell" see:

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/righttotell.html

Secrecy News welcomes review copies of books on information
policy and national security.


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:saftergood@fas.org
voice:(202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                         Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:45:56 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:30:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Hall


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

 >John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
 >again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
 >line of that which should be considered in ufology.

 >First and foremost, despite the universal theories by many
 >abduction investigators, I don't think we know squat about what
 >is occurring here. Here is, what I see from my perch, one that I
 >will admit has a limited field of vision.

 >1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from
 >mental health professionals. I have letters from a very
 >intelligent woman who apparently is also member of upper
 >society, and who has serious mental problems. Her story is that
 >the Aliens and the Communists are chasing her and have been
 >since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She now rides
 >buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place for
 >more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
 >answers at such places.

 >2. Some 'abductees' have stories which are very similar to child
 >sex abuse stories. They are tortured or used sexually by
 >entities who have almost complete power over them.

 >3. Some 'abductees' are the voice of the abductors. I call these
 >the "queen bees" that will tell us all there is to know about
 >the aliens. While people hang around listening to every word
 >like recievied wisdom. And, of course, each story gets better
 >than the one before. "I have one abductee who murdered a Grey."
 >"The Greys are getting tired of the Rebel Reptilians! If things
 >do not change, there will be an interstellar war with earth at
 >the center in the next six months!" I didn't make this up, but
 >heard this at the 1996 MUFON Symposium, I promise.

 >4. Some 'abductees' are jumping on the band wagon. I received a
 >letter from a country and western singer. He had a UFO crash
 >story from 1947 in Colorado, and, of course, recently he had
 >been abducted. Do you think his stories might help his music
 >career? (I did an extensive search in Colorado for any evidence
 >of unusual activities there during the supposed crash.)

 >My friend took a telephone call from a fellow who wanted to know
 >"all about UFOs" because if he did, then he could be abducted,
 >and then, he could be in book about his abduction, go all over
 >the country lecturing, get on TV and become famous. Hmmm.

 >5. Finally, there are military or intelligence people going
 >around the country kidnapping, torturing and planting abduction
 >scenarios in people's heads as part of insidious mind control
 >experiments. The popularity of such ideas in the UFO community
 >astounds and disgusts me! The Viet Vietnam war brought out the
 >worst in some in the military. A great deal of soul-searching
 >went into development of senior leaders after this searing
 >national experience. That people of integrity would not step
 >forward and denounce such actions is hard to believe. The proof
 >of such paranoid ideas is thin indeed.

 >Recently, in trying to organize material which came from the
 >Brazilian physician, Dr. Olavos Fontes, I found a copy of a
 >letter he had written to Alexander Mebane, in 1958, concerning
 >the AVB case. Mebane, besides the Lorenzens, was one of the few
 >people outside Brazil who Fontes contacted about the case at
 >this time. This was well over a year after the AVB abduction
 >allegedly occurred.

 >Fontes' treatment is nearly clinical, he mentions his problems
 >with contactee, occupant and this abduction cases. Fontes is
 >careful to let Mebane know that he does not necessarily buy into
 >any such stories. He wants Mebane's input. (Now we have Coral
 >championing the "little men" cases as opposed to contactees, but
 >she did not come out with anything about the AVB case until
 >others had published it. Perhaps a wise choice. Look what
 >happened to McDonald after reviewing Bloecher's work saying we
 >might be interested in examining humanoid cases more carefully.
 >And my 'Disclosure' friends, look what happened to McDonald in
 >Congress--and at the hands of a Congressman who agreed and voted
 >with McDonald on his environment opinions.)

 >Two asides here. Child sexual abuse is very traumatic and
 >devastating to the victim. When this occurs within families,
 >many times the victim get no support or help from other family
 >members, this is the ultimate tragedy and betray. Victims are
 >told to "Get over it. Put this behind you." So the perpetrator
 >gets a free pass while the victim may get the blame that the
 >incident(s) happened. Sometimes therapists and activists in this
 >area do more harm then good. Despite how terrible child sexual
 >abuse is, there are also such crazy stories as Rose-Ann
 >recovering memories of child abuse when she was six months old
 >or pre-school kids telling a jury that they were forced to have
 >sex with animals. Of course, how the giraffes got into the build
 >was not explained. There is abuse, no question. To rid us of the
 >abuse, there is sometimes a witch hunt mentality that does more
 >harm than good.

 >Do abductee investigators sometimes exhibit the same zeal
 >mentioned above?

 >IMO, abductees could fall into the following categories:

 >1) People with deep seated mental health issues,

 >2) Charlatans and exploiters,

 >3) Band wagon followers,

 >4) People who are giving us symptoms of some other traumatic
 >experience in their lives,

 >5) People who are convinced by 'investigators' that their
 >problems or a mysterious incident(s) in their lives arise from
 >an abduction experience,

Jan,

You left out, or simply people who really - for possibly very
good reasons - believe that it actually happened to them.

 >6) Now I don't know what to make of the AVB case, nor the Hills
 >case, nor say the Bluff Ledge case nor dozens nor scores nor
 >maybe hundreds nor even thousand of others. Something very
 >strange may be operating here, but I am puzzled as to what it
 >is. I certainly do not buy grand unified theories offered so
 >far.

"Grand unified theories" be damned, we have credible testimony
(no matter how uncomfortable it is for some of us to accept)
that something is going on that your categories do not
adequately encompass.

 >The evidence for abduction being an extraterrestrial experiment
 >or breeding program is tenuous to say the least. Maybe there are
 >people who are convinced to their souls that is the case.
 >However, they must offer proof to someone who is not inside
 >their minds that such is indeed the case.

"Proof" or nothing? You sound like the "either-or" debunkers
here.

<snip>

Otherwise I strongly agree with you and urge you not to hide in
your bomb shelter. You have a lot to offer, and I fully
understand and share your disgust with a great deal of what goes
on in alleged rational/scientific discussion of UFOs.

  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:01:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:32:32 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - White


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >Hello List,

 >While inspecting the latest that the Sci-Fi channel has to offer
 >on the upcoming Roswell show, I noticed something interesting
 >in one of the pictures. Go here:

 >http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >shows the crash site.

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >do you see?

I see something in the air, but what?

I also ran it through a bitmap editor and lightened up the
scene, making it closer to what you would normally see, but the
object above the horizon doesn't seem much clearer. I did _not_
tinker with the pixels, just varied the overall brightness and
contrast, and that version is at:

http://www.raven1.net/ufo/pic5.jpg


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                       Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:03:49 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:38:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball


 >From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:51:49 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>Dear Mr. Velez:

 >><snip>

 >>>I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>>only whenever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >>>'entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>>three years.

 >>'>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>>that we are invited to appear in.

 >>As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >>producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >>need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >>always open to negotiation.

 >>A case in point: When we were doing the Stan Friedman film, one
 >>of the interviewees refused to be interviewed unless we removed
 >>the line from the release form stating that he could not sue us
 >>for (among other things) defamation - a standard clause, which
 >>usually won't hold up in court, but better to have than not from
 >>a producer's point of view. I could have walked away, but I
 >>wanted to interview the guy (we ended up not using his material
 >>for other reasons), so I agreed to strike the clause.

 >Sounds like it could have been me. :) The Legalese the contracts
 >are written in is done purposely to be difficult to understand.
 >They are merely to screw the amateur person to be interviewed
 >and protect the production company of legal recourse. The
 >interviewee it typically given a basic 'waive your rights'
 >contracts. I consider these the first round contracts only the
 >suckers sign. If you read them carefully they describe a myriad
 >of ways you can be sued, screwed, tattooed all while giving up
 >universal rights to yourself, videotapes, or other wares. All of
 >this can be negotiated away or simply don't do the production.
 >If the contract was in plain English you'd learn about how
 >they're screwing you and you won't sign it. How come the
 >interviewee doesn't have their own separate contract and make
 >the network sign it? Everyone who signs a contract should place
 >in a date the contract expires and say it needs to be
 >renegotiated.

I pay over $9,000 in Errors and Omission insurance for every
production (on a budget of perhaps $100,000 to $150,000 Cnd.).
Why? Because there are just as many questionable interviewees
out there as there are crooked producers (I would suggest far
more) who have made life (and business) miserable for those of
us with a camera. Rather than being sued we protect ourselves. A
lesson learned from hard experience, more than a few legal dust-
ups, and the edict of the broadcasters, who won't air a program
(rightly so) unless they are protected from any one of a number
of false claims for... well, you name it, it's been done.

 >Most producers are pretty slick, they kiss your ass up and down
 >all while pretending to like you to get what they want. Low
 >production costs! Most try to win you over by a 'power ass
 >kissing session' in which you get the privilege of being on TV
 >for 3 seconds. While they get the privilege to make a small
 >fortune off the interviewee. They all claim they are broke and
 >production is over budget and you need to help the producer out.
 >That same old song and dance must be taught in TV producer
 >college or something.

You must live in Hollywood! Cards on the table - as a
producer/director/editor of the Friedman film, I made a less
than grand total of $22,000 (Cdn, which is, I think, about $30
US). The film itself took over two years to research, film and
edit. I sure didn't get rich, and most of my colleagues here in
Canada don't either; I suspect the situation is the same for
independent documentary producers south of the border. It is a
very 'small' fortune indeed. Ask my wife.

Your comments strike me as very similar to those debunkers who
claim that men like Friedman have gotten rich off of book sales,
and are only in it for the money.

This is not to cry poverty. I did the film because I wanted to,
for a lot of reasons, but primarily because I thought the
subject was important. No need to shed any tears for me - I
chose this career - but don't label me and my peers slick, money
grubbing hucksters. For the vast majority of us, nothing could
be further from the truth.

 >Editing can be where they'll make you nut job or a hero. Most of
 >these "UFO entertainment/news" shows are pre-scripted to some
 >extent.

Not in my company, nor in those of the people I know in the
industry. We film what happens, and what people say. The story
is usually constructed in the editing room, after the big
picture makes itself clear. Tell me that authors of UFO books,
or Internet websites, don't make the same kind of editing
decisions, often to advance their own agenda. Of course they do.
The important thing is to make sure you don't misrepresent
someone's views. For an interviewee, if that does happen, you
can always sue (something Americans are far better at than we
Canadians).

 >Before the TV crew arrives in your town. The producer/director
 >probably already has some vision of what "they need you to say".
 >They're not really interested in what you have to say more what
 >you need to say. They read of a list of loaded questions to get
 >a measured response and trap you into saying sound bytes that
 >they need. Most like you get you to say something with 'Alien'
 >in a sentence. Much like making a real film they know what the
 >show is going to be about and just need to go get all the
 >soundbites and cheap UFO video clips to make the show.

Nothing like painting us all with a pretty broad brush loaded
with tar. What are Stan's second and third rules for debunkers?
Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up, and if one
can't attack the data, attack the people. It works both ways.
Finally, nobody can make a person say something they don't want
to say, short of unethical editing, which I agree is a plague on
my industry, even as I maintain it is rare.

 >These shows are not here to solve anything or present
 >ground breaking material. They're merely 48 minutes of filler in-
 >between the commercials($$money$$) and that's what its all about
 >to the TV producer, the network, and the 5 people that own the
 >media.

I make my own films, pre-licensed to a network. Not once in four
years has a network ever interfered in my productions. As for
the 'five people', I've never met them, just as I've never, to
my knowledge, met anyone from MJ-12, to whom one private
correspondent suggested I had basically sold my soul. The kind
of person for whom you definitely need legal protection!

 >>>Without us... they have no Show.

 >>Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >>subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >>television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >>especially the news.

 >There will always be the Art Bell UFO whores that never turn
 >down a TV interview, or radio spot to promote their garbage. So
 >you producers always have them to sell the conflict of your
 >shows.

So, because they appeared in my film, Stan Friedman, Kevin
Randle, Don Ledger, Karl Pflock, and others are "UFO whores?" I
don't think so. Maybe they just see a bigger picture, and
appreciate that if ufology is ever to move into the mainstream,
it has to reach more people, in whatever ways it can. That's why
I have such a great deal of respect for Stan - he's taken his
lumps, gotten his message out, and done good work as a result.
As for Don, "The Shag Harbour UFO Incident' is another example
of a good film that balances the need to entertain with the
desire to inform. Maybe we just do it better here in little old
Nova Scotia.

What I have the most trouble understanding - in my final post on
the subject - is the difficulty some folks have with 'conflict',
as if it didn't exist in the UFO field. A quick perusal of the
UFO UpDates Archive should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
notion. I say again - a UFO film that portrays 'conflict' (or
would you prefer 'debate') accurately reflects the way things
are. Kevin Randle and Stan Friedman both agree that something
extraterrestrial happened at Roswell. They disagree about
specifics. That's conflict. There are still people who think Bob
Lazar is telling the truth, and many others who think he's a
serial liar. It's perfectly legitimate to portray these
differences.

Or would you prefer an audience of sheep? I have more faith in
people, that they can weigh both sides of an issue, and reach
their own conclusions. And, before you say that we producers
don't present both sides of the equation, I must add that I have
further faith that people are capable of seeing when they are
being snowed, and will instinctively react againt it. If they
see only one side, they will seek out the other.

 >Paul you summed it all up just like I thought. With or without
 >credible people the TV producers got a job to do. Their gonna
 >get their soundbites from somebody, anybody. I'll be sitting on
 >the sidelines most of the time. I've got burned enough I'm not
 >helping TV producers get rich off of me. I have the internet -
 >what do I need TV for?

Whether you agree with them or not, the aforementioned certainly
strike me as credible people. As for the Internet, I'll assume
you meant that in jest. If there is one thing worse - and more
dangerous - than television, it is the Internet, where the gold
is buried in a thousand tonnes of dross.

 >Tom King
 >www.ufovideo.com

Best,

Paul "I'm sure ufovideo.com is gold" Kimball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:14:13 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:17:14 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >>Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and film
 >>is entertainment, even as it informs -
 >>even documentaries, and even news (especially news!).

 >There you have one tiny part of the problem, folks:
 >"Entertainment is about conflict". (There's a bigger problem
 >than "conflict" and "entertainment", but I'll focus on this
 >small point).

 >I won't be satisfied until we have "Entertainment Funerals"
 >filled with humor, truth and lies (conflict) for deceased news
 >and documentary producers. When they die, the aggrieved will be
 >on hand to deliver eloquent anti-eulogies at their funerals, for
 >entertainment and conflict purposes of the aggrieved, and to
 >offer a more balanced perspective of the deceased. The funeral
 >would be carried on television, of course. The word "NOVA" comes
 >to mind...

 >I'd be happy to put my ass in a seat for that production - even
 >if I have to bring my own popcorn!

I, like Cromwell, would prefer to be remembered, warts and all.
The humour can come from old friends ('remember crazy Paul and
that Internet dust-up he had with the UFO guys back in 2002?'
What a naive schmuck), the truth can come from the wife ('If
only he really had exploited more people, we could have gotten
that Hyundai instead of the Kia'), and the lies can come from
Majestic 12 ('of course he was working for us, part of the Top
Secret Restricted NOVA project').

If you're coming, remember that it's BYOB (no popcorn at my
funeral!!), and don't forget your camera.

Paul "Many Miles to Go Before I Sleep" Kimball









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                Triangle UFO sightings & Air Mobility Command

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@anv.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:09:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:44:01 -0500
Subject: Triangle UFO sightings & Air Mobility Command


NIDS has now investigated and mapped 250 black triangle UFO
sightings. For the map see:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/ufomap.html

Click on the icon on the bottom right of the map to enlarge.


For those interested in the latest research on sleep paralysis,
see the article entitled: The Ominous Numinous by Prof. J. Allan
Cheyne, University of Waterloo.

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


Colm Kelleher
NIDS





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:29:54 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:39 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Young


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

<snip>

 >http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >shows the crash site.

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >do you see?

Hello, Frank:

I see out of focus dirt on the camera lens.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:56:59 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? -


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >Hello List,

 >While inspecting the latest that the Sci-Fi channel has to offer
 >on the upcoming Roswell show, I noticed something interesting
 >in one of the pictures. Go here:

 >http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >shows the crash site.

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the
 >horizon, what
 >do you see?

Frank, List,

Whatever it is might not be 'on film' at all, if a digital
camera was used, which is likely. Could it be a processing
artifact? If it's indeed a UFO, it appears to be in the act of
crashing :-)

I personally suspect it's a Mogul balloon train.


Mac Tonnies







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                  Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:52:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:59:21 -0500
Subject: Re:  Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Balaskas


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
 >Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >Last evening, on Coast to Coast AM, host Barbara Simpson
 >interviewed astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has
 >written a boot titled "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men".

 >He is also a Christian minister, and offers the opinion that the
 >many UFO incidents where physical traces were observed on the
 >earth are in fact "angelic being" effects. His bottom line is
 >that since UFOs "can't get here from there", the answer is
 >probably real but non-material other dimensional beings.

 >Dr. Ross needs to be challenged, which is something Barbara
 >Simpson does not do. He is listened to by the public through
 >lectures and books.

 >Dr. Ross made three points in particular that curled my toes:

 >1. That the _only_ common factor among people who
 >have "residual" UFO sightings or "those _alleged_
 >abductions" is that those people are all involved in
 >the _occult_ ! ("Residual" meaning "not explainable")

<snip>

 >As to the "every residual experiencer is involved with the
 >occult" assertion, I have no data to rebut that, but I doubt
 >that is so, and one caller insisted he had two very vivid
 >sightings and has no occult connections nor does he drink or use
 >illegal drugs.

<snip>

 >For these reasons, I'd like to ask if Errol and his regular show
 >participants might be interested in having another scientist on,
 >that some of his assertions might be at least partly challenged?

Hi Eleanor!

I recall reading on UFO UpDates sometime in the past that Joe
Jordan, area director for MUFON in Brevard County, Florida, had
over a hundred documented cases of attempted UFO abductions
which were thwarted simply by invoking the name of Jesus, the
name of God or even by quoting the Bible.

http://www.ce4.com

http://www.alienresistance.com.

In addition to astronomer Hugh Ross, many other UFO books (eg.
'Alien Encounters' by Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman, 'UFO End-
Time Delusion' by David Allen Lewis and Robert Shreckhise, etc.)
written by authors with Christian backgrounds have come to the
same conclusion that alien abductions are really demonic
abductions.

Since alien abduction-like experiences have been recorded in the
past which pre-date the modern UFO/space era and these alien
abductors recognise the name of Jesus and acknowledge the
authority of the God of the Bible, it seems reasonable to me
that such a connection would be made. After over half a century
of trying to understand this aspect of the UFO phenomena, the
explanation that visitors from other planets are responsible for
alien adbuctions is a less tenable one to me than the "occult"
connection involving demons - or ultraterrestrials as John Keel
refers to them.


Nick Balaskas








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

              Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:12:49 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:00:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium - Young


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:35:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Washington Post Article GWU Symposium

<snip>

 >Thanks Stig. All your hard work on our behalf is greatly
 >appreciated. If you think about it for a moment, each of us on
 >this List has their own little job/function that they perform
 >for the larger group. Stig's contribution has always been to
 >keep us all stocked with the most recent and relevant articles
 >relating to UFOs to appear in print from all over the world

I'll go along with that.


Keep it up,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                     EW: Do Scientists Want to Believe?

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:05:55 -0500
Subject: EW: Do Scientists Want to Believe?


From: The Electric Warrior (Kurt Jonach)

A handful of scientists say that UFOs and extraterrestrial
intelligence should be taken seriously, even more scientists are
secretly interested, and the American public says it's ready for
ET disclosure

Do scientists want to believe? This news item updates an
earlier Web Log.

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

The Electric Warrior : News November 19, 2002
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> UFOLOGY GETS RESPECTABLE
ufos & extraterrestrial intelligence

image: Classic Flying Saucer
http://www.electricwarrior.com/expose/ewClassicSaucer1Thumb.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - Ufology is getting a boost from
scientists who argue that topics like extraterrestrial
intelligence and the famous Roswell crashed UFO case can be
studied using purely scientific methods. Cable TV's SCI FI
channel is supporting serious scientific research into the
topic.


The SCI FI channel recently sent a group of archaeologists to
conduct an in-depth study into the alleged crash of an alien
spaceship at the legendary site of Roswell, New Mexico.

"We weren't out there to bunk or debunk. We were just scientists
using scientific methods," says Bill Doleman, the principal
investigator with the University of New Mexico archaeology team.

The SCI FI channel now says they've turned up fascinating
"smoking gun" evidence about Roswell, but are keeping the
details secret until their TV program "The Roswell Crash:
Startling New Evidence" airs.

SO RESPECTABLE

"Scientists are more closed-minded on the subject of UFOs than
the general public." says Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., director of the
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. "Many of them
have little or no respect for UFOlogy."

A panel of scientists recently tackled the so- called "giggle
factor" of UFOlogy at the George Washington University (GWU) in
Washington, D.C. The SCI FI channel sponsored a symposium of
speakers who argued that UFOlogy is a legitimate science and
called upon the scientific community to stop ridiculing their
search for ET.

As reported by Wired News: UFOlogists said they are serious
about finding real scientific evidence of visits to Earth by
extraterrestrials. And that evidence may be lurking just outside
the range of our current sensors.

DO SCIENTISTS WANT TO BELIEVE?

According to one of the panelists at the GWU symposium, and
contrary to what you might think, scientists who are openly
critical about the UFO phenomenon might feel differently about
it if questioned off-the-record.

The Washington Post reports: GWU panelist Peter Sturrock, an
emeritus physicist from Stanford University, suggested that
scientists tend to give credence to UFO reports -- as long as
they are polled by secret ballot.

So if UFOs are real, then how do they achieve interstellar
travel? Theoretical science offers possibilities that involve
bending space-time or faster than light (FTL) travel. NASA
compares FTL "warp drive" to a moving sidewalk: A person walks
at one speed but travels much faster because the sidewalk moves
as well.

Einstein's general theory of relativity said that gravity is a
warping of space-time caused by matter. Scientists now speculate
that a "wormhole" could create a kind of short-cut by bending
space-time. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, compared the
idea to crumpling a carpet. "Instead of walking across," said
Kaku, "you used a big hook to pull the other side of the rug
close to you. Then you just stepped over."

The science to prove or disprove these theories, let alone test
them with the necessary rigor, doesn't exist. So, maybe ET
already knows all about it? Assuming you believe in ET.

AMERICANS SAY THEY'RE READY FOR ET

If a new Roper poll sponsored by the SCI-FI Channel is right,
then an overwhelming majority of the American public thinks ET
is out there and the Powers That Be simply aren't telling the
truth.

A national opinion poll says about two-thirds of the populace
believe the government is not telling everything it knows about
ET & UFOs. The younger you are, the more likely you'll agree.
Furthermore, most of you -- especially if you are male -- would
say that if national security isn't at risk then the truth
should be told.

For the past fifty years or so Big Media has mostly ignored the
topic and Science has been unwilling to investigate the truth,
whatever that might be. It would seem that in spite of the fact
that there is seemingly no concrete evidence in support of
extraterrestrial intelligence many people are open to the idea.

Is that the way it is? Are you ready?

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

18-Nov-02
A Trip as Far Away as Space-Time Will Allow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62346-2002Nov16.html

(Washington Post) - No one knows if aliens are eally blowing up
their starships over Council Bluffs. But if extraterrestrial
life forms are visiting from time to time, somewhere some
sentient beings must have figured out a way to transit
interstellar space. Discussions about unidentified flying
objects march hand in hand with the feasibility of interstellar
space travel.


18-Nov-02
Velez: GWU Symposium Photo Gallery
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/aic/symposium.html

(Virtually Strange Network) - A photo gallery of
some of the panelists and attendees of the symposium
that was presented by the Sci-Fi Channel.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
November 19, 2002
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
This text is freely distributable for non-commercial
purposes, provided you cite The Electric Warrior.
Web developers should link here...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews004E.htm

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

Readers are strongly cautioned that The Electric
Warrior asserts it is OK to laugh and have a good
time with some of this stuff. Lighten Up!

The Electric Warrior is not responsible for the
content of Web links. Content reproduced here is
for informational purposes only. All copyrights
Acknowledged.

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                    Sci-Fi Channel Symposium On Abduction

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:06:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:14:19 -0500
Subject: Sci-Fi Channel Symposium On Abduction


Hello All,

Last night's symposium on abduction held in New York City was an
excellent primer for the uninitiated. For those already familiar
with the subject and the speakers, there were no startling or
new revelations. What it was, was a solid presentation given by
the most experienced men in the field.

What was different, and I thought revealing, was how candidly
and with great camaraderie they each shared and compared their
own individual takes on the phenomenon. Something we have not
seen or heard before.

For anyone who may have missed it, EBK will be playing some
clips from the symposium on Saturday night's broadcast of SDI,
'Strange Days... Indeed.' Be sure to tune in and check it out.
I'll have more to say about the event then.  :)


Regards to all,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                 Abductions & Ufology [was: Media & 'Truth']

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:26:51 -0500
Subject: Abductions & Ufology [was: Media & 'Truth']


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>Dear Mr. Velez:

 >>><snip>

 >>I don't think even contracts would make a difference. I've
 >>>>gotten to the point where I ask one question and one question
 >>>>only when ever I am invited to participate in one of these 'UFO'
 >>>>programs: "Is the material being presented as 'news' or as
 >>>'>entertainment'? The end result... I haven't consented to do
 >>>>anything I have been invited to participate in for more than
 >>>>three years.

 >>>>We don't need no stinking contracts!' We just need to refuse to
 >>>>participate in any more 'for entertainment only' productions
 >>>>that we are invited to appear in.

 >>>As a lawyer who also happens to be a film and television
 >>>producer/director, I can only respond by saying that you always
 >>>need contracts, and they do make a difference. Further, they're
 >>>always open to negotiation.

 >>Although I do appreciate your comments Paul, I'm not surprised
 >>that a lawyer would consider contracts as necessary as air. :)

 >>I was talking about out and out misinformation however. My
 >>comment about contracts was an aside to the main topic of media
 >>deception and manipulation. Those are the real issues.

 ><snip>

Hi Jan

 >Hi Paul, John, and List,

 >Not quite on your topic about media, but in the ball park:

You wrote:

 >John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
 >again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
 >line of that which should be considered in ufology.

Ok, so we disagree. I think UFOs and abductions explain each
other. But that's just speculation on my part. You're entitled
to your opinion Jan.

BTW, I'm 53 not 13. I'm not going to take my ball and go home in
a huff and pouting because you expressed an opinion that I
disagree with.

What I'd like to address is this (incomplete) list that you
created.

You listed:

 >1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from
 >mental health professionals. I have letters from a very
 >intelligent woman who apparently is also member of upper
 >society, and who has serious mental problems. Her story is that
 >the Aliens and the Communists are chasing her and have been
 >since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She now rides
 >buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place for
 >more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
 >answers at such places.

 >2. Some 'abductees' have stories which are very similar to child
 >sex abuse stories. They are tortured or used sexually by
 >entities who have almost complete power over them.

 >3. Some 'abductees' are the voice of the abductors. I call these
 >the "queen bees" that will tell us all there is to know about
 >the aliens. While people hang around listening to every word
 >like recievied wisdom. And, of course, each story gets better
 >than the one before. "I have one abductee who murdered a Grey."
 >"The Greys are getting tired of the Rebel Reptilians! If things
 >do not change, there will be an interstellar war with earth at
 >the center in the next six months!" I didn't make this up, but
 >heard this at the 1996 MUFON Symposium, I promise.

 >4. Some 'abductees' are jumping on the band wagon. I received a
 >letter from a country and western singer. He had a UFO crash
 >story from 1947 in Colorado, and, of course, recently he had
 >been abducted. Do you think his stories might help his music
 >career? (I did an extensive search in Colorado for any evidence
 >of unusual activities there during the supposed crash.)

 >My friend took a telephone call from a fellow who wanted to know
 >"all about UFOs" because if he did, then he could be abducted,
 >and then, he could be in book about his abduction, go all over
 >the country lecturing, get on TV and become famous. Hmmm.

 >5. Finally, there are military or intelligence people going
 >around the country kidnapping, torturing and planting abduction
 >scenarios in people's heads as part of insidious mind control
 >experiments. The popularity of such ideas in the UFO community
 >astounds and disgusts me! The Viet Vietnam war brought out the
 >worst in some in the military. A great deal of soul-searching
 >went into development of senior leaders after this searing
 >national experience. That people of integrity would not step
 >forward and denounce such actions is hard to believe. The proof
 >of such paranoid ideas is thin indeed.

You forgot number 6 Jan!

6. _Some_ abductees are accurately recalling and describing
actual physical events.

Out of pure laziness I am going to copy/paste a paragraph I wrote
in a response to Don Ledger about the NOVA program. It applies
here.

"What they ignored (as opposed to 'cut out') was all the physical
evidence. The medical reports, the pictures of the scoop marks
and scars on the bodies of the abductees, lab reports on ground
trace evidence, and multiple witness cases. What the public missed
out on was the 'evidence,' circumstantial though it may be, for
what we were/are reporting."

You completely ignore the physical elements/components of the
abduction reports/reporters. Unless one of your 5 explanations
can explain away the physical phenomena, your 'candidates' will
be inadequate because they fail to acknowledge or address a
vital component. A little consideration I like to call 'number
6.'

'Wink and a nod.'

 >Okay, I know that the above will cause some brickbats to come my
 >way.

 From who Jan? Me? Geez I hope not. I would have thought that
after all these years you would give me credit for having more
down than that.

 >Please answer the whole thing or not at all. Thank you.

Hmmm, my sentiments precisely, Ollie! :)

 >I will be in my bomb shelter as I know the 50 megaton nukes are
 >currently on the way to Northeast Connecticut!

Life sometimes has a nasty way of living up to our expectations.
Be careful what you ask for... you just might get it! :)


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:10:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:30:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &  Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >>Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
 >>comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
 >>only as big as "your little fingernail."

 >>Let's see what else we know here:

 >>1)   As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
 >>moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
 >>quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
 >>don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
 >>moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
 >>present.

 >>2)   At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
 >>the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
 >>have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
 >>it was never mentioned.

 >>We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
 >>horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
 >>mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
 >>extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
 >>the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

 >Jerry,

 >When discussing sizes of celestial object with reference to such
 >items as a "quarter" or "fingernail", it is meaningless to
 >reference these items without a complete spatial reference.

 >I assure you that if you observe the largest full moon you can
 >see and compare it to a U.S. quarter dollar coin held at arm's
 >length, you will find that the moon appears much smaller.

 >In fact, the moon appears smaller than a dime held at arm's
 >length. This is well known to most experienced UFO
 >investigators.


Tom, (and Bob Young)

I take it back. I looked out the window at a full moon tonight
and decided that it does appear pretty small, but still a lot
bigger and brighter than the stars/planets around it. At other
times it does "appear" bigger. (optical illusion as you've
indicated.)

I guess I didn't get my original point across. It wasn't really
about the actual size of the moon but that at times, it "seems"
even bigger than its actual size. Therefore I believe it is more
difficult for a person to ever "think" that Venus could ever be
the size of the moon. How many people with the technical
education (Nuclear Physics) and observer skills of Carter have
thought the moon was a UFO?

And what if the object Carter reported _was_ the size he
described? Sheaffer really hasn't proved that it wasn't. He has
hypothesized same. "Others have made a mistake, so you must have
too." To me, this isn't proof positive. The two things nullify
each other.

Another way to put it. Jack sees John jump up and down. A lot of
people in the last 50 years have never seen John jump up and
down. Therefore, we hypothesize that John really didn't jump up
and down. How about Frank, George, Ollie, Clyde who did see John
jump up and down during the fifty years. Do we just omit them
because we feel like it?

But I believe this is a minor point compared to some of the
others. We'll focus on them in my response to Bob's post.


Sincerely,

Jerry
http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

              Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:35:27 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:40:56 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence' -


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:39:25 -500
 >Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:01:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence'

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III - The UFO Watchdog
 >>><ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >>><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
 >>>06:38:16 -0800 Subject: Re: 'The Roswell Crash: Startling New
 >>>Evidence'

 >>>The Amazing Myers' Prediction: The usual week of a few media
 >>>articles and then back to business as usual. At least if I'm
 >>>wrong I'll have the excuse that I'm not a psychic.....

 >>I agree with you on this prediction. I also would like to make
 >>some predictions... and I hope I end up being wrong.

 >>1) The special will leave more loose ends, i.e. after you have
 >>watched 2 hours, and get bludgeoned with commercials on this or
 >>that, you still will end up with more questions at the end of it
 >>then you had at the beginning

 >Most of the bludgeoning will be done by ads for Spielburg's new
 >film. That there will be piles of loose ends is a given.

Hi Bruce,

I agree with you on that. There probably will be a "pile" at the
end, which will give loads of fodder for both the the ET and
skeptics.

 >>2) Somebody that was interviewed for the show will wail about how
 >>Sci/Fi did a slice and dice on the interview, and because of that
 >>his/her remarks were misunderstood/misrepresented or otherwise.

 >>3) If the show concludes, or leads to the conclusion that it was
 >>a space craft, the skeptibunkers will wail and cry about how they
 >>should have been interviewed, how it is biased. They will
 >>"likely" further blather about how if their hand picked
 >>experts/archeologists/scientists could have examined the
 >>discovery they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

 >OTOH, if the show concludes that the Roswell Crash was just a
 >case of mis-identification, then the saucer advocates will wail
 >and cry about how they should have been interviewed, how it is
 >biased. They will "likely" further blather about how if their
 >hand picked experts/archeologists/scientists could have examined
 >the discovery they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

I have actually been told (privately) that the conclusion is or
points to ET crash. Now whether or not thats accurate...
Personally I have no great expectations for 2 hour UFO TV, as I
am reminded of Bill Moore's UFO Coverup Live wherein we found
out drivel from alleged govt insiders, such as "ET likes
Strawberry ice cream"....

 >>4) Any "new" witness storys will be picked apart. If the story is
 >>pro ET crash, then the story will be shredded by both the
 >>mogelites and the skeptibunkers.

 >OTOH, if the story is against an ET crash, then the story will
 >be shredded by both the Roswellites and ET/UFO advocates.

Personally I am breathlessly awaiting what nuggets the alleged
new witnesses are going to provide... recalling all the useful
nuggets of info that other Roswell witnesses provided (after
they got on the fame/money wagon) such as changed crash sites
and jewel encrusted helmets.

 >>5) If it is pro space ship, and the archeological evidence comes
 >>up with something, the skeptibunkers and others will somehow
 >>someway find away to discredit either SCI/FI or the archeologists
 >>or both.

 >OTOH.... (Well, you get the idea <gr>)

 >>6) Bottom line is that no amount of evidence presented will
 >>_ever_ change a skeptibunkers mind.

As long as we both agree on the above. :)

 >Well- if the archeological evidence shows conclusively that
 >Marcel found Flight #4, how many ET crash advocates will change
 >_their_ minds?

Who knows. I heard that around the 22nd, CUFOS is going to post
some things on their web site. Supposedly Corso's tale about
seeing the dead ET bodies will be shown to be bogus etc., etc.
and some other information as well.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                                Stalin's UFOs

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:42:24 -0500
Subject: Stalin's UFOs


Source: Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/19/39641.html

Stig

***

2002.11.19/10:39

Stalin's UFOs

Joseph Stalin insisted that the USSR outpace America with its
space program

**

Almost simultaneously with the USA, in the middle of the 20th
century, the USSR tabooed everything connected with UFO crashes.
Immediately, the next day after one of the first UFO crashes, in
Roswell (the state of New Mexico, U.S.A.), on June 2, 1947,
General Roger Romay, commander of the 8th American Air Brigade,
declared that the incident was a mere crash of a weather
balloon. That was the very beginning of a campaign of mass
disinformation.

Your average American citizen believed the general's statement
for several dozens of years, as they considered it really
incredible that an UFO might really have crashed. However, the
Soviet leadership headed by Joseph Stalin didn't believe Romay's
lies at all.

The USSR believed that the story about a weather balloon
crashing was just an attempt to hide the truth. The military
unit that recovered the remains of the UFO was believed to be
America's best trained Air Force unit. This unit took part in
super secret nuclear missions (it was this group that dropped
the nuclear bombs on Japan); pilots of this group tested new
planes and were experienced enough not to confuse a weather
balloon with an UFO.

In order to clear up the situation, Joseph Stalin ordered three
Soviet scientists to research data obtained by the KGB in the
USA and define to what extent such mysterious objects were
dangerous for the Soviet Union. These three men were talented
mathematician Mstislav Keldysh, chemist Alexander Topchiyev, and
physician Sergey Korolev.

In order to assess the situation, the scientists recommended
that Stalin organize special investigations of similar
phenomena. As a result, a number of programs to study UFOs were
launched in the USSR. At that time, the programs were secret,
and the West didn't know about them. It was only recently that
the West has learned about these programs.

Until the end of the 1990s, there were seven Soviet research
institutes and about ten secret military departments of the
Soviet Defense Ministry that studied UFO phenomenon. All of them
were attached to a secret department of the KGB, which was
created by Yury Andropov.

In 1948, on Stalin's order, the first sample of an UFO was
brought to the Moscow region. Famous Soviet archeologist and
artist and journalist Sukhoveyev described the events that
preceded this event.

"My father had been a digger in archeological expeditions for
many years. Long before the Great October Revolution in 1917,
famous archeologist Khvoika found a small silver device during
archeological digs in Kiev near the place where the Chaikovsky
Conservatory is currently situated.

The scientist ordered the crew to dig as deep as possible around
the discovery. The land from the dig site was taken away in
pails for a week. The Kiev governor was invited to the site. The
governor carefully watched everything and ordered the find to be
buried. He said that some time was required before the discovery
could be dug up and examined.

Indeed, the object was very unusual.

Archeologist Khvoika told himself that the "discovered ancient
space rocket" was a sign of an ancient civilization.

The father of journalist Sukhoveyev had dealings with this
rocket after WWII once again. When workers demolished ruins in
1948, they came across the mentioned mysterious object. The find
was dug up, cut into pieces, and loaded onto trucks. The parts
were taken to a secret testing area in the Moscow region. The
father of the journalist was sent there as well as an expert in
ancient languages; he was to translate the inscriptions inside
the space ship. It was the Sanscrit language, which is now a
dead language.

The construction of the rocket was actually very complicated; it
was practically impossible to understand it. Sergey Korolev, the
head of the scientific group researching the mysterious device,
admitted that it was a very difficult task to investigate the
rocket. However, the Soviet scientists managed to understand
some of the rocket's secrets; the discoveries came in very
useful later, when Soviet space technology was created.

Joseph Stalin personally controlled the project and completely
relied upon Sergey Korolev's research. Joseph Stalin insisted
that the group of Soviet scientists must successfully complete
their research and take the lead over the Americans' space
program.

Anomalia.ru

Translated by Maria Gousseva

**

=A91999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in whole or in
part, reference to Pravda.RU should be made.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:12:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:44:06 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? -


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

<snip>

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >do you see?

Superman?

A submarine?

......or maybe an amazing piece of grass blown by the wind?

Your guess is as good as mine, what makes you think that it
might be something out of the ordinary?


Cheers,

Joe








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:59:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:45:30 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hatch


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >Hello List,

 >While inspecting the latest that the Sci-Fi channel has to offer
 >on the upcoming Roswell show, I noticed something interesting
 >in one of the pictures. Go here:

 >http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >shows the crash site.

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >do you see?

 >Regards,

 >Frank


Hello Frank:

I found the picture as described, a little thumbnail image. I
clicked on it but could not get a larger image to look at.

What I see on the horizon, just left of center in this teensy
image looks like a big tree or maybe a mushroom cloud. It could
be anything at all for what little I'm shown.

Further clicking started a download of Adobe Acrobat so I simply
left the site. Sorry.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

              Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hale

From: Scott Hale <sh5259a@american.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:11:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:49:03 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Hale


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:34:43 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >>Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

<snip>

 >Whatever it is might not be 'on film' at all, if a digital
 >camera was used, which is likely. Could it be a processing
 >artifact? If it's indeed a UFO, it appears to be in the act of
 >crashing :-)

 >I personally suspect it's a Mogul balloon train.

Mac,

I disagree. I personally hired a team of experts from NUU (Nutty
Ufologist University) to examine the image. Their analysis
concluded it was a parachute test dummy captured on film
returning to Earth. However, this is not any normal dummy; it
seems to be holding a teletype of some type.

After a laborious binge drinking session we looked at the
picture again and the teletype seems to say something about
Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis ordering a secret cover-up of the Roswell
dig to prevent the release of the secret Coca Cola formula by
space aliens from the Pleiades.


What do you think?

Scott Hale








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 05:13:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:35:54 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Warren


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >Hello List,

 >While inspecting the latest that the Sci-Fi channel has to offer
 >on the upcoming Roswell show, I noticed something interesting
 >in one of the pictures. Go here:

 >http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >shows the crash site.

 >Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >do you see?


Hey Gang,

While fiddling with the picture I noticed that it appeared to be
reflecting light (after blowing it up 300%). Then in looking at
the tire on the truck, one can determine the angle of the sun by
the shadow from the tire etc. The shimmer or reflection from the
object seems to correlate with the suns position. Bruce, have
you looked at this pic yet? What's your take?

Frank









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:22:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:41:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
 >>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >>Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO
 >>Verdict - Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books,
 >>1981, pp. 4-12), states, "When I obtained the weather
 >>records from the nearby Albany airfield, they revealed
 >>that the weather was cold and clear, although a few
 >>scattered clouds were present that evening."

 >Bob, at the URL you had us visit, Robert Sheaffer himself had
 >stated the sky was basically clear that night. Here it is again
 >at: (Please see: end of second paragraph)

 >http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

 >Yes, you are right about the web site, on which he says,
 >"Weather records show that the sky was clear at the time of the
 >sighting." His 1981 book, however, cites the actual weather
 >report, "although a few scattered clouds were present that
 >evening."

 ><snip>

 >>Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
 >>comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
 >>only as big as "your little fingernail."

 >>Let's see what else we know here:

 >>1) As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
 >>moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
 >>quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
 >>don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
 >>moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
 >>present.

 >Tonight the Moon is nearly full. Go out and hold up your little
 >finger at arm's length, and also hold up a quarter. The quarter
 >will be four or five times the size of the full Moon. It will be
 >abot 7 feet from your face to be the size of the full Moon - 1/2
 >degree of arc.

Yes, as I also wrote to Tom Bowden, I tried it last night and
decided you were correct about this.


 >>2) At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
 >>the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
 >>have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
 >>it was never mentioned.

 >This is a myth. There is some distortion of the Moon's shape but
 >this "Moon effect" is only an illusion caused by our brain
 >"seeing" the sky as a flattened dish-shape, probably due to the
 >size of the clouds we see in it. We assume that the Moon, which
 >is the same size as usual - 1/2 degree - is huge because we
 >expect it to be "away over there at the horizon". Try measuring
 >the width of the Moon at the horizon right now and then when it
 >is high in the sky about midnight. To prove that the Moon is not
 >huge at the horizon, do what we have little kids do at the
 >planetarium. Face away from the Full Moon at the horizon, spread
 >your legs and bend over and look at the Moon between your legs.
 >Your brain will not be fooled when you do it this way.

I agree about this also as I wrote Bruce Maccabee about it and
he said the same thing.


 >>We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
 >>horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
 >>mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
 >>extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
 >>the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

 >Astronomical objects rarely just "blink out" at the real horizon.
 >Maybe at building roofs, etc. or perhaps at the top of a mountain.
 >They fade out. "Zooming away" is not an unusual way in which
 >Venus fades out.

How many days do we have to look at Venus before we see this
"zooming away" effect? I've seen fading but I've never seen the
zooming you describe, nor the swelling so big I would ever be
tempted to describe it "as big or a little smaller than the
moon."

 >>3) You also completely omit discussing the following from my
 >>first post: (Rudiak)

 >>"C) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the
 >>distance. At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have
 >>remained well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
 >>disappeared. It fact, it didn't set until about 9:20. You can't
 >>have it both ways, with Venus supposedly being brilliantly
 >>bright and otherwise highly visible (to supposedly account for
 >>the report), yet supposedly disappearing as well."

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

 >>I read the above and said to myself, "Hmmn, Rudiak has a good
 >>point there." Bob Young says it was very bright. So how could it
 >>completely disappear?"

 >The sequence of events would have been:

 >1) Carter sees Venus
 >2) Carter sees Venus fading behind clouds
 >3) Carter no longer sees Venus and goes inside
 >4) Venus is no longer visible, or it might have become visible
 >again when Carter was inside.
 >5) Venus reaches the local horizon and would not have been
 >able to be seen any more

O.K., this clarifies your point, and again, it's a
"possibility." But from what I've read so far, Bob Sheaffer has
not definitively proved either that:

a)   A cloud was actually there. "A 'few' scattered clouds . ."
Did anyone else there actually notice clouds present? Did
Sheaffer query people or did he simply discount this? I think
this information is important to arrive at a meaningful
analysis.

or that

b)   Carter actually saw Venus go behind a cloud. Sheaffer
suggested it as a possibility. I've given another possibility.
The two things basically cancel each other out. How does
Sheaffer positively "know" that Carter would not have noticed a
cloud present? Carter was a trained observer. Did Sheaffer ask
him?

 >>4) And omitted discussing this: (Cameron) (Long Cameron quote:
 >>last paragraph of the at the URL below) [jc emphasis added
 >>below is mine.]

 >>"The witnesses declared that the object disappeared
 >>after 10 minutes or at 7:25 p.m. Venus, on the evening
 >>in question, was visible in the clear sky till 9:20 p.m. If
 >>it had been Venus, it would still have been visible for
 >>another 115 minutes after the witnesses claimed it had
 >>disappeared in a clear sky. ...snip... _Venus does not
 >>disappear_, and would have been eliminated as a
 >>suspect ....snip...."

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

 >Please refer, again, to my sequence of events, #2 through 5.

O.K.

 >>I think most astronomers would agree, Venus doesn't "set" until
 >>it "sets" That's why astronomers have assigned it a "setting
 >>time." (i.e. it doesn't just disappear at whim.)

 >Only those astronomers who observe on the airless, cloudless
 >Moon would make such a statement.

O.K., thinking about it some more, I can see what
you're saying here.


 >>5) And you also omitted this important statement (Cameron);
 >>found within that same post:

 >>"Carter described the object as being the 'size of the
 >>moon' or 'slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
 >>moon.' Venus never appears this way."
 >>(Long Cameron quote: 4 paragraphs before the end of the )

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

 >Venus _always_ appears a "smaller" (dimmer?) than the apparent
 >"size" (brightness?) of the Moon.

So we agree on this point. If I understand what you've said
previously however, your viewpoint is that Carter may have
mistaken the size of what he saw. He may have seen a star and
mistaken it for an object almost as large as the moon. I do not
believe there is a certainty he would have made this mistake.

 >>None of us need the moon present to remember the "relative" size. (i.e.
 >>moon: large, star-like planet: small.) You can simply see the
 >>other visible stars/planets and judge what you see from that.

 >Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
 >a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
 >IFOs.

And examples of UFOs that have yet to be explained, and UFOs
which were labeled IFOs and then found to still be UFOs. These
things cancel each other out. So what's your point?

I asked for a specific case; one where another person saw what
he thought was a UFO the size of the moon or slightly smaller
and also had the technical education (Nuclear Physics) and
observer skills of Carter. I would think this would be one part
of Sheaffer's proof concerning this point. Is this available for
us to see? Is this perhaps found in Sheaffer's book?

 >>6) Was Cameron also incorrect when he said?
 >>[Long Cameron quote: Paragraphs 4-7 at URL below]

 >>"Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
 >>conclusions were wrong because they relied on
 >>eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony is
 >>unreliable. There are, wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of
 >>scientific analysis documenting unreliability of
 >>unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony." Yet
 >>Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
 >>eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the
 >>data that he collected to come to his Venus
 >>conclusion.

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

 >The point is that many witnesses saw nothing exciting and only
 >one was excited.

No, actually, that's another point. The first point is directly
stated in Cameron's quote above, and would be an obvious flaw in
Sheaffer's argument. If he argued totally against eye-witness
accounts and then used eye- witness accounts to support his
hypothesis, he's not following his own rules or playing fair. He
would be just discounting what he doesn't want to listen to.

The second point is what you stated just under the URL above.
However, concerning that second one, you are really just
repeating yourself from a previous post. Bob Gates and myself
already made points about it which demonstrate clear reasons why
this may have occurred and basically nullifies what you're
saying. As I said in my last post, one of them involved the
differences between my wife's reaction to our personal sighting
and my own reaction, another had to do with an example Gates
gave concerning his office and people's perceptions of external
events when they are busy, and a third item had to do with what
was going on back in the very late 1960's regarding the Condon
study and its effect on the public at the time. It's also why I
found myself not easily able to talk about my own sighting for a
very long time, and also, one of the prime reasons for my web
site today . You're entitled to feel otherwise but what we have
said in this regard is legitimate and entirely factual. They are
a good reason why other people present didn't remember the
sighting. Our readers will have to look at our two arguments and
decide for themselves.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m15-008.shtml


 >>7) And was I really incorrect when I said ...?

 >>"BTW, we get a hint of the lengths Sheaffer is willing to go to
 >>debunk a case when we note his 'expose' of Rosalynn Carter.

Bob, a question for you: Do you feel the Rosalynn Carter piece
has any truly meaningful place in a debate concerning Carter's
sighting other than to cloud the issue at hand? Do you think it
has any direct bearing on an investigation of Carter's specific
sighting? Be honest.

My point was that if Robert Sheaffer had a truly locked down
solution concerning Carter's sighting, he wouldn't have had to
resort to putting that stuff on his web site.

 >You will note that Robert has little vignettes about other
 >politicians on his website.

Do they have anything specific to do with this case?


Respectfully,

Jerry Cohen
http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:42:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:43:50 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Kaeser


 >From: Scott Hale <sh5259a@american.edu>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:11:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

<snip>

 >Mac,

 >I disagree. I personally hired a team of experts from NUU (Nutty
 >Ufologist University) to examine the image. Their analysis
 >concluded it was a parachute test dummy captured on film
 >returning to Earth. However, this is not any normal dummy; it
 >seems to be holding a teletype of some type.

 >After a laborious binge drinking session we looked at the
 >picture again and the teletype seems to say something about
 >Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis ordering a secret cover-up of the Roswell
 >dig to prevent the release of the secret Coca Cola formula by
 >space aliens from the Pleiades.

 >What do you think?

I think someone's had too much coffee this morning..... <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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:45:13 -0500
Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special


A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

Wendy Connors

Faded Discs
SHG







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:55:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:46:46 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Ledger


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:12:42 -0000
 >Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >>Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 ><snip>

 >>Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >>do you see?

 >Superman?

 >A submarine?

 >......or maybe an amazing piece of grass blown by the wind?

 >Your guess is as good as mine, what makes you think that it
 >might be something out of the ordinary?


Hi Joe,

That's like asking why the devout would think there's something
unusual about frost on a church window that looks like the
Virgin Mary.

You better be careful or you're going to stretch your cheek out
of shape.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:10:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:49:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
 >Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

I was away last week and I'm only just catching up on my mail,
but this one caught my attention. (If anyone would like to
forward this to Robert Sheaffer, that would be ok with me.)

 >Robert Sheaffer has asked me to post the following comment about
 >this discussion and one on another List about the Betty Hill
 >sighting.

<snip>

 >In both cases, the ufologists are ignoring an important
 >skeptical argument: If Betty Hill was seeing a real UFO, then
 >there would have been _3_ starlike objects near the moon:
 >Jupiter, Saturn, and the UFO. But she reported seeing only two.
 >Similarly, Carter did not say that he saw two bright objects
 >towards the west - Venus and his UFO - he saw only one."

No, this isn't actually true.

One can't emphasize too much that the human visual system isn't
a kind of video camera, passively recording everything that
happens in front of it. The starry sky is a repeated texture,
and bright objects selected as a focus for visual attention are
treated differently by the visual system than background
textures. The process is called figure/ground segmentation, and
is intrinsic to the way the visual system works. In the Betty
Hill case, for example, the visual system may simply have
segemented Saturn out as part of the starry background texture -
  there is plenty of experimental evidence that such background
features are suppressed from visual attention, and mechanisms
for doing this may be hardwired into primary visual cortex.

Another problem is that only a very restricted portion of our
field of view is actually perceived with optimal resolution, and
that to overcome this problem the eye is constantly moving as
the visual system shifts its attention from one focus to
another. It's actually quite easy for even prominent objects to
"disappear" in this process, if the eye's attention is
constantly being directed elsewhere.

As far as the Betty Hill case goes, none of this is diagnostic
of anything in particular. The significant features of this case
are presumably those which came later during the sighting.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:58:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:55:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:16 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'


 >>>>Dear Mr. Velez:

<snip>

 >Hi Jan

 >>Hi Paul, John, and List,

 >>Not quite on your topic about media, but in the ball park:

 >You wrote:

 >>John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
 >>again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
 >>line of that which should be considered in ufology.

 >Ok, so we disagree. I think UFOs and abductions explain each
 >other. But that's just speculation on my part. You're entitled
 >to your opinion Jan.

John, this, of course was not serious. But I am going into your
area of expertise and telling you that I don't think it should
be the center piece of the ufology. I know you probably disagree
mightly.

 >BTW, I'm 53 not 13. I'm not going to take my ball and go home in
 >a huff and pouting because you expressed an opinion that I
 >disagree with.

 >What I'd like to address is this (incomplete) list that you
 >created.

 >You listed:

 >>1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from
 >>mental health professionals. I have letters from a very
 >>intelligent woman who apparently is also member of upper
 >>society, and who has serious mental problems. Her story is that
 >>the Aliens and the Communists are chasing her and have been
 >>since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She now rides
 >>buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place for
 >>more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >>places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
 >>answers at such places.

 >>2. Some 'abductees' have stories which are very similar to child
 >>sex abuse stories. They are tortured or used sexually by
 >>entities who have almost complete power over them.

 >>3. Some 'abductees' are the voice of the abductors. I call these
 >>the "queen bees" that will tell us all there is to know about
 >>the aliens. While people hang around listening to every word
 >>like recievied wisdom. And, of course, each story gets better
 >>than the one before. "I have one abductee who murdered a Grey."
 >>"The Greys are getting tired of the Rebel Reptilians! If things
 >>do not change, there will be an interstellar war with earth at
 >>the center in the next six months!" I didn't make this up, but
 >>heard this at the 1996 MUFON Symposium, I promise.

 >>4. Some 'abductees' are jumping on the band wagon. I received a
 >>letter from a country and western singer. He had a UFO crash
 >>story from 1947 in Colorado, and, of course, recently he had
 >>been abducted. Do you think his stories might help his music
 >>career? (I did an extensive search in Colorado for any evidence
 >>of unusual activities there during the supposed crash.)

 >>My friend took a telephone call from a fellow who wanted to know
 >>"all about UFOs" because if he did, then he could be abducted,
 >>and then, he could be in book about his abduction, go all over
 >>the country lecturing, get on TV and become famous. Hmmm.

 >>5. Finally, there are military or intelligence people going
 >>around the country kidnapping, torturing and planting abduction
 >>scenarios in people's heads as part of insidious mind control
 >>experiments. The popularity of such ideas in the UFO community
 >>astounds and disgusts me! The Viet Vietnam war brought out the
 >>worst in some in the military. A great deal of soul-searching
 >>went into development of senior leaders after this searing
 >>national experience. That people of integrity would not step
 >>forward and denounce such actions is hard to believe. The proof
 >>of such paranoid ideas is thin indeed.

 >You forgot number 6 Jan!

 >6. _Some_ abductees are accurately recalling and describing
 >actual physical events.

Not at all John, here is what I said in resume:

Now I don't know what to make of the AVB case, nor the Hills
case, nor say the Bluff Ledge case nor dozens nor scores nor
maybe hundreds nor even thousand of others. Something very
strange may be operating here, but I am puzzled as to what it
is. I certainly do not buy grand unified theories offered so
far.

 >Out of pure laziness I am going to copy/paste a paragraph I wrote
 >in a response to Don Ledger about the NOVA program. It applies
 >here.

 >"What they ignored (as opposed to 'cut out') was all the physical
 >evidence. The medical reports, the pictures of the scoop marks
 >and scars on the bodies of the abductees, lab reports on ground
 >trace evidence, and multiple witness cases. What the public missed
 >out on was the 'evidence,' circumstantial though it may be, for
 >what we were/are reporting."

 >You completely ignore the physical elements/components of the
 >abduction reports/reporters. Unless one of your 5 explanations
 >can explain away the physical phenomena, your 'candidates' will
 >be inadequate because they fail to acknowledge or address a
 >vital component. A little consideration I like to call 'number
 >6.'

 >'Wink and a nod.'

No, I wouldn't think of ignoring such evidence. But it is not,
unfortunately, conclusive. I did not say that the first five
categories were the be-all and end-all. In the first four
primary categories I have abductees in quotation marks for the
reason that I think like most everything else in ufology there
are huge amounts of useless data.

Going through hugh amounts of data that comes for abductees is
rather trying. After getting such data and trying to put it
together in statistical studies may be interesting and
informative. However, has care been taken to see that the data
from which the stats are derived does not fall into the areas
which I described above. But my problem is that there is a
tendency to readily accept everyone who say they have been
abducted as a "true" case.

Another example. After the news started talking about "dark
matter", that is matter thought to be in universe, but
undetected by current radio, X-ray, or visual astronomy, some
'abductees' started talking about the Aliens' ships being
propelled by dark matter. My inclination is to say fine, these
people are just absorbing the latest news, and with incomplete
understanding of what it means, incorporating it into their
stories. (Dark matter is no different then other matter, it is
just not detectable from earth with the present state of the art
or during the current survey census of matter in the universe.
Dark matter has not other special properties.)

Further, where Aliens are communicative with abductees they many
times give warnings of diasters or events which are false, or
concerns over which abductees have not control or influence.
Some concerns sound like the contactee's warnings of yore that
nuclear bombs were upsetting the balance of the universe.

Recently, for other reasons, I have done extensive readings
into child sexual abuse. Such victims are often isolated
and powerless especially if it is a matter of incest. They
carry the trauma hidden away in their minds into adult life.
In many cases people tell them since it happened long ago when
they were children, "they should get over it and move on."
Unfortunately, that is mostly impossible and while the person may
be able to function well in society the experiences have deeply
affect them and cause problems in their lives that usually need
some type of help.

In many cases, unfortunately too many, when parents are involved,
there is a tendency of the other parent to support the abuser
rather then the abused. In such cases the only defense left
to the child is disassociation or hiding the experiences and
memories. Are we seeing that in some abduction cases? Are
these really alien abductions, or a way for the powerless to
get their experiences out into the open many years after the fact?
I don't know, this is way beyond where I feel comfortable going.
However, I have talked to a psychologist who lives close to me
who has done such work. I doubt if she will every be invited to
a MUFON Symposium to share her ideas. I also doubt that many
abduction investigators want to hear such ideas or look into
this area.


 >>Okay, I know that the above will cause some brickbats to come my
 >>way.

 >From who Jan? Me? Geez I hope not. I would have thought that
 >after all these years you would give me credit for having more
 >down than that.

 >>Please answer the whole thing or not at all. Thank you.

 >Hmmm, my sentiments precisely, Ollie! :)

 >>I will be in my bomb shelter as I know the 50 megaton nukes are
 >>currently on the way to Northeast Connecticut!

 >Life sometimes has a nasty way of living up to our expectations.
 >Be careful what you ask for... you just might get it! :)

John, I have learned that some people have so much invested in
the abduction scenarios that any criticism evokes deep emotional
responses. I know you have mention such reactions also to your
work.

My opinion on abductions is that I don't understand what is
going on here. I don't know how to integrate this into ufology.
  I don't think that proponents have given us much useful
understanding here either. I am throwing out my thoughts and
confusion on the matter in hopes it will simulate some useful
discussion.

What are some scenarios?

Breeding a hybrid race to take over the world Conducting bizarre
experiments on an almost industrial scale Revealing
technological marvels to the abductees, but not letting them
bring any proof of such things back with them.

Other associated abductions aspects:

Healing people
Making health or health problems worse
Causing trauma
Implaining memory blocks in some cases and not in others

Abductions, as Bob Pratt has commented, are quite different in
Brazil then the US. Why the cultural differences? Why are
there few abductions in some parts of Europe. (BTW the 1959
Swedish abduction case has proven to be a hoax. One of the
earliest abduction on record and one of the first to be
published. Of course, there is the 1951 Georgia case of the
abducted pilot. This story was even endorsed by some early
contactees.)

Our technology allows for imaging that means medical procedures
are becoming less invasive, but the Aliens seem to be into very
invasive techniques, removing eyeballs and such. Maybe we
should share our knowledge with them.

Considering where we are with breeding, genetics and cloning,
etc. is it really necessary to have sex with Aliens. What is
going on here?

Again, speaking only for myself.

Jan Aldrich








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                          Filer's Files #47 -- 2002

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:39:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:01:15 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #47 -- 2002


FILER'S FILES #47 -- 2002, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 20, 2002, Majorstar@aol.com. Webmaster: Chuck
Warren -- My new website is at: http://www.georgefiler.com


MORE EVIDENCE OF ROSWELL CRASH

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space. Features this week are: New evidence for
Roswell crash, International Space Station and meteoroids,
Vermont huge UFO fly's low, New York strange strobe light,
Pennsylvania pearls, Virginia UFOs fill sky, South Carolina
mirror, Illinois speeding dots, Arkansas jet chases ball of
light, Texas cylinder, California huge red lights and orb,
Washington sightings continue, Mexico volcano cameras are
recording UFOs, Italy has 82 sightings, Egypt bright light, and
Turkish UFOs spotted by airline pilots. Announcing the Grand
Opening of our website with 100 stores for all your Holiday
shopping at fantastic prices.
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com/ FILER.unfranchise.com

NEW EVIDENCE FOR ROSWELL ALIEN CRASH

Last May, when I spoke at the Roswell Museum, I met Lt. Walter
Haut the former Public Information Officer at the base who told
me that the army had gained possession of a flying disk in July
1947, with the cooperation of a local rancher. The true story of
Roswell crash, was given to him personally by Colonel William
Blanchard, and nothing during the last fifty years as changed
his mind. He felt the disk was not likely from this Earth. The
Base Intelligence Officer, Major Marcel visited the Foster Ranch
and found a square mile of debris field and stated there was
vastly more debris than he could carry in his car. Bill Brazel,
Jr., others confirmed the large debris field. Dennis Balhaser
and Bruce Rhodes took us to the ranch. After I walked the debris
field it was clear that debris could still be found in the
numerous holes, valleys and among the scattered rocks. Jim
Wonders and I found some interesting objects at the sight
ourselves and in these files I suggested on May 22, that the
debris field should be examined carefully by trained personnel.
The disk apparently exploded during a lightning storm over the
debris field near Corona, NM from unknown causes. During my
research with people who were at Corona, I determined an escape
pod or disk continued northwest and crashed NORTH of Corona NOT
towards Roswell.

I'm happy to report the SCI FI Channel is presenting a show on
November 22, called "The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence,
" Expert investigator Bob Durant was interviewed for the show
and archeologists from the University of New Mexico were hired
to comb the debris field using the latest technology. Bill
Doleman principal investigator of the archeology team said, "We
used scientific methods to include geophysical prospecting and
archeological testing of anomalies, to find any evidence of a
crash. We found some things I still don't know what they are --
  but they surprised me." The rumors are that strange material
was found that could be the proverbial smoking gun.

The Roswell Photographic Interpretation Team (RPIT) apparently
also provided evidence for the show. J. Bond Johnson a Fort
Worth Star Newspaper photographer took photos about 4:10 PM, on
July 8, 1947, in the office of General Roger Ramey holding a
secret message surrounded by the alleged debris from the crash.
After fifty years, the message was deciphered by using modern
computers and the hard work of Neil Morris, Dave Rudiak, Don
Burleson, Tom Carey, and many others.

RPIT Project Director Bond Johnson writes, "After more than
three years of eye straining research of comparing the computer
enhanced and carefully dissected Ramey Office Photos (ROP) with
the blueprints of RAWIN/MOGUL and to other weather devices circa
1947 -- RPIT) has concluded that there is NOTHING to be seen in
the photos that can be matched to ANYTHING expected to be found
in the crash of a RAWIN/MOGUL or any other known "weather
device." RPIT has concluded that there is NO evidence that ANY
known RAWIN/MOGUL launch could account for the strange and well
documented reports connected with the Roswell crash of 1947.

Dave Rudiak is "absolutely certain" that the message was
addressed to General Hoyt S. Vandenberg at the Pentagon who at
the time was deputy chief of the Army Air Force. A review of his
official calendar revealed he returned from Wichita Falls, Texas
on July 5, 1947, less than a hundred miles from Ft. Worth
hinting at an earlier date for the crash. Further, numerous key
Army Air Force generals visited both Texas and New Mexico in
this time period suggesting something very important had
occurred.

On Tuesday, July 8, 1947, Col. Blanchard announces a flying
saucer has been captured near Roswell. Late afternoon J. Bond
Johnson takes General Ramey's photograph in Fort Worth with a
copy of the message apparently just sent to Vandenberg in his
hand. Vandenberg's Dairy reports he returned from Congressman
Wolverton's office at 5:07 PM and went immediately to Mr.
Symington's the SECRETARY OF THE ARMY AIR FORCE Office with
reference to personnel for the President's Air Board. At 6:20 PM
went to Mr. Leo's office and then home. It is not known what the
President's Air Board means and may refer to UFOs.

The message is addressed To: Vandenburg

1)***********************************NEAR OPERATION AT THE
2) **RAN)CH AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE
3) ***T)EAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX.
4) *****S*S IN THE "DISK" THEY WILL SHIP FOR A1-8TH ARMYAF**
5) BY B29-ST OR C47. WRIGHT AF ASSIST FLIGHTS AT ROSWELL. ASSURE
6) THAT CIC-TEAM SAID THIS MISTAKEN MEANING OF STORY AND THINK
7) LATE TODAY NEXT SENT OUT PR OF WEATHER BALLOONS WOULD WORK
8) BETTER IF THEY ADD LAND DEMO RAWIN CREWS.

Signed Ramey

The message indicates there was a wrecked disk shaped craft with
victims or corpses inside. We assume the generals knew we had no
disk aircraft flying at this time indicating the disk was
Russian or from another planet. This message also implies there
were two crash sites. People at Corona, still remember the large
military presence around the tiny town. The actual disk and
bodies were at the second crash site and were being flown to A-1
(General Ramey) at 8th Army Headquarters at Fort Worth, Texas.
The disk was going to Wright Field in Ohio and they should
assist. I talked to the family of a pilot who had flown some of
the wreckage and bodies to Wright Field. The message implies, a
large recovery operation was going on at the ranch and that
"victims of the wreck" were discovered after further
reconnaissance in the area. The victims or corpses were being
flown to Fort Worth and the disk was being shipped. A weather
balloon is obviously too mundane and small to be guarded and
flown by B-29 bomber or C-47 transport aircraft. A B-29 was
loaded with the victims and debris and is flown to Ft. Worth and
the bombardier, Felix Martucci, claims the plane was met by a
mortician because he had gone to school with the man.

The Associated Press reported that Lieutenant General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg hurried to AAF press section and took active charge
of the news. He apparently put into effect measures to confuse
the public on the nature of the disks by claiming they were
weather balloons. The last lines of the message tell us that
weather balloons with their RAWIN radar kite like reflectors
would be used to explain the UFO reports. "CIC-team" refers to
the counterintelligence team whose mission is to protect
classified projects and classified information.

United Press Roswell story on July 9, stated that the Army and
Navy were carrying on a "concentrated campaign" to "stop all the
UFO rumors," - On Wednesday, July 9, General Vandenberg's Dairy
reports he ordered General Doolittle who had investigated UFO
reports in Sweden, to come in at 10:30 AM. He met with Mr.
Symington and Doolittle at 10:30. At 10:50 he met with General
Eisenhower Army Chief of Staff, and General Norstad the head of
Psychological Operations. At 12:15 he met again with Mr.
Symington. At 12:15 Vandenberg is told to be at the White House
the next day. At 2:15 PM: Vandenberg returned from JCS (Joint
Chief of Staffs) and met again with Symington. General
Vandenberg's Dairy indicates he met with virtually all key
personnel in Washington, DC and something very important was
happening. The message stating that there were both victims of
the wreck and the shipping of a disk speaks volumes. "I
encourage you to watch this Friday evening. Producer Bill Parks
says the Roswell documentary will air on the Sci-fi Channel on
Friday, November 22 at 8 and 11 PM, eastern and pacific time.
Rebroadcasts on: 11/25 at 5 PM, 11/27 at noon &11:30 PM,12/2 at
2 PM, 12/7 at 9 AM, and12/15 at 9 AM. If you have interested in
the "Search for Alien Life Evidence" (SALE.) Please contact me
at Majorstar@aol.com.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION VIEWS LEONID METEORS

The International Space Station glided over North America during
the Leonid meteor storm on November 19, last night with hundreds
of flashes each hour. Some shooting stars were spectacular,
including the "space station" over Philadelphia at 5:10 AM.
Astronaut Frank Culbertson who witnessed last year's storm and
was then the commander of the (ISS), stated, "It looked like we
were seeing UFOs approaching the earth flying in formation,
three or four at a time, "There were hundreds per minute going
beneath us, really spectacular!" Last night the Earth plowed
through a minefield of debris shed by Comet Tempel-Tuttle and
innumerable bits of comet dust would become meteoroids when they
hit Earth's atmosphere at 144,000 mph about 60 miles high. The
ISS flies much higher at an altitude of about 210 miles
altitude. Editor's Note: I assume he has seen UFOs to make the
comparison.

VERMONT EXTREMELY HUGE OBJECT FLEW OVER LAKE

GRAND ISLE -- Five people sighted an extremely large object
flying low over Lake Champlain on November 2, 2002. My nephew
was sitting in the living room and noticed a light on top with
green lights below. He watched the object come off the lake and
fly very low and circle around the house. He could see the
bottom of the object that was rotating with greenish lights. It
disappeared going west but ten minutes later it reappeared in
the front of the house and just skimmed a huge weeping willow
tree at about fifty feet. The craft then flew back over the lake
and hovered for a few minutes. It was dome shaped on top. At
this point a yellow white beam of light came out of the bottom
of the object and beamed down onto the lake. It then moved back
toward the house and stopped about 50 feet away. Then it moved a
little closer and stopped. He was standing on the railing of the
deck on the front of the house and the craft was about even with
him in height without making a sound.. Then it moved straight up
and quickly passed over. My sister started to watch from the
window and ran to tell my Mom. My sister saw several lights
hovering over the bushes near the house across the street. Then
it headed towards the house and flew over. She described it as
very large with greenish lights on the bottom. She called her
neighbors who live across the street and the woman said her
daughter had been watching a strange plane out their window.
Another nephew who is six also saw it. Thanks to Peter Davenport
  http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

NEW YORK STRANGE STROBE LIGHT CHANGES COLORS

PLATTSBURG -- Chris Styles reports that on October 14, 2002, "I
was on a Greyhound bus ten miles south of Plattsburg at 11:00 PM
heading north to Montreal. The moon was out and reflected light
that was sufficient to discern the horizon and features such as
transmission towers in the distance. Suddenly an intense, slow
strobe light appeared due north about 20 degrees above the
horizon. It pulsed at a rate of one pulse a second and changed
color with each pulse. This continued for 20 seconds and stopped
abruptly while the light descended to about 10 degrees above the
horizon. From my viewpoint there appeared to be no horizontal
movement. The colors displayed included green, blue, red, pink,
yellow, silver, and gold. Most of the passengers on the bus were
asleep or inattentive. The driver noted it though and I
discussed it with him at the next scheduled stop in Plattsburg.
Maybe it was a local feature on some tower display or something
else unique. All I know is I've never seen a strobe quite like
this. PS: I've had a UFO sightings in 1967, 1970, and 1999 so I
do not "see things" every day. Thanks to: Chris Styles

PENNSYLVANIA PEARL NECKLACE

WILLIAMSPORT -- An experienced aerospace industry witness
reports the sighting of a contrail on November 7, 2002, that was
created by the aircraft that replaced the SR-71. While no photos
have been made public, the aircraft has apparently been flying
since the early 90's. Photo of the pearl contrail was published
in Aviation Week and Space Technology in roughly 1991. It was
referred to as the "Pearl Necklace" contrail. The aircraft flies
at altitudes high enough that there is no acoustic footprint.
Those of us in the industry that are not privy to the details of
the propulsion system guess the pearls are the result of a pulse
jet type systems. Editor's Note: Last week, we discussed the
secret American Aurora space planes as reported by Pravda.

VIRGINIA FLASHING, STROBING LIGHTS

DISPUTANTA -- On March 30, 2001, the witness reported a UFO
sighting, and again on November 6, 2002, a similar UFO was
sighted. But this time there were numerous planes with swtrobe
lights all over the sky for over a 30 minute period around 7:30
PM. There were lights that were headed in one direction and
turned on a dime and headed in the opposite direction. The
witness observed two objects that were moving so fast they
appeared to be meteors or shooting stars, they moved so fast. I
couldn't possibly describe them as they were just a blur.
Military jets came out for the occasion and circled the area. I
certainly can't state whether they were part of this anomaly or
checking it all out. They normally fly over during maneuvers,
but not at night. There was one jet that flew a complete circle
and then a second. It was incredibly busy out here tonight and
oh so strange. Although some WERE planes and military jets,
there were thirty to fifty objects that made no sound, made no
sense as far as movement and of course the strobing lights. I
just can't imagine that one would see thirty to fifty planes in
the air within a thirty to forty-five minute period where there
is usually light traffic. Thanks to Peter Davenport
http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

SOUTH CAROLINA MIRROR IN THE SKY.

CHESNEE -- It seemed to have a comet like shape, but a more
rounded tail. It was 4:45 PM on November 8, 2002, and the sun
was to the right of it. At first I thought it was a rainbow
trying to form because of the orange color that reflected off of
it, but then I saw a shadow underneath it. It did not move, and
just hovered so that I could see it was not a rainbow trying to
form. The sun was reflecting off it like it was metal. It was
like something in stealth mode, but because of the clouds behind
it, I could see it. The clouds then seemed to disappear behind
it and It had a clear and orange tint from where it faced the
sun. http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

ILLINOIS GOLD DOTS MOVE AT FAST PACE

CHAMPAIGN -- During my Astronomy session on November 6, 2002, we
were told to look towards Polaris at 9:05 PM. We did this and
about 30 seconds later, noticed an object moving south. We
thought it was a plane and then it stopped. It sat there for
about 2 or 3 seconds then moved back to the north for about 5
seconds and then changed direction again to the south. It did
this for another 6 seconds. Then it moved rapidly in an easterly
direction and disappeared. The object was yellow almost a gold
color. About 4 minutes later, I saw a circle of 6 to 8 lights
(gold dots) moving at a very fast pace to the south. These
lights were very small and moved south and flew out of
formation. They looked like they were going to dive and then
were lost in the clouds. Then an egg shaped object moved across
sky and stopped. Minutes after, a circle of lights is seen
moving in a perfect formation and then the lights converge. This
last sighting lasted about ten minutes and none were standard
celestial objects. Thanks to Peter Davenport
http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

ARKANSAS JET CHASES BALL OF LIGHT

POCAHONTAS --The witness was outside raking leaves at 6:30 PM,
just after dark on November 11, 2002, when the light on the
building in my back yard went out. Simultaneously, a jet fighter
flew by chasing a ball of light. The fighter was clearly in
pursuit of the craft, I yelled for my little girl to come take a
look and she thought it was really cool. The fighter gained on
the craft and the next thing I saw was wild. It turned out of
the path of the jet and went straight up and it was gone. In a
few seconds another jet flew in the same path. A total of four
fighter jets circled the area for at least an hour. Thanks to
Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

TEXAS LARGE WHITE CYLINDER SHAPED OBJECT

CHILLICOTHE -- While driving east on Highway 287, on November 3,
2002, I noticed what looked like bright airplane landing lights.
The light went out at 5:40 PM, but a large white cylinder shaped
object was visible at about 6000 feet. The length was 200 feet
and its diameter was 40 feet. It was hovering and I pointed the
object out to my wife and pulled to the side of he road. Fifteen
seconds after we stopped it slowly accelerated toward the east.
We followed it for 30 seconds maintaining the same speed as the
object until we reached 75 mph. It continued to accelerate until
out of site 30 seconds later. This is our first observation of a
UFO. I served in the Air Force at NORAD.

CALIFORNIA HUGE RED LIGHTS AND ORB BEHIND CLOUDS

WOODLAND HILLS -- The witness reports, that on November 13,
2002, "My husband and I viewed a UFO moving south at 7:00 PM,
with four large red lights in a horizontal L shape." Each was
about an inch in diameter at arm's length. It was so large that
I believe other people must have seen it. I called the Griffith
Park Observatory and Edwards Air Force Base, but no one knew
anything. The objects were not moving about the speed of a
commercial airliner. They were enormous in size compared to any
commercial aircraft.

ATASCADERO -- On November 14, 2002, a 62 year old licensed
psychotherapist was taking her nightly walk when a white and
yellow oval shaped object, came into view. At 6:22 PM, it was
approaching at approximately 10,000 feet. The front was bright
blue, shining like a mica type color in a reflective way. The
object disappeared from sight as it made a gentle arc in the
sky, but it did not disappear on the horizon level, but some
distance above. The moon was almost full this evening, but paled
in comparison to the brilliance of the unknown object. The
psychotherapist said, "I have never witnessed any other similar
event, and the glowing orb was moving counterclockwise very
fast". It was viewed by several other witnesses in different
locations, so she called the Atascadero police and reported the
sighting. The dispatcher said that at about 7 PM they had
received a call from Templeton, six miles north reporting the
same object. Thanks to Peter Davenport
http://www.ufocenter.com/ NUFORC

WASHINGTON GLOWING WHITE LIGHTS

PORT ORCHARD -- The witness took her dog outside around 8:30 PM
on November 4, 2002, and heard the dogs barking and states, "As
I was looking up I noticed a very, very bright star, circle, was
moving in jerks, zigzagging up and down. This star as I call it
was staying basically in one area but too far up to really
identify. I called my husband outside and he confirmed what I
was seeing. I then phoned my girl friend and her husband as they
live up on a hill near in Bremerton Naval Station. She also
confirmed what I was watching and saw three helicopters take off
from the base as we spoke. Two flew towards the star and the
other in the other direction. There were other stars, only not
as big. The white light's would dim, and then go very bright
again. Thanks to Peter Davenport http://www.ufocenter.com/
]NUFORC

MEXICO'S VOLCANO SWARMS OF UFOs

Eileen Cannon reports there are anomalous objects doing
maneuvers right now, over Mt. Popocatpetl on November 18, 2002.
There are objects hovering the volcano. One is orange and moves
in a pattern, others are more fixed. The moving object darts
quickly, expands, contracts, and dances in the sky. You can also
get another view from the Alzomoni cam -- it's farther away and
the object appears as a hovering gray blob with a subtle
movement above the volcano peak. I've been watching this for a
while. If you've got enough juice, open a second browser, go to
the site, and have two cams going at once. Here is a more
complete report. The event occurred again yesterday morning.
Some of my friends were also able to see the UFOs. Eileen
reports the sightings continue on the 19th. Thanks to Eileen
Cannon. Select the Tlamacas cam at
http://www.vialidad.telmex.net/popo/

ITALY SIGHTINGS CONTINUE WITH OVER 500 FOR THE YEAR

The Italian Center for UFO reports there were 82 sightings for
September, but this data was influenced by the sighting of a
French stratospheric balloon that crossed Northern Italy between
the 20th and the 21st. Forty four percent of the month's
observations are attributable to the balloon. Discarding the
balloon sightings, September is comparable to May and June,
while August remains the leader with over one hundred sightings.
These bring the total sightings for the year to over 500. August
saw an almost 50% increase in sightings. The areas most affected
by the September "flap" were Liguria and Emilia-Romagna.
Compared with the preceding annual statistics, there was a
slight increase in the percentage of identified cases. Only 10%
of the observations occurred during the daytime. Thanks to
Giorgio Abraini UFO-Italia http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/casi2002.htm

EGYPT BRIGHT LIGHT OBSERVED MOVING ERRATICALLY

SHARM EL SHEIKH -- I was on holiday at the top of Mt Sinai on
November 6, 2002, In the twilight before sunrise I noticed a
single, fairly dim white light, which initially appeared to be a
star in the east. The light then began moving left to right to
left in a mainly horizontal plane. The movement seemed quite
random, and the object did not appear to be traveling toward any
particular destination. As an example of the motion observed,
the craft would sometimes move to the right, stop, then continue
moving to the right. Other times it would move to the right,
stop, then begin moving to the left. The speed of the craft
varied, from a slow drift, to a speed so great that it is
difficult to explain how this speed was achieved. The craft
accelerated extremely rapidly, from an apparent standstill and
also decelerated to a stop almost instantaneously, even after it
had just accelerated to a great speed. This rapid motion was all
in a horizontal direction. This went on for 20 minutes as the
craft very gradually drifted higher. This was happening at the
same time as the sun came closer to rising and the twilight
became brighter. When the sun rose about 5 AM, the craft seemed
to disappear by fading away.

TURKEY SIX AIRCREWS ENCOUNTER UFO FLEET

AFYON and YALOVA -- On November 1, 2002, an extraordinary UFO
encounter was witnessed by three Turkish airline crews as well
as three other crews. Interviews are being conducted by the
Turkish Sirius UFO Organization. Based on the testimonies of
pilots and crews of the airliners thus far, the UFO fleet was
made up of ten to fifteen craft that were first sighted by the
Captains and the crews of two airliners just before takeoff. The
UFOs were flying between 22,000 and 36,000 feet altitude and
were spotted between 5:30 and 5:45 PM. The reports were
submitted to Sirius UFO Space Sciences Research Center and to
the flight safety department by pilots.

The first and closest airliner to the UFO fleet was the Sun
Express Air flight # 590, a Boeing 747 flown by Captain Ercan
Eken and First Officer Sinan Yilmaz who reported the sighting.
The second airliner following the first was Sun Express Air
flight737-800 flown by Captain Yilmaz Atli and First Officer
Bulent Demirturk. The third flight was Inter Air flown by
Captain Salih Gumus and First Officer Fatih Aksoy. The pilot of
the fourth crew Hapag Lloyd reported the UFOs were picked up by
their radar, and they had asked air control for confirmation.
The fifth crew, Captain Mhsin Atar says he and his crew
witnessed the incident at Antalya Airport as he was preparing
for departure for Stuttgart. The sixth crew witnessed the
incident from the ground, Captain Vedat Gurbuz, cabin supervisor
Bilge Yilmazturk and stewardess witnessed the UFOs.

These reports include clear statements of the witnesses on how
sure they are about what they have seen and the UFOs were
unquestionably not any kind of known aerial phenomenon. In the
reports, they state they are certain that the objects were a
group of UFOs. Chairman Haktan Akdogan has contacted all the
witnesses. The witnesses with thousands of hours of flight
experience have expressed that they have never encountered such
a thing in their whole life, and they were very impressed by the
event, adding that what they have seen was certainly a group of
UFOs. Thanks to the Sirius UFO Space Sciences Research Center
and International UFO Museum, Istanbul who are investigating.

In contrast, the scientific advisers from the Turkey National
Observational House (TUVPO) have examined the photos and found
the objects were meteors from the Lenoids. According to their
investigations the same objects were observed from both the
surface and from the air in the cities like Antalya, Bal=FDkesir,
and Afyon. The TUVPO Afyon Branch has made a detailed research
on this subject and obtained some photographs taken by a Mr.
Halil Yalcyn. The file was closed as a false UFO report.
http://www.tuvpo.com/124.jpg (147 Kb.)

Sirus has responded claiming, "A meteor that entered into the
atmosphere and that would possibly wreak havoc on earth was
broken into pieces and rendered ineffective by a UFO before it
hit the Earth. The incident could be considered as one of the
most prominent events in history of mankind, was witnessed by a
total of 6 different airliner crews (4 in the air, 2 from the
ground) and was filmed by an amateur camera. This historical
event which discloses the reality of the existence of
extraterrestrial life has been subjected to in-depth analysis by
our research center for 15 days. E-mail: info@siriusufo.org
http://www.siriusufo.org

Editors Note: It is my experience that meteors breaking apart
can easily be confused for UFOs. However, the meteors or
shooting stars last for only a few seconds. The pilots testimony
seems to indicate they had the objects in sight for many
minutes. There is also some evidence that UFOs use natural
events such as meteoroids to conceal their entry. Frequently
numerous UFO sightings are reported in the following days, if
they were present.

YOU'RE A PREFERRED CUSTOMER AT 100 TOP STORES ONLINE

GET BIG DISCOUNTS FROM YOUR FAVORITE STORES! Consider shopping
at: FILER.unfranchise.com for your Holiday gifts. You can shop
on line in a hundred different stores such as Ashlane Gift
Baskets, Books, Brooks Brothers, Diamonds, Disney, and Sweaters
from Elizabeth's by Liz Claiborne, Fragrances, Hallmark cards
and flowers, Jewelry, Spiegel, Customatix Shoes, Toy Chest, and
Wine.Com. For your Health and Nutrition Store there are
unbelievable products to feel fitter, and healthier again. My
hair is growing in darker and I feel younger. There is a store
for your every special need, and you qualify as a preferred
customer by reading these files, and you usually will qualify
for special discounts. Click: Register as a Preferred Customer
and pick the store of your choice.
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com/ FILER.unfranchise.com

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate agents
are part timers and inexperienced while others are experts. When
you are selling or buying your home, you need to make sure you
have the best relocation agent, the wrong one can cost you
thousands! Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent
for your needs. To get a free copy of this report E-mail us at
Majorstar@aol.com Majorstar@aol.com

UFO DEFENSE TACTICS - WEATHER SHIELD TO CHEMTRAILS

A. K. Johnstone, Ph.D., explores with evidence, the creation of
a weather shield to deter UFOs from entering earth's atmosphere,
as well as the erratic weather changes in recent years. Numerous
UFO sightings are examined from a scientific viewpoint and a
chemtrail correlation is suggested. Order illustrated book,
$14.95 from Hancock House 1-800-938-1114 or Fax 1-800-983-2262.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL. A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year. To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/. To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com. Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2002 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved. Readers may post the complete files on their Web Sites
if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue that the item appeared. These reports and
comments are not necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint. Send
your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically
grants permission for us to publish and use your name. Please
state if you wish to keep your name, address, or story
confidential. CAUTION, MOST OF THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS AND
REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.


Regards,

George Filer
http://www.filersfiles-ufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:34:37 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:18:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:10:15 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >I guess I didn't get my original point across. It wasn't really
 >about the actual size of the moon but that at times, it "seems"
 >even bigger than its actual size.

Jerry,

This is true.

 >Therefore I believe it is more difficult for a person to ever
 >"think" that Venus could ever be the size of the moon.

Unless the Moon isn't there to compare. The point is that the
Moon looks larger than it's "supposed" to be when it is seen
near the horizon. If it's not there, whouldn't one assume that
it "would be" smaller it it were there?

The other thing is that the apparent brightness if Venus, or
other bright stars or planets near the horizon, are enhanced
because dimmer stars are not seen due to atmospheric extinction.

 >How many people with the technical education (Nuclear
 >Physics) and observer skills of Carter have thought the moon
 >was a UFO?

I don't know, but a lot more have thought that Venus was a UFO,
which is what Jimmy Carter claimed.

 >And what if the object Carter reported _was_ the size he
 >described? Sheaffer really hasn't proved that it wasn't. He has
 >hypothesized same.

Yes, but this was based upon the testimony of 11 other witnesses
who didn't think anything out of the ordinary happened, just
maybe a distant balloon, "blue light" or star. Remember, the
case was a mystery until Robert discovered that the Governor had
been mistaken about the date.

People do make mistakes, otherwise there wouldn't be many IFOs.
This only requires the Governor to have been as human as the
rest of us.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

              Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:27:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:21:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:48:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >>I assure you that if you observe the largest full moon you can
 >>see and compare it to a U.S. quarter dollar coin held at arm's
 >>length, you will find that the moon appears much smaller.

 >>In fact, the moon appears smaller than a dime held at arm's
 >>length. This is well known to most experienced UFO
 >>investigators.

 >Tom, Jerry:

 >Tom is right, I just compacted the nearly Full Moon to a dime
 >held at arm's length: the dime was about 3 Moon-widths, thus a
 >quarter would be about 4 Moons, or about 2 degrees across.

The angular size of the moon is about the same as the angular
size of an aspirin tablet held at arm's length (adult arm).







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                        Re: Media & The Truth - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:53:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:31:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & The Truth - King


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:03:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & The Truth

 >>From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:51:49 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>


 >>>A case in point: When we were doing the Stan Friedman film, one
 >>>of the interviewees refused to be interviewed unless we removed
 >>>the line from the release form stating that he could not sue us
 >>>for (among other things) defamation - a standard clause, which
 >>>usually won't hold up in court, but better to have than not from
 >>>a producer's point of view. I could have walked away, but I
 >>>wanted to interview the guy (we ended up not using his material
 >>>for other reasons), so I agreed to strike the clause.

 >>Sounds like it could have been me. :) The Legalese the contracts
 >>are written in is done purposely to be difficult to understand.
 >>They are merely to screw the amateur person to be interviewed
 >>and protect the production company of legal recourse. The
 >>interviewee it typically given a basic 'waive your rights'
 >>contracts. I consider these the first round contracts only the
 >>suckers sign. If you read them carefully they describe a myriad
 >>of ways you can be sued, screwed, tattooed all while giving up
 >>universal rights to yourself, videotapes, or other wares. All of
 >>this can be negotiated away or simply don't do the production.
 >>If the contract was in plain English you'd learn about how
 >>they're screwing you and you won't sign it. How come the
 >>interviewee doesn't have their own separate contract and make
 >>the network sign it? Everyone who signs a contract should place
 >>in a date the contract expires and say it needs to be
 >>renegotiated.

 >I pay over $9,000 in Errors and Omission insurance for every
 >production (on a budget of perhaps $100,000 to $150,000 Cnd.).
 >Why? Because there are just as many questionable interviewees
 >out there as there are crooked producers (I would suggest far
 >more) who have made life (and business) miserable for those of
 >us with a camera. Rather than being sued we protect ourselves. A
 >lesson learned from hard experience, more than a few legal dust-
 >ups, and the edict of the broadcasters, who won't air a program
 >(rightly so) unless they are protected from any one of a number
 >of false claims for... well, you name it, it's been done.

$9,000 is about 4-6 times the average budget alloted to license
materials in most budgets for the entire show.

 >>Most producers are pretty slick, they kiss your ass up and down
 >>all while pretending to like you to get what they want. Low
 >>production costs! Most try to win you over by a 'power ass
 >>kissing session' in which you get the privilege of being on TV
 >>for 3 seconds. While they get the privilege to make a small
 >>fortune off the interviewee. They all claim they are broke and
 >>production is over budget and you need to help the producer out.
 >>That same old song and dance must be taught in TV producer
 >>college or something.

 >You must live in Hollywood! Cards on the table - as a
 >producer/director/editor of the Friedman film, I made a less
 >than grand total of $22,000 (Cdn, which is, I think, about $30
 >US). The film itself took over two years to research, film and
 >edit. I sure didn't get rich, and most of my colleagues here in
 >Canada don't either; I suspect the situation is the same for
 >independent documentary producers south of the border. It is a
 >very 'small' fortune indeed. Ask my wife.
 >
 >Your comments strike me as very similar to those debunkers who
 >claim that men like Friedman have gotten rich off of book sales,
 >and are only in it for the money.
 >
 >This is not to cry poverty. I did the film because I wanted to,
 >for a lot of reasons, but primarily because I thought the
 >subject was important. No need to shed any tears for me - I
 >chose this career - but don't label me and my peers slick, money
 >grubbing hucksters. For the vast majority of us, nothing could
 >be further from the truth.

$30,000? Wow. It's not alot for two years of work but I wish I
got paid $30,000 for two years of my time in UFO research. I'm
sure in the past 5 years I spent $30,000 into my research or
more. Travel costs, camera gear, computers, gasoline, hotels,
maps, phone bills, etc...

I'm not labeling you as money grubbing, but your peers are money
grubbing hucksters when it comes to them trying to produce a
decent UFO program. Don't try to pass off to this List that your
peers care about UFOs or creating a good program. Bottom line is
they care about that check every week, not UFO reality. Several
ufologists are fed up with the repeated lies they pitch. Once
bitten twice shy. Your not going to find many shoulders to cry
on with this List.

 >Editing can be where they'll make you nut job or a hero. Most of
 >>these "UFO entertainment/news" shows are pre-scripted to some
 >>extent.

 >Not in my company, nor in those of the people I know in the
 >industry. We film what happens, and what people say. The story
 >is usually constructed in the editing room, after the big
 >picture makes itself clear. Tell me that authors of UFO books,
 >or Internet websites, don't make the same kind of editing
 >decisions, often to advance their own agenda. Of course they do.
 >The important thing is to make sure you don't misrepresent
 >someone's views. For an interviewee, if that does happen, you
 >can always sue (something Americans are far better at than we
 >Canadians).

Paul, not your company but in 98% of all producers in the U.S.
operate in that manner. They simply don't blindly fly to your
house, hire a union cameraman and a sound guy hoping you have
something interesting to say about UFOs. They already sized you
up and have some idea of how you'll fit into their program
before they book airline tickets to your town. So their mind is
made up about you before the cameras arrive to interview you. I
can tell it the second the camera crews arrive because I'm
sizing them up. They're body language, demeanor and first
impressions speak volumes to seasoned investigators dealing with
tv producers getting their UFO cherry popped. When the Discovery
Channel turned up in 1997 the director already figured out the
sighting while his cameraman was setting up. Bill Hamilton and I
knew the story was going to be slanted and thought about
ditching the tv producers and getting the hell out of there, but
we didn't.

There are airtime slots they need to fill between those
commercials. 3 cheap but interesting UFO videos need to be
licensed, real or not don't matter to the producer in most cases
since they call it "eyecandy" anyway. Network Execs would rather
see a crappy model hanging from strings than an authentic UFO
video at night. Its brings in more viewers, raises the price of
those commercials and has "conflict"

 >>Before the TV crew arrives in your town. The producer/director
 >>probably already has some vision of what "they need you to say".
 >>They're not really interested in what you have to say more what
 >>you need to say. They read of a list of loaded questions to get
 >>a measured response and trap you into saying sound bytes that
 >>they need. Most like you get you to say something with 'Alien'
 >>in a sentence. Much like making a real film they know what the
 >>show is going to be about and just need to go get all the
 >>soundbites and cheap UFO video clips to make the show.

 >Nothing like painting us all with a pretty broad brush loaded
 >with tar. What are Stan's second and third rules for debunkers?
 >Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up, and if one
 >can't attack the data, attack the people. It works both ways.
 >Finally, nobody can make a person say something they don't want
 >to say, short of unethical editing, which I agree is a plague on
 >my industry, even as I maintain it is rare.

I respect your position but were both coming from different
sides of the coin here. If you get burned and lied to over and
over, time after time you tend to lump the liars together.

 >>These shows are not here to solve anything or present
 >>ground breaking material. They're merely 48 minutes of filler in-
 >>between the commercials($$money$$) and that's what its all about
 >>to the TV producer, the network, and the 5 people that own the
 >>media.

 >I make my own films, pre-licensed to a network. Not once in four
 >years has a network ever interfered in my productions. As for
 >the 'five people', I've never met them, just as I've never, to
 >my knowledge, met anyone from MJ-12, to whom one private
 >correspondent suggested I had basically sold my soul. The kind
 >of person for whom you definitely need legal protection!

http://www.nowfoundation.org/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

Check the link, I think most know the media is controlled or
owned by a handful of people. Their annual revenue is measured
in the billions! Yet they all claim their productions are on
limited budgets and us poor people need to "help them out". &$%#
'em.

 >>>>Without us... they have no Show.

 >>>Alas, no... there will always be a show, because people find the
 >>>subject of UFOs/abductions/alien life fascinating. And all
 >>>television and film, like it or not, is about entertainment,
 >>>especially the news.

 >>There will always be the Art Bell UFO whores that never turn
 >>down a TV interview, or radio spot to promote their garbage. So
 >>you producers always have them to sell the conflict of your
 >>shows.

Sorry I meant to say Art Bell UFO crack whores not Art Bell UFO
whores.

 >So, because they appeared in my film, Stan Friedman, Kevin
 >Randle, Don Ledger, Karl Pflock, and others are "UFO whores?" I
 >don't think so. Maybe they just see a bigger picture, and
 >appreciate that if ufology is ever to move into the mainstream,
 >it has to reach more people, in whatever ways it can. That's why
 >I have such a great deal of respect for Stan - he's taken his
 >lumps, gotten his message out, and done good work as a result.
 >As for Don, "The Shag Harbour UFO Incident' is another example
 >of a good film that balances the need to entertain with the
 >desire to inform. Maybe we just do it better here in little old
 >Nova Scotia.

I won't say the above people you listed are Art Bell UFO crack
  whores. I have much respect for Stan like most on this List.
Sorry I haven't seen your tape but sure would like to screen it.

 >What I have the most trouble understanding - in my final post on
 >the subject - is the difficulty some folks have with 'conflict',
 >as if it didn't exist in the UFO field. A quick perusal of the
 >UFO UpDates Archive should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
 >notion. I say again - a UFO film that portrays 'conflict' (or
 >would you prefer 'debate') accurately reflects the way things
 >are. Kevin Randle and Stan Friedman both agree that something
 >extraterrestrial happened at Roswell. They disagree about
 >specifics. That's conflict. There are still people who think Bob
 >Lazar is telling the truth, and many others who think he's a
 >serial liar. It's perfectly legitimate to portray these
 >differences.

Paul, I think people are sick of news/entertain style that
dominates the media nowadays. The hardcore group wants to see
just the facts without Joe Nickel's comments on a case he never
investigated. He adds nothing of value to the 'entertainment'
since most of his testimony is based on things he didn't study.

 >Or would you prefer an audience of sheep? I have more faith in
 >people, that they can weigh both sides of an issue, and reach
 >their own conclusions. And, before you say that we producers
 >don't present both sides of the equation, I must add that I have
 >further faith that people are capable of seeing when they are
 >being snowed, and will instinctively react againt it. If they
 >see only one side, they will seek out the other.

We aren't all sheep just because we realize the foolish
debunkers don't belong in a UFO story to balance it. Thats
simply adding BS to the story to satify the Network Execs. Not
everyone is a network puppet.

 >>Paul you summed it all up just like I thought. With or without
 >>credible people the TV producers got a job to do. Their gonna
 >>get their soundbites from somebody, anybody. I'll be sitting on
 >>the sidelines most of the time. I've got burned enough I'm not
 >>helping TV producers get rich off of me. I have the internet -
 >>what do I need TV for?

 >Whether you agree with them or not, the aforementioned certainly
 >strike me as credible people. As for the Internet, I'll assume
 >you meant that in jest. If there is one thing worse - and more
 >dangerous - than television, it is the Internet, where the gold
 >is buried in a thousand tonnes of dross.

Paul at least I have control of my website. I don't have some
slimy Network Execs that know nothing about UFOs telling me I
need to have Joe Nickel's comments all over my website to
balance it or Subway will back out of sponsorship.


Tom King
www.ufovideo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:38:0 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:37:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:45:56 +0000

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

 >>IMO, abductees could fall into the following categories:

 >>1) People with deep seated mental health issues,

 >>2) Charlatans and exploiters,

 >>3) Band wagon followers,

 >>4) People who are giving us symptoms of some other traumatic
 >>experience in their lives,

 >>5) People who are convinced by 'investigators' that their
 >>problems or a mysterious incident(s) in their lives arise from
 >>an abduction experience,

Dick, John and All,


 >Jan,
 >
 >You left out, or simply people who really - for possibly very
 >good reasons - believe that it actually happened to them.

Sorry, perhaps I gave that impression. However, the Hills, AVB,
Bluff Ledge and dozens of account I have read... and I recommend
the UFO Evidence II for some cases in this category puzzle me
completely. I don't pretend to know how to deal with them. I
feel much as Ted Bloecher told me about his leaving ufology,
That after all his years in research, he felt he had really
learned nothing that he was back at zero as far as understanding
the phenomenon.

 >>6) Now I don't know what to make of the AVB case, nor the Hills
 >>case, nor say the Bluff Ledge case nor dozens nor scores nor
 >>maybe hundreds nor even thousand of others. Something very
 >>strange may be operating here, but I am puzzled as to what it
 >>is. I certainly do not buy grand unified theories offered so
 >>far.

 >"Grand unified theories" be damned, we have credible testimony
 >(no matter how uncomfortable it is for some of us to accept)
 >that something is going on that your categories do not
 >adequately encompass.

 >>The evidence for abduction being an extraterrestrial experiment
 >>or breeding program is tenuous to say the least. Maybe there are
 >>people who are convinced to their souls that is the case.
 >>However, they must offer proof to someone who is not inside
 >>their minds that such is indeed the case.

 >"Proof" or nothing? You sound like the "either-or" debunkers
 >here.

No, my comment here is who say they absolutely know because they
were involved or they argument have made them believers. Well,
here is the rub, express the proof in a logical way that someone
outside your skin can be convinced.

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:43:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:41:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow

 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'


 >1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from mental
 >health professionals. I have letters from a very intelligent woman who
 >apparently is also member of upper society, and who has serious mental
 >problems. Her story is that the Aliens and the Communists are chasing
 >her and have been since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She
 >now rides buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place
 >for more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
 >answers at such places.

<snip>

Jan,

Quite honestly, I'm surprised at you. Seems to me like you've
substituted anecdotes for analysis. Nobody disputes that some
people who claim to be abductees are disturbed, or in fact, to
put it bluntly, that the abduction world attracts some out and
out nutcases. But the question you don't address is pretty basic
- how many abductees "have deep problems, and need help from
mental health professionals"? What percentage of abductees are
troubled that way?

For what it's worth - and you certainly should know this -
several studies have shown that the majority of abductees don't
seem to have any serious psychological disturbance. Plus,
there's a remark David Jacobs like to make (and in fact I heard
him make it once again, on the Sci-Fi Channel symposium last
night). He says that all sorts of psychopathological
explanations are advanced for the abduction phenomenon. He
wonders, though, why the people who advance these theories --
  apparently like yourself, Jan - don't think that abducction
researchers themselves have considered the problem. What
precautions do you think people like Dave, Budd Hopkins, and
John Mack take to exclude people with serious mental health
difficulties from their work?

I'm surprised at what you wrote, Jan, because I respect you so
much. In the thread about "Cosmic Top Secret," you got properly
angry at people who made pronouncements about security
classifications without having much knowledge. At one point you
fired off a long list of your own qualifications - your own
direct experience with classified documents. Would it be
appropriate now to ask how much direct experience you've had
with the abduction world?


Quite baffled,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                              Re: Stalin's UFOs

From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:58:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:54 +0100
 >Subject: Stalin's UFOs

 >Source: Pravda

 >http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/19/39641.html

 >Stig

 >***

 >2002.11.19/10:39

 >Stalin's UFOs

 >Joseph Stalin insisted that the USSR outpace America with its
 >space program

 >**

<snip>

The thing about this and other recent "amazing tales" from
Russia is that no references to supporting documentation are
ever provided, which just strengthens the impression that it's
story concocted to make someone some rubles.  Does anyone on
List know of any supporting documents for this?


Eric Jacobson







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:54:04 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:08:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Morton


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:14:13 EST
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:04 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:17:14 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >>>Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and
 >>>film is entertainment, even as it informs -
 >>>even documentaries, and even news (especially news!).

 >>There you have one tiny part of the problem, folks:
 >>"Entertainment is about conflict". (There's a bigger problem
 >>than "conflict" and "entertainment", but I'll focus on this
 >>small point).

 >>I won't be satisfied until we have "Entertainment Funerals"
 >>filled with humor, truth and lies (conflict) for deceased
 >>news and documentary producers. When they die, the
 >>aggrieved will be on hand to deliver eloquent anti-eulogies
 >>at their funerals, for entertainment and conflict purposes
 >>of the aggrieved, and to offer a more balanced perspective
 >>of the deceased. The funeral would be carried on
 >>television, of course. The word "NOVA" comes
 >>to mind...

 >>I'd be happy to put my ass in a seat for that production -
 >>even if I have to bring my own popcorn!

 >I, like Cromwell, would prefer to be remembered, warts and
 >all.

 >The humour can come from old friends ('remember crazy Paul
 >and that Internet dust-up he had with the UFO guys back in
 >2002?'

 >What a naive schmuck), the truth can come from the wife ('If
 >only he really had exploited more people, we could have
 >gotten that Hyundai instead of the Kia'), and the lies can
 >come from Majestic 12 ('of course he was working for us,
 >part of the Top Secret Restricted NOVA project').

 >If you're coming, remember that it's BYOB (no popcorn at my
 >funeral!!), and don't forget your camera.

 >Paul "Many Miles to Go Before I Sleep" Kimball


My apologies, Paul.

I meant to say "some producers", but the word "some"
inadvertantly got dropped due to my carelessness.

Sorry for the unintentionally broad smear which I retract.

As to the NOVA producers who lied to Budd Hopkins (and John
Velez) and sliced and diced their passionate and heartfelt
efforts, I would not only bring my own popcorn to their
"Entertainment Funerals", I'd pass out party favors for free
(noisemakers, confetti, etc). It should be a grand time.

Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Vallee's GWU Presentation On-Line

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@anv.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:50:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:10:03 -0500
Subject: Vallee's GWU Presentation On-Line


For those interested, Dr. Jacques Vallee's MS Powerpoint
presentation at the recent GWU symposium can be found on the
NIDS web site at:

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

Colm Kelleher
NIDS








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                        Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:21:07 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:11:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:44:17 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >I have to ask, which is more likely to be able to violate the
 >laws of physics (as we know them), a meteor, or a product of an
 >advanced technology?

 >Just asking...

Jim:

Neither (as we know them), but you forgot the third alternative,
which I judge to be more likely: the witnesses were mistaken
about their interpretation of the bright lights that they saw
brightening and then dimming and disappearing, randomly.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:21:42 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:13:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:20:51 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: YoungBob2@aol.com
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:04:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

  <snip>

 >It may be "permitted" but I have never found it necessary to use
 >miracles of violations of physics to debunk prosaic explanations
 >which themselves are "like miracles" or appear to violate laws
 >of physics

Bruce:

I'm glad to hear this. But of course "miracles" are usually in
the eye of the beholder.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:22:09 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:14:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:58:56 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >We don't know what "flying saucers" can or can't do. We do know
 >what meteors can and can't do.

 >Example of a similar explanation: Capt. Terauchi and crew on
 >the JAL1629 airliner saw two UFOs... they said. (This case
 >recently resurrected from history.)

<snip>

 >No wonder CSICOP came up with another explanation several months
 >later (moonlight reflected from clouds). ROFLMAO

Bruce:

At least they didn't have to resort to a miracle.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:23:03 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:16:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:11:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

  <snip>

 >Do you ever notice that when a witness steps forward and says I
 >saw a "meteor" the skeptibunkers are silent, generally yawn and
 >don't question the account, the witness's story, background, or
 >anything else.

 >Yet if a witness steps forward and says I saw a UFO, these same
 >skeptibunkers would be all over the account, questioning it,
 >denouncing it, proclaiming various and sundry explanations and
 >so forth.

Robert:

Yes, I have noticed that. Of course if the witness said that
they had seen a moving light in the sky, everyone would yawn.
Only ufologists, of all stripes, argue about what exactly "UFO"
means or should mean.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Washington DC Premiere Of 'TAKEN'

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:17:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:19:34 -0500
Subject: Washington DC Premiere Of 'TAKEN'


The second episode of 'TAKEN' was shown at a "Premiere" of the
mini-series in Washington DC this evening. Like any good Steven
Spielberg production, you'll find kids and a good story line,
but the relation between this fictional series and the abduction
phenomenon (as we have come to know it) is very tenuous.

The second episode was selected because they really wanted
everyone to tune in to the first episode on December 2nd, and I
suspect they didn't want to give too much of the story line away
by showing a later segment. One interesting scene involved a
young boy who followed a story-book character (a rather large
squirrel) that to a tree house. According to the story-book, the
squirrel only invited his friends into his home. Then once the
boy was inside the tree house, it transformed into a "flying
saucer" and flew off.

I might suggest that you take notes during the show (just
kidding) because the cast of characters is very large and they
jump from one family to another rather quickly. I found myself
getting them confused, since they jump forward in time and the
children all look different (i.e. older) from one series of
scenes to another.

All things considered, I enjoyed it for its entertainment value.
Yes, I'll be setting up my tapes to record it during it's two
week run, but I have a feeling that it will take a while to
digest.

If you are an "experiencer", you should be aware that there are
fairly graphic scenes (albeit short ones) inside the alien craft
that might trigger bad memories.

Enjoy it (if you can).

Steve

PS- A new trailer is being introduced this coming weekend at the
movie theaters that will heavily promote TAKEN.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                   Cattle Mutilation Book Available Online

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 05:30:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:21:47 -0500
Subject: Cattle Mutilation Book Available Online


Source: Great Falls Tribune - Montana

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/20021118/localnews/396325.html

Stig

***

To read "Mystery Stalks the Prairie" online, visit the National
Institute of Discovery Science Web site, at:

www.nidsci.org/whatsnew.html.

The book also is available in the Montana Room of the Great
Falls Public Library.

**

Monday, November 18, 2002

Regional cattle mutilation book available online

By KATIE OYAN, Tribune Staff Writer

**

An out-of-print book by a pair of Montanans about a wave of
cattle mutilations in the Great Falls area in the 1970s is
available online and free of charge.

About 12,000 copies of Keith Wolverton and Roberta Donovan's
"Mystery Stalks the Prairie" were printed in 1976 and have sold
out.

A privately funded Nevada institute that pays scientists and
retired police officers to investigate bizarre phenomena such as
mutilations and UFO sightings has published the book on its Web
site.

A single copy of "Mystery Stalks the Prairie" also is available
in the Montana Room of the Great Falls Public Library, where it
can be read but not checked out.

The library at one time had copies of the book in circulation,
but they all landed on its "lost" list.

"It's one of the most stolen books we have," said John Finn,
head of the library's information services. "We tried to order
more, but it's out of print."

Cattle mutilations were first reported in the Great Falls area
three decades ago and started again near Conrad last year.

Investigators still have not determined the source of the
mysterious mutilations, which have sparked jokes and rumors
about little green men, government conspiracies and cults.

The cows usually appear to be cut with surgical precision and
are missing random organs or patches of hide. Predators won't
touch them, and other cattle also steer clear.

Conrad-area ranchers reported more than a dozen mutilations
between June and December 2001.

According to the Pondera County Sheriff's Office, few cases have
been reported this year; the most recent was about a month ago
on a ranch outside Dupuyer.

Wolverton investigated the cases as a captain with the Cascade
County Sheriff's Office. Donovan is a former reporter for the
Lewistown News Argus.

Wolverton has since retired from the sheriff's department and
splits his time between Montana and Nevada, working occasionally
as a fishing outfitter on the Missouri River.

Reached in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, he said he was not
surprised to hear mutilations were being reported again in
northcentral Montana last fall.

"I don't know why they start up and stop in one place and then
start in another, but they've been going on all over the world,"
he said.

Wolverton said he investigated the mutilations with the
sheriff's office for about three years, "But I've never quit."

"We're still trying to find answers," he said. "We're still
actively looking for some answers."

Wolverton said he has no immediate plans to write another book
about the mutilations -- "Not until we solve it."

"I get a lot of people asking questions about it," he said.
"They want to know if we've got answers."

**

Copyright =A9 2002 Great Falls Tribune. 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned?

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:00:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:25:25 -0500
Subject: 'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned?


OK, I saw it... the preview offered by the Sci-Fi channel in
Washington, DC November 20.

They showed a piece of the first installment and the whole
second installment.

A mixed bag. Space/UFO soap opera combined with some intelligent
portrayal of the impact of abduction phenomena. However, I would
say overblown.

Written by a person who has a marginal knowledge of ufology and
who is also a good writer (Spielberg had input, but the script
was written by one man, Leslie Bohem.) So it is complex (the
history of several families with kids) and intriguing and
perhaps even exciting. But I found myself saying... "reality
check" over and over. Shades Close Encounters, ET and even
Independence Day with the spectrum of ufology, a la Contact,
thrown in for 'good' measure.

Have fun!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:36:43 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:28:21 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig? - Gates


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:29:54 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 >>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:07 -0800
 >>Subject: UFO Caught On Film During Roswell Dig?

 ><snip>

 >>http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/#

 >>and scroll down to the group of pictures and click on the
 >>picture that is in the middle of the second row which apparently
 >>shows the crash site.

 >>Looking towards the middle of the picture at the horizon, what
 >>do you see?

 >I see out of focus dirt on the camera lens.

Hi Bob, list,

Besides dirt on the lenses, it could be alot of other things. It
could be somebody at Sci/Fi was having fun to.

It also could be a giant Pelican, diving to the ground... :)


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:09:50 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:31:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special


 >A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

 >I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
 >Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
 >proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
 >Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

Wendy,

I would hope that your prediction is accurate. I understand we
will hear things like:

President Truman's secret service envoy and Charles Lindbergh
arrive; Glen Dennis sees ET wreckage in field ambulances around
the hospital; an autopsy is attempted at the base hospital; when
the bodies are flown to Ft. Worth a mortician meets the plane as
part of the group; the bodies are kept in a secure building at
Ft Worth before being flown out the next day; LaPaz is assigned
to find out the speed and trajectory of the object and
apparently concluded that it had come down for repairs several
times. These spots were apparently black marks which turned to
glass; then the object exploded over the ranch; The so-called
escape pod is flown out a few months later; going out to NM; Mac
seeing three dead ET bodies at the Proctor crash site; with a
couple of others at the crash site 40 miles North of Roswell
(one apparently seriously injured and dies in the arms of
somebody while the other one is taken into custody, to the Base
Hospital then to a hanger but dies before it could be flown back
to WrightPat; when Blanchard took leave that was a cover so he
could set up a command post at the site 40 miles north of
Roswell; the ET bodies are flown back to Andrews AFB where they
were viewed by high ranking officials; the bulk of the space
ship was driven through Roswell on a flat bed with a tarp
covering it; wreckage was flown to Kirtland then taken to Los
Alamos, some wreckage was flown to Florida, the bulk flown to
WrightPat and so on.

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:27:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:36:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:58:53 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:16 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:54:46 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>>Dear Mr. Velez:

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Jan

 >>>Hi Paul, John, and List,

 >>>Not quite on your topic about media, but in the ball park:

 >>You wrote:

 >>>John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
 >>>again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
 >>>line of that which should be considered in ufology.

Hi Jan,

 >>Ok, so we disagree. I think UFOs and abductions explain each
 >>other. But that's just speculation on my part. You're entitled
 >>to your opinion Jan.

You wrote:

 >John, this, of course was not serious. But I am going into your
 >area of expertise and telling you that I don't think it should
 >be the center piece of the ufology. I know you probably disagree
 >mightly.

No, not a 'center piece' but as being part and parcel to the UFO
phenomenon. UFOs _are_ a part of abduction reports. As such,
they demand equal consideration.

Hey man, I don't pretend to have the answers to any of the
questions you are posing here. I'll try to address a couple of
them with my own thoughts/feelings about it. What I do know is;
in 1977 I was standing about 50 to 60 linear feet away from a
silent, glowing, football shaped object that was hovering no
more that 45 to 50 feet off the ground. (Just over the roof of a
three story apartment house in Brooklyn.)

If I had picked up a stone and thrown it, I could have hit it
easily and I would have heard the 'ping' from the impact from
where I was standing. If I wasn't so scared shitless I might
have tried it.

That incident was followed by a whole night of missing time that
culminated in a visit to an emergency room where I had two
physicians, one of which was an ear, nose, and throat specialist
tell me that they saw evidence of 'surgery' having been
performed inside my head. (Sinuses)

That's not "I had a dream" kind of crap. I was left bleeding,
with a swollen eye, and more confused and disoriented than I
have ever felt in my entire life. It was real and physical and
it left behind (painful) evidence. My wife and my kids have
demonstrated highly unusual physical manifestations over the
years. This is no 'ify' thing for me Jan. It's real and it
concerns me deeply. My family is affected. That's the bottom
line for me. And I'm not alone.

I have 'stuff' like that in my life that goes back to childhood
Jan. Involving multiple witness UFO sightings, non-human beings,
being carried out my house in the middle of the night, strange
flying/floating lights 'inside' the house that others have
witnessed along with me, on and on like that.

That, is all I "know" Jan. I can only speak for/answer for me.
Not for anybody else. No one can. I am one man. One case. I
couldn't speak for anybody else's case if I wanted to. If I were
to try to deny it all to myself I would be denying my Life. I
would have to intentionally lie to myself! I can't do that. I'm
not put together that way.

So what am I left with? I'm standing here talking to you. One on
one. It's all I have and it's all I can do. I hope that by
allowing you to get to know me over a period of years, by
exposing my self, my personality, my experiences and my inner
workings that (at some point) you will realize that 'hey, John
isn't a psycho or a chronic liar. 'Maybe' I have prejudged other
abductees/abduction cases.

If that much can be accomplished with a few people then my time
here has been well spent. How many of the cases you mentioned
are 'legit?' I don't know. But I'd sure as hell like to. We're
not going to get anywhere if bright and thoughtful individuals
like yourself retreat into denial and negation solely because
you have focused on the flurry of detail at the expense of
missing the central core of material that is _consistent_ in
many cases.

I'm not here to 'sell' anybody anything. I tell my story, share
things I've learned or picked up along the way and I let people
make up their own minds about it. We can go at this for months
Jan. Like I said, I don't have any answers for you. You'll have
to work it all out for yourself just like I was forced to do.

The only real difference between me and you is, you have a
choice. I don't. I'm stuck with a series of events in my life
that I cannot simply 'wish away' and that you cannot 'explain
away.'

So here we are.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                           UFO*BC Updates - 11-02

From: David Pengilly - UFO*BC <dave@ufobc.ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:12:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:41:18 -0500
Subject: UFO*BC Updates - 11-02


Sorry for the quantity, but it has been a long time between
updates.

UFO*BC Website Updates - November 20, 2002

1) http://www.ufobc.ca/Sightings/recent.htm
- Recently Reported BC Sightings
- Thanks again to HBCC UFO and NUFORC.

2) http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/yukonsightings2002.htm
- Recently Reported Yukon Sightings
- Thanks to Hans Grasholm for monitoring the Yukon Hotline

3) http://www.ufobc.ca/History/1980/vedderriverufo.htm
- Vedder River UFO - early 1980s
- Investigated by Richard Tortorella and Martin Jasek

4) http://www.ufobc.ca/Experiencer/strangemarkings.htm
- a triangular pattern appears on a young man's back

5) http://www.ufobc.ca/History/1970/ufooccupants.htm
- "UFO Occupants Seen Near Hospital"
- 1970 UFO sighting at the Cowichan District Hospital
- from John Magor's Canadian UFO Report - Vol 1 No 7.

6) http://www.ufobc.ca/History/1960/vancouverisland.htm
- "Another Vancouver Island Sighting"
- from John Magor's Canadian UFO Report - Vol 1 No 7.

7) http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/Bigfoot/albernivalleysasquatch.htm
- "Sasquatch Sightings on Vancouver Island"
- by Graham Andrews, Alberni Valley Times

8) http://www.ufobc.ca/Reports/bandwagon.htm
- "The Band Wagon Encounter"
- a fascinating case from 1973

9) http://www.ufobc.ca/Reports/inmemoriam.htm
- two long-time UFO researchers pass away

10) http://www.ufobc.ca/Reports/thankyou.htm
- a tribute from our Editor Richard Tortorella

11) http://www.ufobc.ca/Store/fall2002.htm
- the latest UFO*BC publication is now available

12) http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/Bigfoot/sasquatchstories.htm
- some sasquatch stories from the Pitt Lake area

13) http://www.ufobc.ca/Supernatural/Bigfoot/bigfoottracks.htm
- "Bigfoot Tracks in BC's Yoho National Park"
- by Charles Reid, Charlottetown Guardian

14) http://www.ufobc.ca/History/Early/cityhall.htm
- 1937 - UFO Over Vancouver City Hall
- finally some information to go along with the photo!

15) http://www.ufobc.ca/History/2000/telkwahouston29jul02.htm
- 8 people witness UFO in Telkwa/Houston area
- investigated by Brian Vike of HBCC UFO


UFO British Columbia






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:04:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:22:43 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >a)  A cloud was actually there. "A 'few' scattered clouds . ."
 >Did anyone else there actually notice clouds present?
 >Did Sheaffer query people or did he simply discount this? I
 >think this information is important to arrive at a meaningful
 >analysis.

The nearby weather observers reported this, I believe.

<snip>

 >your viewpoint is that Carter may have
 >mistaken the size of what he saw. He may have seen a star and
 >mistaken it for an object almost as large as the moon. I do not
 >believe there is a certainty he would have made this mistake.

The object would have been brilliant Venus.

 >>Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
 >>a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
 >>IFOs.

 >And examples of UFOs that have yet to be explained, and UFOs
 >which were labeled IFOs and then found to still be UFOs. These
 >things cancel each other out. So what's your point?

You are claiming that all identified IFOs are "cancelled out"
because there are still unsolved UFO reports out there?

 >I asked for a specific case; one where another person saw what
 >he thought was a UFO the size of the moon or slightly smaller
 >and also had the technical education (Nuclear Physics) and
 >observer skills of Carter. I would think this would be one part
 >of Sheaffer's proof concerning this point. Is this available for
 >us to see? Is this perhaps found in Sheaffer's book?

If the only IFO explanations you will ever consider are those in
which the witness's background must be matched to another IFO
witness using your self-selected criteria, you will be doomed to
studying old long-solved cases reported by "expert" witnesses
until the cows come home. My life is too short.

Human beings are fallible. Witnesses of every IFO ever seen were
fallible. See The UFO Handbook by Allan Hendry, p. 64 where he
describes daylight UFOs which turned out to be the planet Venus,
Changes in brightness caused by clouds and haze were interpreted
as motions toward and away from the witness.

Eleven other witnesses were present, some seeing the little star
or blue light, and none thought anything unusual happened.

 >Bob, a question for you: Do you feel the Rosalynn Carter piece
 >has any truly meaningful place in a debate concerning Carter's
 >sighting other than to cloud the issue at hand? Do you think it
 >has any direct bearing on an investigation of Carter's specific
 >sighting? Be honest.

These are two seperate articles, actually five, two by Sheaffer
and three by local newspapers. I don't believe the UFO article
ever mentions the ghost story, or vica versa. Robert Sheaffer
bills himself, after all, as "skeptical to the max." He also
includes Opera, Philosophy, astronomy and other debunking on his
site, too.

 >My point was that if Robert Sheaffer had a truly locked down
 >solution concerning Carter's sighting, he wouldn't have had to
 >resort to putting that stuff on his web site.

Oh, come on. He published that solution more than 20 years ago
in a magazine article and a book. Aren't we allowed to mix
anything else with UFOs, too? Kind of thin-skinned aren't you?


Clear skies,

Bob Young






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                 NMU Archeological Plan Foster Ranch Project

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:40:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:10:18 -0500
Subject: NMU Archeological Plan Foster Ranch Project


== Let the Bidding Begin! ==

A further electronic interim NMU reply (Nov. 19, 2002) to my
open-records request of Nov. 12, 2002, offers the following
glimpse at the organization/execution of the "Roswell dig" --
  i.e., an excerpt from their "Archeological Testing Plan for
Foster Ranch Project":


"LABORATORY PROCESSING

"Artifacts and sediment samples will be transported to the
laboratory at OCA [Office of Contract Archeology]. Sediment
samples will be left sealed and curated in a locked cabinet,
while Native American artifacts will be processed using standard
OCA methods that included checking against the FS catalog,
cleaning with water, and rebagging and labeling. All collected
Native American artifacts will be briefly described and
photographed and/or drawn if their nature warrants. As noted
above, it is presumed that any suspected non-terrestrial
materials will be transported to an appropriate laboratory (to
be determined by consultation between BLM [U.S. Bureau of Land
Management] and the project's sponsors) for scientific
evaluation.

"REPORTING

"Following the fieldwork and laboratory-processing components of
the project, a detailed report will be prepared that describes
the project and its results, including field and laboratory
methods, locations of EMC survey transects and archeological
test excavation units, the results of all excavations (artifacts
recovered, the nature of excavated deposits and any subsurface
features encountered), and the results of laboratory analyses.
The report will include reviews of the project area environment,
prehistory and history, and will be accompanied by illustrative
photographs and graphics. Graphics will include a master site
map prepared from field-collected transit data that depict the
locations of all remote sensing studies and archeological test
units as well as other relevant site features. Although a
separate report on the results of the remote sensing studies
will be prepared by Dave Hyndman of Sunbelt Geophysics,
important remote sensing study results will be included on the
archeological report map.

"PROJECT SCHEDULE

"The fieldwork phase of the project will consist of three
separate activities: (1) Establishment of a cartesian grid
system and control point, (2) a two-stage electromagnetic
conductivity (EMC) survey of the ground within the hypothesized
impact zone and debris field, and (3) excavation of
archeological test units in selected locations for the purposes
of (a) investigating subsurface anomalies revealed by the EMC
survey, or (b) examining subsurface deposits for the presence of
non-terrestrial materials.

"The tentative project start date is Tuesday, Sept. 17, and the
fieldwork is slated to continue for at least 8 days, through
Tuesday, Sept. 24. OCA staff will be on site on Monday, Sept.
16, however, to consult with the technical advisors for the
purposes of determining the exact location of the targeted study
area. Arrangements have been made to continue the project on a
daily basis, should discoveries warrant it. The planned project
schedule is as follows [truncated by L.W.B.]....

"Addendum to: ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING AND REMOTE SENSING STUDY
PLAN FOR FOSTER RANCH IMPACT SITE

"Two changes were made to the field methods proposed in the
original testing plan for the Foster Ranch project. These
changes were approved by Roswell Field Office personnel.

"1. 10-cm excavation levels were used instead of the originally
proposed 5-cm levels. This modification was made in order to
reduce paperwork and time required for each test unit, and
occasioned by the fact that only six volunteer excavators were
available, versus the 12 originally stipulated. The concomitant
reduction in vertical provenience accuracy was not expected to
have any substantial effect on the validity of project results.

"2. The use of backhoe trenches to search for furrow evidence
and to investigate anomalies revealed by the electromagnetic
conductivity or metal detection surveys was implemented to
increase the chances of discovery and to allow investigation of
depths greater than those possible in 50x500-cm test pits.

"3.  All soil samples and non-natural materials recovered in the
course of the test excavations were transferred to a locked
security van at the end of each day. At the end of the project,
the materials were transferred to a lock box at the Wells Fargo
Bank in Roswell."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                 1910: New Jersey Aviator Built Flying Disc

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:17:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:27:58 -0500
Subject: 1910: New Jersey Aviator Built Flying Disc


Source: The Bergen Record - New Jersey

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=3D59&page=3D5625229


Stig

***

Totowa aviator built flying disc

Monday, November 18, 2002

By MAURO MAGARELLI, Herald News

**

In December 1910, a circular airship dazzled Totowa residents
with an unprecedented aerial display near Laurel Grove Cemetery.

No, it wasn't a flying saucer; this UFO only rose 4 inches off
the ground.

The flying machine was known as "the Hoople," one of New
Jersey's first attempts at aviation.

Totowa resident William P. Gary built the original Hoople, also
known as the Garyplane, in 1908. The strange craft was a giant
circle 20 feet in diameter, powered by a 50 horsepower engine in
the center, and a tail wing that ran across the diameter of the
hoop. The wings were non-collapsible and covered with Niad, a
special type of linen imported from Ireland.

A pressman for the Paterson Guardian by trade, Gary was also a
successful builder outside his aerial pursuits, and pioneered
Totowa's first home mortgage system. He built several homes on
Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Place and then sold them under
monthly payment plans.

On June 18, 1910, Gary's first aircraft fell victim to the
elements. A severe rainstorm slammed into the Paterson area that
afternoon, destroying hundreds of trees, shutting down several
trolley lines and wrecking the unsecured Hoople. Gary rebuilt
his airplane, but this time, he housed it in a peak-roofed shed
near his home at 75 Lincoln Ave.

The maiden flight near Laurel Grove Cemetery proved that the
Hoople could fly, even if it was barely a foot off the ground,
so Gary continued and tested the plane twice more the following
year. The first run was in February, with the Hoople reaching a
speed of 35 mph on the ground but without achieving any
substantial height. Two months later, the plane flew nearly 6
feet into the air before crash landing.

"The aviator was driving his flying machine and was proud of his
achievement. Suddenly something went wrong with the motor. With
a downward dash, the machine went head first into the mud of
Union Avenue, throwing Gary several feet away," reported the
Paterson Evening News, in its April 7, 1911, edition.

Although the Hoople was severely damaged in the dive, Gary was
uninjured during the April test-run, which was supposed to be a
private demonstration, but nevertheless attracted a large crowd
of curious onlookers.

Afterward, Gary rebuilt his plane yet again, and on Feb. 8,
1912, he attempted to defy gravity once more. Showcasing a more-
powerful engine, Gary wheeled the Hoople to the starting point
near Westside Park, where a crowd was anticipating the
demonstration. This time around, the plane achieved enough speed
to glide 20 feet into the air and over several houses.

Then another mode of transport cut the flight short.

"At a point near the High Bridge, Gary made an effort to soar
the machine even higher, but a Lackawanna Train which happened
along at the time interfered with continuing the flight any
further," reported the Paterson Evening News in its Feb. 9,
1912, edition.

Nevertheless, the February test was the most successful flight
involving Totowa's Hoople, now a forgotten bit of aviation
history.

"It's not famous at all; people come here at the museum and see
a picture on the wall and say, 'How did that ever fly?'" said
Pat Reilly, the founder-director of the Aviation Hall of Fame
and Museum of New Jersey in Teterboro. Gary never tried to
develop or commercialize his invention.

"Well, it never went further, he flew it and that was the end of
it. He never capitalized on it," said Reilly.

Gary did continue flying. He twice crashed a biplane into Union
Avenue and then attempted to design an air-carrier for the U.S.
Postal Service. He acquired a patent for a new Garyplane, a
monoplane that was successfully tested in the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's wind tunnel and proved efficient.

Gary would never get to fly his new creation. Inclement weather
arrived the day of the Garyplane's maiden voyage, so Gary went
aloft in an old JN-4 Jenny, an aircraft used during World War I.

The Jenny was caught in a downdraft, stalled out and crashed.
Gary was badly injured, with internal bleeding. The Garyplane
was stripped by souvenir hunters while its creator was bedridden
during his recovery.

Gary went on to work as an airplane inspector and eventually
died in Paterson in 1951, at the age of 84.

**

Reach Mauro Magarelli at (973) 569-7100 or
magarelli@northjersey.com.

Copyright=A9 2002 North Jersey Media Group 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                     Sci Fi Channel Has Close Encounters

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:58:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:33:19 -0500
Subject: Sci Fi Channel Has Close Encounters


Source: Houston Chronicle.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/headline/entertainment/1670770


Stig

***

Nov. 20, 2002, 6:28PM

ALIEN AFFECTION

Sci Fi Channel has close encounters; does it have answers?

By ANN HODGES,  Houston Chronicle TV Critic

Copyright 2002

**

Now we know where Bryant Gumbel went after hauling anchor at
CBS' This Morning show.

He's in the New Mexico desert, looking for UFO evidence and
little alien creatures. On Friday, he'll report what he's found,
in a two-hour Sci Fi Channel special, The Roswell Crash:
Startling New Evidence.

Gumbel and Sci Fi are dead serious about this, and for a
seriously synergetic reason. On Dec. 2, the channel will launch
its blockbuster 10- night miniseries, Steven Spielberg Presents
'Taken.'

Spielberg's drama spans from 1945 to today, and weaves together
four generations of three families whose members experience
abductions by space aliens.

That, of course, also explains the hourlong special that follows
Friday's Startling New Evidence.It is titled, most
appropriately, Abduction Diaries, a parade of seemingly sound-
minded, intelligent talking heads, telling tales (with dramatic
re-creations) of what they say are their own real-life close
encounters with alien beings.

On both shows, statistics from Roper Polls 2002 beam up the
rationale for viewer interest in this far-out subject: Four of
10 Americans believe a spacecraft crashed near Roswell.

One in five Americans believes in abductions, and one in seven
knows or knows of someone who has seen or had a close encounter
with aliens.

Seventy-four percent of Americans say they're "psychologically
ready" for proof of extraterrestrial life.

Of these two specials, Abduction Diaries is the one most likely
to intrigue, by virtue of its personal stories. This makes no
attempt to question those stories, of course, and skeptics could
certainly point out that the fact that most of these tales are
very similar is not surprising at all. The subject of abductions
has been thoroughly covered already, over the many years that
people have been claiming them.

With these people, alien visitations began when they were
children, and dealing with them through the years has made their
lives harder. But now that they're older and wiser, most see it
as a positive thing.

"I've experienced it for 50 years," says Landi Mellas, who
claims she was first visited at age 7. She says they told her
they would help save some people when Earth was destroyed. "I
love many of these beings. I don't consider them aliens at all,"
Mellas says. "I'm very grateful. It has made me a better
person."

At Roswell, it's the same familiar story -- the crash of July
1947, and years of rumors and claims that the U.S. government
covered up the crash of a flying saucer and the discovery of
alien beings, including a couple of survivors.

Gumbel's TV promise of "fresh, startling new evidence" relies on
three things:

New interviews with aging eyewitnesses or family and friends of
eyewitnesses, who say the time has come to tell that it was a
spacecraft and the creatures were real.

An archaeological team from the University of New Mexico,
digging in the desert to locate the crash site and debris that
would prove it was something from outer space.

A San Francisco computer researcher who claims to hold "the
smoking gun" to prove "creatures" were at the crash site. What
those investigators found is embargoed until after the show; Sci
Fi Channel made me promise.

I must say, though, that production-wise, this Roswell show is
pretty cheesy, and its spooky music and slippery subliminal re-
creations of "creatures" don't help. As for Gumbel's role -- I
couldn't help thinking of Geraldo Rivera's empty vaults.

Ah, well. They report; you decide.

The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence, 7 p.m. Friday, Sci Fi
Channel. Grade: C-.

Abduction Diaries,9 p.m. Friday, Sci Fi Channel. Grade: C+.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                          Doleman On Roswell Finds

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:21:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:44:56 -0500
Subject: Doleman On Roswell Finds


Source: PageSix.com, a trademark of NYP (New York Post) Holdings,

http://www.pagesix.com/pagesix/1222.htm

Is Doleman being secretive or describing the facts?

Stig

***

Saturday, November 16, 2002

UFO SEARCH IS ALIEN-ATING

**

THE corrupting influence of TV is damaging the reputation of a
University of New Mexico archaeologist.

Bill Doleman was lured by the Sci Fi channel into conducting a
dig in Roswell, N.M., for evidence of the UFO that supposedly
landed there decades ago.

Now Doleman is starting to look like a charlatan.

One local Roswell expert calls the dig "good old-fashioned
circus ballyhoo."

Sci Fi won't air "The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence"
until Nov. 22. But the Albuquerque Journal has already filed a
Freedom of Information Act request to find out more about it.

The paper is concerned that taxpayer money is being wasted on a
hoax. Doleman counters that the Sci Fi channel is footing the
bill and his actions are "totally appropriate".

He says he hasn't faked any surprises to generate hype. "I'm
drowning here in stoopidity [sic]!" he moans in an e-mail
obtained by PAGE SIX.

So what did Doleman find? Don't expect alien skeletons.

The e-mail refers to a "trench anomaly" and an "alternate
furrow" - holes in the ground.

**

Copyright 2002 NYP Holdings, 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 8:57:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:47:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:43:52 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from mental
 >>health professionals. I have letters from a very intelligent woman who
 >>apparently is also member of upper society, and who has serious mental
 >>problems. Her story is that the Aliens and the Communists are chasing
 >>her and have been since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She
 >>now rides buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place
 >>for more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >>places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives
 >>answers at such places.

 ><snip>

Greg, here is the problem right here. You snipped out everything
else I said and aimed at this one item. Quite honestly, I don't
know how many people are like this woman, but my limited
experience indicate that there are significant numbers like that
not the majority, not a huge minority but still significant.

Let me tell you if people come to me, and there have been a number
over the years, I refer them immediate to some who has been doing
abduction research. The only exception was a fellow who claimed
that Aliens were training him to do some kind of mathematical
operations, I tried to get him to share some of this material
unfortunately he was not too trusting in this area so the link
quickly broke.

You have decided to pick out one part of my post and represent
it as the whole idea. I have grave reservations about
abductions, abduction research, and abduction researchers.

 >Jan,

 >Quite honestly, I'm surprised at you. Seems to me like you've
 >substituted anecdotes for analysis. Nobody disputes that some
 >people who claim to be abductees are disturbed, or in fact, to
 >put it bluntly, that the abduction world attracts some out and
 >out nutcases. But the question you don't address is pretty basic
 >- how many abductees "have deep problems, and need help from
 >mental health professionals"? What percentage of abductees are
 >troubled that way?

 >For what it's worth - and you certainly should know this -
 >several studies have shown that the majority of abductees don't
 >seem to have any serious psychological disturbance. Plus,
 >there's a remark David Jacobs like to make (and in fact I heard
 >him make it once again, on the Sci-Fi Channel symposium last
 >night). He says that all sorts of psychopathological
 >explanations are advanced for the abduction phenomenon. He
 >wonders, though, why the people who advance these theories --
 >apparently like yourself, Jan - don't think that abducction
 >researchers themselves have considered the problem. What
 >precautions do you think people like Dave, Budd Hopkins, and
 >John Mack take to exclude people with serious mental health
 >difficulties from their work?

I wonder how deeply abduction researchers have considered the
problem! The whole point of my post! I think the important
aspect is not example above which you picked to comment on which
indeed may be rare, but those victims of child sexual abuse.

The people with serious mental health problem were not the whole
point of my post, just a small aspect. Jacobs, Hopkins, and Mack
are not the only ones doing this work either. What about the
second and third teir "researchers." Of the three above only one
has a medical/mental health background.

As I said people who are the victims of child sexual abuse
certainly may not exhibit gross psychopathological symptoms.
However, it appears that a wide spectrum of the population has
been exposed to such abuse, and it usually is not from strangers
although the media concentrates on that aspect.

The mental health community is just waking up to the extent of
problem, so we are to expect non-mental health professionals who
are abduction specialists have some corner on understanding the
problem here. I think not.

 >I'm surprised at what you wrote, Jan, because I respect you so
 >much. In the thread about "Cosmic Top Secret," you got properly
 >angry at people who made pronouncements about security
 >classifications without having much knowledge. At one point you
 >fired off a long list of your own qualifications - your own
 >direct experience with classified documents. Would it be
 >appropriate now to ask how much direct experience you've had
 >with the abduction world?


Well, I have heard and read a large number of abductions
stories. However, how many abductions specialist are degreed
significant mental health disciplines?

Let's look at some aspects:

How do we know that people have might have been abducted? Do we
not have some rather vague disquieting feelings under the
surface which leads them to this conclusion?

What is one of the main themes in abductions? "Powerlessness."

Sometimes unspeakable things are done to the abductees and there
is some entity that asures the abductee that everything will be
okay or what is done is okay.

The experience is vieled, the abductee is not suppose to talk
about what happened. There is a memory screen in many cases.

Now consider an innocent child subjected to sexual abuse by
someone in power over them, they are assured that it is okay,
and told not to tell anyone about it and the main theme if the
other adults in the child's life will not listen to him/her
(often the case): "powerlessness."

The parellels may be superficial, but they are striking.

I did just fall off the turnip truck here. The thing that has
change is that I have done a lot of reading of the current
research on child abuse.

(An aside here. Victims of child sexual abuse are sometimes said
by the people close to them, that they have "issues." No! Wrong.
They are wounded. If someone, is shoot in the leg we don't say
that they have "issues" we try to protect and heal the wound.
Same here. They are not mental distributed in the mental health
sense, it is a generally a reaction to trauma. Such victims are
often told by the ones closest to them "to get over it" "turn the
page." Friends often also tell them not to dwell on the past.
Interesting how society closes ranks to keep this aspect of
behavior out of sight.)

We have one abductee researcher writing a little book for
children telling things that parents try to indoctrinate their
children against. The abductor is a new friend, its okay to go
with them. Really?

Now let's talk about abductee researchers a little here. Do we
have the best and brightest here? What I said about the coming
war between the Rebel Reptilians and the Greys may be amusing
but everyone at the table was nodding in grave agreement. How
about "cloned prostitutes?" Do we really believe this stuff?

 >Quite baffled,

Like I said, Greg, answering everything or not at all. You chose
to snip away at my post and change radically the ideas
communicated therein.

You have completely, and I repeat here, completely, by your
selective little editing changed the subject of my post! Shame,
shame on you! Read this again:

Now I don't know what to make of the AVB case, nor the Hills
case, nor say the Bluff Ledge case nor dozens nor scores nor
maybe hundreds nor even thousand of others. Something very
strange may be operating here, but I am puzzled as to what it
is. I certainly do not buy grand unified theories offered so
far.


Sincerely,

Jan Aldrich








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:49:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors


I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
scenario.

Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
and taken into the UFO.

Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
us to think and rethink.

Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.


Wendy Connors
Faded Discs
SHG







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                         Re: Stalin's UFOs - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 9:26:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:51:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs - Aldrich


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs

 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:54 +0100
 >>Subject: Stalin's UFOs

 >>Source: Pravda

 >>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/19/39641.html

 >>Stig

 >>***

 >>2002.11.19/10:39

 >>Stalin's UFOs

 >>Joseph Stalin insisted that the USSR outpace America with its
 >>space program

 >>**

 ><snip>

 >The thing about this and other recent "amazing tales" from
 >Russia is that no references to supporting documentation are
 >ever provided, which just strengthens the impression that it's
 >story concocted to make someone some rubles.  Does anyone on
 >List know of any supporting documents for this?


Eric and List,

For what it is worth here are some comments concerning the
former Soviet Union on Roswell:

http://project1947.com/roswell/joint1.htm

http://project1947.com/roswell/joint2.htm

http://project1947.com/roswell/cis1.htm

http://project1947.com/roswell/cis2.htm


Regards,

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:03:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:53:25 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47

Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 7, Number 47
November 19, 2002
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


TEN CATS MUTILATED IN
DENVER, COLORADO

       "Carol DeYoung had a bad feeling when she awoke at 2
a.m. and realized her 13-year-old cat, Mozart, was
nowhere to be seen."
       "A cat door allowed the independent silver tabby the
freedom to come and go from the Aurora," Colorado
(population 276,393) "townhouse in the 13000 block of
East Kansas Place, but he was rarely out at that hour."
       "Armed with a flashlight (torch in UK--J.T.),
DeYoung, 66, a retired mental health nurse, scoured the
area at 5 a.m.  By noon, she had posted flyers of Mozart
around her neighborhood and at two animal shelters."
       "But when she returned home, she got a call from
Aurora Animal Control saying Mozart's mutilated body had
been found.  He was so disfigured that DeYoung had to
identify her pet by a picture of his head."
       "Mozart appears to be the latest in a string of
animal killings in Aurora and Denver," Colorado's largest
city, "that have disturbing similarities.  All of the
animals have been dissected in a surgically precise way,
often with someone clearly removing their internal organs
and leaving the bloodless carcasses near their homes."
       "'I had a premonition something was wrong,' said
DeYoung."
       Mozart was killed early Monday morning, October 28,
2002.
       "The remains of at least 10 cats, two squirrels and
one rabbit have been found in  Aurora and Denver since
July 19 (2002), officials said, and those who study
criminal behavior find it alarming."
       "'That kind of person has the potential for violence
against humans and can be a very dangerous person,' said
Joseph Sandoval, professor of criminal justice and
criminology at Metropolitan State College in Denver."
       "'To kill and dismember animals in such a fashion
seems to me to be the product of a cruel, cautious mind,
with no concern for life in general.'"
       "Some officials believe teenagers are involved, with
a sign posted in DeYoung's neighborhood the day after
Mozart's death (October 29, 2002) claims police suspect
teenagers in the slaying and that teens were seen casing
backyards with small animals."
(Editor's Note: Casing is USA slang for scouting or
spying on a location.)
       "Officials at the Aurora and Denver police
departments declined to comment,  referring questions to
animal control agencies, which give few details."
       "About two months ago, Pat Kennedy, 47, an engineer
who lives just south of the University of Denver, found
half of a cat's body."
       "The carcass had been 'emptied out totally,' Kennedy
said.  He called Denver Animal Control.  Officials there
referred him to the (Colorado) Department of Wildlife.
No one returned his call, he said."
       "During the same time, Kennedy's neighbor searched
for her cat, which had been missing for about a week.
She found its (severed) two front paws in a nearby park,
he said."
       "Kennedy initially wondered whether the animals had
been killed by predators, such as foxes (or coyotes--
J.T.).  Then he read about the incidents in Aurora and
realized the similarities."
       "'It certainly is something that concerns us,' he
said."
       "A similar cat mutilation occurred near Bible Park."
       "Like Mozart, Nancy Miller's 11-year-old cat, Byron,
let himself out of a pet door about 4 a.m. on (Saturday)
October 26 (2002).  About 8 a.m., a neighbor found
Byron's remains near Newport Road and South Niagara Way,
a short distance from her house.  He was missing his
collar, and his body was severely mutilated."
       "'It was like he had a zipper in his tummy, and they
just unzipped him,' she said of the cat known as 'the
Sheriff' because of his neighborhood patrols."
       "Someone had made three surgical incisions which,
because of their precision, were likely done after this
death, Miller said investigators told her."
       "Investigators were unclear as to how Byron died.
But evidence suggests that he put up a fight, Miller
said."
       "His paws were cut and scarred, and several claws
were broken.  Two discs in his neck were dislocated.
Someone had taken his kidneys, urinary tract and several
ribs."
       "Since there was little blood left in the cat, and
little found on the grass near his remains, Miller
figures he was killed somewhere else and returned to her
neighborhood."
       "'They can't figure out how they were getting these
animals, and I can't, either,' she said, 'Byron would not
have gone to somebody.'"
       "DeYoung described her cat Mozart as antisocial," as
well.
       "'He was a roamer, but it would not have been easy
to take him,' she said, 'I can't imagine he would not
have put up a vicious struggle.'"
       "Both cats were taken in the early morning hours,
and both owners live near either a park or an open space.
For someone to have caught the animals, killed, mutilated
and returned them as quickly suggests that the animals
were caught in baited traps.  It would also explain how
the two wild squirrels were caught."  (See the Denver
Post for November 11, 2002, "Animal mutilations rattle
pet owners."  Many thanks to Trevor G. for this newspaper
article.)
(Editor's Comment:  And welcome to Weird November Week at
UFO Roundup.  The saucers are still around, but last week
they were definitely overshadowed by a spurt of Fortean
phenomena.)


SIX TURKISH AIRLINE CREWS
SAW THE UFOs OVER AFYON

       A controversy erupted in Turkey last week as six
airline crews came forward and said they saw the flotilla
of 10 to 15 self-luminous UFOs over the city of Afyon.
       The UFOs were seen over Afyon, a city 250 kilometers
(150 miles) southwest of Turkey's capital, Ankara,  at
5:30 a.m. on Friday, November 1, 2002.  "My co-pilot said
there was a strong light coming towards us," said a
pilot, who was flying at 22,000 feet (6,600 meters) at
the time.  "I was so frightened that it would hit us that
I switched off the automatic pilot and took the yoke
myself.  The thing flew from one side of the horizon to
the other in the space of a minute.  When it was in front
of us, it looked to be in one piece.  But by the time it
disappeared on the right-hand side of us (the west--
J.T.), it was already divided into many pieces.  I didn't
believe in E.T.s before.  But after experiencing this
incident, I have definitely started to believe in
extraterrestrials."
       The eyewitness air crews included the following:
       (1) Flight 590, a Boeing 747 piloted by Captain
Ercan Eken and First Officer Sinan Yilmaz of Sun Express
Air, flying between Afyon and Yalova in western Turkey.
       (2)  A twin-engined Boeing 737-800, piloted by
Captain Yilmaz Atli and First Officer Bulent Demirturk of
Sun Express Air, over Afyon.
       (3) A DC-10 piloted by Captain Salih Gumus and First
Officer Fatih Aksoy of Inter Air, over Afyon.
       (4) A DC-10 of Hapag Lloyd Airlines, whose crew
picked up the UFO flotilla on their airborne radar.
       (5) Captain Muhsin Aktar and his crew, who were on
the ground in Antalya, a seaport city 400 kilometers (250
miles) south of Ankara, doing a pre-flight walkaround of
their jetliner prior to their flight to Stuttgart,
Germany.
       (6) Captain Vedat Gurbuz, Cabin Supervisor Bilge
Yilmazturk and Flight Attendant Hatice Inceler were on
the ground at Adnan Menderes International Airport in
Izmir, a port city on the Aegean Sea, when they saw the
UFO overflight.
       The UFOs were also videotaped that morning.  "Halil
Yalzin, 44, and his wife Emine were driving on the
Balikesir-Susurluk Highway when they encountered strange
lights.  Yalzin said, 'First my wife saw the object.
Then the bright object started to move and scattered
light around.  I stayed in the car and got my video
camera ready.  Then the object grew larger and started to
break into pieces.  It spread around like a firework
(display) and disappeared behind a mountain.  After
sunrise, we saw that it had trailed a black line of
smoke.  This smoke did not disappear for a long time."
       "Nekmi Ecici, chairman of the Turkish Airline Pilots
Association (TALPA), stressed that the pilots who
reported having seen the UFOs have at least thirty years
of experience, and they are sophisticated enough not to
confuse the objects they saw with lights, meteors or
stars."
       "The video taken by Halil Yalzin was studied by Dr.
M.E. Ozel and Dr. Hafez Keypour" and TUVPO, the Turkish
research group.  According to TUVPO, the scientists
"found that the objects were not UFOs.  They were Leonid
meteors."
       However, science writer James E. Oberg of Houston,
Texas stated, "The event was apparently the atmospheric
entry of the third-stage booster that carried the
(Russian) three-man Soyuz TMA-1 into orbit two days
earlier (October 30, 2002).  Once again, even the pilots
wanted to believe they saw a fleet of true UFOs."  (Many
thanks to Haktan Akdogan of Sirius UFO Space Sciences
Research Center and Esen Sekerkarar for these reports.)

The photo can be seen at: http://www.tuvpo.com/124.jpg



APPARITION OF JESUS
REPORTED IN INDIA

       "'God is dead.'  That is the famous sentence from
the German philosopher (Friedrich) Nietzsche.  Probably
he didn't visit India when he made that famous quote."
       "His theory was proved wrong when thousands of
devotees thronged a small suburb in Bangalore" in
southern India "to catch a glimpse of their venerable
deity, Jesus Christ, on, believe it or not, a chapati."
(Editor's Note: An Indian chapati is a small, flat piece
of bread.)
       "Strange, but this is true.  A hazy image of Jesus
appeared on a chapati that was partly burnt, a
demonstration that faith is rewarded by miracles."
       "Sheela Anthony, a staunch follower of Jesus, came
here after offering Friday prayers (November 8, 2002) at
a church and was preparing chapatis for her kids.  The
children refused to eat one of them as it was burnt.
After looking at it carefully, she saw a portrait of
Jesus on the burnt part."
       "Overflowing with spiritual emotion at Bangalore's
Renewal Centre, a place of prayer for Christians, she
said, 'For a moment, the burnt part of the chapati looked
like (Jesus) Christ.  I couldn't believe my eyes and kept
looking at it.  With a bit of hesitation, I showed it to
my daughters and neighbours, who confirmed that it was
indeed Jesus.'"
       "Sheela Anthony afterward took it to Father George
Jacob at the Renewal Retreat Centre, who confirmed that
the image was that of Jesus.  He firmly believes that it
is a miracle.  The 'holy chapati of Bangalore' has been
placed at the central shrine for public viewing."
       Since the chapati went on display, thousands of
pilgrims from Madras, Ambar and Mysore have converged on
the shrine "to witness 'the presence of Jesus' and felt
that it was a 'big miracle.'"  (See the Times of India
for November 14, 2002.  Many thanks to Gordie Tong,
Krishnari Bai Dharapurnanda and Ayesha al-Khatabi for
this newspaper article.)
(Editor's Note: A similar apparition of Jesus took place
at Our Lord of the Miracles Church in Metan, Salta
province, Argentina back in July 2002.  See UFO Roundup,
volume 7, number 31 for July 30, 2002, "Face of Jesus
appears at a church in Argentina," page 8.)


GHOSTLY VOICE PANICS
MORGUE STAFF IN CEUTA

       "The Ceuta police have been investigating voices of
unknown origin since Monday (November 11, 2002), which
have terrified employees of the Autonomous City's
municipal morgue."
(Editor's Note: Ceuta is called "the Autonomous City"
because, although it is part of Spain, it is located on
the south side of the Strait of Gibraltar, in North
Africa.  It's on a peninsula called Punta Almina, located
about 55 kilometers (33 miles) north of Tetuan, Morocco.)
       "According to police sources, the alarm was sounded
around 4 a.m. Monday morning, when operators of the
morgue called the police to report having heard strange
cries and intermittent lamentations whose source could
not be determined despite their best efforts."
       "Up to six (police) agents reported to the scene,
joining two morgue employees on duty and the watchman of
a neighbouring fuel plant who had also 'clearly' heard
the 'screams and lamentations of a woman.'"
       "After an extensive search, no woman was found,
despite the fact that police could also hear the feminine
wailing 'which lasted up to 10 minutes with intervals of
silence.'"
       "According to statements made to (the Spanish
newspaper) La Razon by police chief Angel Gomez, 'the
agents were startled by the clarity with which the
someone could be heard.  They appeared to issue from the
morgue's upper floor.'  However, when they went upstairs
to find the source, 'they realized that the sounds came
from below.'"
       "After several hours of trying to find the source of
the mysterious lamentations, the officers left the
premises but not without checking the building's
surroundings and a warehouse belonging to the municipal
morgue."
       "Morgue employees claimed that the otherworldly
screams are accompanied by 'sounds similar to a wake
being held' despite the fact that no such activity
whatsoever had been held on the premises."
       "Yesterday (Wednesday, November 13, 2002) twenty
police agents combed the (Mediterranean Sea) beach near
the morgue in the hopes of finding a sewer or a tunnel
through which the sounds could have been channelled to
reach the ears of the night staff."
       "'It seems,' says the police chief, 'that there is
an abandoned conduit belonging to the old sewer system
into which an animal may have crawled and made the
sounds.'"
       "Yet there was no trace of a tunnel or a cat giving birth."
       "'It is well known that cats giving birth or
fighting make sounds which can easily be mistaken for the
screams and wailing of little children or women,'
explains Gomez."
       "The score of agents devoted themselves to the task
of finding the source of the otherworldly screams, but
found nothing more than sand at the beach of the San
Amaro neighborhood.  The matter is still open."
       "'Until we can find a logical explanation to this
event, we can do little more than offer hypotheses,' says
Gomez."  (See the Spanish newspaper La Razon for November
14, 2002, "Police comb Ceuta beach in search of ghost."
Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, Jordi Ardanuy y Javier
Garcia Blanco para eso articulo de diario.)


MYSTERIOUS BOOMS HEARD
IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

       "People in a wide area north of Fredericton," New
Brunswick, Canada (population 46,507) are trying to solve
a mystery.  They keep hearing loud, rumbling noises, but
they can't figure out where the sounds are coming from."
       "The first few times Cheryl Brewer heard a rumbling
noise, she figured it was distant thunder.  But the
sounds kept coming, sometimes lasting more than a
minute."
       "Brewer isn't the only one who thinks so.  For the
past week, people from Nackawick, N.B. (population 1,167)
to Zealand, N.B. to Stanley, N.B. have called the CBC to
report strange sounds.  But from what?"
       "The Geological Survey of Canada says there hasn't
been any earthquakes in the area."
       "A construction crew is blasting rock for a new
highway" in New Brunswick, "but experts say the sound and
vibration wouldn't travel that far."
       "Even the (Canadian) military checked its records to
see if people might be hearing the sound of artillery
practice at CFB (Canadian Forces Base) Gagetown.  Captain
Doug Allison says no."
       "So it remains a mystery.  And every day it seems
more and more people near Fredericton are baffled by it."
(See the CBC news broadcast for November 15, 2002.  Many
thanks to Darrel N. for this news story.)
(Editor's Comment: Forteana was riding high last week,
but the saucers got there licks in, too.  Read on...)


TWO UFOs SPOTTED IN THE
LAKE MICHIGAN TRIANGLE

       On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., Morgan
G. and his wife "were taking our nightly walk along the"
lakefront in Sheboygan, Wisconsin (population 50,792).
"As we approached North Point," Morgan reported, "we
could clearly see two strange lights on the eastern
horizon over Lake Michigan.  The lights were not those of
a ship, nor were they on the water.  They appeared to be
just above the water, far out on the lake."
       "Upon first sight of the lights, we saw a large
shimmering red light accompanied by a smaller white light
just to its left.  We sat on a bench and watched these
lights for an hour and fifteen minutes," until 8:45 p.m.,
"during which time the red light stayed stationary but
the white light seemed to dip below the horizon and
disappear from view."
       "It may have just dimmed to the point at which we
could no longer see it.  We began our slow walk home,
which is in a direction that allowed us to continue
viewing the light as we walked."
       "As we reached the top of a hill, the small white
light that had disappeared earlier was now visible again,
only this time it was to the right of the red light's
location.  The red light never changed its orientation in
the sky."
       "About 20 minutes into our observation of these
lights, we could clearly hear the rumble of a large jet,
or what sounded like a group of many jets flying over the
lake.  We could not see them, as the skies were very dark
with clouds.  The jet sounds remained audible for quite
some time.  I have distinguished the rumble of military
jets from commercial jets before, and these sounds were
most likely military."
       "On our way home, I stopped at my sister's house to
get a pair of binoculars.  She lives close to the lake,
but I could not see the lights from her house.  I
returned to the lake no more than five minutes later, and
the lights were gone.  Not a sign of them on the
horizon."  (Many thanks to John Hoppe of UFO Wisconsin
for this report.)
(Editor's Note:  Sheboygan, Wisconsin, along with
Manitowoc, Wis. and Ludington, Michigan on the other side
of the lake, is considered a "Nexus" of the "Lake
Michigan Triangle."  For more on the triangle, read the
book The Great Lakes Triangle by Jay Gourley, Fawcett
Books, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1977.)


ANOTHER UFO SIGHTED IN
JORDANOW, POLAND

       On Thursday, November 14, 2002, in the evening,
eyewitnesses in Jordanow, a town in Poland 100 kilometers
(60 miles) south of Krakow, "saw a star-like UFO which
floated in the sky.  It came from the north and moved
towards the south-southeast.  Next it passed between two
stars of (the constellation) Ursus Major--Megrez and
Phecda.  It then made a turn towards the east and
disappeared somewhere in the eastern part of (the
constellation) Leo."
       "The UFO shone with a bright white light and was as
big as Cor Caroli, about magnitude 3."  (Many thanks to
Polish ufologist Robert K. Lesniakiewicz for this
report.)
(Editor's Comment: For the latest on "the Jordanow
mystery," read the feature story in this issue.)


MORE UFO ACTIVITY IN
WESTERN CANADA

       On Friday, November 1, 2002, "four men were 22
kilometers (13 miles) from Kitwanga," British Columbia,
Canada "on the Mitt--in-Main forestry road when they saw
a bright, yellowish-white light with a 'beam' coming from
the bottom of it.  One witness said, 'The beam of light
was like if you were holding a flashlight and shining it
in a fog.'"
       "The witness said the light did not move but stayed
in that one position and disappeared.  At the distance
they were at, the light was small in size."
       On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 6:35 a.m., a male
witness in Houston, B.C. (population 3,934) reported, 'I
just walked out the door and was going to get in my car
when I noticed a bright, white, saucer-oval-shaped object
moving across the sky very quickly.  There was no tail
associated with it.  Whatever it was, it was heading in
an easterly direction at a rather low altitude.  The
sighting lasted for approximately six seconds before I
lost sight of it as it flew over the top of a small
mountain.'"
       "The witness reported hearing no sound from the
object."
       Houston, B.C. is about 500 miles (800 kilometers)
north of Vancouver.  (Many thanks to Canadian ufologist
Brian Vike for these reports.)


MEXICAN AIRLINE PILOT SEES
A UFO NEAR GUADALAJARA

       On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, Flight 232, a Boeing
737 operated by AeroMexico, was flying from the capital,
Mexico City, to Guadalajara, when the pilot and co-pilot
suddenly spotted a UFO.
       According to ufologist Carlos Clemente of the
research group Los Vigilantes, "the pilot radioed his
report to the tower at Mexico City International Airport.
The UFO, 'very large and with silver lights all around
it,' was seen by the control tower at a distance and was
described by the pilot as 'much different than a
conventional airplane.'"
       The same day, three Mexican ufologists, "Salvador
Guerrero, Demetrio Feria and Fernando Pena captured on
video a flotilla of twenty metallic UFOs over the city of
Iztacalco, east of Mexico City.  The UFOs were spherical
and 'very brilliant.'  They flew in formation from north
to south.  The ufology team kept the videocamera running
for two minutes.  Finally, all twenty of the UFOs plunged
into a bank of clouds and were lost from sight."  (See
NotiOVNI for November 10, 2002.  Muchas gracias a Daniel
Munoz y Ana Luisa Cid para esos informes.)


MOTHMAN HONORED IN
POINT PLEASANT, W.V.

       "Hundreds showed up" between Friday, November 15,
and Sunday, November 17, 2002 "for the first annual
Mothman Festival" in Point Pleasant, West Virginia
(population 4,637), the site of a strange paranormal flap
back in 1966.
       Fans crowded the town on the south bank of the Ohio
River and "viewed memoribilia from The Mothman
Prophecies," the movie about the 1966 flap starring
Richard Gere and Debra Messing.
       "The first sighting of the mythical winged beast was
reported in town on November 15, 1966."  By the time the
flap ended in February 1967, "others said they'd seen a
gray creature 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall, with bright red
eyes and wings like a bird."
       The entity made several weird prophecies, one of
which came true--the collapse of the Silver Bridge over
the Ohio River one month later on December 15, 1966.  The
flap was the subject of a 1975 book, The Mothman
Prophecies, by veteran ufologist and author John A. Keel,
who was in Point Pleasant at the time.  (See USA Today
for November 18, 2002, "West Virginia," page 6A.)
(Editor's Comment: My favorite scene in the movie is when
reporter Richard Gere gets busted while staking out
Gordon Smallwood's house.  Even though warned off, Gere
returns to the scene the next night, is nabbed by the
female sheriff and says, "I wanted to see what I looked
like."  Now, that's the kind of aggressive reporting we
like to see around here at UFO Roundup.)

  From the UFO Files...

1944: ROOSEVELT AND THE
            JORDANOW MYSTERY

       One of World War II's remaining enigmas is "the
Jordanow mystery" in Poland.  In 1994, Polish ufologist
Robert K. Lesniakiewicz interviewed several elderly
veterans of the Armia Krajowa (Poland's wartime Homeland
Army --J.T.), who told him that the Nazi SS had been
mining uranium oxide between April 1940 and October 1944
in the Beskidy Mountains near Jordanow.
       Shortly after the occupation in 1939, Reichsfuhrer-
SS Heinrich Himmler took the Malopolska (Little Poland)
region and made the Beskidy and Tatra Mountains a special
SS "industrial district."  The Polish and Jewish
residents were shipped to Auschwitz, and the area was
settled with Volksdeutsch (German settlers--J.T.)  In
effect, the 60 kilometers (36 miles) between Jordanow and
the Alpine resort city of Zakopane became Himmler's "Area
51," where the SS experimented with numerous Wunderwaffen
(German for wonder weapons--J.T.)
       German scientists of the period were familiar with
the nuclear research going on in the field of physics.
"In 1938...German chemists Fritz Strassmen and Otto Hahn
studied the effect of neutron bombardment on uranium
atoms, and in January 1939, Austrian physicists Otto R.
Frisch and Leise Meitner explained this reaction as the
splitting of a heavy atom into two medium-sized atoms.
They called this process fission.  These Nazi scientists
were on a course toward development of the most powerful
weapon that mankind had known."
       Conventional World War II history teaches that
Hitler's nuclear research program came to a dead end in
Norway in 1943, when Allied bombers destroyed the Nazis'
research plant.
       But it is not known what happened to the tons of
uranium oxide the SS took out of Jordanow.  Himmler's SS
secret projects in Jordanow never developed enriched
"weapons-grade" uranium.
       Or did they?
       According to author William Breuer, "early in
1943...the FBI uncovered a chilling microdot message from
Ast-X (Hitler's overseas spy chief Admiral Wilhelm
Canaris--J.T.) to Nazi agents in the United States."
       The Canaris message said, "There is reason to
believe that the scientific works for the utilization of
atomic energy are being driven forward into a certain
direction in the United States.  Continuous information
about the tests made on this subject are required and
particularly the answers to these questions:"
       "1. What process is used in the United States for
transporting heavy uranium?"
       "2. What tests are being made with uranium?"
       "3. What other raw materials are being used in these
tests?"
       Clearly in early 1943, Himmler was interested in the
usage of enriched uranium.  But did this interest extend
to the construction of a uranium-based bomb?
       A newly-published book offers some intriguing clues
that Nazi development of an atomic bomb went a little
beyond the blueprint stage.  The book is The Conquerors
by Michael Beschloss, and he reports a curious incident
at President Franklin D. Roosevelt's home in Hyde Park,
N.Y. in December 1944.
       "Roosevelt was privately meditating on the race
against the Germans to build the atomic bomb.  On
Saturday, December 9 (1944) he confided to Margaret
Suckley over dinner, as she recorded in her diary, that
he had just gotten 'a secret report from a German source'
that the Germans had developed 'a bomb which will kill by
concussion everything within a mile.'"
(Editor's Note: Mrs. Suckley was FDR's neighbor in Hyde
Park, in the Hudson River valley, and a close confidant
of the president.  What she's describing is unmistakably
a nuclear weapon.)
       "'They are planning to use it on New York (City to
break American morale--M.B.)...not seeming to realize
that it will have the opposite effect...He (FDR) said
that in the next war, the side which first uses these new
explosives will undoubtedly win'."
      "The President inaccurately told his friend (Mrs.
Suckley) that 'the Germans are way ahead of us in that
direction, though we are doing a lot of research trying
to catch (up) to them.'  In a premonition of the postwar
world, Suckley wrote in her diary that 'the human race is
out to destroy itself.  Only the few who live in isolated
places may survive.'"
       Was FDR "inaccurate?"  According to author David
Myhra, a Nazi designer named Eugen Sanger had "a proposed
winged orbital rocket-powered bomber project...The
weapon, variously known as the Glide Bomber, the Boost
Glide Bomber, Orbital Bomber and Antipodal Bomber, was
designed to bomb U.S. cities, releasing radioactive
silica, killing its victims with radiation poisoning."
       With its booster rockets, Sanger's bomber was
designed to reach an altitude of 250 kilometers (150
miles), gliding along in the upper atmosphere while
Earth's rotation brought the target--New York City--into
its bombsights.  If Mrs. Suckley accurately recorded her
dinner conversation with the president, then it appears
that Adolf Hitler had a nuclear strike on New York City
planned for early in 1945.
       Questions remain.  Were one or more of Sanger's
rocket-powered bombers ever built?  Did Himmler have a
nuclear bomb in December 1944?  What happened to all that
uranium the Nazis took out of Jordanow?  The mystery
deepens... (See the books The Conquerors by Michael
Beschloss, Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y., 2002, page
171; Hitler's Undercover War by William Breuer, St.
Martin's Press, New York, N.Y., 1989, pages 293 and 294;
and Sanger: Germany's Orbital Rocket Bomber in World War
II by David Myhra, Schiffer Publishers, 2001.)

       Well, that's it for this week.  Join us in seven
days for more UFO, Fortean and paranormal news from
around the planet Earth, brought to you by "the paper
that goes home--UFO Roundup."  See you then!

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2002 by Masinaigan Productions,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from
UFO Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided
that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name
and list the date of issue in which the item first
appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:48:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:56:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:09:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special


 >>A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

 >>I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
 >>Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
 >>proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
 >>Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

 >Wendy,

 >I would hope that your prediction is accurate. I understand we
 >will hear things like:

<snip>

Hi Robert,

My prediction is tongue in cheek. <g>. I'm just trying to
project what I think the "big" revelation will be tomorrow
night. But my crystal ball has given more bad information than
good over the years. But, hey, it was only 25 cents when I found
it at a yard sale in 1950 and only used by a little old lady on
every fourth sunday in months ending in K. <G>

Everyone knows the bodies were taken to the Lovelace Clinic in
Albuquerque and the autopsies performed by Dr. (Col.) William
Lovelace. The debris from the saucer was not flown to WPAFB, but
rather put on a train to be taken to a secret location in
Canada. But the facility there was so secret nobody remembers
where the Canadian base was located and is now probably frozen
under a trillion tons of permafrost. EBK knows more about this
end of the story anyway and he ain't talking... well, not to me
anyway. <g>

But, rumor has it that the debris was then transported via a
Nazi saucer to the south pole and hidden in an ice cave where
they are next to a stuffed Bigfoot. However, this cave is now
under control of Usama bin Laden's band of brigands, so we may
never know the rest of the story. <LoL>


Wendy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

              Re: 'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:53:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:58:57 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned? - Kaeser


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:00:50 -0500
 >Subject: 'Taken'... Or Should It Be Returned?

 >OK, I saw it... the preview offered by the Sci-Fi channel in
 >Washington, DC November 20.

 >They showed a piece of the first installment and the whole
 >second installment.

 >A mixed bag. Space/UFO soap opera combined with some intelligent
 >portrayal of the impact of abduction phenomena. However, I would
 >say overblown.

 >Written by a person who has a marginal knowledge of ufology and
 >who is also a good writer (Spielberg had input, but the script
 >was written by one man, Leslie Bohem.) So it is complex (the
 >history of several families with kids) and intriguing and
 >perhaps even exciting. But I found myself saying... "reality
 >check" over and over. Shades Close Encounters, ET and even
 >Independence Day with the spectrum of ufology, a la Contact,
 >thrown in for 'good' measure.

Good points.

This is entertainment and not docu-drama, which I believe the
SciFi Channel has stressed from time to time.  If someone is
hoping this is a piece that has been put together to "prepare"
the public for the "truth", they'll find this is more like The
X-Files which veered quickly from the genre into its own
tangent.

Spielberg productions almost always have a positive resolution,
and that would be difficult to accomplish here unless you veer
off the beaten path (so to speak).

I would add that this 20 hour production has been in the works
for over four years, so rumors during the Roswell 50th that
Spielberg was in the process of putting together a major
UFO/Abduction program were apparently correct.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                  Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:53:11 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:02:45 -0500
Subject: Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples


Hi EBK & List,


Just back, so this is very late.

The whole system of classification is not as simple as some
would like us all to think. Those who approach the study from
the "UNCLASSIFIED" end of the life of an active document, get it
wrong most of the time.

By the time the "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp is applied, the original
classification may have changes many times or better still the
document is lost after originally being placed under a 'FOLDER'
or 'COVER SHEET' with other documents. When this method is
employed, you may never find the original classification and the
document will look clean. Many documents are destroyed under
this method.

With "UNCLASSIFIED", comes a box full of other tricks and
problems, such as - destruction, white out, cut out, and even
black out and so on.


EXAMPLE - COVER SHEET METHOD:

[1]. Australian Section, 8th US Army, Pacific.
War Diaries and Int Summary, Army Form C2116
1st June 1945 - 30th June 1945

War Diaries of Army Headquarter Units, Second World War.
(AWM52 Class 1)

[1.1]. Page 1 - This has the SECRET COVER sheet classification,
for the rest of the data or pages. ACROBAT READER 5.0
- 27Kb pdf File.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/auchettl1.pdf

[1.2]. Page 2 - No classification! ACROBAT READER 5.0
- 29Kb pdf File.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/auchettl2.pdf

Then we have the older system of SECRET classification, that
sometimes comes up due to old DoD or Government administration
practices. For example this "MOST SECRET" document:

[2]. MOST SECRET:

Frederick Shedden, Secretary of the Department of Defence, Australia.
Advises Prime Minister Curtin of the loss of HMAS Sydney.
MINUTE PAPER 1 - NAA: A5954, 2400/21 - 14 Nov 1941.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/ms1941.htm

Then we have these documents.

[3]. TOP SECRET RESTRICTED:

Surface-to-Air Guided Weapons Policy.
Townsend Report3 on Surface-to-Air Weapons.
NAA: CRS A4940, C2977 1 & 2
NAA: CRS A4940, C3014 1 & 2 - 1959

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/tsr1959.htm


[4]. SECRET RESTRICTED:

Allied Geographical Section (AGS), US & Australian Army.
Southwest Pacific Area, Terrain Handbook 18, New Guinea - "BUT"
World War II - Publication, 24 March 1944.

(NOTICE: This is a large image page - 135Kb)

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/sr1944.htm


[5]. TOP SECRET RESTRICTED &
TOP SECRET SPECIALLY RESTRICTED CIRCULATION:

UK PRO: D0 35/8287; Chiefs of Staff Committee,
Confidential Annex to C.O.S. (57)70th
Meeting Held on Tuesday, September 10, 1957,
p1. (No Image).

UK System - see with reference: http://www.pro.gov.uk/


[6]. TOP SECRET GUARD:

Australian Archives (ACT): A1209/80 58/ 5155;
Memorandum by the Defence Committee,
Nuclear Weapons for the Australian Forces,
February 6, 1958, p3. (No Image).

[7]. TOP SECRET PERSONAL:

Australian Archives (ACT): A1209/23, 57/4067;
Department of Defence, Inwards Teleprinter
Message, from Hicks, Secretary of the
Department of Defence, to Sir Allen Brown,
Prime Ministers Department, Nuclear Weapons,
September, 4, 1958, p1. (No Image).


[8]. TOP SECRET AUSTEO:

Archives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
Unregistered document; Report by the Joint Planning Committee at
Meetings Concluding 2nd February, 1968, Department of Defence
File No. 67/1017, Report No. 8/1968, An Independent Australian
Nuclear Capability - Strategic Considerations, Annex, p21.
(AUSTEO = 'Australian Eyes Only') (No Image).


[9]. TOP SECRET AUSCANUKUS:

Releasable to Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United
States. (No Example or Image).


[10]. TOP SECRET UK EYES ONLY:

UK PRO: D0 35/8287; Ministry of Defence,
Supply of Nuclear Weapons to Australia,
Record of a Meeting held November 18, 1957,
p. 1 (Top Secret UK Eyes Only, 12/4/57).
(No Image).
UK System - see with reference: http://www.pro.gov.uk/

Then we have this most interesting way our Governments can hold
documents from us all! It's called the 'D NOTICE'.

[11]. D NOTICE:

Australia - D Notices are issued to the media on the authority
of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/dnotices.htm


NOT MANY TS EXAMPLES:

It is important to note that TS (Top Secret) documents are not
common, after they get the "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp. Most documents
are in the 'Restricted' level and below. If you do a study on
their numbers, you will be most surprised.

The above are just some examples of TS levels in the system.


Regards to all,

John W. AUCHETTL




"Jan [Aldrich], you make it sound like every installation
follows the same set of rules. They don't all follow the same
rules. Some documents have unusual classifications..." S.
Friedman


"Yes [Jan Aldrich], a little reading would be a good idea."
S. Friedman


"The inexperienced leave out the levels in the classification
structure, they see the classification of documents as a
'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a 'human
restriction system' (human lock)." J. Auchettl

"Absence of evidence in your hands is not evidence of absence.
Proclamation is not the same as investigation." Public


Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2002 - 41 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                          Re: Stalin's UFOs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:05:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:14:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs - Young


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs

 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:54 +0100
 >>Subject: Stalin's UFOs

 >>Source: Pravda

 >>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/19/39641.html

<snip>

 >The thing about this and other recent "amazing tales" from
 >Russia is that no references to supporting documentation are
 >ever provided, which just strengthens the impression that it's
 >story concocted to make someone some rubles.  Does anyone on
 >List know of any supporting documents for this?


Hi, Eric:

I understand that this is apparently a regurgitation of old
stuff from the 1980s.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:16:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:17:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:09:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

 >>I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
 >>Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
 >>proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
 >>Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

 >Wendy,

 >I would hope that your prediction is accurate. I understand we
 >will hear things like:

 >President Truman's secret service envoy and Charles Lindbergh
 >arrive; Glen Dennis sees ET wreckage in field ambulances around
 >the hospital; an autopsy is attempted at the base hospital; when
 >the bodies are flown to Ft. Worth a mortician meets the plane as
 >part of the group; the bodies are kept in a secure building at
 >Ft Worth before being flown out the next day; LaPaz is assigned
 >to find out the speed and trajectory of the object and
 >apparently concluded that it had come down for repairs several
 >times. These spots were apparently black marks which turned to
 >glass; then the object exploded over the ranch; The so-called
 >escape pod is flown out a few months later; going out to NM; Mac
 >seeing three dead ET bodies at the Proctor crash site; with a
 >couple of others at the crash site 40 miles North of Roswell
 >(one apparently seriously injured and dies in the arms of
 >somebody while the other one is taken into custody, to the Base
 >Hospital then to a hanger but dies before it could be flown back
 >to WrightPat; when Blanchard took leave that was a cover so he
 >could set up a command post at the site 40 miles north of
 >Roswell; the ET bodies are flown back to Andrews AFB where they
 >were viewed by high ranking officials; the bulk of the space
 >ship was driven through Roswell on a flat bed with a tarp
 >covering it; wreckage was flown to Kirtland then taken to Los
 >Alamos, some wreckage was flown to Florida, the bulk flown to
 >WrightPat and so on.


Wendy, Robert and Listers,

Here's my two cents: Regardless of the content in the upcoming
show whether pro or con, good or bad, and even if evidence is
presented that 'we' might deem spectacular.

The impact of the show will be determined on how the 'corporate
controlled mainstream monopolized media' portrays it.

I'm afraid the commentaries will be filled with the usual
euphemisms that the 'CCMMM' employs to describe 'UFO related
events'. Unfortunately, I believe the 'CCMMM' will remain
consistent in the way that they will 'spin' the show.

There will be a little hub-bub for a few days (publicly) and
then it will fade away.

Did I mention I was an optimist?


Cheers,

Frank







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:44:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:24:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:09:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

 >>I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
 >>Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
 >>proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
 >>Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

 >Wendy,

 >I would hope that your prediction is accurate. I understand we
 >will hear things like:

<snip>

In speaking with some of the SciFi people last night, I learned
that the lead archeologist from the University of New Mexico is
finalizing his "Official" report on his findings. His findings
will be outlined on Friday, but the final report is still in the
works. This will be the findings of the scientists that were
contracted to head up this investigation.

Let me add that someone has begun to question the University's
involvement in this, which may have been triggered by the
proding of a known skeptic. I guess one has to question why
skeptics would be concerned about a scientific probe into
various aspects of this case. If they're confidant that there's
a mundane explanation for the Roswell event, then any scientific
probe should support that finding. Go figure.....

I suspect that Wendy's speculation is close to the mark, but
certainly there will be more to the Show than that.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:07:43 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:47:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:12:58 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

<snip>

 >I have initialed...

 >I have been...

 >I did...

 >I was..

<snip>


Jan,

In Reference to this very odd/strange post at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m05-014.shtml

I have just read this post, and...&%$# ?


But one question to you.

Jan, you tell us all that:

"I was also appointed as Assistant Adjutant in an organization
commanded by a full colonel, an unusual position for an NCO."

Can you expand on this claim, I would be most interested.

This NATO unit (with a Colonel as the commander) what was its
designation and your commanders name was...



 >How many have you done, John?

A few in my 20 years of service as a Gunner Officer.

 >And John, you have, of course, done similar work, correct?

Got it in one.


 >Your characterization a la Bill Spaulding is ridiculous.

What?


 >This is probably why you didn't answer my comments on your
 >little scheme.

Have no idea what your on Jan?

 >Oh and BTW, you missed these two typos above NCSA, Cosmic TopSecret
 >Atonal which should read CTSA, COSMIC Top Secret Atomal.

No Jan, I noticed your error[s], but they are your problems not
mine.


Look forward to your reply,

John W. AUCHETTL


Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2002 - 41 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:53:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:24:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:22:43 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >>a)  A cloud was actually there. "A 'few' scattered clouds . ."
 >>Did anyone else there actually notice clouds present?
 >>Did Sheaffer query people or did he simply discount this? I
 >>think this information is important to arrive at a meaningful
 >>analysis.

 >The nearby weather observers reported this, I believe.

 ><snip>

 >>your viewpoint is that Carter may have
 >>mistaken the size of what he saw. He may have seen a star and
 >>mistaken it for an object almost as large as the moon. I do not
 >>believe there is a certainty he would have made this mistake.

 >The object would have been brilliant Venus.

 >>>Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
 >>>a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
 >>>IFOs.

 >>And examples of UFOs that have yet to be explained, and UFOs
 >>which were labeled IFOs and then found to still be UFOs. These
 >>things cancel each other out. So what's your point?

 >You are claiming that all identified IFOs are "cancelled out"
 >because there are still unsolved UFO reports out there?

 >>I asked for a specific case; one where another person saw what
 >>he thought was a UFO the size of the moon or slightly smaller
 >>and also had the technical education (Nuclear Physics) and
 >>observer skills of Carter. I would think this would be one part
 >>of Sheaffer's proof concerning this point. Is this available for
 >>us to see? Is this perhaps found in Sheaffer's book?

 >If the only IFO explanations you will ever consider are those in
 >which the witness's background must be matched to another IFO
 >witness using your self-selected criteria, you will be doomed to
 >studying old long-solved cases reported by "expert" witnesses
 >until the cows come home. My life is too short.

 >Human beings are fallible. Witnesses of every IFO ever seen were
 >fallible. See The UFO Handbook by Allan Hendry, p. 64 where he
 >describes daylight UFOs which turned out to be the planet Venus,
 >Changes in brightness caused by clouds and haze were interpreted
 >as motions toward and away from the witness.

 >Eleven other witnesses were present, some seeing the little star
 >or blue light, and none thought anything unusual happened.

 >>Bob, a question for you: Do you feel the Rosalynn Carter piece
 >>has any truly meaningful place in a debate concerning Carter's
 >>sighting other than to cloud the issue at hand? Do you think it
 >>has any direct bearing on an investigation of Carter's specific
 >>sighting? Be honest.

 >These are two seperate articles, actually five, two by Sheaffer
 >and three by local newspapers. I don't believe the UFO article
 >ever mentions the ghost story, or vica versa. Robert Sheaffer
 >bills himself, after all, as "skeptical to the max." He also
 >includes Opera, Philosophy, astronomy and other debunking on his
 >site, too.

 >>My point was that if Robert Sheaffer had a truly locked down
 >>solution concerning Carter's sighting, he wouldn't have had to
 >>resort to putting that stuff on his web site.

 >Oh, come on. He published that solution more than 20 years ago
 >in a magazine article and a book. Aren't we allowed to mix
 >anything else with UFOs, too? Kind of thin-skinned aren't you?


Hi Bob,

One thing Jerry isn't is thin-skinned. He's very patient. It's
not he that is resorting to the  childish ploy of sneeringly
bandying about the true believer nonsense and thin-skinned
ufologists.

What's bothering you is that someone is casting doubt on
Scheaffer's less than stellar investigation into a 2nd rate
sighting by using the old "Venus was in the sky so it must have
been that" explanation for a UFO sighting. He's not provided
anything substantial to prove his theory; so as far as I'm
concerned it stays a UFO.

Now I realize this has you really concerned because the witness
was, subsequently, a US President and this must be shot down at
all costs. So here's what I'm suggesting Bob.

You get involved.

Get out the phone book, and call that club and get them to
search out the names of those other witnesses and then you call
them and see if any of them remembers this sighting, and if so
get the details. You start building a folder on this thing. Once
you feel you have enough to bury the thing - you publish here.
But right now you are riding on Shcheaffer's coat tails. If you
are not prepared to do that, then button up because your usual
input, "It must have been this because it couldn't have been
that" is just a waste of bandwidth.

Don't be lazy, do your homework-then you will see what many of
us have to go through before we go yea or nay on a sighting.

Tip-avoid the internet, that's other people's work.

Do your own. You will find it's more satisfying. And you might
learn something.

CAVU

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples -

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:26:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:29:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples -


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:53:11 EST
 >Subject: Top Secret Restricted Documents Examples

 >Hi EBK & List,

 >Just back, so this is very late.

 >The whole system of classification is not as simple as some
 >would like us all to think. Those who approach the study from
 >the "UNCLASSIFIED" end of the life of an active document, get it
 >wrong most of the time.

 >By the time the "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp is applied, the original
 >classification may have changes many times or better still the
 >document is lost after originally being placed under a 'FOLDER'
 >or 'COVER SHEET' with other documents. When this method is
 >employed, you may never find the original classification and the
 >document will look clean. Many documents are destroyed under
 >this method.

 >With "UNCLASSIFIED", comes a box full of other tricks and
 >problems, such as - destruction, white out, cut out, and even
 >black out and so on.

 >EXAMPLE - COVER SHEET METHOD:

 >[1]. Australian Section, 8th US Army, Pacific.
 >War Diaries and Int Summary, Army Form C2116
 >1st June 1945 - 30th June 1945

 >War Diaries of Army Headquarter Units, Second World War.
 >(AWM52 Class 1)

 >[1.1]. Page 1 - This has the SECRET COVER sheet classification,
 >for the rest of the data or pages. ACROBAT READER 5.0
 >- 27Kb pdf File.

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/auchettl1.pdf

 >[1.2]. Page 2 - No classification! ACROBAT READER 5.0
 >- 29Kb pdf File.

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/auchettl2.pdf

 >Then we have the older system of SECRET classification, that
 >sometimes comes up due to old DoD or Government administration
 >practices. For example this "MOST SECRET" document:

 >[2]. MOST SECRET:

 >Frederick Shedden, Secretary of the Department of Defence, Australia.
 >Advises Prime Minister Curtin of the loss of HMAS Sydney.
 >MINUTE PAPER 1 - NAA: A5954, 2400/21 - 14 Nov 1941.

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/ms1941.htm

 >Then we have these documents.

 >[3]. TOP SECRET RESTRICTED:

 >Surface-to-Air Guided Weapons Policy.
 >Townsend Report3 on Surface-to-Air Weapons.
 >NAA: CRS A4940, C2977 1 & 2
 >NAA: CRS A4940, C3014 1 & 2 - 1959

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/tsr1959.htm

 >[4]. SECRET RESTRICTED:

 >Allied Geographical Section (AGS), US & Australian Army.
 >Southwest Pacific Area, Terrain Handbook 18, New Guinea - "BUT"
 >World War II - Publication, 24 March 1944.

 >(NOTICE: This is a large image page - 135Kb)

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/sr1944.htm

 >[5]. TOP SECRET RESTRICTED &
 >TOP SECRET SPECIALLY RESTRICTED CIRCULATION:

 >UK PRO: D0 35/8287; Chiefs of Staff Committee,
 >Confidential Annex to C.O.S. (57)70th
 >Meeting Held on Tuesday, September 10, 1957,
 >p1. (No Image).

 >UK System - see with reference: http://www.pro.gov.uk/

 >[6]. TOP SECRET GUARD:

 >Australian Archives (ACT): A1209/80 58/ 5155;
 >Memorandum by the Defence Committee,
 >Nuclear Weapons for the Australian Forces,
 >February 6, 1958, p3. (No Image).

 >[7]. TOP SECRET PERSONAL:

 >Australian Archives (ACT): A1209/23, 57/4067;
 >Department of Defence, Inwards Teleprinter
 >Message, from Hicks, Secretary of the
 >Department of Defence, to Sir Allen Brown,
 >Prime Ministers Department, Nuclear Weapons,
 >September, 4, 1958, p1. (No Image).

 >[8]. TOP SECRET AUSTEO:

 >Archives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
 >Unregistered document; Report by the Joint Planning Committee at
 >Meetings Concluding 2nd February, 1968, Department of Defence
 >File No. 67/1017, Report No. 8/1968, An Independent Australian
 >Nuclear Capability - Strategic Considerations, Annex, p21.
 >(AUSTEO = 'Australian Eyes Only') (No Image).

 >[9]. TOP SECRET AUSCANUKUS:

 >Releasable to Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United
 >States. (No Example or Image).

 >[10]. TOP SECRET UK EYES ONLY:

 >UK PRO: D0 35/8287; Ministry of Defence,
 >Supply of Nuclear Weapons to Australia,
 >Record of a Meeting held November 18, 1957,
 >p. 1 (Top Secret UK Eyes Only, 12/4/57).
 >(No Image).
 >UK System - see with reference: http://www.pro.gov.uk/

 >Then we have this most interesting way our Governments can hold
 >documents from us all! It's called the 'D NOTICE'.

 >[11]. D NOTICE:

 >Australia - D Notices are issued to the media on the authority
 >of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee.

 >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praoz/zsecret/dnotices.htm

 >NOT MANY TS EXAMPLES:

 >It is important to note that TS (Top Secret) documents are not
 >common, after they get the "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp. Most documents
 >are in the 'Restricted' level and below. If you do a study on
 >their numbers, you will be most surprised.

 >The above are just some examples of TS levels in the system.


 >"Jan [Aldrich], you make it sound like every installation
 >follows the same set of rules. They don't all follow the same
 >rules. Some documents have unusual classifications..." S.
 >Friedman

 >"Yes [Jan Aldrich], a little reading would be a good idea."
 >S. Friedman

 >"The inexperienced leave out the levels in the classification
 >structure, they see the classification of documents as a
 >'document restriction system' (paper lock) when it is a 'human
 >restriction system' (human lock)." J. Auchettl

 >"Absence of evidence in your hands is not evidence of absence.
 >Proclamation is not the same as investigation." Public


This almost requires no answer at all.

John, you go out of your way to make yourself look silly! MJ-12
documents are not British, Australian, Canadian or Soviet!

They are US. See if you can find a US document in the SOM 1-01
time frame with Top Secret Restricted on it bring it on.

Oh, by the way, the Australians are not subject to the Atomic
Energy either so they don't need to worry about conflicts or
misunderstands with "Restricted Data."

I guess I should horn my requirement a little more:

Find me a document issued by the government of the United States
of American for the time frame of SOM 1-01, Cutler Memo, etc.
which is classified

Top Secret Restricted
Secret Restricted
Confidential Restricted

Not Restricted Data nor Formerly Restricted Data and not
documents before 1953 that were down graded from Top Secret,
Secret or Confidential to Restricted.

The American Top Secret procedures, as pointed out previously,
change after World War II. So WWII document are not part of the
challenge.

John, I don't care what the Australian government does, nor what
the Lower Sabowbian government does. We were talking about the
American government.

I suggested before that you withdraw before you embarrass
yourself further. I repeat my suggestion! You haven't proven
your case. The only thing you have proved is an inability to
read correctly, but you have already demonstrated that before.

Once again, I know the system, I have given people the
references to confirm what I say. How the Australians handle
classified information is their business. How Americans handle
US classified information is the US business and for over seven
years it was my business. You can't say the same; so once again
exactly who is the inexperienced party?


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:16:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:41:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:31:36 -0800 (PST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
 >>Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >These Christian UFO debunkers are a bizarre lot. They've got no
 >problem at all with the downright supernatural, but go into a
 >frenzy at the notion of the merely unusual or exotic.

I once met a Christian UFO debunker at a CSICOP conference (yes,
I've been to three). He was not, however, bizarre, nor was he a
zealot.

His name was Fr. Lucien Kemble, and he was a Benedictine monk,
an astronomer. He did not claim that UFOs were the work of
angels or the devil.

His interest in the subject was that he did not want to see the
"true paranormal experience of the universe itself - God's
creation" get lost in a flurry of distracting false claims.

Despite my atheism and my support of Ufology, we became fast
friends, and light-heartedly debated each other in writing over
the next few years.

He was a wonderful man, and I wish I hadn't lost track of him.

Which is not to argue against your basic point, but I thought
that anecdote would provide an interesting exception to the
rule.....


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                         Re: Stalin's UFOs - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:39:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:30:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs - Sandow


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs


 >The thing about this and other recent "amazing tales" from Russia is
 >that no references to supporting documentation are ever provided, which

 >just strengthens the impression that it's story concocted to make
 >someone some rubles.  Does anyone on List know of any supporting
 >documents for this?

We've seen one wild UFO tale after another in Pravda, none of
them believable.

Which goes to show, by the way, that Pravda isn't any more the
sober leading voice in Russian journalism that it was in the
Soviet days. When, of course, it printed lies, but at least they
were sober, establishment lies. Pravda now, I gather from its
website, is an upstart publication, born from disuptes over who
owned the Pravda name, and now representing a nationalist wing
(extremist, possibly) of the old Communist party. I gather the
people behind the paper want attention, and tabloid UFO tales
are one way to get 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 11/21/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:32:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:41:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 11/21/02

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 117
November 21, 2002


**      DOD ELABORATES ON "TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS"
**      LEAHY ON FOIA AND HOMELAND SECURITY
**      SECRECY IN THE NEWS
**      FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
**      OTHER RESOURCES


DOD ELABORATES ON "TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS"

The Pentagon yesterday answered questions from reporters about
the DARPA "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) initiative that
would seek to detect terrorists by rooting through databases of
Americans' personal transactions.

But the answers seemed unlikely to assuage critics concerned
about violations of personal privacy, expanding government
surveillance and eroding constitutional values.

"The war on terror and the tracking of potential terrorists and
terrorist acts require that we search for clues of such
activities in a mass of data," said Under Secretary of Defense
Edward C. Aldridge. "The purpose of TIA would be to determine
the feasibility of searching vast quantities of data to
determine links and patterns indicative of terrorist
activities."

"The bottom line is, this is an important research project to
determine the feasibility of using certain transactions and
events to discover and respond to terrorists before they act."

Mr. Aldridge stressed that TIA is at an early developmental
stage that does not currently entail actual surveillance or
conflict with privacy laws.

"I don't know what the scope of this is going to be, what it's
going to take to make this work yet," he said.

See his remarks at a November 20 Pentagon press briefing here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod112002.html

Dozens of civil liberties organizations wrote a letter this week
calling upon the Senate "to stop the development of this
  unconstitutional system of public surveillance."  See the
November 18 letter on the web site of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/tialetter11.18.02.html

An explanatory statement on the Homeland Security Act that was
inserted into the Congressional Record (Page S11412, 11/19/02)
by Senator Joseph ieberman declared as follows:

"Nothing in this legislation should be construed as requiring or
encouraging HSARPA [the newly established Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency] to adopt or replicate any
specific programs within DARPA, such as the Total Information
Awareness Program, or as conferring HSARPA with any additional
authority to overcome privacy laws when developing technologies
for information-collection."


LEAHY ON FOIA AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Under the Homeland Security Act, critical infrastructure
information that is voluntarily submitted to the government by
industry will now be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).

This new exemption "guts the FOIA at the expense of our national
security and public health and safety," said Senator Patrick
Leahy in an extended critique of the new law's FOIA
implications.

"This provision means that if a Federal regulatory agency needs
to issue a regulation to protect the public from threats of
harm, it cannot rely on any voluntarily submitted information--
bringing the  normal regulatory process to a grinding halt,"
according to Sen. Leahy.

"Public health and law enforcement officials need the
flexibility to decide how and when to warn or prepare the public
in the safest, most effective manner. They should not have to
get 'sign off' from a Fortune 500 company to do so."

"We do not respect the spirit of our democracy when we cloak in
  secrecy the workings of our Government from the public we are
elected to serve."

See Senator Leahy's November 19 floor statement on Homeland
Security and the Freedom of Information Act here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/s111902.html


SECRECY IN THE NEWS

While much of the Bush Administration's expansive secrecy policy
reflects a Republican predilection for unfettered executive
authority, some of the most influential critics of that policy
are also Republicans or conservatives.  One conservative
argument that the Bush White House has "Too Many Secrets" was
presented by Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation in a
November 20 Washington Post op-ed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12666-2002Nov19.html

Los Alamos National Laboratory continues to experience gross
lapses in security, including missing and stolen computers and
other hardware, according to an internal memorandum obtained by
the Project on Government Oversight:

http://www.pogo.org/p/environment/ea-021105-losalamos-nuclear.html

See also "Los Alamos Lab Property Said Missing" by Deborah
Baker, Associated Press, November 20:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17736-2002Nov20.html


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Secrecy News (11/19/02) cited a new World Bank publication which
contends that "A vigorous and independent news media sector can
boost economic development around the world by promoting good
government and empowering citizens."  But things may not be
quite that simple.

"This is one of the most often repeated and rarely tested folk
theories in recent memory," wrote Alan J. Kuperman of the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.  "It is
terribly wrong."

Rwanda's "vigorous and independent media" helped lay the
groundwork for genocide there, Kuperman observed.  The "vigorous
and independent media in Slovenia ... mobilized support for
secession, which triggered all the horrible wars there."

Nor is diversity of media outlets a sufficient qualification.
  "Rwanda had diversity: Moderate government Hutu radio;
extremist private Hutu radio; and Tutsi rebel radio station."

A newly invigorated news media sector in the Arab world is also
not an unadulterated good, wrote Jon B. Alterman of the Center
for International and Strategic Studies in today's Wall Street
Journal ("Slouching Toward Ramallah").

"Instead of a voice for change and political courage, the
[Arabic language] TV stations and newspapers too often play to
the galleries, legitimizing harebrained ideas and coarsening
public debate," according to Alterman.

While a  free press may be "necessary for robust democracy,"
Kuperman wrote, "it certainly is not necessary for economic
prosperity.  (Witness Singapore, where if you say boo about the
President you get locked up or thrown out of the country.  At
last check, Singapore had the third highest GDP per capita in
Asia after Japan and Hong Kong.)"

"In the end, what really matters is not the institutions (of
media or civil society) but their content," he said.


OTHER RESOURCES

"Marxism-Leninism brings to light the laws governing the
development of the history of human society.  Its basic tenets
are correct and have tremendous vitality," according to the
newly amended Constitution of the Community Party of China.

"So long as the Chinese Communists uphold the basic tenets of
Marxism- Leninism and follow the road suited to China's specific
conditions and chosen by the Chinese people of their own accord,
the socialist cause in China will be crowned with final
victory."

For now, however, "China is at the primary stage of socialism
and will remain so for a long period of time."

See the Constitution of the Communist Party of China, as amended
November 14, 2002 and published by the Xinhua News Agency, here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/china/docs/const.html

Next May, the U.S. State Department will hold a conference on
"The U.S., Guatemala, and Latin America: New Perspectives on the
1954 Coup."

The CIA-instigated coup, which overthrew the government of
Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz, established a template for
cold war covert action whose consequences continue to
reverberate decades later.

See this Call for Papers from the State Department Office of the
Historian:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/15021.htm


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                       Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:42:38 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:46:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & The Truth - Kimball


 >From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:53:17 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Media & The Truth

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:03:49 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Media & The Truth

 >>>From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:51:49 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

 >Paul, not your company but in 98% of all producers in the U.S.
 >operate in that manner. They simply don't blindly fly to your
 >house, hire a union cameraman and a sound guy hoping you have
 >something interesting to say about UFOs. They already sized you
 >up and have some idea of how you'll fit into their program
 >before they book airline tickets to your town. So their mind is
 >made up about you before the cameras arrive to interview you. I
 >can tell it the second the camera crews arrive because I'm
 >sizing them up. They're body language, demeanor and first
 >impressions speak volumes to seasoned investigators dealing with
 >tv producers getting their UFO cherry popped. When the Discovery
 >Channel turned up in 1997 the director already figured out the
 >sighting while his cameraman was setting up. Bill Hamilton and I
 >knew the story was going to be slanted and thought about
 >ditching the tv producers and getting the hell out of there, but
 >we didn't.

You should have - just because you didn't have the good sense to
do so at the time, don't assume that all the rest of us are like
that. As I said in a previous post, nobody puts a gun to an
interviewees head. If the producer is giving you a bad vibe,
walk away.

My first two girlfriends turned out to be... well, not what I
had thought they were. I didn't just pick up my ball and go home
(no double entendre intended, although with the new Bond flick
being released, it is that time of year!), I kept looking (and
eventually found the right girl). The same applies for
television documentaries.

Here endeth the home-spun wisdom.

<snip>

 >There are airtime slots they need to fill between those
 >commercials. 3 cheap but interesting UFO videos need to be
 >licensed, real or not don't matter to the producer in most cases
 >since they call it "eyecandy" anyway. Network Execs would rather
 >see a crappy model hanging from strings than an authentic UFO
 >video at night. Its brings in more viewers, raises the price of
 >those commercials and has "conflict"

Again, just not so. You give me or any producer an 'authentic'
UFO video at night (and by authentic, I mean one which a
substantial majority of ufologists can agree is not faked) and
it will get on the air. Guaranteed. The first producer who finds
one that everybody agrees is genuine will be both rich and a
multi-award winner.

By the way, 'eyecandy' is the kind of word that non film and
television industry people think those of us in the industry use
all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. I haven't
used 'eyecandy' since yesterday afternoon, and then I only used
it twice!

 >>>These shows are not here to solve anything or present
 >>>ground breaking material. They're merely 48 minutes of filler in-
 >>>between the commercials($$money$$) and that's what its all about
 >>>to the TV producer, the network, and the 5 people that own the
 >>>media.

 >>I make my own films, pre-licensed to a network. Not once in four
 >>years has a network ever interfered in my productions. As for
 >>the 'five people', I've never met them, just as I've never, to
 >>my knowledge, met anyone from MJ-12, to whom one private
 >>correspondent suggested I had basically sold my soul. The kind
 >>of person for whom you definitely need legal protection!

 >http://www.nowfoundation.org/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

 >Check the link, I think most know the media is controlled or
 >owned by a handful of people. Their annual revenue is measured
 >in the billions! Yet they all claim their productions are on
 >limited budgets and us poor people need to "help them out". &$%#
 >'em.

Again, you need to differentiate between those of us who make
the films and those who license them. The broadcasters just
provide the money (at least in Canada) - we make the films.
There is a world of difference between an independent production
company and a network.

I can agree with you on one thing, however - I wish 'they' would
spend a little more on licensing the film! I'd be happy to
license all sorts of UFO videos then.

 >>What I have the most trouble understanding - in my final post on
 >>the subject - is the difficulty some folks have with 'conflict',
 >>as if it didn't exist in the UFO field. A quick perusal of the
 >>UFO UpDates Archive should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
 >>notion. I say again - a UFO film that portrays 'conflict' (or
 >>would you prefer 'debate') accurately reflects the way things
 >>are. Kevin Randle and Stan Friedman both agree that something
 >>extraterrestrial happened at Roswell. They disagree about
 >>specifics. That's conflict. There are still people who think Bob
 >>Lazar is telling the truth, and many others who think he's a
 >>serial liar. It's perfectly legitimate to portray these
 >>differences.

 >Paul, I think people are sick of news/entertain style that
 >dominates the media nowadays. The hardcore group wants to see
 >just the facts without Joe Nickel's comments on a case he never
 >investigated. He adds nothing of value to the 'entertainment'
 >since most of his testimony is based on things he didn't study.

I agree that Nickel often seems uniformed, but I'm not talking
about the Nickel's of the world. Again, you fail to deal with my
point - what do you do with a guy like Lazar? On that one issue,
Stan could clearly be labelled a sceptic (or, I would suggest, a
debunker, in the truest sense of the word). On MJ-12, or Gerald
Anderson, Kevin Randle is a sceptic / debunker.  These are
contentious issues, that generate 'conflict'. Should a
documentary that is talking about these issues simply ignore the
alternative viewpoint? Or abductions. That is a hotly debated
topic. Should I, or any producer, ignore the dissenters?

 >>Or would you prefer an audience of sheep? I have more faith in
 >>people, that they can weigh both sides of an issue, and reach
 >>their own conclusions. And, before you say that we producers
 >>don't present both sides of the equation, I must add that I have
 >>further faith that people are capable of seeing when they are
 >>being snowed, and will instinctively react against it. If they
 >>see only one side, they will seek out the other.

 >We aren't all sheep just because we realize the foolish
 >debunkers don't belong in a UFO story to balance it. Thats
 >simply adding BS to the story to satify the Network Execs. Not
 >everyone is a network puppet.

Nor is everyone a 'true believer'. And I think that's the point.
Many ufologists I've met have a tendency to lump everyone into
one of two camps - 'us' or 'them' - when in reality it's a field
that is rife with disagreement (as should be expected with any
scientific endeavour). To suggest that one should ignore those
differences - 'let's just show up at Tom King's house, interview
him, and take everything he says at face value' - is a
disservice to the people you are trying to reach. The ufologists
that I respect are the one's who are willing to engage in a
debate, whether with themselves or with someone like Nickel. And
if you think Nickel is wrong, prove it during the debate (I
agree it shouldn't be too hard). Simply labelling someone who
disagrees with you as 'foolish' borders on intellectual fascism,
and does little to advance the search for truth.

 >>>Paul you summed it all up just like I thought. With or without
 >>>credible people the TV producers got a job to do. Their gonna
 >>>get their soundbites from somebody, anybody. I'll be sitting on
 >>>the sidelines most of the time. I've got burned enough I'm not
 >>>helping TV producers get rich off of me. I have the internet -
 >>>what do I need TV for?

 >>Whether you agree with them or not, the aforementioned certainly
 >>strike me as credible people. As for the Internet, I'll assume
 >>you meant that in jest. If there is one thing worse - and more
 >>dangerous - than television, it is the Internet, where the gold
 >>is buried in a thousand tonnes of dross.

 >Paul at least I have control of my website. I don't have some
 >slimy Network Execs that know nothing about UFOs telling me I
 >need to have Joe Nickel's comments all over my website to
 >balance it or Subway will back out of sponsorship.

If they don't know anything (a category I suspect the vast
majority of the general populace falls into), isn't it the
'responsibility' of the ufologist to inform rather than to
simply condemn.

As for any website, a person can put whatever they want on it.
The great advantage of the Internet is that people are free to
seek out the alternative view themselves.

The great danger is that they won't.


With respect,

Paul Kimball







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:0:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:22:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:07:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:12:58 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


No, much of answer to my post, is it?

 ><snip>

 >>I have initialed...

 >>I have been...

 >>I did...

 >>I was..

 ><snip>

 >Jan,

 >In Reference to this very odd/strange post at:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m05-014.shtml

 >I have just read this post, and...&%$# ?

Only in answer to your odd strange post in which you try to
characterize me as without experience.

 >But one question to you.

 >Jan, you tell us all that:

 >"I was also appointed as Assistant Adjutant in an organization
 >commanded by a full colonel, an unusual position for an NCO."

559th Field Artillery Group, Vicenza, Italy

 >Can you expand on this claim, I would be most interested.

 >This NATO unit (with a Colonel as the commander) what was its
 >designation and your commanders name was...

 >>How many have you done, John?

 >A few in my 20 years of service as a Gunner Officer.

 >>And John, you have, of course, done similar work, correct?

 >Got it in one.

Well, then you can easily reference your little classified scheme
below:

  OS - Lifetime Confidential  <--- The Head dog
  CTS - Cosmic
   TS - DoD SAP
   TS - SCI
   TS - BIGOT LIST
   NS - NATO
   S - DoD SAP         <--- Stans Level (?)
   S - SCI
   S - BIGOT LIST
   C - DoD SAP
   C - SCI
   C - BIGOT LIST
   R - BIGOT LIST        <--- Non USA
   E - EMBARGO         <--- Non USA
   EO - EYES ONLY
   UC - UNCLASSIFIED

(above list is not accurate - sample only)



It's from US DOD Directive 5050-Bill Spaulding-5, right?

Or where did this come from?

 >>Your characterization a la Bill Spaulding is ridiculous.

 >What?

Have trouble reading again? This scheme is silly and has no
meaning!

 >>This is probably why you didn't answer my comments on your
 >>little scheme.

 >Have no idea what your on Jan?

Well, now you should, fellow! I noticed you have bobbed and
weaved around this all over the place. How about an answer?

Here I will repeat the comments for you. Exactly what are you
talking about in that scheme you put up?

If by SCI you mean Sensitive Compartmentalized Information which
is the US meaning of the abbreviation, such material only
existed at the Top Secret level.

If by SAP you mean, Special Access Program, the US meaning of
the abbreviation, then such programs are set up for special
application where the 'need to know' is limited to a certain
designated group of people. The Personnel Reliability Program is
an example, personnel who are authorized or in training to
either work on nuclear weapons, deliver nuclear orders, or
handle the nuclear codes and key are designated on written
orders. These are the only ones allowed to deal with the
specific material even though others may indeed have a higher
level clearance.

So what do the abbreviations I mentioned above mean in the
scheme you put forth?

I look forward to your answer! And I am also eager to consult
the directive or regulation where your scheme comes from.



Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:10:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:29:50 -0500
Subject: Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty


Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/96685_tv22.shtml

via: www.anomalist.com

Friday, November 22, 2002

Roswell dig on Sci-Fi comes up empty
By JOHN LEVESQUE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER TELEVISION CRITIC

The press material accompanying a videotape of "The Roswell
Crash: Startling New Evidence" warns that the facts revealed in
the documentary are embargoed until tomorrow, to prevent
sleazebag critics like me from spilling the frijoles before
tonight's premiere on the Sci-Fi Channel.

TV REVIEW
THE ROSWELL CRASH: STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE

WHAT: Two-hour documentary about the excavation of an area in
New Mexico believed to be the site where an alien spacecraft
crashed in 1947, hosted by Bryant Gumbel

WHEN/WHERE: Today at 5 and 8 p.m., Sci-Fi Channel
RATING: None
GRADE: D+

To that I say, "Embargo shmembargo! The public has a right to
know!" (Actually, I wanted to say, "Embargo shmembargo! Let's
all go to Key Largo," but wasn't sure how to support the
position, what with the bad economy and all.)

Here, then, is everything I discovered while sitting through
"The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence."

*    It's a startlingly bad documentary.

*    Bryant Gumbel apparently needs work.

*    My TV screen needs dusting.


There. Lock me up. Rattle my kneecaps. Take away my press pass.
I have divulged the undivulgable and, I believe, created an
indigestible new word.

Am I ashamed?

Well, only to admit that I watched the whole thing. But
sometimes a journalist has to step up. Face the consequences.
Show some courage. Be a man (unless he's a woman).

Like an underfilled burrito, "The Roswell Crash" has about 10
minutes worth of information wrapped in a two-hour package. And,
like most "documentaries" that know they've got squat to reveal,
this one keeps the big "surprise" till the end, making the whole
thing less of a journalistic undertaking and more of a snake-oil
come-on. At the risk of being tossed in divulgers' dungeon for
life, let me say the big surprise is roughly equivalent to
discovering that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are related. In
other words, you've kind of suspected it for years but just
needed some more corroboration.

Bags of materials excavated from the supposed site of a UFO
crash in Roswell, N.M., will be kept in a bank vault until they
can be extensively examined in a lab.

The network newsmagazines play this game all the time, baiting
incessantly with bits of chum. How else can they persuade us to
stick with an aimless ramble through an hour (or two) of prime
time? The hook here is that the U.S. government probably covered
up the facts of what happened on ranch land outside Roswell,
N.M., in July 1947. (Stop me before I divulge again!)

The believers say an alien spaceship, complete with alien crew,
crashed on the site.

The Air Force, in a "final" report issued eight years ago,
sticks with a weather-balloon mishap it postulated soon after
the incident.

I'm inclined to think it was some exotic military experiment
gone awry, which the government would be only too eager to cover
up. But that's just me, the Mad Divulger.

Of course, if extraterrestrials did crash and burn on a New
Mexico ranch two years after the end of World War II, the feds
probably would keep that sort of thing under wraps, too, at
least until it had done due diligence in ascertaining it wasn't
a commie invasion.

But the fact that our own government is less than forthcoming on
matters it considers strategically sensitive isn't exactly
breaking news. People who've wondered what happened outside
Roswell have been stonewalled by the Air Force for years. The
denials become more intriguing as retired servicemen who've been
silent for two generations begin to admit they saw things that
couldn't possibly have been part of a weather-balloon
experiment.

The low point of the Sci-Fi documentary, which centers on a
recent archeological dig while simultaneously filling us in on
55 years of Roswell history, is a failure to reveal any findings
from the excavation! The truth may be out there, but Sci-Fi
isn't telling. (Technically, I'm not divulging anything here
because, well, there's nothing to divulge.)

We presume that if anything interesting shows up in the bags of
dirt collected from the the crash site, we'll see it on another
Sci-Fi Channel special titled, "The Roswell Crash: More
Startling New Evidence." But the last we see of it in tonight's
program is when the bags are delivered to a bank vault by some
rent-a-cops -- security being a top priority -- pending further
examination.

Gumbel, host and narrator, has no problem telling us: "These
samples and artifacts will remain locked in the safe of the
Roswell Wells Fargo Bank until they can undergo extensive
testing at a materials lab." Famous for asking tough questions,
Gumbel doesn't seem concerned that Sci-Fi Channel couldn't wait
until the "samples and artifacts" were evaluated before it put
such a slapdash documentary on the air.

The reason, it turns out, is that "The Roswell Crash" is part of
Sci-Fi's buildup to the Dec. 2 launch of Steven Spielberg's
"Taken," a 10-night miniseries about alien abduction. (Another
documentary, "Abduction Diaries," follows "The Roswell Crash"
tonight at 7 and 10.)

So, in the interest of generating heat instead of light, Sci-Fi
Channel goes with programming that would get an "incomplete" if
it were turned in as a term paper. Maybe this shouldn't be
surprising when a channel with "fiction" in its name tries to
deal in fact.

John Levesque is the P-I's television critic. Call him at 206-
448-8330 or send e-mail to tvguy@seattlepi.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                        Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:50:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:55:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:54:04 EST
 >Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:14:13 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:04 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >>>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:17:14 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com
 >>>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:08:18 EST
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' - Kimball

 >>>>Entertainment is about conflict, and all television and
 >>>>film is entertainment, even as it informs -
 >>>>even documentaries, and even news (especially news!).

 >>>There you have one tiny part of the problem, folks:
 >>>"Entertainment is about conflict". (There's a bigger problem
 >>>than "conflict" and "entertainment", but I'll focus on this
 >>>small point).

 >>>I won't be satisfied until we have "Entertainment Funerals"
 >>>filled with humor, truth and lies (conflict) for deceased
 >>>news and documentary producers. When they die, the
 >>>aggrieved will be on hand to deliver eloquent anti-eulogies
 >>>at their funerals, for entertainment and conflict purposes
 >>>of the aggrieved, and to offer a more balanced perspective
 >>>of the deceased. The funeral would be carried on
 >>>television, of course. The word "NOVA" comes
 >>>to mind...

 >>>I'd be happy to put my ass in a seat for that production -
 >>>even if I have to bring my own popcorn!

 >>I, like Cromwell, would prefer to be remembered, warts and
 >>all.

 >>The humour can come from old friends ('remember crazy Paul
 >>and that Internet dust-up he had with the UFO guys back in
 >>2002?'

 >>What a naive schmuck), the truth can come from the wife ('If
 >>only he really had exploited more people, we could have
 >>gotten that Hyundai instead of the Kia'), and the lies can
 >>come from Majestic 12 ('of course he was working for us,
 >>part of the Top Secret Restricted NOVA project').

 >>If you're coming, remember that it's BYOB (no popcorn at my
 >>funeral!!), and don't forget your camera.

 >>Paul "Many Miles to Go Before I Sleep" Kimball


 >My apologies, Paul.

 >I meant to say "some producers", but the word "some"
 >inadvertantly got dropped due to my carelessness.

 >Sorry for the unintentionally broad smear which I retract.

Apology accepted.

 >As to the NOVA producers who lied to Budd Hopkins (and John
 >Velez) and sliced and diced their passionate and heartfelt
 >efforts, I would not only bring my own popcorn to their
 >"Entertainment Funerals", I'd pass out party favors for free
 >(noisemakers, confetti, etc). It should be a grand time.

Save a seat for me, and most of my colleagues. No-one hates the
bad producers more than the ones just trying to make a living
while producing good films.

 >Dave Morton

Paul Kimball








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:58:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
 >not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
 >scenario.

 >Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
 >scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
 >Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
 >of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
 >completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

 >I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
 >many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
 >that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
 >expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
 >far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
 >take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
 >bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
 >close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
 >and taken into the UFO.

 >Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
 >Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
 >framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
 >the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

 >Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
 >I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
 >research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
 >a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
 >to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
 >good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
 >us to think and rethink.

 >Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.


Hi Wendy, Jan, Greg, All,

Groan... Et tu Wendy? Et tu?

As you mention above; there are cases involving people who are
wide awake and who will get caught pants-down in the middle of
their day by unexpectedly finding themselves in the middle of an
uncomfortably close-up encounter with a UFO.

Freeze frame!

If I stop there and leave off any mention of contact with the
UFOs occupants/crew, apparently everybody would be able to live
with it. At least in terms of accepting it and investigating it
as a "UFO" sighting case.

But Lawdy help us if a door opens up and something non- human
floats out. And Jeebus help us if there should be any
interaction between the witness and the occupants.

It appears that, if any of the aforementioned should transpire,
the report crosses an invisible border in the minds of some
research people that takes it out of the realm of 'proper' UFO
investigations and into a "Twilight Zone" of 'other' phenomena
they'd like to relegate it to.

I don't even understand your intellectual argument. Why draw an
artificial line in the sand? Why establish a fake 'border' that
prohibits reports of UFO occupant sightings or interactions from
being considered a part of UFO phenomena. That is what
abductions are; interactions with the occupants of UFOs that are
on the ground or in close proximity if in the air.

A UFO is a UFO is a UFO.

Budd made a cute remark the other night about how it took 30
years for researchers to even consider that UFOs had an
"inside."  :)   How much harder it must be for some to imagine
that the object of their studies may represent somebody else's
technology, and that there may be pilots and crews on-board
those anomalous aerial objects. Even that may be intellectually
attainable/acceptable for some. But apparently, for some, a line
is drawn the moment any mention is made of interactions with the
UFOs' occupants.

It is _self-evident_ (to me anyway) that "UFO abduction" is a
part of the "UFO" phenomenon. As such it deserves _equal
footing_ in terms of investigative effort. Even more so because
it affects human beings. More often than not, adversely.

For my money, abduction reports _should_be_ front and center and
precisely because 'people' are directly affected. It affects
them in a way that does _not_ happen with witnesses of 'UFO
sightings' (at a distance.) It boils down to asking ourselves
where our priorities should lie.

Human beings or machines? (If UFOs are 'machines.')

It is clear which side of that fence I come down on. What you
need to ask yourself is; what side do _you_ come down on. I
can't believe you guys are trying to divorce UFO sightings from
UFO contact/abduction cases. What really boggles my mind is that
you don't see there is a direct cause and effect relationship
between the two that _demands_ they be investigated side by
side.

To steal a line from Dave Furlotte: "But that's just _my_ take
on it."  :)

* For Jan:

Just to set your mind at ease in case you were wondering, my dad
an my uncles never tried to play 'hide the salami' with me when
I was a child. The only person to touch 'Juanito', when I was
four, was my cousin Carmen who was five. We were checking out
the differences in our plumbing and it got a little touchy-
feely. But nothing overtly 'sexual' ever happened. Normal kiddie
curiosity.

There was an incident of sexual abuse in the family involving
one of my female cousins and her father. But nothing like that
(thank God) has ever happened to me. Or my (late) brother,
James.


Regards,

John Velez
Getting banged from both sides... aliens and humans!  ;)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:00:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:49:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
 >>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >>In both cases, the ufologists are ignoring an important
 >>skeptical argument: If Betty Hill was seeing a real UFO, then
 >>there would have been _3_ starlike objects near the moon:
 >>Jupiter, Saturn, and the UFO. But she reported seeing only two.
 >>Similarly, Carter did not say that he saw two bright objects
 >>towards the west - Venus and his UFO - he saw only one."

 >No, this isn't actually true.

Hi, Cathy:

I assume that you mean that they may not have actually "seen"
what they said they did. Because in both cases we have their own
words for the above statements.

 >One can't emphasize too much that the human visual system isn't
 >a kind of video camera, passively recording everything that
 >happens in front of it. The starry sky is a repeated texture,
 >and bright objects selected as a focus for visual attention are
 >treated differently by the visual system than background
 >textures. The process is called figure/ground segmentation, and
 >is intrinsic to the way the visual system works. In the Betty
 >Hill case, for example, the visual system may simply have
 >segemented Saturn out as part of the starry background texture -
 >there is plenty of experimental evidence that such background
 >features are suppressed from visual attention, and mechanisms
 >for doing this may be hardwired into primary visual cortex.

 >Another problem is that only a very restricted portion of our
 >field of view is actually perceived with optimal resolution, and
 >that to overcome this problem the eye is constantly moving as
 >the visual system shifts its attention from one focus to
 >another. It's actually quite easy for even prominent objects to
 >"disappear" in this process, if the eye's attention is
 >constantly being directed elsewhere.

Thanks for this interesting information about how the visual
system effects eyewitness accounts and reliability.

 >As far as the Betty Hill case goes, none of this is diagnostic
 >of anything in particular.

Except that what the witnesses said that they say does match was
was in the sky at the time of the sighting.

 >The significant features of this case are presumably those
 >which came later during the sighting.

The Hills case is one of the most interesting because of it's
key role in the development of the folklore of the UFO
abduction. I'm using folklore in the sense that even if some
abductions are genuine the UFO phenomenon includes a folkloric
element, which could account for IFOs, hoaxes, or whatever was
not a "real" event.

The question being, if the initial sighting was prosaic, what
accounted for Barney latter seeing "nazis" and little figures
when he looked at the UFO in binocs, as Betty without binocs
still described it as a "star"?

And then, of course, months later after reading UFO literature
and being hypnotized, what might have created the abduction
account?

Are you familiar with Martin Kottmeyer's discovery of the
possible source of key elements of Barney's story under hypnosis
in a TV program broadcast a few days earlier?

Please see "The Eyes That Spoke" at:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html

and "The Eyes Still Speak" at:

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/eyes-still-speak.html

These questions continue to make the Hills' story a very unique
one in the annals of ufology.


Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

              Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:51:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:03:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Speiser


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:10:11 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
 >>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 >I was away last week and I'm only just catching up on my mail,
 >but this one caught my attention. (If anyone would like to
 >forward this to Robert Sheaffer, that would be ok with me.)

 >>Robert Sheaffer has asked me to post the following comment about
 >>this discussion and one on another List about the Betty Hill
 >>sighting.

 ><snip>

 >>In both cases, the ufologists are ignoring an important
 >>skeptical argument: If Betty Hill was seeing a real UFO, then
 >>there would have been _3_ starlike objects near the moon:
 >>Jupiter, Saturn, and the UFO. But she reported seeing only two.
 >>Similarly, Carter did not say that he saw two bright objects
 >>towards the west - Venus and his UFO - he saw only one."

 >No, this isn't actually true.

 >One can't emphasize too much that the human visual system isn't
 >a kind of video camera, passively recording everything that
 >happens in front of it. The starry sky is a repeated texture,
 >and bright objects selected as a focus for visual attention are
 >treated differently by the visual system than background
 >textures. The process is called figure/ground segmentation, and
 >is intrinsic to the way the visual system works. In the Betty
 >Hill case, for example, the visual system may simply have
 >segemented Saturn out as part of the starry background texture -
 >there is plenty of experimental evidence that such background
 >features are suppressed from visual attention, and mechanisms
 >for doing this may be hardwired into primary visual cortex.

 >Another problem is that only a very restricted portion of our
 >field of view is actually perceived with optimal resolution, and
 >that to overcome this problem the eye is constantly moving as
 >the visual system shifts its attention from one focus to
 >another. It's actually quite easy for even prominent objects to
 >"disappear" in this process, if the eye's attention is
 >constantly being directed elsewhere.

 >As far as the Betty Hill case goes, none of this is diagnostic
 >of anything in particular. The significant features of this case
 >are presumably those which came later during the sighting.


Bravo, Cathy.

You have stated quite empirically and eloquently what I have
suspected all along: that the old skeptical chestnut, "If they
report an object and _don't_ report a star we know to have been
nearby, then the object was really the star" is flawed at best.
It may hold true in some cases, but skeptics seem to cling to it
as if it were a Newtonian Law.

My own wife's sighting is a case in point. When I grilled her, I
asked her if it was possible she was looking at Venus, which was
in that sector of the sky. "What Venus??" she said, "I was
looking at a flying saucer! Do you think I would have even
noticed Venus??"


==JJS==









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                       Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:28:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:13:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:07:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:12:58 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Aldrich

 ><snip>

 >A few in my 20 years of service as a Gunner Officer.

Well is it Flight Lt. or Lt. Col.? Your mates can't seem to
get it right.

 >>And John, you have, of course, done similar work, correct?

 >Got it in one.

Several people I respect here say you have a good knowledge of
US military history and equipment in addition to extensive
knowledge of military aircraft.

Sorry, I can't say the same for your knowledge of the security
system.

So, looking at SOM 1-01 what is your opinion of the document. Is
it tactically sound? How about the discussing it from the
operations, intelligence and logistical points of view?

And from the historical point of view, I would like you comments
the document at the Woods' site, "The First Annual Report."

I do sincerely look forward to your comments and opinions.


 >John W. AUCHETTL

 >Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
 >P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
 >Australian & Asia UFO
 >1961-2002 - 41 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE

41 years, impressive. Would you please point to some material
available on the web or publications which might be available in
this country.?

Thanks,

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:38:37 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:17:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Speiser


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:58:53 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:16 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

 >What are some scenarios?

 >Breeding a hybrid race to take over the world Conducting bizarre
 >experiments on an almost industrial scale Revealing
 >technological marvels to the abductees, but not letting them
 >bring any proof of such things back with them.

 >Other associated abductions aspects:

 >Healing people
 >Making health or health problems worse
 >Causing trauma
 >Implaining memory blocks in some cases and not in others

 >Abductions, as Bob Pratt has commented, are quite different in
 >Brazil then the US. Why the cultural differences? Why are
 >there few abductions in some parts of Europe. (BTW the 1959
 >Swedish abduction case has proven to be a hoax. One of the
 >earliest abduction on record and one of the first to be
 >published. Of course, there is the 1951 Georgia case of the
 >abducted pilot. This story was even endorsed by some early
 >contactees.)

 >Our technology allows for imaging that means medical procedures
 >are becoming less invasive, but the Aliens seem to be into very
 >invasive techniques, removing eyeballs and such. Maybe we
 >should share our knowledge with them.

 >Considering where we are with breeding, genetics and cloning,
 >etc. is it really necessary to have sex with Aliens. What is
 >going on here?

Jan:

I've done some thinking on these seeming drawbacks, which have
given me trouble over the years as well. One hypothesis I've
put forward in the past, and I offer it here as a possible
soluton only, is that the aliens are themselves agents of
disinformation.

Consider: the aliens need to perform some sort of ongoing study
of humanity. They don't wish to do so in the full light of our
knowledge or acknowledgement by our scientific authorities;
however they know that their powers of concealment are limited.

Instead, they choose to "hide in plain sight" by smearing their
activities with a veneer of what our science and logic can only
consider 'BS'.

They hit upon the idea of giving us the impression they are
creating a hybrid race, knowing full well that our science will
figure out before long that it is totally unnecessary for them
to abduct more than a few human beings to do so.

Thus the claims of the experiencers are tainted, and the end
result is that our science refuses to look into the situation.

They are thus free to carry out their true motives
unacknowledged.

Oh, yes, I see the problems with this scenario - "Ever seen an
elephant hiding in a tree? No? See how well they hide?" But I
fear that our solution set to the abduction problem is dwindling
- "vanishing in a puff of logic," as Douglas Adams would say -
  and we may be forced to consider outlandish theories such as
this.


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:18:18 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:21:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Speiser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:21:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:44:17 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>I have to ask, which is more likely to be able to violate the
 >>laws of physics (as we know them), a meteor, or a product of an
 >>advanced technology?

 >>Just asking...

 >Neither (as we know them), but you forgot the third alternative,
 >which I judge to be more likely: the witnesses were mistaken
 >about their interpretation of the bright lights that they saw
 >brightening and then dimming and disappearing, randomly.


Bob, as you know I'm well-versed in the problems inherent in
human perception, and I accept that "witnesses can be mistaken".
But I wince whenever we start talking about "likelihoods" and
"probabilities," with respect to possible ET spacecraft.

By implying that the meteor explanation has the greater
likelihood, you are tacitly stating that you are familiar with
the probability of an advanced species' abiility to create a
starship capable of transiting to earth.

I take issue with this, not because I think you're wrong in the
above example, but because it is too facile an 'out'. Taken to
extremes, this 'tacit' assignment of a probability causes
skeptics to overstate their case.

In the extreme examples of Klass and Menzel, I would venture to
say that they had assigned the ET Hypothesis a probability of
'x' such that 'x' was _automatically_ less than the probability
of _any_ explanation they put forward.

Thus, Menzel could propose his "noctilucent owls" and Klass his
"PlazmaBallz" without fear of ridicuile because "Hey, at least
we're not the ones saying it's Little Green Men!" or "Well, what
do _you_ think it is, flying saucers from another planet???"

At some point or other, I think we have to have a better grip on
the precise numeric value of 'x' before we can make such
sweeping statements about relative likelihoods.

I also think we need to place some sort of an agreed-upon cap on
the _degree_ to which credible observers can be mistaken about
what they describe, or again it becomes too facile to simply
write everything off as 'witness myopia'. This is one reason I
am gratified to see people like the aptly-monikered Catherine
Reason taking part here.


==JJS==







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

             Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:25:01 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:28:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special -


 >From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:16:36 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:09:50 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:41:46 -0700
 >>>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Prediction On Sci-Fi Channel Roswell Special

 >>>A Shot in the Dark Prediction:

 >>>I hereby predict that evidence will be presented on the Sci-Fi
 >>>Channel's special on the Roswell incident that conclusively
 >>>proves that something substantial impacted the ground near the
 >>>Foster Ranch and left a substrata gouge in the desert.

 >>Wendy,

 >>I would hope that your prediction is accurate. I understand we
 >>will hear things like:

 >>President Truman's secret service envoy and Charles Lindbergh
 >>arrive; Glen Dennis sees ET wreckage in field ambulances around
 >>the hospital; an autopsy is attempted at the base hospital; when
 >>the bodies are flown to Ft. Worth a mortician meets the plane as
 >>part of the group; the bodies are kept in a secure building at
 >>Ft Worth before being flown out the next day; LaPaz is assigned
 >>to find out the speed and trajectory of the object and
 >>apparently concluded that it had come down for repairs several
 >>times. These spots were apparently black marks which turned to
 >>glass; then the object exploded over the ranch; The so-called
 >>escape pod is flown out a few months later; going out to NM; Mac
 >>seeing three dead ET bodies at the Proctor crash site; with a
 >>couple of others at the crash site 40 miles North of Roswell
 >>(one apparently seriously injured and dies in the arms of
 >>somebody while the other one is taken into custody, to the Base
 >>Hospital then to a hanger but dies before it could be flown back
 >>to WrightPat; when Blanchard took leave that was a cover so he
 >>could set up a command post at the site 40 miles north of
 >>Roswell; the ET bodies are flown back to Andrews AFB where they
 >>were viewed by high ranking officials; the bulk of the space
 >>ship was driven through Roswell on a flat bed with a tarp
 >>covering it; wreckage was flown to Kirtland then taken to Los
 >>Alamos, some wreckage was flown to Florida, the bulk flown to
 >>WrightPat and so on.

 >Here's my two cents: Regardless of the content in the upcoming
 >show whether pro or con, good or bad, and even if evidence is
 >presented that 'we' might deem spectacular.


Hi Frank, Listers,

The information above came from Sci-Fi. For most of us it is a
re-hash of 24 years of various Roswell accounts. What's going to
be 'new' is any so called "scientific findings" and, as I
predicted, apparently somebody is now attacking the UNM
archeologist.

As I mentioned above, Glen Dennis' story apparently will play a
greater role then earlier thought.

Somebody, may have been on this List recently, mentioned that
the so-called 'Escape Pod' actually went north of Corona, rather
then toward Roswell, as had been previously thought.

Oh well. Bottom line is it will be another 'Roswell'-type
production. We will hear stories from witnesses that may even be
'new'. In a year, after these witnesses have been re-interviewed
by 35 other researchers, inconsistencies and doubts between the
story told Friday and what is being told then, will arise. Some
witnesses may even change their story in response to various
so-called opportunities, etc., etc.

Some in the UFO community will dispute and disagree with some of
the stories being told and, as you observed, after a couple of
days of publicity we will be back to the latest news from
Iraq.....

 >The impact of the show will be determined on how the 'corporate
 >controlled mainstream monopolized media' portrays it.

Mainstream media is too pre-occupied with various things from
Homeland security, to Iraq and this will hardly be a blip on
their radarscope.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:18:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:32:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Aldrich


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:27:24 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:58:53 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:16 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

 >>>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:33:7 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

 >>>>Not quite on your topic about media, but in the ball park:

 >>>>John, you will probably never talk to me again or answer me
 >>>>again after this, but I think abductions are at the end of the
 >>>>line of that which should be considered in ufology.

 >>>Ok, so we disagree. I think UFOs and abductions explain each
 >>>other. But that's just speculation on my part. You're entitled
 >>>to your opinion Jan.

 >>John, this, of course was not serious. But I am going into your
 >>area of expertise and telling you that I don't think it should
 >>be the center piece of the ufology. I know you probably disagree
 >>mightly.

 >No, not a 'center piece' but as being part and parcel to the UFO
 >phenomenon. UFOs _are_ a part of abduction reports. As such,
 >they demand equal consideration.

 >Hey man, I don't pretend to have the answers to any of the
 >questions you are posing here. I'll try to address a couple of
 >them with my own thoughts/feelings about it. What I do know is;
 >in 1977 I was standing about 50 to 60 linear feet away from a
 >silent, glowing, football shaped object that was hovering no
 >more that 45 to 50 feet off the ground. (Just over the roof of a
 >three story apartment house in Brooklyn.)

 >If I had picked up a stone and thrown it, I could have hit it
 >easily and I would have heard the 'ping' from the impact from
 >where I was standing. If I wasn't so scared shitless I might
 >have tried it.

 >That incident was followed by a whole night of missing time that
 >culminated in a visit to an emergency room where I had two
 >physicians, one of which was an ear, nose, and throat specialist
 >tell me that they saw evidence of 'surgery' having been
 >performed inside my head. (Sinuses)

 >That's not "I had a dream" kind of crap. I was left bleeding,
 >with a swollen eye, and more confused and disoriented than I
 >have ever felt in my entire life. It was real and physical and
 >it left behind (painful) evidence. My wife and my kids have
 >demonstrated highly unusual physical manifestations over the
 >years. This is no 'ify' thing for me Jan. It's real and it
 >concerns me deeply. My family is affected. That's the bottom
 >line for me. And I'm not alone.

 >I have 'stuff' like that in my life that goes back to childhood
 >Jan. Involving multiple witness UFO sightings, non-human beings,
 >being carried out my house in the middle of the night, strange
 >flying/floating lights 'inside' the house that others have
 >witnessed along with me, on and on like that.

 >That, is all I "know" Jan. I can only speak for/answer for me.
 >Not for anybody else. No one can. I am one man. One case. I
 >couldn't speak for anybody else's case if I wanted to. If I were
 >to try to deny it all to myself I would be denying my Life. I
 >would have to intentionally lie to myself! I can't do that. I'm
 >not put together that way.

 >So what am I left with? I'm standing here talking to you. One on
 >one. It's all I have and it's all I can do. I hope that by
 >allowing you to get to know me over a period of years, by
 >exposing my self, my personality, my experiences and my inner
 >workings that (at some point) you will realize that 'hey, John
 >isn't a psycho or a chronic liar. 'Maybe' I have prejudged other
 >abductees/abduction cases.

 >If that much can be accomplished with a few people then my time
 >here has been well spent. How many of the cases you mentioned
 >are 'legit?' I don't know. But I'd sure as hell like to. We're
 >not going to get anywhere if bright and thoughtful individuals
 >like yourself retreat into denial and negation solely because
 >you have focused on the flurry of detail at the expense of
 >missing the central core of material that is _consistent_ in
 >many cases.

 >I'm not here to 'sell' anybody anything. I tell my story, share
 >things I've learned or picked up along the way and I let people
 >make up their own minds about it. We can go at this for months
 >Jan. Like I said, I don't have any answers for you. You'll have
 >to work it all out for yourself just like I was forced to do.

 >The only real difference between me and you is, you have a
 >choice. I don't. I'm stuck with a series of events in my life
 >that I cannot simply 'wish away' and that you cannot 'explain
 >away.'

 >So here we are.


Thanks, John, for the compelling testimony. You know I feel very
bad for bringing this up at all, but I have a lot of problems
here, especially since my heavy reading concerning child sexual
abuse. It seemed important to get some kind of discussion going.

One comment, we think, that the abductors are from
civilization(s) which are technologically very advanced. Read
some of the demonstrations they put on in Fowler's books. Now
here they are in your case doing some kind of bum medical
procedure. Are these third rate civilizations who just happen to
learned to travel across space, or was that procedure done by
a 9th grade exobiology class on Rigel? This is not an attempt
at humor!

I don't have answers, just a lot of smart-ass questions.

I am still struggling with unusual things in the sky and near
the ground. I definitely see how Bloecher felt!


Regards,

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:34:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Tonnies


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:16:00 -0700

<snip>

 >>These Christian UFO debunkers are a bizarre lot. They've got no
 >>problem at all with the downright supernatural, but go into a
 >>frenzy at the notion of the merely unusual or exotic.

 >I once met a Christian UFO debunker at a CSICOP conference (yes,
 >I've been to three). He was not, however, bizarre, nor was he a
 >zealot.

 >His name was Fr. Lucien Kemble, and he was a Benedictine monk,
 >an astronomer. He did not claim that UFOs were the work of
 >angels or the devil.

 >His interest in the subject was that he did not want to see the
 >"true paranormal experience of the universe itself - God's
 >creation" get lost in a flurry of distracting false claims.

 >Despite my atheism and my support of Ufology, we became fast
 >friends, and light-heartedly debated each other in writing over
 >the next few years.

 >He was a wonderful man, and I wish I hadn't lost
 >track of him.

 >Which is not to argue against your basic point, but I thought
 >that anecdote would provide an interesting exception to the
 >rule.....

I've no doubt that Kemble was a sincere person. But I think the
critical sentence here is: "His interest in the subject was that
he did not want to see the 'true paranormal experience of the
universe itself God's creation' get lost in a flurry of
distracting false claims."

What precisely is he saying? That UFOs are nonsense and must be
done away with because they "interfere" with "God's creation" as
he knows it? That's exactly the sort of shizophrenic attitude
I've noticed among Christian debunker-zealots.

You don't have to be a ranting nut to display symptoms
of ufological cognitive dissonance.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:12:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:39:03 -0500
Subject: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS


'Path of the Skinwalker'

A new investigative report from George Knapp, who became famous
for introducing the world to the story of Bob Lazar in the late
1980s.

This time Knapp looks at the now famous "paranormal" ranch
bought by millionaire Bob Bigelow in northern Utah.

Source: The Las Vegas Mercury

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Nov-21-Thu-2002/20095845.html


Thursday, November 21, 2002
Copyright Las Vegas Mercury

Cover story: 'Path of the Skinwalker'

A small ranch in northern Utah may be the strangest place on
Earth

by George Knapp

First of two parts.


I'm sitting on a white plastic chair in what seems like total
darkness. Strapped to my chest and shoulders is an array of
electronic gear - microphones, a video camera, a box that
detects magnetic changes and a Geiger counter. Somewhere in the
mix is a flashlight, the only device whose function I
understand, and thus, the only device I cannot find.

In front of me, I can almost make out the sinister shapes of
some truly spooky trees. Malevolent bugs are buzzing in and out
of my eyes and ears, and it occurs to me that there must be a
tavern open somewhere nearby, even in this remote corner of
Utah. One hundred or more yards away, beyond a barbed-wire fence
and a little creek, are my fellow paranormal rangers, equipped
with their own video cameras, night-vision glasses and assorted
scientific gear. They are supposed to be watching me to see if
anything happens.

On this night, I am the bait. Bait for what, I wonder? The
unspoken hope is my own inherent weirdness quotient might give
me some sort of connection to the undeniably odd energy, or
entity, that seems to have concentrated itself on this remote
rural community, and, in particular, on this small ranch where I
now sit, waiting for something to announce its presence.

Some very strange things have happened at the precise spot where
I'm sitting. It is here that a visitor was accosted by a roaring
but nearly invisible creature, something akin to the Predator of
movie fame. It is here that a Ph.D. physicist reported that his
mind was invaded, literally taken over, by some sort of hostile
intelligence that warned him that he was not welcome. It is here
that an entire team of researchers watched in awe as a bright
door or portal opened up in the darkness and a large humanoid
creature crawled out before quickly vanishing. And it is here
that several animals - cattle and dogs - were mutilated,
obliterated or simply disappeared.

For as long as anyone can remember, this part of northeastern
Utah has been the site of simply unbelievable paranormal
activity. UFOs, Sasquatch, cattle mutilations, psychic
manifestations, creatures that aren't found in any zoos or
textbooks, poltergeist events. You name it, residents here have
seen it.

Retired schoolteacher Junior Hicks is the area's unofficial
historian for all things weird. He's catalogued 400 or so
incidents, most of them involving UFO sightings, but says there
have been thousands of other cases. Hicks estimates at least
half of the 50,000 residents of this basin have seen weird
things in the sky - flying saucers, cigar-shaped craft,
zigzagging balls of light, so many different objects that local
police and the Highway Patrol long ago stopped taking reports.
(Many of the lawmen have been witnesses themselves.) Hicks and
members of his family have witnessed their own UFO events over
the years.

"The UFO activity really started getting intense in the early
'50s," Hicks says. "There were cases where the whole school and
all the teachers saw these things hovering over the town in
broad daylight. In the '60s and '70s, we probably had more UFO
sightings than any place in the world."

But run-of-the-mill UFO events don't begin to describe the rich
array of unusual phenomena in this area. The Ute Indian tribe
has been here far longer than white settlers. Tribal leaders are
reluctant to speak to outsiders, but their oral history is
replete with examples of strange creatures and sightings. Indian
lore refers to some of these beings as Skinwalkers. Other
cultures call them shape-shifters, werewolves or Bigfoot.

"The Utes take this very seriously," Hicks says. "They think the
Skinwalkers are powerful spirits that are here because of a
curse that was put on them generations ago by the Navajos. And
the center of the whole legend is this ranch. The Utes say the
ranch is `the path of the skinwalker.' Tribe members are
strictly forbidden from setting foot on the property. It's been
that way for a long time."

The ranch in question is a 480-acre spread of rich, well-watered
pasture and a few thick patches of tall cottonwoods. It's
divided into three sections, each section being a former
homestead. Thick brush and a small river are on one side. A
rocky, picturesque ridge is on the other side. Skinwalker Ridge
is what the Utes call it, according to Hicks. A long dirt road
is the only way in or out of the ranch.

When rancher Tom Gorman (not his real name) bought the place in
1994, it had been vacant for seven or eight years. Gorman, his
wife and two kids were curious about the impressive array of
bolts that covered the doors and windows of the main house.
There were deadbolts on both sides of the doors. Even the
kitchen cabinets had bolts on them. And at both ends of the
house, iron stakes and heavy chains had been installed. Gorman
guessed the previous tenants had positioned large guard dogs in
the front and back of the home, but he had no idea why.


The bulletproof wolf

On the day the Gormans moved their furnishings onto the
property, they had their first foreshadowing of the events that
would follow. They spotted an extremely large wolf out in the
pasture. The wolf cautiously made its way across the field, and,
to the surprise of everyone, sidled up to the family, acting
like it was a familiar pet. It had rained that day, and the
family remembers the wolf smelled like a wet dog as they were
petting it.

After a few minutes, the wolf strolled over to the corral and
grabbed a calf by its snout, attempting to pull it through the
corral bars. Gorman and his father began beating on the wolf's
back with sticks but it wouldn't release the calf. Gorman
grabbed a .357 Magnum from his truck and shot the wolf at point-
blank range. The slug had no noticeable effect.

Gorman pumped another bullet into the wolf, which then let go of
the calf but stood looking at the family as if nothing had
happened. Gorman shot it two more times with the powerful
handgun. The big animal backed off a bit, but showed no signs of
distress, not even any blood.

The mystified rancher retrieved a hunting rifle and shot the
wolf again, once more at close range. Gorman is not only an
experienced marksman but a big-game hunter of considerable
repute. Five slugs should have been enough to bring down an elk,
let alone a wolf. The fifth shot caused a chunk of hair and
flesh to fly off the wolf, but it still didn't seem fazed. After
a sixth shot, the wolf casually trotted across the field into a
muddy thicket. Gorman and his father tracked the beast for about
a mile, following its pawprints through the mud, but the tracks
suddenly ended, as if the wolf had simply vanished into thin
air.

Returning to the corral area, Gorman examined the chunk of wolf
flesh and says it looked and smelled like rotten meat. He made
inquiries among his neighbors, but no one seemed to know
anything about any tame, over-sized wolves in the area. A few
weeks later, Mrs. Gorman encountered a wolf that was so large,
its back was parallel with the top of her window as it stood
beside her car. The wolf was accompanied by a dog-like animal
that she couldn't identify.

Over the next two years, a menagerie of weird animals was
reported by family members and neighbors. While driving into the
ranch on a bright afternoon, Gorman and his wife saw something
attacking one of their horses. They described it as "low to the
ground, heavily muscled, weighing perhaps 200 pounds, with curly
red hair and a bushy tail." It somewhat resembled a muscular
hyena and seemed to be clawing at their horse, almost playing
with it. Gorman got within 40 feet of the animal but says it
literally vanished before his eyes. Poof. Gone. They checked the
horse and found numerous claw marks on its legs. (A few months
later, the wife of a deputy sheriff reported seeing a similar
muscular, reddish beast running across the property.)

Another visitor to the ranch had a more ominous encounter in the
middle homestead, the same place where I was set out as bait.
The visitor, along with Gorman and his son, say they saw a large
blurry "something" moving through the trees. The visitor has
been meditating when this thing showed up. It swiftly moved from
the trees, across the pasture, covering 100 yards in seconds,
and when it reached the man, it let out a ferocious roar,
something akin to a large bear, a roar loud enough to be heard
hundreds of yards away. But this was no bear. It was, according
to the Gormans, nearly invisible, resembling the camouflaged
being in the movie Predator. The visitor was so scared, he
grabbed on to Gorman and wouldn't let go. He left the ranch and
has never returned.

Other creatures and beings were also seen, including exotic,
multicolored birds that were certainly not native to the region
and could not be identified. There were numerous close
encounters with dark, nine-foot-tall beasts that resembled a
Bigfoot or Sasquatch. (More on those incidents will follow.)

As if those visual experiences weren't enough, the family claims
its other senses were also challenged by assorted weird events.
They often were overwhelmed by strong musk odors. The pastures
would unexplainably light up at night like a football stadium.
They claim to have seen shafts of light that seemingly emanated
from the ground, They (and others) say they heard what sounded
like heavy machinery operating under the earth. And they heard
voices. Tom, his son and his nephew remember hearing a loud,
disembodied conversation in some unintelligible language. The
disembodied male voices spoke in what the witnesses say was a
mocking tone and sounded like they were emanating from 20 or
more feet above their heads, but they saw nothing. The dogs
accompanying the three witnesses growled and barked at the
voices, then took off in a panic.

There were physical manifestations that aren't easily explained.
While checking on his herd in the third homestead, Gorman
noticed that someone had dug up his pasture. Hundreds of pounds
of soil had been scooped out of the ground. The edges of the
hole resembled perfect, concentric circles, as if someone had
dropped a gigantic cookie cutter on the pasture. Several smaller
scoop marks were also found.

The Gormans also report phenomena similar to crop circles. One
formation found in their pasture consisted of three circles of
flattened grass. Each circle was approximately eight feet in
diameter, and they were arranged in a triangular pattern, with
each circle about 30 feet from the others. Keep in mind, there
is only one road leading into the ranch. Anyone coming in or
going out would almost certainly be noticed by the Gormans or
their neighbors.


UFOs and other

aerial oddities

In the spring of 1995, the Gormans started seeing strange things
in the sky. While out checking on their cattle, Gorman and his
nephew spotted what they thought was a recreational vehicle
parked on the property. They approached it, figuring the driver
might be having mechanical trouble. As they got closer, the RV
moved silently away from them. They moved closer, it moved
further away. They climbed a fence to get a better look at it,
and that's when they knew this was no Winnebago. The craft rose
above the treetops and slowly flew away, making no sound as it
departed. It certainly wasn't a helicopter. The witnesses had a
clear view and say the object was shaped like a refrigerator,
with a single light on its front and a red light on the back.

Before long, everyone in the family was seeing weird aerial
objects. Mrs. Gorman says something that resembled a stealth
fighter, but ringed with blinking disco lights, silently hovered
about 20 feet above her vehicle before zipping off. Each family
member had repeated sightings of a cloud that usually hovered
just outside the property. The cloud was characterized as having
"blinking Christmas tree lights" or "silent, mini-explosions"
inside. Among the other aerial craft seen by the Gormans, their
neighbors and other witnesses were classic flying-saucer
objects, flying sombreros, shafts of light similar to
fluorescent light bulbs and a cigar-shaped craft several
football fields long.

By far the most common objects they witnessed were floating
spheres of different sizes and colors. In 1995 and 1996, the
Gormans and others reported 12 separate incidents of seeing
large orange circles flying over the trees of the center
homestead. Tom Gorman claims that holes occasionally opened up
in the orange spheres and other smaller spheres would fly out.
(A neighboring rancher told this reporter of his own encounters
with what he called a flying orange basketball.)

By early 1996, the sightings of blue spheres at the ranch became
almost commonplace. These orbs were said to be about the size of
a softball, made of glass and filled with bubbling blue liquids
that seemed to rotate inside. Mr. and Mrs. Gorman say that in
April 1996, they watched one of the blue orbs repeatedly circle
the head of one of their horses, The horse was illuminated by an
intense blue light, and there was a sound like static
electricity in the air, but this wasn't ball lightning. The orb
seemed to be intelligently controlled. When Gorman approached
the horse with a flashlight, the orb darted off, maneuvering
through tree branches with speed and dexterity.

The Gormans say the blue spheres seemed to generate severe
psychological effects on the family. Family members felt waves
of fear roll over them, far in excess of what might be normal,
whenever the blue orbs appeared. It was the appearance of one
blue orb in particular that finally convinced the Gormans to
sell the ranch.

One evening in May 1996, Gorman was outside with three of his
dogs when he noticed a blue orb darting around in the field near
the ranch house. Gorman urged his dogs to go after the ball. The
dogs chased and snapped at the orb, but it dodged and maneuvered
enough to stay just beyond the reach of their snapping jaws. The
ball led the dogs out across the pasture and into the thick
brush that borders the field. Gorman says he heard the dogs make
three terrible yelps, then they were silent. He called for them,
but they didn't respond.

The next morning, Gorman went to look for the dogs. What he
found were three round spots of dried and brittle vegetation. In
the middle of each circle was a black, greasy lump. Gorman
surmised that his dogs had been incinerated by something. One
thing for sure, the dogs were never seen again. The
disappearance of their dogs prompted the Gormans to think about
getting out.


Mutilations and other

animal mysteries

Tom Gorman wasn't some country-bumpkin farmer trying to get by.
He had college degrees and advanced training in animal
husbandry, was considered an expert in artificial insemination
and had plans for raising hybrid, high-end stock at the
picturesque ranch. His herd, which ranged from 60-80 head,
consisted of expensive, top-of-the-line heifers and four 2,000-
pound show-class bulls.

 >From the day he moved his herd onto the ranch, though, his
hopes - and his animals - seemed to be under assault. The balls of
light that were seen so often on the property seemed to take
special interest in the cattle and were often seen buzzing
around the heads of the animals. Sometimes, the cattle would
react violently, the herd splitting suddenly as if some
invisible force was plowing through their middle. It soon got
worse.

Although the Gormans kept close watch on their stock, something
began exacting a terrible toll. One cow was found dead in a
field. A strange, crisp hole had been cut in one of its eyes.
There were no tracks or blood, and Gorman wondered what could do
such a thing. He noticed a strong musk odor around the carcass,
a smell he would come to know all too well.

Other cattle were carved up, as if with pinking shears. Cattle
mutilations have been reported throughout North America for
several decades. In typical cases, the ears, eyes, udders and
sex organs are removed with surgical precision. Gorman's animals
were subjected to all of the above.

As an experienced hunter and rancher, Gorman was more than
familiar with the capabilities of natural predators. This wasn't
being done by coyotes or mountain lions. The butchery was simply
too clean. And no blood was ever left at the scene of the
attacks. His other animals also suffered. His favorite horse had
its legs slashed, as if by sharp instruments or claws. (The musk
odor was still in the air when he discovered the damaged horse.)
His dogs seemed to develop paranoia. They stayed inside their
doghouses for days at a time, too fearful to emerge for food.
Six of the family's cats vanished in one night.

Soon, cattle started disappearing altogether. One of the animals
vanished from a snow-covered field. Gorman saw the hoofprints
lead into the field, but the tracks simply stopped, as if the
animal had been plucked from the sky. A 1,200-pound cow leaves
tracks in snow, Gorman told himself, so what happened to this
one?

In all, 14 of Gorman's prized animals were either sliced up or
vanished. In one instance, a cow was found mutilated just five
minutes after Gorman's son had checked on it. Something cut a
hole, six inches wide and 18 inches deep, in the animal's
rectum. The cored-out section extended into the cow's body
cavity, yet there was no blood on the cow or on the snow-covered
ground.

The loss of 14 expensive animals from an 80-head herd is extreme
by any standards. (There were other losses as well, but from
explainable causes.) It meant that Gorman was close to financial
collapse. One April afternoon, Gorman and his wife took a quick
drive to town for supplies. As they passed the corral that
contained their four bulls, they commented to each other that
they would really be in trouble if something should happen to
one of the bulls.

When they returned to the ranch less than an hour later, all
four of the bulls were gone. The Gormans began a frantic search
for the missing behemoths but couldn't find a trace. As a last
resort, Gorman decided to peek into a metal trailer that is
situated inside the corral. He thought it highly unlikely that
the bulls would be inside because, from the corral, there is
only one door into the trailer and it was secured with thick
metal wire, wire that clearly was still in place.

Gorman was shocked to see that all four of his bulls were inside
the trailer, squeezed like so many oversized sardines into the
tiny enclosure, crammed in against the sides of the trailer and
against each other. When he yelled to his wife that he had found
them, the bulls seemingly woke up, as if from a dream state, and
started kicking the hell out of the trailer and each other.

"There is simply no way that anyone could coax those four bulls
into that trailer," says Colm Kelleher, a microbiologist who
would come to know the Gormans well. "It would be tough enough
to get one of them into the trailer, but all four? Virtually
impossible. The only door leading from the corral into the
trailer was still securely fastened with wire. And there were
cobwebs on the inside of the door, proving that it had not been
opened. It's almost as if someone overheard the ranchers'
worries about their bulls, then decided to mess with them."


NIDS to the rescue

Kelleher didn't realize it back in 1996, but the Gorman ranch
was to soon become his home away from home. Kelleher is the
deputy administrator of NIDS, the National Institute for
Discovery Science, a Las Vegas-based research organization
founded by local businessman Robert Bigelow. Bigelow's long-
standing interest in paranormal topics, including UFOs, animal
mutilations and human consciousness, prompted him to assemble an
impressive team of physicists, engineers, psychologists and
other doctorate-level professionals for the purpose of
investigating subjects that are largely shunned by mainstream
science.

By the middle of 1996, the Gormans were ready to cash in their
chips. Those who know Tom Gorman say he blamed himself for the
weird string of events that had ruined his ranching operation.
He didn't want to give up but felt cursed, and was ready to bail
for the sake of his family. In an uncharacteristic moment, he
told parts of his story to a news reporter. A respected
journalist from Salt Lake City heard about it, came to the ranch
and talked to the family. Pictures were taken, and a wire
service picked up the story. That's how Bob Bigelow first
learned about the ranch.

Bigelow and his team flew to Utah and introduced themselves to
the Gormans. NIDS staffers checked out the story, interviewed
neighbors and evaluated the Gorman's seemingly incredible tales.
Bigelow offered to buy the ranch outright with the idea of
transforming it into an interactive paranormal laboratory, an
ongoing experiment that might shed some light on questions that
have been viewed with scientific skepticism. Amazingly, he
talked the Gormans into staying at the ranch as caretakers.

By that point, the family was a wreck. The UFOs, balls of light,
cattle mutilations, animal disappearances, Bigfoot sightings and
Skinwalker legends were bad enough, but there had also been an
ongoing series of more personal events. Things had occurred
within their home that had made a normal life impossible. They
saw apparitions in the house, blinding lights, dark creatures
peering in the windows. Furnishings, tools and everyday items
moved around, disappeared or turned up in unusual places.

No one could sleep. When they did manage to grab a few hours,
they were plagued by violent nightmares, often discovering later
that different family members had experienced identical dreams.
The two kids, honor students before arriving at the ranch, saw
their grades plummet. Mrs. Gorman lost her job at a local bank
because of her repeated absences and disturbing water-cooler
tales. Hoping for safety in numbers, the Gormans slept each
night on the floor of their front room.

The folks from NIDS offered moral, emotional and financial
support to the Gormans. What's more, they had a plan. The ranch
presented what appeared to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
to legitimately study a full menu of paranormal activities. They
endeavored to seal off the ranch, pack it with high-tech
monitoring equipment, staff it round-the-clock with trained
observers, and see what happens.

Some residents sarcastically wondered what the hucksters from
Las Vegas really had in mind. A scam of some sort was one oft-
mentioned possibility. UFO buffs whined that Bob Bigelow was a
"shadowy" guy who may or may not have CIA connections and that
he was out to somehow corner the market on E.T. They demanded
that whatever happened at the ranch should be made immediately
available for their evaluation. And paranormal debunkers
predicted the NIDS team would come up empty-handed because
unexplained events inevitably wither under careful scrutiny.

As it turned out, all three groups were wrong. NIDS did seal off
the ranch from outside observers but not for any monetary gain.
Neither the CIA nor any other government agency had any input or
access to the things that have occurred under the NIDS watch.
And the phenomena itself did not wither or evaporate.

For the past six years, events at the ranch have been under
constant scrutiny. Witnesses, including highly accomplished
scientists and law enforcement personnel, have documented a
mind-boggling array of unusual activity. But there has been a
near-total blackout on the release of any information about the
site.

By agreement with Bigelow, this reporter was granted the first
outside access to the ranch and to the scientists and ex-lawmen
who've been studying it. Interviews were conducted with ranch
personnel, as well as with community members who had reported
unusual events. And several nights were spent out on the ranch
itself, watching for odd lights or other manifestations.

No one who has studied this can say with any certainty what's
going on here. The NIDS researchers are not making any claims
about E.T.s or ghosts or Skinwalkers. They are merely collecting
data and trying to make some sense of it. That is small comfort
to me as I sit in the darkness on my little plastic chair,
waiting for something to happen. The mind certainly can play
tricks in such an environment, but could so many witnesses be
completely wrong?


Next week: We'll examine a long litany of bizarre activity that
occurred while the NIDS team was stationed at the ranch,
including the shooting and tracking of an unknown creature, the
destruction of electronic equipment by something unseen, the
unexplained creation of "ice circles" and the opening of what
some say is a portal to another dimension.

Warning to paranormal enthusiasts: Do not travel to the ranch.
You are not welcome there. It is private property and the people
who live on or near it don't want to be hassled by curiosity
seekers or the media. What's more, the level of unexplained
phenomena has taken a steady nosedive over the past several
months, so chances are you wouldn't see anything even if you
could get on the property.


-----

Grant Cameron
www.presidentialufo.com/news_update.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:41:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:55:05 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Speiser


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>)
 >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:54 AM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47

<snip>

 >MYSTERIOUS BOOMS HEARD
 >IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

 >   "People in a wide area north of Fredericton," New
 >Brunswick, Canada (population 46,507) are trying to solve
 >a mystery. They keep hearing loud, rumbling noises, but
 >they can't figure out where the sounds are coming from."

<snip>

This one's easy. That's Stan Friedman reading "Saucer Smear"
and pounding his fist in disgust!!


==JJS==


http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/  --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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:54:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:57:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:16:00 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:31:36 -0800 (PST)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500
 >>>Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >His name was Fr. Lucien Kemble, and he was a Benedictine monk,
 >an astronomer. He did not claim that UFOs were the work of
 >angels or the devil.

OK, I lied, he was Franciscan. And I have just been informed of
his death in 1999. Very sad. He was a truly unique man: a humble
skeptic!


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina -

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:59:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:59:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina -


 >From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 00:07:12 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina

 >>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:41:43 -0500
 >>Subject: Cattle Mutilations in Misiones Argentina

 >>SOURCE: Misiones On Line
 >>DATE: November 15, 2002

 >>CATTLE MUTILATIONS IN MISIONES
 >>by Raul Romero

 >>A veterinarian stated that there were several mutilation cases
 >>in the province's southern reaches. Julio Frette was the only
 >>professional who presented a report on an event which occurred
 >>in the month of August in Concepcion de la Sierra. "There were
 >>four more cases that were never made known," he remarked. He
 >>added that they were not reported due to the ignorance of the
 >>parties who made the discovery, and that the mystery has not yet
 >>been solved.

 ><snip>

 >Guys, I thought it was established some time ago that vets are
 >not scientifically qualified to differentiate dessicated
 >predator cuts from cauterized cuts? Re: Mute Evidence.


Hi Eric,

And who established that? Sounds silly to me considering trauma
to tissue would be greatly different from cauterization than
from predation (i.e.: tearing vs. burning).

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:14:49 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:01:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:53:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >What's bothering you is that someone is casting doubt on
 >Scheaffer's less than stellar investigation into a 2nd rate
 >sighting by using the old "Venus was in the sky so it must have
 >been that" explanation for a UFO sighting. He's not provided
 >anything substantial to prove his theory

Except finding the real date, tracking down Jimmy Carter's
written reports, contacting other wintesses who were there
(and remember nothing which casts doubt on Venus as an
explanation), and publishing the same more than 20 years ago.

 >so as far as I'm concerned it stays a UFO.

 >Now I realize this has you really concerned because the witness
 >was, subsequently, a US President and this must be shot down at
 >all costs.

You believers are the ones who continue to dredge up this long-
  solved "2nd rate" UFO report, only because it was Jimmy Carter.
How many other boring reports like this receive regular
publicity decades later?

 >So here's what I'm suggesting Bob.

 >You get involved.

Why? I find Sheaffer's investigation to be persuasive.

If you think that he's wrong, why don't _you_ investigate it
again by trying to message something new from 30 year-old
memories.

<snip>

 >But right now you are riding on Shcheaffer's coat tails. If you
 >are not prepared to do that, then button up because your usual
 >input, "It must have been this because it couldn't have been
 >that" is just a waste of bandwidth.

Strange request, Don: if I am satisfied with his conclusion I
must do it all over myself or shut up and never mention it
publicly. You, however, can declare his investigation "less than
stellar" without doing a thing.

Whazza problem? Frustrated that you don't have anything useful
to add to his long-published investigation? Or is it just that
continuing to mispell his name as an in-joke is easier?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:53:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Jones


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

Good Morning Wendy, Jan, John, etc.

 >I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
 >not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
 >scenario.

 >Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
 >scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
 >Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
 >of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
 >completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

 >I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
 >many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
 >that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
 >expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
 >far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
 >take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
 >bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
 >close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
 >and taken into the UFO.

 >Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
 >Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
 >framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
 >the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

I would like to add a big "Amen" to all of the above. It is a
pity I couldn't do it to the last paragraph because I don't know
Jan personally, but I fully respect what Wendy says.

 >Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
 >I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
 >research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
 >a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
 >to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
 >good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
 >us to think and rethink.

 >Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.


The _only_ thing that I could possibly add to the whole
argument/discussion is that the abduction phenomenon is a
_predominantly_ American thing.

Yes it _occurs_ around the world, but a good majority of the
cases happen in the good ole US of A.

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:51:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:13:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:34:37 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:10:15 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 ><snip>

 >>I guess I didn't get my original point across. It wasn't really
 >>about the actual size of the moon but that at times, it "seems"
 >>even bigger than its actual size.

 >This is true.

 >>Therefore I believe it is more difficult for a person to ever
 >>"think" that Venus could ever be the size of the moon.

 >Unless the Moon isn't there to compare. The point is that the
 >Moon looks larger than it's "supposed" to be when it is seen
 >near the horizon. If it's not there, whouldn't one assume that
 >it "would be" smaller it it were there?

So you want to give Carter credit for knowing the moon is
actually smaller than it is normally perceived in certain
situations (just as I made the error) but he couldn't tell if a
cloud was present for his object to go behind or whether or not
the object was "sharply defined" as he selected from the three
choices he was given on the Heyden form. The thing you're giving
him credit for is more difficult than what I'm giving him credit
for. Yours requires more subtle knowledge regarding perception,
which the average person doesn't have (you learned it via your
astronomy observations) while mine is more straight forward.
But, I believe we seem to be going around in circles and
neutralizing each other here. Unless you have something else
specific to say about this area, let's move on.

 >The other thing is that the apparent brightness if Venus, or
 >other bright stars or planets near the horizon, are enhanced
 >because dimmer stars are not seen due to atmospheric extinction.

I don't think the immediate above really matters anyway because
Carter's sighting was approximately 2 hours before Venus set and
as you said, they weren't out there to see that. How close was
it to the horizon two hours before setting?

And these other points I had made: The "perceived" size and
brightness of Venus never gets close to that of the moon, nor is
it "sharply outlined" as Carter described what he saw. You said
the moon wasn't present so he could have made a mistake in size.
We disagree upon this and we'll have to let others decide what
they think.

However, as to the "sharply outlined" point, I said before, he
had three choices on the form:

Fuzzy or Blurred, Like a bright star, or sharply outlined He
chose "sharply outlined"

He didn't select the first two  which indicated he didn't see it
as a star. As to this, there is no question in my mind he would
have known the difference. It doesn't requre a rocket scientist
to remember this. There is no question Venus never appears as
that last choice. I'm pretty sure we can have people look at it
all they want and  I'm fairly certain they'll never see this. If
you think I am incorrect here, please provide us a picture of
this. We need to see it.

Concerning this next question I asked:

 >>How many people with the technical education (Nuclear
 >>Physics) and observer skills of Carter have thought the moon
 >>was a UFO?

 >I don't know

<snip>

Exactly my point. Not good enough. We really need solid examples
of a person(s?) _with Carter's skills who either thought the
moon was a UFO or thought Venus was a UFO_, and we are entitled
to see this as well. When one has a hypothesis one needs to back
it up with some solid supporting examples or you can't even
submit the hypothesis for analysis. It is one thing for an
average person to be fooled by something like this but another
for a person with a nuclear physics degree and trained sky
observation skills.

 >>And what if the object Carter reported _was_ the size he
 >>described? Sheaffer really hasn't proved that it wasn't. He has
 >>hypothesized same.

 >Yes, but this was based upon the testimony of 11 other witnesses
 >who didn't think anything out of the ordinary happened, just
 >maybe a distant balloon, "blue light" or star.

Good, you agree Sheaffer put forth a hypothesis. (and I think
actually, a few of them, not just one.)

Now, here is an example of what I mean by eliminating available
data when coming to a conclusion.

Regarding Robert Sheaffer's specific hypothesis concerning the
witnesses: You still haven't considered what Bob Gates and I
submitted concerning this and which I pointed you to in my last
two posts. I apologize for being repetitive here but you haven't
commented on this yet and it is important.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m15-008.shtml

At the above URL is evidence that happens to fall right in line
with what Sheaffer said concerning witness accuracy; namely,
_witness recollection is not always accurate._ We have given you
other data available that demonstrates that the Carter sighting
witnesses "lack of recollection" is most probably equally
accurate/inaccurate as Carter's. Omitting evidence such as this
is one basic error Sheaffer has made. It was delineated on
Cameron's web site, which I quoted in a previous post beginning
at paragraph 4 in the Cameron quote toward the bottom of that
page

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

Here's that quote again:

[begin quote]

In the ensuing years, there has been a great deal of discussion
as to what the UFO had been. Skeptical UFO buffs, such as Robert
Sheaffer, struggled to explain Jimmy Carter's sighting away, by
stating that Carter had viewed the planet Venus. Sheaffer, the
vice-chairman of the UFO subcommittee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, wrote up his guess as
to what the object Carter and the others had seen in the July
1977 Humanist Magazine. Many UFO "researchers" wanting to show
that they, too, can be "discriminating" joined in stating Carter
had viewed the planet Venus."

Others stepped forward quickly to challenge the accuracy of
Sheaffer's claim. Sheaffer's response to these challenges ended
up taking his Venus explanation from the shaky to the bizarre.
For example, Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
conclusions were wrong because they relied on eyewitness
testimony, and eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are,
wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of scientific analysis documenting
unreliability of unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony."
Yet Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the data that he
collected to come to his Venus conclusion.

In a response to a letter written to the Skeptical Inquirer by
Jon Beckjord, published in the Winter 1980-81 Skeptical
Inquirer, Sheaffer cited four books and articles Beckjord could
refer to that would show you "can't take unsubstantiated
testimony at face value."

In the very next sentence of his reply, however, Sheaffer
retreated to eyewitness testimony. "I note that Beckjord fails
to mention," Sheaffer wrote, " that many UFO proponents agree
with me that the Carter UFO sighting is a very poor one and that
another Georgian standing with Carter, as my Humanist piece
makes clear, [was] quite unimpressed with the light they saw in
the sky." Sheaffer's Venus conclusion relied on the assumption
that Carter's eyewitness testimony was inaccurate, but the other
eyewitness accounts were accurate.

[end quote]


 >Remember, the case was a mystery until
 >Robert discovered that the Governor had
 >been mistaken about the date.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. That was only one
clue out of many towards an attempted solution of the mystery.
It was good that he found it, but it was only the beginning of a
"new" investigation.

 >People do make mistakes, otherwise there wouldn't be many IFOs.
 >This only requires the Governor to have been as human as the
 >rest of us.

I don't disagree with you here, we're all human. However, what I
do disagree with is:

1) taking data from one side to prove a case while omitting
available data from the other side. (and we haven't quite
covered it all yet.)

and

2) making a statement without giving at least some solid
supporting data to back it up (concerning, in this instance so
far,  providing us data regarding one or more similarly
scientifically trained professionals who have mistaken the moon
or Venus for a UFO, as per my statement above.)


Respectfully,

Jerry Cohen
http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:35:05 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:15:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Randle


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:49:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
 >>>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

 >Are you familiar with Martin Kottmeyer's discovery of the
 >possible source of key elements of Barney's story under hypnosis
 >in a TV program broadcast a few days earlier?

 >Please see "The Eyes That Spoke" at:

 >http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html

 >and "The Eyes Still Speak" at:

 >http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/eyes-still-speak.html

 >These questions continue to make the Hills' story a very unique
 >one in the annals of ufology.

Good Morning, Bob, Cathy, List, All -

I decided, for no good reason, to jump in here and point out
that there was a Twilight Zone episode called "Hocus Pocus and
Frisbee" that first aired on April 13, 1962, that contained the
details of an alien abduction complete with gray aliens (well,
not exactly grays but a close proximity anyway). They look like
regular humans until Frisby, AKA Andy Devine, punches one and
the mask falls away. They have black eyes, more or less almond
shaped and have no nose but just a couple of nostril holes and
no real mouth.

For those interested, it is noted on page 278 of The Twilight
Zone Companion that "...aliens masquerading as humans spirit
Frisby away... Frisby escapes... Frisby finds all his friends
waiting for him; it's a surprise birthday party. But when he
tried to tell them of his abduction - no one believes him!"

Of course the problem here is that Frisby had been spinning
tales his whole life, claimed college degrees he didn't have,
claimed to have conducted research he never did, claimed jobs he
never held. His friends all knew this but ignored it... sounds
like UFOlogy doesn't it (and yes, I think of one name
specifically here).

Anyway, apropos of nothing, I thought this little tidbit might
be interesting in light of Betty Hill's comment to Barney about
watching the Twilight Zone again... see page 144 of The
Interrupted Journey (hardcover).

And now I turn control of your computer... oh, sorry. That was
the Outer Limits.


KRandle







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:17:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:31:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology


 >Why draw an
 >artificial line in the sand? Why establish a fake 'border' that
 >prohibits reports of UFO occupant sightings or interactions from
 >being considered a part of UFO phenomena. That is what
 >abductions are; interactions with the occupants of UFOs that are
 >on the ground or in close proximity if in the air.

Apparently Ufology suffers from the assumption that it has to be
all this way or all that way. What would be wrong with a
scientific investigation _in_two_parts_, one based on sightings,
and the other based on abductions?

Like one engineering group working on an aircraft's
aerodynamics, and another working on the power plant.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:49:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:00:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
 >>not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
 >>scenario.

 >>Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
 >>scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
 >>Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
 >>of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
 >>completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

 >>I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
 >>many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
 >>that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
 >>expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
 >>far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
 >>take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
 >>bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
 >>close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
 >>and taken into the UFO.

 >>Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
 >>Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
 >>framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
 >>the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

 >>Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
 >>I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
 >>research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
 >>a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
 >>to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
 >>good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
 >>us to think and rethink.

 >>Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.

 >Groan... Et tu Wendy? Et tu?

<snip>

Hi John,

Yeah, I'm afraid so, John. It is not a reflection on you nor
other abductees. Rather, it is a reflection of this old
researcher who has been around the block more times than I care
to count (or remember).

Let's just say I'm maintaining legitimate skepticism regarding
the abduction scenario within Ufology from the position that
very little evidence, circumstantial or empirical, shows that
the alien abduction scene is as large as proclaimed or as urgent
as proclaimed. I just feel that the alien abduction scenario it
is not the center of Ufological (crypto-aeronautics) research.
It is certainly a bona fide area of research, but not that which
Ufology is derived, nor driven.

However, from a rational standpoint, I accept that some abductee
cases are legitimate, such as yours and deserves serious study
and research. I believe you had such an experience. You have,
with your acumen and common sense, gave me absolutely no reason
to doubt you or that your experience was real to you. But, like
Jan, I don't know what to do at this point or where to take the
alien abduction scenario as far as research.

Having almost 50 years in this field I have some core beliefs.
First and foremost is that the UFO phenomena is real and
presents a challenge to human understanding. That the phenomena
has always been in flux and that the phenomena is a valid
scientific endeavor. But, there is absolutely no evidence that
proves UFOs are extraterrestrial, interdimensional, etc. at this
moment in time. To believe otherwise is to default on keeping an
open mind in the course of study and research.

At the present time the abduction scenario is much like the old
Contactee position of the 1950s. Yet, different in many
respects. It is hard to get a handle on what the abduction
scenario signals in many aspects as it applies to Ufology in the
purest sense.

I don't dismiss the alien abduction scenario outright. I find it
a challenge, interesting and disturbing in its complexity.
However, beyond that I just won't take the next step to believe
blindly many of the claims being made as to hybidization,
intergalactic war between Raelians and the like. I'm being
pragmatic here, John. I will not make leaps to reach a
conclusion. I certainly speculate, as shown in my research, but
that speculation is always arrived at through thorough
documentation that leads credence to such speculation.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:15:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:47:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs


Hello Bob,

 >I assume that you mean that they may not have actually "seen"
 >what they said they did. Because in both cases we have their own
 >words for the above statements.

No, I was referring to Robert Sheaffer's claim that, had a UFO
actually been present, a particular state of affairs would have
been described.

 >Thanks for this interesting information about how the visual
 >system effects eyewitness accounts and reliability.

I think we need to unpack this a little.

No instrument for measuring the physical world gives entirely
accurate results under every conceivable circumstances. If you
look through an out-of-focus telescope, for example, then what
you see won't be very reliable.

The human visual system is no different. Historically, people
have tended to expect the visual system to work something like a
camera, and when they find it doesn't, they have tended to
conclude there must be something "wrong" with it. This is very
odd - no scientist would dream of coming up with a theory of
gravitation, and concluding that there must be something "wrong"
with gravitation if the physical world didn't work the way the
theory required. But historically, people have tended to have
this idea about human perception and human performance
generally.

But the human visual system is only unreliable if you try to
treat it as something which it is not - such as a video camera.
But the human visual system is perfectly reliable if you treat
it as what it is, which is the human visual system - indeed it
must be so, or we'd never have made it out of the African
savannah.

 >Except that what the witnesses said that they say does match was
 >was in the sky at the time of the sighting.

On a clear night there is bound to be some combination of
astronomical objects that matches a given set of three points
through chance alone - especially when the patterns are being
matched post-hoc, and when one allows arbitrary levels of error
in the measurements. You of all people should know, Bob, this
sort of post-hoc pattern-matching is just not reliable -
scientists use elaborate statistical procedures precisely to
prevent this sort of thing.

 >The Hills case is one of the most interesting because of it's
 >key role in the development of the folklore of the UFO
 >abduction. I'm using folklore in the sense that even if some
 >abductions are genuine the UFO phenomenon includes a folkloric
 >element, which could account for IFOs, hoaxes, or whatever was
 >not a "real" event.

I think "folklore" is a dangerously ambiguous term in this
context - not to mention that it's loaded with political
subtexts. "Folkore" and "myth" mean one one thing to an
anthropologist, for example, and possibly quite another to a
physicist.

If you're talking about the sociological issues associated with
ufology, then I agree that they're very important and I also
agree that they have nothing to do with what "real" stimulus may
be responsible for generating those reports. The sociological
issue I referred to just now, concerning why people should think
there's something "wrong" with the visual system because it
doesn't operate like a camera, is a case in point.

In fact I'll admit that it's the sociological issues surrounding
UFO research and the discussions which accompany them, which
actually interest me more than the UFOs themselves. UFO
discussions seem to involve much the same academic politics, and
power struggles over institutionalized authority, that one sees
in science generally - but much more raw and exposed.

It interests me, for example, that CSICOP is top-heavy with
psychologists and other social scientists - people whose own
scientific credibility is often in doubt and who consequently
have a vested interest in publicly distancing themselves from
fringe areas.

 >The question being, if the initial sighting was prosaic, what
 >accounted for Barney latter seeing "nazis" and little figures
 >when he looked at the UFO in binocs, as Betty without binocs
  >still described it as a "star"?

Well, it seems to me that you've indulged in some rather
gratuitous and fanciful re-writing of the original case-report
here. If you're asking me, though, I don't know of any such
mechanism. If you're asserting that this is what happened, then
the responsibility to establish that such an exotic mechanism
exists surely lies with you.

If no such mechanism exists, then of course that would tend to
suggest that the initial sighting was possibly not prosaic.

 >And then, of course, months later after reading UFO literature
 >and being hypnotized, what might have created the abduction
 >account?

 >Are you familiar with Martin Kottmeyer's discovery of the
 >possible source of key elements of Barney's story under hypnosis
 >in a TV program broadcast a few days earlier?

 >Please see "The Eyes That Spoke" at:

 >http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html

 >and "The Eyes Still Speak" at:
 >
 >http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/eyes-still-speak.html

 >These questions continue to make the Hills' story a very unique
 > one in the annals of ufology.

But once again, we have the problem of post-hoc pattern-
matching. Did anyone test this out (by, for example, examining a
random sample of TV programming and seeing how many pattern
matches of this sort turned up?)


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:31:14 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:49:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:51:09 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:10:11 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >My own wife's sighting is a case in point. When I grilled her, I
 >asked her if it was possible she was looking at Venus, which was
 >in that sector of the sky. "What Venus??" she said, "I was
 >looking at a flying saucer! Do you think I would have even
 >noticed Venus??"

Jim:

In all due respect to your wife, just because a witness insists
that they saw a UFO after a prosaic explanation is suggested
doesn't make it so.

It's interesting that despite Kathy's description of a mechanism
whereby any eyewitness could be fooled, you believe that it
increases the infallibility of eyewitness testimony.

If a UFO is reported to look like a star and a planet is known
to have been in that location, you seem to want, desperately, to
be able to ignore the hard, scientific data about something
which _can be known_ about the sighting circumstances, so that
you can wallow in unsupported eyewitness testimony.

Of course I realize that without unsupported eyewitness
testimony there would be few UFO reports, and there would still
be _no_ proven ET spaceships or little grey "nazis."


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank" - Dr Miles Bennell's
instructions on how to look like a pod person, Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:55:30 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:54:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:35:05 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >I decided, for no good reason, to jump in here and point out
 >that there was a Twilight Zone episode called "Hocus Pocus and
 >Frisbee" that first aired on April 13, 1962, that contained the
 >details of an alien abduction complete with gray aliens (well,
 >not exactly grays but a close proximity anyway). They look like
 >regular humans until Frisby, AKA Andy Devine, punches one and
 >the mask falls away. They have black eyes, more or less almond
 >shaped and have no nose but just a couple of nostril holes and
 >no real mouth.

 >For those interested, it is noted on page 278 of The Twilight
 >Zone Companion that "...aliens masquerading as humans spirit

<snip>

 >Anyway, apropos of nothing, I thought this little tidbit might
 >be interesting in light of Betty Hill's comment to Barney about
 >watching the Twilight Zone again... see page 144 of The
 >Interrupted Journey (hardcover).


Kevin:

Thanks for this little tidbit.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                        Re: Stalin's UFOs - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:27:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:56:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs - Goldstein


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 9:26:29 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs

 >>From: Eric Jacobson <ejacobson74@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:22:14 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Stalin's UFOs

 >>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:54:54 +0100
 >>>Subject: Stalin's UFOs

 >>>Source: Pravda

 >>>http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/19/39641.html

 >>>Stig

 >>>***

 >>>2002.11.19/10:39

 >>>Stalin's UFOs

 >>>Joseph Stalin insisted that the USSR outpace America with its
 >>>space program

 >>>**

 >><snip>

 >>The thing about this and other recent "amazing tales" from
 >>Russia is that no references to supporting documentation are
 >>ever provided, which just strengthens the impression that it's
 >>story concocted to make someone some rubles.  Does anyone on
 >>List know of any supporting documents for this?

 >Eric and List,

 >For what it is worth here are some comments concerning the
 >former Soviet Union on Roswell:

 >http://project1947.com/roswell/joint1.htm

 >http://project1947.com/roswell/joint2.htm

 >http://project1947.com/roswell/cis1.htm

 >http://project1947.com/roswell/cis2.htm


Hi Jan,

I also thank Stig Agermose for the years of media articles he
has provided to us over a number of years. Pravda takes the
cake. In the cold war it was a deceitful propaganda organ
serving the state.

Ironically Pravda means truth in English. That paper has a lomg
way to go before it becomes truthful, even oin the free world.
To me it seems to still be down at the tabloid level. Obviously
one would have to contact the principals named (if still alive)
and verify what information Pravda claimed they knew regarding
"Stalin UFOs.

During the 1946 to 1949 period the Siviets had many agents in
New Mexico to spy on the defense establishment activities. Spies
such as the Rosenbergs used a variety of means to steal secrets.

Because Roswell AAF housed the atomic air forces I guess that
spies went to a lot of trouble trying to steal secrets. They may
have lived in the town and may have obtained civilian jobs on
the base if they had enough. An important function of the CIC -
  Counter Intelligence Corps most likely was to prevent their
theft of secret information. It would be interesting to look
back in the records and see what there may be regarding Soviet
spying attempts in Roswell.


Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:35:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:59:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:14:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:53:43 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 ><snip>

 >>What's bothering you is that someone is casting doubt on
 >>Scheaffer's less than stellar investigation into a 2nd rate
 >>sighting by using the old "Venus was in the sky so it must have
 >>been that" explanation for a UFO sighting. He's not provided
 >>anything substantial to prove his theory

 >Except finding the real date, tracking down Jimmy Carter's
 >written reports, contacting other wintesses who were there
 >(and remember nothing which casts doubt on Venus as an
 >explanation), and publishing the same more than 20 years ago.

 >>so as far as I'm concerned it stays a UFO.

 >>Now I realize this has you really concerned because the witness
 >>was, subsequently, a US President and this must be shot down at
 >>all costs.

 >You believers are the ones who continue to dredge up this long-
 >solved "2nd rate" UFO report, only because it was Jimmy Carter.
 >How many other boring reports like this receive regular
 >publicity decades later?

 >>So here's what I'm suggesting Bob.

 >>You get involved.

 >Why? I find Sheaffer's investigation to be persuasive.

 >If you think that he's wrong, why don't _you_ investigate it
 >again by trying to message something new from 30 year-old
 >memories.

 ><snip>

 >>But right now you are riding on Shcheaffer's coat tails. If you
 >>are not prepared to do that, then button up because your usual
 >>input, "It must have been this because it couldn't have been
 >>that" is just a waste of bandwidth.

 >Strange request, Don: if I am satisfied with his conclusion I
 >must do it all over myself or shut up and never mention it
 >publicly. You, however, can declare his investigation "less than
 >stellar" without doing a thing.

 >Whazza problem? Frustrated that you don't have anything useful
 >to add to his long-published investigation? Or is it just that
 >continuing to mispell his name as an in-joke is easier?


So that's a no. You're just echoing what I was saying. I'm
always suspicious of the Venus explanation for UFO sightings,
particularly in this case.

Scheaffer's findings leave me unsatisfied and suspicious.

You on the other hand are prepared to accept the lamest of
explanations for every sighting which is a lazy attitude to my
mind.


Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:55:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:12:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:49:52 -0700
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
 >>>not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
 >>>scenario.

 >>>Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
 >>>scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
 >>>Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
 >>>of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
 >>>completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

 >>>I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
 >>>many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
 >>>that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
 >>>expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
 >>>far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
 >>>take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
 >>>bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
 >>>close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
 >>>and taken into the UFO.

 >>>Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
 >>>Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
 >>>framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
 >>>the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

 >>>Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
 >>>I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
 >>>research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
 >>>a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
 >>>to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
 >>>good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
 >>>us to think and rethink.

 >>>Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.

 >>Groan... Et tu Wendy? Et tu?

 ><snip>

 >Yeah, I'm afraid so, John. It is not a reflection on you nor
 >other abductees. Rather, it is a reflection of this old
 >researcher who has been around the block more times than I care
 >to count (or remember).

 >Let's just say I'm maintaining legitimate skepticism regarding
 >the abduction scenario within Ufology from the position that
 >very little evidence, circumstantial or empirical, shows that
 >the alien abduction scene is as large as proclaimed or as urgent
 >as proclaimed. I just feel that the alien abduction scenario it
 >is not the center of Ufological (crypto-aeronautics) research.
 >It is certainly a bona fide area of research, but not that which
 >Ufology is derived, nor driven.

 >However, from a rational standpoint, I accept that some abductee
 >cases are legitimate, such as yours and deserves serious study
 >and research. I believe you had such an experience. You have,
 >with your acumen and common sense, gave me absolutely no reason
 >to doubt you or that your experience was real to you. But, like
 >Jan, I don't know what to do at this point or where to take the
 >alien abduction scenario as far as research.

 >Having almost 50 years in this field I have some core beliefs.
 >First and foremost is that the UFO phenomena is real and
 >presents a challenge to human understanding. That the phenomena
 >has always been in flux and that the phenomena is a valid
 >scientific endeavor. But, there is absolutely no evidence that
 >proves UFOs are extraterrestrial, interdimensional, etc. at this
 >moment in time. To believe otherwise is to default on keeping an
 >open mind in the course of study and research.

 >At the present time the abduction scenario is much like the old
 >Contactee position of the 1950s. Yet, different in many
 >respects. It is hard to get a handle on what the abduction
 >scenario signals in many aspects as it applies to Ufology in the
 >purest sense.

 >I don't dismiss the alien abduction scenario outright. I find it
 >a challenge, interesting and disturbing in its complexity.
 >However, beyond that I just won't take the next step to believe
 >blindly many of the claims being made as to hybidization,
 >intergalactic war between Raelians and the like. I'm being
 >pragmatic here, John. I will not make leaps to reach a
 >conclusion. I certainly speculate, as shown in my research, but
 >that speculation is always arrived at through thorough
 >documentation that leads credence to such speculation.


Hi Wendy, Jan, Jim Speiser, All,

Oh man, (or 'woman' as the case may be) I can't begin to tell
you how disappointing and disheartening it is for me to hear
you all talking this way. I respect it and I can even understand
'why' you all think/feel this way about the abduction reports.

You three in particular, Jan, Wendy, Jim, all represent (to me)
among the 'best' there is in ufology. You are all clear, honest
thinkers who offer a solid approach to the subject. (UFOs) It
just takes all the wind out of my sails to watch you
collectively throwing your hands up in the air in frustration
over the abduction material.

That means: all the usual suspects, Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs get to
keep center stage when it comes to actively investigating
cases/reports of UFO abduction. That bothers me tremendously.
And not because there is anything inherently wrong with any of
them. But because we'll never get to see if anyone else can
confirm, deny or duplicate their results or assessment of the
phenomenon.

We already know what they think.

I was waiting and hoping for some 'fresh blood' to enter the
fray. To bring better methodology and a less 'carved in stone'
mind-set to the problem than we get from Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs
et al.

A 'monopoly' like that, in any field of investigation, almost
insures that 'dogma' will rear its ugly little head. It's what
we have now. There's the 'Hopkins camp' the 'Mack camp' etc.
with little input from anybody else in the field. There is no
one else who shares an equal foothold in the public arena with
them who is challenging them or putting their findings to the
test.

As friendly as they are with each other, I doubt we'll ever get
to see the result of their 'combined' and catalogued database.
There hasn't been a challenge put to them strong enough to
motivate them to pool their data and evidence for consideration
by the larger research community. In other words, as things
stand right now, there is no real 'accountability' being
demanded by anyone of them to substantiate their assertions.
They don't have to answer to anybody.

It's a sweet deal. They can pursue their "research" free from
any accountability at all. They can continue to write and
publish books independently knowing that they'll never have to
'put up' the goods (collectively) for independent analysis.
That's the kind of work that needs to be performed. And
yesterday!

Example:

With the glaring exception of Dr. Mack, the other two claim to
have physical evidence. (And, if Dr.mack is the only one among
them who has not found/gathered any physical evidence, what does
_that_ say?) Neither one has offered up this physical evidence
for 'open' (academic) empirical analysis. I'm not trying to
imply that they don't have 'physical evidence' only that nobody
is really sure what it all consists of and whether it is what
they claim it is; evidence of ET.

You guys are crying that you have nothing tangible to
investigate. They claim they have 'tangibles.' Why not start
there?

The only hope that their strangle-hold on the research will
loosen is with independent researchers like yourselves. Serious,
thoughtful people who can bring a sober mind-set and fresh set
of eyes to a phenomenon that has been dominated by a 'few'
individuals. Too few. We all need to see the results of
independent investigative and analysis efforts on the material
that the 'abductionologists' claim they are in possession of.

But alas, all my hopes are dashed. When a competent, reputable
bunch such as yourselves wash your hands of the abduction cases,
it tells me that the Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs 'status quo' will
continue to dominate at least for the foreseeable future.

No hope for new research or input. No hope for alternative
methodology. Just more of the same, more 'books' about this case
or that, more lectures, more TV shows, for many more years to
come. And nothing more. Nothing 'new' anyway.

It depresses me. Makes me feel like packing my bindle stick and
hitting the rails. What's it all for if not to get people of
your experience and caliber involved? To broaden the research
effort. To 'maybe' one day, getting some practical help and
answers for the witnesses/victims.

Damn, damn, damn. I can't begin to tell you how sad and
frustrated it makes me feel to hear you guys talking this way.


Regards to All,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:23:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:14:37 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47 - Ledger


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:41:02 -0700
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>)
 >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers -
 >>Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:54 AM
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 47

 ><snip>

 >>MYSTERIOUS BOOMS HEARD
 >>IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

 >> "People in a wide area north of Fredericton," New
 >>Brunswick, Canada (population 46,507) are trying to solve
 >>a mystery. They keep hearing loud, rumbling noises, but
 >>they can't figure out where the sounds are coming from."

 ><snip>

 >This one's easy. That's Stan Friedman reading "Saucer Smear"
 >and pounding his fist in disgust!!


It's more realistically the SSTs going over, inbound New York.
We hear them all the time in Nova Scotia. The sonic booms
reverberate around an out over the Minas Basin [tip of the Bay
of Fundy].

There's also the possibility of new technology being used at
Camp Gagetown a huge MOA [mostly ground forces] just south of
Fredi. The American, British, German etc. forces train there
frequently under the NATO agreements.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                       Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:50:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:21:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall


This is primarily a response to Jan Aldrich and Wendy Connors,
two of the most admirable and constructive people in UFO
research, about their stated views on abduction reports.

Sorry, I disagree with you.

Your honest skepticism is fully justified, but unfortunately
abductions are part and parcel of the UFO mystery whether we
like it or not (and I don't like it either; I'm stuck with it).

My reasons in outline (details on request): The arguments about
lack of conclusive or convincing physical evidence apply equally
well to straight UFO sightings, but that doesn't mean the
reports can't or shouldn't be studied.

The child sexual abuse (ritual abuse, Satanic ritual, etc.)
psychological arguments have been taken up many times over the
years, most notably at the 1992 abduction conference at M.I.T.
Some of this made its way into the Proceedings ("Alien
Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference held
at M.I.T...."), but more transpired at the sessions and in the
hallways.

Numerous behavioral scientists, including specialists in child
abuse, etc., were there for the simple reason that they had
encountered abduction cases in their practices and were troubled
by them, since they did _not_ fir the patterns of their
specialities.

In the hallways, many of them said to me in private discussions
that they were totally puzzled by the reports and saw no
conventional explanation for them.

Coverage of abductions in The UFO Evidence, Vol. II, also shows
exactly how abductions _do_ fit in right smack in the middle of
UFO sighting reports.

So, as much as I wish it were not happening and as much as the
whole phenomenon troubles me, intellectual honesty requires me
to face up to it. And by the way, behavioral scientists have the
same problem as physical scientists when it comes to trying to
get their work published in respectable journals. That is a
significant part of the reason that you don't hear more about
their work on the alleged "psychiatric" explanations.

A woman at the conference from Scandinavia pointed out that they
have lots of abduction reports; they just don't get printed in
the English-language literature.

On the other hand, I agree that what Jan calls their "grand
theories" (or words to that effect) do tend to be overstated by
the main abduction investigators.

I once plotted out the conclusions of Fowler, Hopkins, and
Jacobs, and found that they disagreed in major ways in their
interpretatoions.

This suggests to me that in their eagerness for answers, they
have tended to go beyond what the evidence at present can tell
us.

In the same way, some would-be interepreters of the meaning of
UFO sightings also go far beyond the evidence and start
speculating excessively (sometimes to the point of absurdity). I
don't give up on trying to study UFOs and abduction reports as
part of the mystery merely because it is difficult.

Finally, some of the arguments used sound much like those of
SETI people faced with perceived problems from UFO people. UFOs
are perceived to be "taking away" from their "serious,
scientific" studies much as abductions, apparently, are
perceived as "taking away" from our "serious, scientific"
studies of UFOs. And nutball speculations by weirdos in the
field are irrelevant, just as they are when it comes to the
nature and meaning of straight UFO sightings.

Well, very little quality work is possible on either UFOs or
abductions with so little funding available anyway, so we all
try to do the best we can. Both Jan and Wendy are doing yeoman
work on the historical aspects of UFOs. More power to them.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                     Project FOTOCAT News/November 2002

From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos@yahoo.es>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:54:10 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:23:41 -0500
Subject: Project FOTOCAT News/November 2002


This is a brief report on recent FOTOCAT news.

FOTOCAT is a project of the Spanish Anomaly Foundation

http://www.anomalia.org

to build a worldwide catalog of UFO photographic cases with
2,700 entries, to be posted on the internet at a later stage. By
its own nature, international cooperation is basic. These are
some of the latest major examples of such assistance we have
received.

* Mr Anders Liljegren, from the Swedish organization Archives
for UFO Research, has supplied us with a catalog of 200 cases
from Sweden where photo, film or video has been obtained.

* Photographic results from the EMBLA 2002 expedition to
Hessdalen (Norway) have been graciously contributed thanks to Dr
Massimo Teodorani, Italy.

* Veteran Polish ufologist Mr Bronislaw Rzepecki has provided a
specially-prepared catalog of 65 UFO cases with pictures or
videos having been reported in Poland, from 1957 to 2001.

* The well-known US researcher Mr Richard Heiden is helping
FOTOCAT in a very sensibly way: Rich has agreed to review the
complete collections of both The APRO Bulletin and The UFO
Investigator, from defunct organizations APRO and NICAP, to
submit in xeroxcopy form every information related to a
photographic UFO/IFO event. It will certainly add many cases and
actual documentation to the present photo archives.

* A Catalogue of Australian Photographic UFO Reports with 118
incidents from 1935 to 2002 has been prepared by the stupendous
researcher from down under, Mr Keith Basterfield. Its contents
add significantly to the known records from Australia and
Tasmania.

* CEFAA, the official Civil Aviation organization from Chile
charged by the Government with the responsability to study the
UFO phenomenon is helping FOTOCAT as well. Mr Gustavo Rodr=EDguez,
CEFAA=B4s executive secretary, is providing us with photographic
and video records. With a prior cooperation of Diego Z=FAniga,
editor of "La Nave de los Locos" journal, the picture FOTOCAT
has of the UFO phenomenon in Chile is now outstanding.

FOTOCAT is requesting to investigators and organizations alike
to submit us lists of local photographic cases, with the
following information (just one line per case, any other
information -case abstract or images are optional): Date. Format
(still, film or video). Photographer=B4s name. Location.
Explanation (if there is one)

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos
Research Director, Anomaly Foundation
Apartado de Correos 12140
46080 Valencia
Spain








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:04:15 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:27:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:18:18 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:21:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >I also think we need to place some sort of an agreed-upon cap on
 >the _degree_ to which credible observers can be mistaken about
 >what they describe, or again it becomes too facile to simply
 >write everything off as 'witness myopia'.

When there's physical evidence, such as the brightness and
positions of celestial objects, I'm perfectly willing to allow
for some "witness myopia", if people report UFOs that look like
"stars", where planets should be. This is especially true when I
wonder, "How do they know what a UFO looks like?"

 >This is one reason I am gratified to see people like the
 >aptly-monikered Catherine Reason taking part here.

So am I.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser

From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:10:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:29:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge? - Speiser


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:55:45 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

 >>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser@yahoo.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:16:00 -0700

 ><snip>

 >>>These Christian UFO debunkers are a bizarre lot. They've got no
 >>>problem at all with the downright supernatural, but go into a
 >>>frenzy at the notion of the merely unusual or exotic.

 >>I once met a Christian UFO debunker at a CSICOP conference (yes,
 >>I've been to three). He was not, however, bizarre, nor was he a
 >>zealot.

 >I've no doubt that Kemble was a sincere person. But I think the
 >critical sentence here is: "His interest in the subject was that
 >he did not want to see the 'true paranormal experience of the
 >universe itself God's creation' get lost in a flurry of
 >distracting false claims."

 >What precisely is he saying? That UFOs are nonsense and must be
 >done away with because they "interfere" with "God's creation" as
 >he knows it? That's exactly the sort of shizophrenic attitude
 >I've noticed among Christian debunker-zealots.

 >You don't have to be a ranting nut to display symptoms
 >of ufological cognitive dissonance.

In answer, allow me to post a link to a more-or-less formal
debate on the subject I initiated back in 1987 on the old
ParaNet system, in which Lucien took part:

http://ufo.knet.ru/bibliot/01800/09400/ufodebat.txt

This will, I think, more correctly display his viewpoint. (And
please don't tear me a new one for _my_ viewpoint as expressed
therein; I have mellowed a bit over the years....)


==JJS==








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:30:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:22:09 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:58:56 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>We don't know what "flying saucers" can or can't do. We do know
 >>what meteors can and can't do.

 >>Example of a similar explanation: Capt. Terauchi and crew on
 >>the JAL1629 airliner saw two UFOs... they said. (This case
 >>recently resurrected from history.)

 ><snip>

 >>No wonder CSICOP came up with another explanation several months
 >>later (moonlight reflected from clouds). ROFLMAO

 >Bruce:

 >At least they didn't have to resort to a miracle.

Oh, but they did! They did! Miraculous clouds... that generate
heat and glow with multiple yellowish lights or "flames". Yes,
they replaced one "miracle" (Mars and Jupiter reorienting,
generating heat, looking light multiple lights attached to two
"craft") with moonlight on thin clouds beneath the aircraft
(which miraculously looked as described above).

The pilot said that when the two "craft" appeared in front of
his airplane he felt heat on his face.

Hmmmm...... hot clouds! (Oh yes, the sun had set hours 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                 Re: Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:44:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:34:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty -


 >From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:10:20 -0500
 >Subject: Roswell Dig On Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty

 >Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/96685_tv22.shtml

 >via: www.anomalist.com

 >Friday, November 22, 2002

 >Roswell dig on Sci-Fi comes up empty
 >By JOHN LEVESQUE
 >SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER TELEVISION CRITIC

 >The press material accompanying a videotape of "The Roswell
 >Crash: Startling New Evidence" warns that the facts revealed in
 >the documentary are embargoed until tomorrow, to prevent
 >sleazebag critics like me from spilling the frijoles before
 >tonight's premiere on the Sci-Fi Channel.

<snip>

Loren,

Thanks for divulging the undivulgable divulgences from the Sci-
Fi network. I am writing this before the Great Roswell Discovery
broadcast. Since I am producing a music project in Berlin,
Germany,

I will not be able to watch tonight's show nor the Spielberg
series, so I have been eagerly waiting for reviews on this List.

I also have been observing Sci-Fi's new campaign with an armor
of healthy skepticism of how profssional and honest they would
be in their attempts. As you know, they made some serious
credibility errors such as Don Schmidt, etc. If the review of
the Roswell show posted above is accurate then I am very pissed
off. I had doubts of what they would find in the debris field as
it was allegedly thoroughly scoured by many members of the
military intent on leaving no traces.

If the show tonight is not built on the evidence that may or may
not exist after the remains from the dig are scientifically
analyzed, then this is another smoke and mirrors, dog and pony
media show. It takes me back to those heady days in the late 80s
when we had UFO Coverup Live, George Knapp revealing big bad Bob
Lazar, John Lear, and behold a pale punk bruiser Bill Cooper
drooling out their dementias through the media as a weird
sideshow.

With all these years gone by, if I were to dust off and watch my
old tape of UFO Coverup Live and my tape of Bill Moore
confessing before MUFON to being a government spy, I do not know
whether to laugh at the absurdity of it all or to cry that after
all these years of wanting the more serious cases scientifically
examined prior to reaching any judgement in the media, after
surviving the wasted shenanigans of Greer and his project, that
most of John Q. Public get continuous media circuses as their
main ideas of what are UFO studies. I appreciate the producers
who make an honest effort but they are drowned out in the field
of noise.

Loren, it is like the serious side of ufology has been thrown in
a cage with bigfoot live on the Vince McMahon pro wrestling
network. Oh well, I look forward to further reviews on this
List.

Josh








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                            Roswell Had Victims?

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:10:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:38:39 -0500
Subject: Roswell Had Victims?


Hello all,

Haven't seen this here so I  thought I would submit it! I, here
in Canada, am not going to get a chance to see the special so I
am depending on the Listers to fill me in!

This is unconfirmed and I would love the details!

---

Source: The Santa Fe New Mexican

http://santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6151836&BRD=2144&PAG=461&dept_
id=367954&rfi=6

Roswell Incident Had Victims, Program Says

ALBUQUERQUE - While he told the world that a weather balloon
went down in Roswell, an Army general had in his hand a memo
telling Pentagon brass of a UFO crash with "victims," according
to a new television documentary.

A computer analysis of that memo, held by Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey
during a July 1947 press briefing, is the "smoking gun" of the
Roswell Incident, researchers say in the documentary being
broadcast today on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Using a digital photo scanner to enlarge and enhance words
printed on the folded piece of paper Ramey held, and using
another computer program to select the most likely words,
researcher David Rudiak, who has a Ph.D. in physics from UC
Berkeley, found two key phrases: "the victims of the wreck" and
"in the 'disc' they will ship."

With the textual study plus University of New Mexico
archaeological findings from one of three alleged UFO crash
sites, science fiction seeks to close the gap with fact,
producers say.

A photograph taken July 8, 1947, in Fort Worth, Texas, by James
Bond Johnson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram shows Ramey
clutching a communique to Washington, D.C., while he displays a
deflated weather balloon just hours after other Army officers in
Roswell had reported a UFO crash.

It was one of a series of inconsistent military reports about
the incident, which has become part of American mythology.

"Unless national security is at stake, there is absolutely no
reason to keep this information from the public," said Thomas
Vitale, a Sci-Fi Channel vice president. "Whatever crashed at
Roswell, let us know what the truth is."

The Air Force had responded to a 1994 call from the late U.S.
Rep. Steve Schiff, R-N.M., by saying it had no information on
the Roswell Incident. Schiff, an Air Force reserve judge
advocate general's officer, then took his query to the General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

In 1997, the Air Force acknowledged the weather balloon had been
a false cover story, but a new story also was called into
question. In a report written by Lt. William McAndrew, the Air
Force suggested reports of alien bodies in the wreckage must
have originated because of a crash-test program in which
mannequins were dropped from balloons. The mannequins did not
come close to matching 1947 descriptions of alien bodies, and
the crash-test program was not introduced until 1953, Rudiak
said.

Sci-Fi, guided by longtime Roswell UFO researchers Tom Carey and
Don Schmitt, commissioned William Doleman, an archaeologist with
UNM's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, to excavate the alleged
initial crash contact point on the ranch where the late Mack
Brazel worked as foreman.

Doleman said he knows little about the Roswell Incident but
agreed to excavate the site using purely scientific methods
because it is "culturally significant" and because so much of
what is circulated about the Roswell crash landing is based on
hearsay. What was needed, Doleman said, was physical evidence.

"So this project is a very bold step by people who claim to know
what happened and where it happened," Doleman said. "What makes
it bold is they were willing to go out there and look for
physical evidence."

Details of the excavation are being kept confidential until
after today's premiere. But Doleman said he agrees "that
obviously something happened in July 1947 in southeastern New
Mexico." After his work there, though, he said, "I'm still
uncertain" about UFOs and alien beings.

The documentary will introduce some witnesses who have not been
heard from publicly before, attesting to the existence of alien
bodies in the wreckage of the "flying disc," Carey said by phone
from his home in Pennsylvania.

"This is where we loaded the bodies," he quotes one New Mexico
witness, Robert Slusher, as saying. Slusher, among those
appearing in the documentary, was part of a B-29 crew that he
said loaded bodies up through the plane's bomb bay at the
Roswell Army Airfield.

Three victims were supposedly recovered from the final crash
site, and a team of archaeologists, coincidentally, were in the
area doing research on ancient Indians at the time, Carey said.
Among them was Curry Holden, an archaeologist from Texas Tech in
Lubbock, whom Carey located in 1992.

"Curry Holden said he saw everything - the craft and the
bodies," Carey said. Holden died a few months later.

Carey, an investigator for a private corporation, said he
started looking into Roswell 12 years ago "as a hobby."

But it became more than that. And now, he said, he and Schmitt
are in a race against time, as witnesses become scarcer.

---

Trevor Seguin








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy

From: Tim Printy <Tprinty2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:14:26 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:41:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:51:41 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >However, as to the "sharply outlined" point, I said before, he
 >had three choices on the form:

 >Fuzzy or Blurred, Like a bright star, or sharply outlined He
 >chose "sharply outlined"

I am not sure how a star can be described as "fuzzy" or
"blurred". Most stars are pinpoints that twinkle.
However, planets do not appear like stars. They do not twinkle
(at least not very much) and usually exhibit a steady light
giving them a distinct appearance. One could easily see how
a planet would be described as "sharply outlined".

 >Exactly my point. Not good enough. We really need solid examples
 >of a person(s?) _with Carter's skills who either thought the
 >moon was a UFO or thought Venus was a UFO_, and we are entitled
 >to see this as well.

Exactly how do we acquire individuals with Carter's "skills"?
Can you quantify them so we can measure them? However, there are
some examples of Venus/stars being described as large as the
full moon or having a distinct size:

1) Condon report case #37. Hynek even admitted this one was
Venus:

"The latter case should be read by all UFO investigators. It is
a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be as
a nonscreened UFO." (The UFO Experience)

2) Alan Hendry lists several cases where stars/planets were
misperceived to have size:

"Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes
("Like two plates put together"-case 332; "elongated, as big as
a distant plane"-case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one
and a half hours in case 332), domes, a "plate with a hole in
the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a
football ...even "teacups," "Mexican sombreros," and "bananas as
large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People have
seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out
in all directions from bright stars." (The UFO Handbook)

 >When one has a hypothesis one needs to back
 >it up with some solid supporting examples or you can't even
 >submit the hypothesis for analysis. It is one thing for an
 >average person to be fooled by something like this but another
 >for a person with a nuclear physics degree and trained sky
 >observation skills.

I am not sure exactly how a physics degree translates into
"trained sky observation skills". If you are referring to Jimmy
Carter's Navy training, there are some problems with this.
Exactly when did he acquire such skills? I am sure Jimmy Carter
had his celestial navigation course in the academy but he was
not a navigator on any ship. This is a matter of "If you don't
use it, you lose it." During my twenty-plus years in the Navy, I
knew many officers and very few were had a working knowledge of
astronomy. Many were fascinated by me pointing out various
astronomical objects when I came up to the bridge (which on a
sub was not often). In one interesting moment, we had several
officers wonder what ship light that was on the horizon they
were looking at through the periscope. The quartermaster (an
enlisted man) went to an old program called Sky Globe to
identify Venus. These were nuclear qualified officers, who were
quite knowledgeable in their trade but not to the point of
infallibility. Hynek addressed this when he noted that pilots
seemed to suffer from misperception problems:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known
psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does
not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not
necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one" (The UFO
Report)

Then we have the problem of Carter being outside the military
for almost two decades when he saw this event. Exactly what
proficiency did Carter have at identifying planets at this time
in his life? We really don't know but speculating he could have
easily identified Venus is not being very accurate.

Of course, we have to take Carter's report with a grain of salt
since it was made several years after the event occurred. He
could not even recall the date. Exactly why are we to suspect
that he got all the other details exactly right?


Tim Printy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                       Open Letter To Steven Spielberg

From: Stephen Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:01:41 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:44:45 -0500
Subject: Open Letter To Steven Spielberg


[Note: please copy, forward and publish as you see fit.]

PRG
Paradigm Research Group



November 22, 2002                                 Open Letter

Steven Spielberg
Dreamworks SKG
1000 Flower Street
Glendale, CA 91201

Dear Mr. Spielberg:

Your extraordinary film Schindler's List premiered in Frankfurt
Germany in March of 1993. Then, in 1994 you established the
Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation with a mission
to videotape and preserve the testimonies of Holocaust survivors
and witnesses.

The impact of your movie on society was varied and powerful. A
rarely mentioned example: throughout the 1980's an effort to
debunk the historical truth of the Shoah began to receive
increasing publicity. Schindler's List essentially drove a stake
through the heart of this burgeoning Holocaust denial movement.

In the same month your movie premiered, Laurance Rockefeller's
attorney, Henry Diamond faxed a memorandum to John H. Gibbons,
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,
requesting a meeting to discuss Rockefeller's planned approach
to President Clinton on the matter of unidentified flying
objects and extraterrestrial life. Thus began the three-year
effort by a notable American to end the government imposed truth
embargo regarding an extraterrestrial presence. That initiative
failed amidst the turmoil of the Presidential scandals.

Nearly ten years later you are about to launch a major new
project, Taken. It premiers on the SCI FI Channel on December 2
and is accompanied by multiple showings of related
documentaries, the most important being Abduction Diaries.

And so it is you are about to present a 20-hour mini-series that
will raise the awareness worldwide of the entire spectrum of
UFO/ET events and evidence, while at the same time videotaping
the testimonies of abductees who have experienced encounters
with extraterrestrials. These projects have the potential to
drive a stake through the heart of the UFO/ET phenomena
debunking movement =E2=C7" the truth embargo.

Because of the quality and nature of your films, you have become
far more than a successful entertainment professional. You are
one of the most admired men in the world. What you do and
believe matters.

Only one action remains to complete the compelling parallel
nature of these projects ten years apart.  It has long been
rumored you are convinced of an extraterrestrial presence
manifest about the planet. Thousands of good people have worked
for decades to bring this truth to the American people. As you
did in 1994, once again we need you to come forward and stand
personally for what you believe.


Respectfully,

Stephen Bassett
Executive Director
____________________________________________________

Paradigm Research Group
URL: www.paradigmclock.com
E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
Phone: 301-990-4290
Cell: 202-431-2459
4938 Hampden Lane, #161
                         Bethesda, MD 20814
_____________________________________________________

  "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
           if you are willing to give away the credit."
_____________________________________________________

       "Intellectual passion is found at the intersection
                      of fact and implication."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                       'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:20:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:50:47 -0500
Subject: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway


Source: Aftenposten - Norway

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=442072

[Quicktime Video Clip At Site]


Updated: 22 Nov, 11:10 (GMT+1)

'UFO' spotted over Asker

Helene Solberg glanced out her window on a dark wintry afternoon
earlier this week and saw something she won't soon forget.
Luckily, her family's video camera was close at hand.

Solberg, who lives in a village with the same name in Asker,
west of Oslo, first called her husband while marveling at the
comet-like flying object that soared through the late afternoon
sky.

It was just after 2pm, when dusk already starts settling over
southern Norway at this tiime of year, when Solberg noticed the
object with a long, bright tail. She excitedly called her
husband Stig Solberg, who reminded her that their video camera
was lying on a table in the living room. Just the night before,
the couple had tried to capture video of the Leonid meteor
shower.

Helene Solberg then grabbed the video camera and started
shooting. The entire episode lasted about eight minutes, with
three minutes of it captured on tape, before the unidentified
flying object disappeared from view.

"Can I explain what it was? Absolutely not," Stig Solheim told
Aftenposten's Internet edition Thursday night after sharing the
video.

He said he determined that the comet-like object came out of the
west and disappeared to the south. He also sent the video to the
astrophysics department at the University of Oslo, where a
professor thought the object might have been a plane.

Solheim disagrees. "It absolutely did not look like a plane," he
said. "When we look out the window in the other direction, we
sometimes see planes. But we have never seen a plane in the
direction where my wife was filming."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                        Two Cents On The Roswell Show

From: Scott Hale <sh5259a@american.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:16:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:55:53 -0500
Subject: Two Cents On The Roswell Show



To the List,

Well, I just got done watching the Roswell program on Sci-Fi and
it actually came off much better than I had expected. I think
they did a fairly good job cutting thru a lot of the Roswell
related squabbles and infighting to present several different
views on the case. I think the program would seem more balanced
and credible had they spent a bit more time on the Mogul and
dummy evidence than they did, but that's not sensational so it
gets cut.

I'm not sure why all the mainstream media reviews railed on the
"production value" so much, I didn't think it was nearly as bad
as it could have been. I'm thinking of the old Unsolved
Mysteries programs that dealt with Roswell and those seemed much
more "cheesy". I would have to say that this is one of the first
specials to get to the "meat" of the Roswell claims, other
specials seem to gloss over the details to provide more
entertainment.

Regardless of where everyone stands on the case, it was nice to
see all the big names from the various Roswell camps together in
one show. Who knows, perhaps in the future certain imaging
extrapolation programs will allow us to further Mr. Rudiak's
work so that we can come up with some sort of consensus on what
exactly the Ramey memo does say?

 From my own admittedly biased view I'd give this 2 hour beast a
B. I captured it to MPEG on my computer but it weighs in at 1.2
gigabytes. I'll cut out the commercials and see what I can come
up with, perhaps I could make it available by CD-R to those
unable to get a copy.


Scott Hale








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                           IUR V27 #2: Summer 2002

From: Larry Hatch <larry@LARRYHATCH.NET>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:03:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:51:49 -0500
Subject: IUR V27 #2: Summer 2002


Hello all:


If you haven't (subscribed to IUR recently, perhaps the Summer
2002 issue will persuade you.

Haiko Leitz leads off with a short article about media bias
centered about the ballyhoo following the closure of an old UFO
group in Britain. The press even got that wrong. The British
Flying Saucer Bureau had simply noted a decrease in reports, and
suspended meetings in a cold drafty hall. The Bristol Evening
Post and Reuters (UK), Le Figaro and AFP (France), the Suddeutch
Zeitung, International Herald Tribune etc. etc. all but hung
epitaphs for ufology in general.

Donald A. Johnson titles the next article "Do Nuclear Facilities
Attract UFOs?" A table of statistics based on US counties seems
to indicate that they do, with biases ranging from 1.35 to 2.61!
Up to twice as many UFOs/CEs per county, for those counties with
any type of nuclear facilities. There is a good deal of
explanatory text, not just numbers. Sadly, neither is likely to
get coverage in such press agencies as those reporting the death
of ufology.

James Houran and Kevin Randle co-author "Interpreting the Ramey
Memo". No, its not a shopping list from his wife, in fact there
are no solid conclusions offered. Rather, there are some good
suggestions how to go about squeezing a _little_ more data from
the sorry blowup of the original Bond Johnson photo taken in
1947. One wishes for a time machine!

Jenny Randles gives a very thorough and positive review of the
fairly negative, but honestly skeptical book "Out of the
Shadows" by David Clarke and Andy Roberts. If more of us took
this fair minded approach, we might generate more light and less
heat.

Now my favorite article: " Unusual Experiences from the
Timmerman Files". I let one subscription to IUR lapse because I
didn't see a single case I could catalog. Not that those issues
were bad, I'm darned sure they weren't. Specific new (to me)
cases were simply not presented in favor of other more pressing
issues. Timmerman changes that! Ten rather spectacular cases are
presented, dates times and places (huzzah!) and guess what? I'm
about halfway though, and I didn't have a single one catalogued!
Its embarrassing really, please don't repeat this. Let me punch
them in first so I can pretend I had them all along! These are
not just lights in the sky, but first class flying saucers,
often with surprising effects, most with multiple witnesses.

Lets see now. $25 divided by 4 issues, divided by 10 good *U*
listings. That's 62 cents each if Timmerman keeps it up, less
than a can of soda pop out of a vending machine at work.

There are other goodies in there, letters to the Clarkitor
[burp!] and a nice back page treatment of "Abductees and the
Paranormal" by Mark Rodeghier.

Now I have to go and crawl my way thru another IUR, a thick
booklet by Loren Gross, and two issues of VSD Hors Serie from
France. Time to uncork some red wine, French is slow going here.
Hope I didn't bore anyone, I hate to do that.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:20:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:55:15 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:20:12 -0500
 >Subject: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway

 >Source: Aftenposten - Norway

 >http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=442072

 >[Quicktime Video Clip At Site]

 >Updated: 22 Nov, 11:10 (GMT+1)

 >'UFO' spotted over Asker

 >Helene Solberg glanced out her window on a dark wintry afternoon
 >earlier this week and saw something she won't soon forget.
 >Luckily, her family's video camera was close at hand.

<snip>

Hi List,

Though this object looks like a bolide/fireball, the time of
observation seems to rule that out. The professor at the
astrophysics department was a big help wasn't he? How would he
resolve this as an airplane? Another case of sticking your head
in the sand. It's strange that Mr.Solheim can see this but not
our "lack of curiosity" and so-called expert.

Could anyone reasonably match this to a rocket booster re-entry
and still stay withing the timeframe of at least three minutes?

Here for example is an exposure of a fireball from the Leonids
on 18/19 November at:

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~aa063/leo01.html

Incidentally does anyone have the URL for that really great site
for re-entering boosters and such?

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                         David Rudiak's Roswell Work

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:22:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:57:46 -0500
Subject: David Rudiak's Roswell Work


For those interested in David Rudiak's excellent Roswell
investigations, they can order the video tape of his
presentation at the 2002 Ozark Convention. I have an Ozark video
form on my web site.

www.presidentialufo.com/wilbert_smith_video.htm

This 90 minute video presents most of his work on the
subject.


Grant Cameron
UFO News Update
www.presidentialufo.com/news_update.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:40:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:02:19 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS -


 >From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:12:59 -0500
 >Subject: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS

 >'Path of the Skinwalker'

 >A new investigative report from George Knapp, who became famous
 >for introducing the world to the story of Bob Lazar in the late
 >1980s.

 >This time Knapp looks at the now famous "paranormal" ranch
 >bought by millionaire Bob Bigelow in northern Utah.

 >Source: The Las Vegas Mercury

 >http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Nov-21-Thu-2002/20095845.html

 >Thursday, November 21, 2002
 >Copyright Las Vegas Mercury
 >
 >Cover story: 'Path of the Skinwalker'
 >
 >A small ranch in northern Utah may be the strangest place on
 >Earth
 >
 >by George Knapp

<snip>

 >Warning to paranormal enthusiasts: Do not travel to the ranch.
 >You are not welcome there. It is private property and the people
 >who live on or near it don't want to be hassled by curiosity
 >seekers or the media. What's more, the level of unexplained
 >phenomena has taken a steady nosedive over the past several
 >months, so chances are you wouldn't see anything even if you
 >could get on the property.


Grant and fellow Listerions,

I just finished reading the above quoted article and I did not
want to burden our beloved EBK with reposting chapter one of
this suspenseful, sensational story. I quoted the above warning
from after the story while wondering, since the word is out,
whether the paranormal posse and hordes of curiosity seekers
will descend on the ranch, forcing the above warning to be
posted on the road leading to this ranch and its neighbors with
large block lettering proclaiming DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED! ala
Area 51.

I honestly don't know what to think of George Knapp's story. He
sure has a smooth way of telling fantastic stories. I first
heard and saw him on KLAS TV when Bob Lazar was launched to the
public. He also had 20 or so supporting statements from people
who worked at Area 51 who did not want to be identified = no way
to verify his sources. Bob Lazar fell, due to his own lack of
merit.

George is one engaging storyteller, as we all know. In past
years I would hear him talk and also have a few chats with him
in person. They have been good experiences, the last at our
MUFON LA chapter a few years ago. He had some very powerful
things to say that he had learned from his research in Russia. I
never checked whether other researchers in Russian UFOlogy such
as Dick Haines or Paul Stonehill concurred with Knapp's
analysis. I don't think we discussed it on this list back then.
Not long ago I watched my video of that talk and I would still
like to know the accuracy of his claims.

But this is the mysterious Gorman ranch. I remember about the
first mutes there and I remember being excited that it was
purchased by Bigelow for the serious study of muteness. Instead
of me learning more about cattle mutilations, a cloud of
muteness withheld research data and caused people to wonder
about the mysterious shroud of secrecy of the ranch and the
newly formed NIDS.

What am I to make of George Knapp's story ? It is beyond my
imagination that what he claims is plaguing that ranch and being
studied by Colm Kelleher. Is there anything _not_ seen there?

Of course, if true, Gorman made two serious mistakes.

#1 = Learn the history. I learned from buying mountain property
in California that if I were shown a property that interested me
to not only check the property records but to ask the neighbors
if they had anything that they wanted to say regarding the
property. I would certainly ask a lot of questions if the
property I was shown had all kinds of extra bolt locks and
fortifications that it seemed to need for security. Something is
wrong with this picture.

#2 = Go while the going is good. The Gormans allegedly suffered
on that property. Along comes Bigelow who offers to buy the land
and gets the Gorman family to stay at the property as caretakers
of suffering more of the same horrors?

I am getting the smell of musk. Something is not Kosher here.
The fresh meat smells like rotten meat. Where is the beef? Will
George Knapp survive in the chair and bring us chapter two, the
confirmation and the conclusion from the weirdest ranch I ever
heard of? Is this story the script George Knapp proposed for a
new reality TV show?


Stay tuned, don't change that dial,

Josh









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 01:45:44 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:05:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Gates


 >From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:10:45 -0800
 >Subject: Roswell Had Victims?


 >Hello all,

 >Haven't seen this here so I thought I would submit it! I, here
 >in Canada, am not going to get a chance to see the special so I
 >am depending on the Listers to fill me in!

 >This is unconfirmed and I would love the details!

 >---

 >Source: The Santa Fe New Mexican

<snip>

 >Roswell Incident Had Victims, Program Says

Allegedly 5 dead ET corpses. 3 at one location, 2 at the other.
Of the two one allegedly died in the arms of some ranchers wife,
the other was still living, taken to the Air Base and expired in
the hanger, just before the flight out......

Cheers,

Robert






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Sci-Fi Channel's Roswell Program

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:20:57 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:09:30 -0500
Subject: Sci-Fi Channel's Roswell Program


I'm very glad I watched it. I almost didn't watch it due to the
early bad press, as published here. It's the best Roswell
program I can recall ever seeing on television!

Kudos and thank-you's to all involved (including the producers),
and the participants from this List! Well done!

And congratulations to the Project Archeologist for identifying
the remains of a 10-year-old, real weather balloon in about 1.3
seconds. If you multiply his familiarity with weather balloons
(0.1??) by 1.3 seconds, you get a Speed of Recognition Factor
(SRF) of 0.13... If he'd seen several crashed weather balloons
in the past, the familiarity factor might be 1, giving him an
SRF of 1 x 1.3 = 1.3....

Not bad for a University Prof who digs holes in the ground and
sifts dirt for a living. Dang it. Where was he when Brazel,
Marcel, Cavett, Blanchard and Ramey could _really_ have used his
savant-like talents?

And if anyone brings up the subject of "balance" (Lawdy, don't
get me started), let me say this:

1. There was some "balance" supplied by Karl Pflock and the
totally discredited Charles Moore, as well as a smattering of
items from the Air Force's Roswell comic books.

2. Balance is not required. When they pass some law requiring
NASA to give equal time to loonies from the Flat Earth Society
every time a NASA program is presented, then I'll know the whole
world is unbalanced, and no amount of "balance" will help it
anyway.


Dave Morton






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                       The Roswell Show - Not Much New

From: Brian Vike <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:43:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:15:27 -0500
Subject: The Roswell Show - Not Much New


Good Day List

Well I am here in Canada, and have a small dish and also my
large C-band dish and was able to watch the Sci-fi program on
Roswell. As far as I was concerned the program was informative
for the viewers on the Roswell Incident, but as far as anything
new, well there wasn't much of that. I believe this falls into
the same category as the Egypt special which was run not to long
ago, we sat waiting for the climax and again nothing happened.

Maybe we will wait to see what the "dirt" will show, if anything
at all. Could have said soil samples, but dirt seen to fit in
really nice.

Not much else to say about the show. But it did have me watching
and hoping. But guessing before hand what the end result would
be. Nothing new. The fellows, or researchers gave a good look at
the whole story which I felt was good.


Take care
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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:07:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak


 >From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:10:45 -0800
 >Subject: Roswell Had Victims?


 >Source: The Santa Fe New Mexican

 >http://santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?>newsid=6151836&BRD=2144&PAG=461&de
pt_id=367954&rfi=6

 >Roswell Incident Had Victims, Program Says

 >ALBUQUERQUE - While he told the world that a weather balloon
 >went down in Roswell, an Army general had in his hand a memo
 >telling Pentagon brass of a UFO crash with "victims," according
 >to a new television documentary.

 >A computer analysis of that memo, held by Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey
 >during a July 1947 press briefing, is the "smoking gun" of the
 >Roswell Incident, researchers say in the documentary being
 >broadcast today on the Sci-Fi Channel.

 >Using a digital photo scanner to enlarge and enhance words
 >printed on the folded piece of paper Ramey held, and using
 >another computer program to select the most likely words,
 >researcher David Rudiak, who has a Ph.D. in physics from UC
 >Berkeley, found two key phrases: "the victims of the wreck" and
 >"in the 'disc' they will ship."

List,

Just for the record, I want to clear up some misunderstandings
in this story. When interviewed I said that I had a bachelors in
physics and a doctorate of optometry from UC Berkeley.
Unfortunately, the two degrees got merged somewhere down the
line when the story was written into my having a doctorate or
Ph.D. in physics from U.C. Berkeley. Believe me, I never said
that and have never said that. The last thing I want to do in
this field is be accused of inflating my resume'.

The second slightly confusing thing is the statement that I used
a computer program to select the most likely words. What I used
was a search engine at www.onelook.com that searched for
possible word matches in the English language when a few
possible letters were plugged in and wildcards used for the
other letters. This search engine looks through hundreds of on-
  line dictionaries and lexicons. The computer however does not
pick the most likely match. That's left to the human brain using
context, grammar, and some common sense.

The example I gave was what matches do you get for the "VICTIMS"
word if you plug in "V I _ _ I _ S"and do the search? (These
letters, I felt, were all very probable, whereas other letters
in the word were more ambiguous.)  It turns out there are only 7
possible matches: VILNIUS, VITRICS, VILLI'S, VIBRIOS, VIOLINS,
VIRGINS, and finally VICTIMS.

The only one of these matches that makes any possible sense in
the context of a military telegram and Roswell is the word
"VICTIMS". That is, unless you want to believe that Ramey was
somehow dealing with a crisis in the capital of Lithuania
(VILNIUS), or was dealing with something involving glass-making
(VITRICS), or was involved somehow with the bacteria that causes
cholera (VIBRIOS), or something lining the guts (VILLI'S), or
maybe music (VIOLINS), or sex (VIRGINS). [VILLI'S is also the
wrong part of speech given the grammatical context.]

The point of this illustration is that the possible choices for
a word are not infinite and interpreting this message isn't an
exercise equivalent to "seeing faces in the clouds." Use of
various forms of context weeds out a vast majority of possible
word matches in most cases.

This is similar in some ways to solving a crossword puzzle. You
have words of fixed length. Further, based on what else you have
filled in, you may think you know a few letters of the word.
Then doing a word search will bring back possible matches with
letters in those positions and words of the proper length. But
you need to use the context of the clue provided for the word to
decide which of any of these matches would actually work.

There will be cases where none of them seem to work, and that
might be a red flag that one of your other cross-words is wrong
and providing a wrong search letter. That certainly happened to
me on a number of occasions. None of the word matches seemed to
make sense. So then I might take another look at the letters and
try other combinations of similar letters that might also be
possibilities.

I hope this clarifies this aspect of my methodology a little bit
better.

The important part of the story, which is correct, is the two
key phrases in the message: "the victims of the wreck" and "in
the 'disc' they will ship." These totally demolish any balloon
plus "crash dummy" explanation for the crash. Roswell did indeed
have "victims", not "crash dummies from the future." And the
crash object was indesputably being called a "disc" with
something of great value in the interior deserving of air
shipment. Neither weather balloons nor radar target balsa kites
had any interiors with anything to be shipped.


David (Doctor of Optometry, not Physics) 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:12:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:09:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
 >>not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
 >>scenario.

<snip>

 >It appears that, if any of the aforementioned should transpire,
 >the report crosses an invisible border in the minds of some
 >research people that takes it out of the realm of 'proper' UFO
 >investigations and into a "Twilight Zone" of 'other' phenomena
 >they'd like to relegate it to.

Hi, John:

Although my research turned more to the study of man-made
technologies, I began as an abduction researcher (1992). On the
one hand, I understand where Wendy and Jan are coming from
because I pretty much agree with what they are saying. On the
other hand, I understand where you are coming from because I
have spent many, many hours listening to stories told by
individuals who believed they had been abducted.

I know some kinds of bizarre phenomena are happening with
reference to abductions but the scientist side of me demands
more evidence than is currently available. I use to think it was
pretty clear, according to what abductees were saying. Then I
began to realize how muddied the waters have become by those who
tell tales of abduction but who have probably never been
abducted at all. In addition, I have watched many famous so-
called abduction researchers and investigators, that I knew
personally, generate much of the scum that has turned the pool
of knowledge about abductions so dark and murky it's almost
impossible to see anything clearly at all.

Were it not for my experiences with claimed abductees, my mind
might be nearly closed to references to encounters with non-
human beings and similar claims. Your experiences may be all too
real to you, John, but for others, all they have to go on is
your testimony about your encounters (and photos of UFOs?). I'm
sorry, but it's just not enough to convince as many as you may
wish to convince (I think you know this). And, as you may know,
witness testimony is not enough for abduction researchers either
when it comes to providing evidence not only to this list but
also to the world in general.

I think we're all waiting for that certain 'cocktail napkin' and
nothing less will do.

Abduction research, to date, has managed only to shoot itself in
the foot. Because there was little effort made to carefully
screen the mentally unstable from those interviewed, hypnotized
and publicized, it is next to impossible to point to any
particular study and call it "scientific". I read every piece of
material I could find published about abductions over the
years(amassed quite a library) only to toss the entire lot into
boxes and storage because they are practically useless when it
comes to the research that needs to be done.

As long as abduction research remains tainted by bias and little
attention to scientific protocol, abductees and their claims
will not be taken seriously by those outside the abduction
community (which is not necessarily the same as the UFO
community as there is a separate community of only those who
claim to have been abducted). Real research must undertake the
study of a phenomenon with as much objectivity as possible.
Careful screening processes for potential witnesses need to be
established _before_ a study begins. And all preconceived
perceptions, labels, terms and titles must be left at the door.

I went into abduction research believing aliens in UFOs were
abducting people left and right. However, the more I studied
abduction phenomena, the more I came to understand how little is
known about what's really going on. We cannot assume UFOs of
any origins are always involved in abductions anymore than we
can assume aliens of any origins are involved. Just because
witnesses and abductees call them UFOs and aliens, a trained
researcher would not use the same terms nor assume UFOs and/or
aliens are definitely involved either. As my old friend the late
Dr. Turner used to say, "When an individual is abducted, they
are in a controlled environment and everything they may see and
hear is also under the abductor's control." (or something along
those words) So, what the abductee may perceive as a UFO or
alien may be something else entirely, we don't know. As
researchers, we must remain objective or we might miss something
important while perceiving in another direction.

Don't get me wrong, John, I fully recognize those who have
pioneered abduction research. But it's time for an upgrade in
the methods employed. We must reach for improvement and new
strategies or there will be no progress. Hypnosis just doesn't
cut the mustard. In fact, the use of hypnosis to gather
evidence/information has been one of the main reasons abduction
claims are often dismissed. Using hypnosis with abductees
actually backfired by reducing rather than increasing
credibility. And with everyone and his dog claiming to be an
abduction researcher or investigator, using hypnosis without
certification and publishing books merely to get published or
invited to speak at the next UFO convention, we have a field
flooded with 'experts' who spend more time talking than actually
doing any form of research. (I am not referring to Budd Hopkins
or David Jacobs although they may consider trying new techniques
in the future.)

 >I don't even understand your intellectual argument. Why draw an
 >artificial line in the sand? Why establish a fake 'border' that
 >prohibits reports of UFO occupant sightings or interactions from
 >being considered a part of UFO phenomena. That is what
 >abductions are; interactions with the occupants of UFOs that are
 >on the ground or in close proximity if in the air.

 >A UFO is a UFO is a UFO.

As a researcher, I would not assume UFO occupants and UFOs are
involved no matter what the witness claims to have seen or
experienced. I've interviewed many people who claimed to have
been abducted but never saw a UFO before, during or after their
abductions. I would include the information in my study but work
at remaining objective and avoid reaching similar conclusions.
Someone or something may want us to believe they are UFOs and
UFO occupants when they are not. Many abduction researchers have
made the mistake of labeling objects as flying saucers or
"starships" and beings encountered as "aliens" when they could
have been anything from holograms to robots to something we may
not even comprehend. The point is, we don't know and should
remain open to many possibilities in the search for the truth.

<snip>

 >It is clear which side of that fence I come down on. What you
 >need to ask yourself is; what side do _you_ come down on. I
 >can't believe you guys are trying to divorce UFO sightings from
 >UFO contact/abduction cases. What really boggles my mind is that
 >you don't see there is a direct cause and effect relationship
 >between the two that _demands_ they be investigated side by
 >side.

Perhaps you feel you have no choice but to believe what you
perceive, John. But if everyone believed the same way and things
were not as they seemed, how would we know the difference? Some
of us may choose to remain smack dab in the middle of the fence
in order to maintain a more balanced and objective view of the
situation. Although this may not be an option for you because
you are involved in the experiences, it's the fence-sitters that
keep us questioning and searching for answers.

What you see as a direct cause and effect relationship could be
an effect-cause relationship. In other words, you may see what
you believe or what someone wants you to believe. It may seem
simple to you but I am not so sure UFO sightings are connected
to UFO contact/abduction cases. It certainly _seems_ to be the
case but that's exactly what makes me probe deeper and ask more
questions. I'm not saying UFOs should be divorced from
abduction/contact cases. I'm saying they should be treated on a
case by case basis and more studies conducted before lumping
anything together..if at all.

It may be impossible for you, John, because you are personally
involved in the abduction phenomenon, but perhaps you could try
climbing up on the fence with us fence-sitters, for a brief
moment, and look at everything from a new perspective. Ask
yourself, if you can climb, why people need more evidence to be
convinced. What kind of evidence is needed to convince the
fence-sitters? How would you view abduction phenomena if you had
never been abducted? How would you know, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that UFOs are involved in all or most abductions? Could
it be a trick or some form of deception? What evidence would you
have, as a fence-sitter, that UFO occupants are responsible for
all or most of the abductions? Could it be more complex than it
appears?

Won't you join us for tea? ;>


Amy Hebert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                     Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 07:52:04 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:18:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Connors


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:55:33 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:49:52 -0700
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >>>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

<snip>

 >Hi Wendy, Jan, Jim Speiser, All,

 >Oh man, (or 'woman' as the case may be) I can't begin to tell
 >you how disappointing and disheartening it is for me to hear
 >you all talking this way. I respect it and I can even understand
 >'why' you all think/feel this way about the abduction reports.

 >You three in particular, Jan, Wendy, Jim, all represent (to me)
 >among the 'best' there is in ufology. You are all clear, honest
 >thinkers who offer a solid approach to the subject. (UFOs) It
 >just takes all the wind out of my sails to watch you
 >collectively throwing your hands up in the air in frustration
 >over the abduction material.

<snip>

John,

I'm sorry you are disappointed, but I think what I said was
pretty accurate regarding the abduction scenario. Perhaps you
mis-read my position.

I do believe that the abduction scenario is a part of Ufology
and that it needs to be researched and studied. My only
deviation from this are the points that I don't believe the
abduction scenario is the core element of Ufology. It is being
made to appear so and I disagree with that assessment. Further,
that the abduction researchers haven't shown a baseline of thier
research and investigations, which have gotten way out of hand
in many ways. I cannot speak for Jan, but these are the reasons
that I am frustrated by the abduction scenario as it is
currently being presented.

 From a practical standpoint I believe that too much is expected,
both from the research standpoint and the position of the
abductees, in what can be accomplished to bring the matter to
resolution at this point in time. Just the fact that discussions
revolve around alien hybridization, Raelian vs whatever
conflicts and the like, suggest to me that the abduction
scenario research has jumped track and running amuck. It has
lost focus and therefore is causing the frustration that Jan, I
and others are experiencing. That doesn't mean that I have lost
interest in the abduction scenario or turned my back on
abduction research. As a metaphor, It just means that I think a
few trains in the rail yard have derailed, causing chaos. That
chaos needs to be rechanneled and research put back on track.

Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:02:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

<snip>

 >The only one of these matches that makes any possible sense in
 >the context of a military telegram and Roswell is the word
 >"VICTIMS". That is, unless you want to believe that Ramey was
 >somehow dealing with a crisis in the capital of Lithuania
 >(VILNIUS), or was dealing with something involving glass-making
 >(VITRICS), or was involved somehow with the bacteria that causes
 >cholera (VIBRIOS), or something lining the guts (VILLI'S), or
 >maybe music (VIOLINS), or sex (VIRGINS). [VILLI'S is also the
 >wrong part of speech given the grammatical context.]

 >The point of this illustration is that the possible choices for
 >a word are not infinite and interpreting this message isn't an
 >exercise equivalent to "seeing faces in the clouds." Use of
 >various forms of context weeds out a vast majority of possible
 >word matches in most cases.

David-

Let me start out by stating that many of us appreciate your hard
work in this arena. It takes a certain kind of person to get
involved in this and make themselves a target for criticism from
all directions, and IMO you've raised important issues that need
to be addressed (or at least taken into account).

That being said, I believe that many of the letter
interpretations of the Ramey Memo are, indeed, like "seeing
faces in the clouds", and as long as UFO researchers perform the
interpretation there will be criticism of the effort.

A number of people have suggested a more independent (and
hopefully scientific) approach to interpretation, with this
effort performed by individuals not connected to the genre in
any way. I believe that Kevin has outlined one good
investigation scenario, and I know this has been the subject of
discussion by the FUND and CUFOS.

Whether this will take place in the near future is still up in
the air, with funding needed to pursue this effort.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:59:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >The pilot said that when the two "craft" appeared in front of
 >his airplane he felt heat on his face.

 >Hmmmm...... hot clouds! (Oh yes, the sun had set hours before.)>>

Bruce:

He was obviously embarrased that his tale was actually being
taken seriously by anyone.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

- - David Hume






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                         Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:34:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:02:02 -0500
Subject: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review



Here's my take on the Sci-Fi-Channel Roswell special. In terms
of TV UFO documentaries in general, I give it an A-/B+. Despite
some of the usual failings (e.g., hokey unexplained photos and
other footage) I thought it did a much better than average job
of presenting information in a reasonably complete and fair-
minded fashion. On the other hand, I thought it contained much
stretching and repetition, and could have been covered
adequately in one hour.

On the archeological aspects, it rates a positive because at
least two anomalies were found (the unexplained layer of
disturbed soil at the main site and the furrows at the nearby
area), plus some kind of "artifacts" were carted away for future
analysis. This is good science being practiced.

Did it contain any new information/revelations? I guess that
depends on how well-informed you are on Roswell-related
research. To me (and I am not a Roswell investigator) it
revealed at least three new bits of information:

(1) the testimony of George Newling who saw something (a?) gray
[not at all clear to me who he was and what he was talking
about]; (2) former TSgt Moe Cox who claims to have seen
files/photos on three dead aliens and two lives one, and a
craft; and (3) perhaps most interesting of all, at least so far,
the fairly extensive comments of the daughter of Maj. Edwin
Easley, provost marshal at Roswell Air Base and allegedly
involved in the investigation and cover-up.

Does anyone (and I am particularly interested in what Kevin
Randle has to say) have a reading on the credentials and the
credibility of Newling and Cox? This kind of vetting is all-
important. Who are they? Do we know that they were really
"there"? Are their stories credible?

David Rudiak (one of our List contributors) held forth on his
analysis of the Ramey message, and if his interpretation is
correct the telegram certainly is a smoking gun. But the program
failed to mention that several other individuals and groups keep
coming up with other interpretations of key words in the
telegram. Some kind of organized peer review is badly needed
here. Rudiak's Roswell web site is excellent and he deserves
praise for his conscientious and honest efforts.

Finally, Karl Pflock came up with a typical whopper by asserting
that the entire "Roswell mythology" is attributable to and dates
back to the discredited witness, Frank Kaufman. Huh?

One thing that puzzled me was the absence of any reference to
Pappy Henderson (pilot of the B-29 who flew crash-field cargo to
Fort Worth) and later told both friends and members of his
family that he had transported alien bodies and described in
general terms what they looked like. Though his "testimony" was
second-hand, like that of Maj. Easley's daughter I found it very
persuasive.


  - Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                  National Academy Of Sciences Book On UFOs

From: George Hansen <gphansen2001@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:04:06 -0500
Subject: National Academy Of Sciences Book On UFOs


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), through its publishing
arm, the National Academy Press, has produced a book that covers
UFOs. The NAS is one of the most elite scientific bodies in the
world. Its attention to the UFO topic merits notice.

The book, Quantum Leaps In The Wrong Direction, addresses other
paranormal phenomena as well.

I just reviewed the book for the Journal of Parapsychology. The
review primarily addresses that field, but the implications
apply just as forcefully to ufology.

The review can be found at:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/QuantumLeapsReview.htm

George P. Hansen


=====

The Trickster and the Paranormal

http://www.tricksterbook.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:34:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

 ><snip>

I disagree with the application of the analogy to "seeing faces
in the clouds". There are logical methodologies which can be
applied to such work as this. It is simiar to the type of
pattern matching often used by cryptologists.

If someone cares to challenge David Rudiak's interpretation of
the Ramey Memo, let him or her take a methodical approach to the
work and arrive at independent conclusions. I am sure that a
scientist like David Rudiak would welcome any serious peer
review of his work as a necessary part of the process of
discovery.

Tom Bowden








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:36:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:42:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Morton


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:02:32 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

<snip>

 >>The only one of these matches that makes any possible
 >>sense in the context of a military telegram and Roswell is
 >>the word "VICTIMS". That is, unless you want to believe
 >>that Ramey was somehow dealing with a crisis in the
 >>capital of Lithuania (VILNIUS), or was dealing with
 >>something involving glass-making (VITRICS), or was
 >>involved somehow with the bacteria that causes cholera
 >>(VIBRIOS), or something lining the guts (VILLI'S), or
 >>maybe music (VIOLINS), or sex (VIRGINS). [VILLI'S is also
 >>the wrong part of speech given the grammatical context.]

 >>The point of this illustration is that the possible
 >>choices for a word are not infinite and interpreting this
 >>message isn't an exercise equivalent to "seeing faces in
 >>the clouds." Use of various forms of context weeds out a
 >>vast majority of possible word matches in most cases.

 >David-

 >Let me start out by stating that many of us appreciate your
 >hard work in this arena. It takes a certain kind of person
 >to get involved in this and make themselves a target for
 >criticism from all directions, and IMO you've raised
 >important issues that need to be addressed (or at least
 >taken into account).

 >That being said, I believe that many of the letter
 >interpretations of the Ramey Memo are, indeed, like "seeing
 >faces in the clouds", and as long as UFO researchers perform
 >the interpretation there will be criticism of the effort.

 >A number of people have suggested a more independent (and
 >hopefully scientific) approach to interpretation, with this
 >effort performed by individuals not connected to the genre
 >in any way. I believe that Kevin has outlined one good
 >investigation scenario, and I know this has been the subject
 >of discussion by the FUND and CUFOS.

 >Whether this will take place in the near future is still up
 >in the air, with funding needed to pursue this effort.

 >Steve

Steve -

While Kevin's suggestion of further investigations is a good one
(as always), I am puzzled by a couple of items in your post:

1. I take it you are suggesting that a more "scientific"
approach be taken to interpreting the words and meaning of the
Ramey memo. What specifically would need to be done to make the
interpretation more scientific?

2. You suggest independent interpretations by people "not
connected with the genre". Why would this yield better results
than those already obtained by Rudiak?

I'm approaching the 2nd question from the following perspective:
If my doctor's handwriting is difficult to read (and I assure
you, it is), who would be some of the people who could render a
reasonably accurate interpretation of my prescription written by
him? Choose all that apply:

A. My local pharmacist who has my prescription history on
    file.
B. Any practising pharmacist in this country.
C. A doctor from the same clinic as my doctor.
D. Any doctor specializing in Internal Medicine (same as my
    doc).
E. Any practising doctor in this country.
F. An expert in Latin.
G. An expert in English.
H. A handwriting expert.
I. A current member of the Army or Air Force, familiar with
    current military jargon and terminology.
J. A member of the Army Air Force in 1947, familiar with
    1947 military jargon and terminology.
K. Anyone who has served in the military.
L. A Ufologist who has studied the Roswell Incident in
    depth, and is familiar with 1947 usage of the word
    "disc", terms such as "B29-ST", maps of the area, etc.
M. Any Ufologist.

For the best interpretations of my prescription, I would
probably not choose letters F through M, except as a last
resort. Similarly, to interpret the letters and words in Ramey's
memo, I would use a combination of computer enhancement, good
vision, a computerized word tool (for word possibilities),
familiarity with the Roswell case, familiarity with 1947 word
usage from newspaper articles and military memos, maps of the
area, some knowledge of teletype fonts, etc, etc. I would not
enlist the services of my local pharmacist to read and interpret
the Ramey memo, except as a last resort.

Let's also keep in mind that any "faces in the clouds" in
Rudiak's work are only single letters. There are some unclear
(and unknown) letters which are clearly labeled as such, and
there are some word choices based on the clear letters. A "face"
is more complicated than a letter of the alphabet, and is more
like a word or a sentence. Rudiak has not whimsically gone off
into Disneyland and assigned words or sentences to smeared
blotches. He's analyzed every character individually, and the
assemblage has resulted in words with a fairly high level of
confidence.

For the analogy to work with clouds, he would be analyzing every
facet of a cloud, looking for a left eye, a right eye, a left
ear, a right ear, a nose, lips, a chin, a forehead, eyebrows,
then viewing the jigsaw puzzle and stating "there's a probable
face of Abe Lincoln in that cloud" (not just any old generic
face). For the process to be analagous to Rudiak's, it would
need to be repeated many times, with multiple clouds
(convincingly, of course), and a coherent set of faces would
need to emerge, such as a series of faces representing the first
30 US Presidents, or a phonetic alphabet, or people whose names
started with the letter "A", etc. Such a process would be
unbelievably absurd and virtually impossible.

For the word "Victims", 7 components (characters) are required
to spell-out the entire word, Rudiak had confidence in only 4
letters (57% of the letters in the word), and the grand total of
the number of words which fit those 4 letters was 7 words in the
English language, including 1 foreign capital. It all sounds
scientific to me, and about as far away from finding faces in
clouds as one can get...


Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:51:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:34:20 +0000
 >Subject: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review


Dick,

In general I agree with your review; however there were some
noteworthy problems which I cannot let go by without a comment.

First, there was a bit too much use of the terms "mythology" and
"science fiction" in the narratives, which seemed to be a bit of
gratuitous editorializing by writers not familiar with the
research on Roswell.

Then, toward the end, following the lamentations over the Frank
Kaufman problem, there was a reference to hoaxes which listed
the Ray Santilli alien autopsy film, the MJ-12 documents, and
the alien corpse photographs purchased by Bob Guccione.

I take issue with this because the MJ-12 documents are still an
open question. Much in-depth research has been done by serious
investigators in the attempt to either prove or disprove the
authenticity of these documents.  There is no call to summarily
dismiss them as hoaxes at this time, and I suggest that one of
the "technical advisors" to the program was responsible for
introducing this tidbit into the script.

I will list those people shown on camera and identified as "UFO
Investigators" or "Roswell Investigators":

Kevin Randle, Don Schmitt, David Rudiak, Tom Carey, Karl Pflock,
Richard Dolan, Robert J. Durant, Charles B. Moore, Stan
Friedman, and Bruce Maccabee.  (If I missed anyone, my apologies
for my note-taking skills.)

Of these people, who would be likely to have summarily labeled
the MJ-12 documents as a fraud?

I invite that person(s) to take responsibility for it, and to
present a legitimate reason for such an underhanded subterfuge.

Tom Bowden







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        E-Mail To The Sci Fi Channel

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:55:12 -0500
Subject: E-Mail To The Sci Fi Channel


From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:45:56 -0800 (PST)
To: program@SCIFI.com
Subject: The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence


To: The Sci Fi Channel

Dear Sirs:

For the most part, I enjoyed the program "The Roswell Crash:
Startling New Evidence".  As a UFOlogist, I found the program
both entertaining and somewhat educational. However I must take
issue with what I consider to be a serious flaw in the script.
The following quote is taken from around 1:40 in the broadcast
version of the program

"Further blows to those seeking the truth about Roswell have
been the hoaxes that have grown up around the incident, such as
the Ray Santilli alien autopsy file, the so-called secret MJ-12
documents, the photographs that Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione
bought for $200,000 . . ."

I have no intention of defending the Ray Santilli film or the
photographs bought by Guccione; however, on what grounds are the
"so-called secret MJ-12 documents" labeled a hoax?  While these
documents have not been positively authenticated, neither have
they been proven to be a hoax, and I would like to know the
source of the information upon which this categorization was
based. I assume that the source was not the writers of the
program, but rather one or more of the technical advisors
identified as "UFO researchers".  Just because one of these
gentlemen may have said the that MJ-12 documents are a hoax does
not make it so.

For more information and references about the purported MJ-12
documents and the on-going efforts to authenticate them, please
go to www.majesticdocuments.com

Also, please note that the website

www.freedomofinfo.org, which was set up under an initiative
sponsored by the Sci Fi Channel, contains a link to the Majestic
documents website.


Respectfully,

Tom Bowden,
Gresham OR








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 00:05:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:57:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>The pilot said that when the two "craft" appeared in front of
 >>his airplane he felt heat on his face.

 >>Hmmmm...... hot clouds! (Oh yes, the sun had set hours before.)>>

 >Bruce:

 >He was obviously embarrased that his tale was actually being
 >taken seriously by anyone.


Obviously. Really Bob, do you have proof of this? Sounds like a
cop-out statement to me.


CAVU

Don







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                 Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Novak

From: Paul Novak <nib68@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:05:57 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Novak


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:20:40 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:55:15 -0500
 >Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger


 >Could anyone reasonably match this to a rocket
 >booster re-entry
 >and still stay withing the timeframe of at least
 >three minutes?

I have been trying to do just that. Unfortunately precision
seems to be a bit hard to come by. I have found a close match or
two but nothing irrefutable.


"Object Description: Type: Vostok Stage 2 Rocket Body
NORAD Name: SL-3 R/B
NORAD Number: 11156
Int'l Designation: 1978 117B
Launched: 19 DEC 1978 @ 01:40 UTC
Site: Plesetsk Cosmodrome
Mission: Tselina-D 18


Reentry Prediction: Predicted Reentry Time: Late November
Predictions will begin 5 days prior to expected reentry"

Here's one decent link that may help you out.

http://www.aero.org/cords/reentries.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                         UFO Crash Lands In Roswell?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 06:28:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:07:58 -0500
Subject: UFO Crash Lands In Roswell?


How did the SciFi documentary elaborate on this?


Source: TheNewMexicoChannel.com

http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/1802990/detail.html

Stig


***


UFO Crash Lands in Roswell?

POSTED: 9:30 p.m. MST November 22, 2002
UPDATED: 10:47 p.m. MST November 22, 2002

**

ROSWELL, N.M. -- A University of New Mexico archaeologist says
he's uncovered new information in the 55-year-old Roswell UFO
investigation. The incident, which includes stories of UFO's, a
crash landing and fake aliens, is a big part of New Mexico and
American culture. It reportedly happened in 1947. Since then,
there have been several questions but very few answers. That is
one of the reasons the Sci-Fi Channel decided to fund a week-
long excavation in a field near Roswell.

Senior University of New Mexico Archaeologist, Bill Doleman took
part in the dig. He and his team used metal detectors, energy
sensors and a back hoe looking for debris or evidence of some
sort of impact. Doleman says they found an anomaly, a v-shaped
feature that didn't fit it. He believes something hit the ground
hard enough to dig a gouge in it. Other scientists, however, are
not impressed with Doleman's findings. Still Doleman says the
Roswell incident is a part of history and it's his job to
uncover it.

**

Copyright 2002 by TheNewMexicoChannel.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                     Granisle, British Columbia Sighting

From: Brian Vike - HBCCUFO <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:08:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:09:32 -0500
Subject: Granisle, British Columbia Sighting

HBCC UFO Research

Granisle, British Columbia

Date:  October 22, 2002
Time: 10:25 p.m.

(HBCC UFO Note: Granisle is a small town 45 minutes northeast
from where I live in Houston, British Columbia, Canada. Granisle
has a population of 400 residents and the main industries are
tourism and logging. Once the site of a copper mine. (Granisle
Copper & Bell Copper) who had two large open pit mines).

I was contacted by a gentleman ( I will say this, it was a
person in authority) recently who gave me quite a story. The
witness was with another fellow driving north just a couple of
kilometers south of Granisle, B.C. (their exact location when
they viewed the craft was at Topley Landing. The two large
forest companies here in Houston have a barge which runs back
and forth across Babine Lake carrying logging trucks) The old
Bell Copper mine is directly across the lake from the witnesses
position. An approx: guess would be a  3/4 to 1 mile between the
craft and the witnesses.

The fellows observed a large glowing orange/gold almost saucer
shaped (oval?) object hovering right over top the old Bell
Copper mine. They said it was very low to the ground. At this
point they pulled over to have a look and to try to figure out
what they were seeing. As they watched the object hover, it
would rise up very slowly and come to a complete stop, move
sideways then stop and drop down roughly the same height from
the ground when the witnesses first seen it. (HBCC UFO Note: I
asked if they witnessed any type of light coming from the
object, meaning a downwards beam of light). They both told me
no, no lights were seen coming from the object. They did say
that it almost looked as if every time the object moved to
another position and dropped back down, it seemed to them the
light intensity grew from the object while it stayed stationary.
At "one" point the object moved out over the lake and stopped
for a few seconds, then went back over top the mine once again.

They mentioned they heard no sound at all, but keeping in mind
that the two fellows were some distance away from the object
when viewing it. (HBCC UFO Note: I asked them if they could give
me an approx: size of this thing). There rough estimate was
about the size of the Moon (maybe a hair smaller). They also
said there were a few other cars and trucks that passed by them
at the time, but no one stopped. (HBCC UFO Note: I can certainly
understand why no one stopped to see what was going on, as I
know who the witnesses were.)

But they did say that everyone traveling the highway had to have
seen it, you couldn't miss it. They said the area around the
object, (ground area) was lit up for some distance. Also due to
the brightness of the craft it cast it's reflection on the lake.
The men watched this event for approx; 7 minutes before it rose
up and left slowly heading north, still at a low altitude and
out of their sight.

(HBCC UFO Note: I find this a very interesting case to work on.
Three things come to mind, why was this craft sitting over the
old Granisle/ Bell Copper mine. Why did it move and stop over
top of the lake. Why did the intensity seem to grow when it
moved to a new position and hover. Actually I have a million
questions I could think of to ask, but who ?? I am not sure if I
can gain access to the mine, but I am going to check into it, as
I would love to take a drive out to have a look around. Also
something to keep in mind, Granisle Copper & Bell Copper mine's
sit on an island on Babine Lake. Since the mines have been
closed for sometime it may be hard to get onto the property.
Also rumors have been floating around that one of the companies
were thinking of going back in and high grading the remaining
ore. One other note to this story which may be of interest. On
the mine site there have been a good number of fossils found,
one which has brought a lot of attention has been the Mammoth.
Bones have been found, and also were buried by the mine sometime
ago when it was in operation. From a newspaper article in the
Smithers Interior newspaper a while back the company thought it
best to not have their mining operation stopped, or slowed down
by having folks digging for these fossils.

Anyway, there you have the short version to this case, but I
wanted to get this one out as I just received it this past week.
there is a lot more to do on this one, in hopes of finding some
more answers to this amazing case. Also I think it would be a
good idea to pop into the newspaper office and see if they will
run the sighting report in hopes that some of the other folks
who drove by might come forward and give their take on this.

While I am at it, I have received more reports as well. Just
tonight  Saturday November 22, 2002 I received two telephone
calls from Terrace, B.C. over stange lights in the sky.

Last week, two reports from Prince Rupert, B.C.

Last week, one report from Vancouver Island.

I hope to have these reports written up and posted soon.

Thank you to the witnesses for their report.

HBCC UFO Research
              &
Editor: Canadian Communicator
(paranormal 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                                    60%?

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 08:06:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:10:54 -0500
Subject: 60%?


Hi -

Last night, on Errol's Strange Days Indeed program #216, Don
Ledger spoke about UFO abductions and the need to ramp up the
investigative priority for these events. He referred to a figure
of "60%" as reperesenting the portion of some population which
has had abduction experiences.

Can someone tell me, does the 60% apply to the entire population
of, say, North America, or does it apply only to the group of
people who have had some kind of UFO experience?  In either
case, 60% represents an _astonishingly_ high figure.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                            UFO On Chilean Coast

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:56:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:22:50 -0500
Subject: UFO On Chilean Coast


Source: Guillermo Aguilera (C.I.O)
Date: November 23, 2002

UFO OVER SAN VICENTE DE TAGUA TAGUA (CHILE)

Location: San Vicente de Tagua Tagua
Sighting Date: 11.21.02
Witness: Luis Sepulveda Castro

At 22:00 hours on the date in question, the witness -- a
security guard at a corporate warehouse-- went outside the
building to look at the sky and was able to see a strange object
moving in a NW to SW direction. Using binoculars, he was able to
make out the following details:

--The object was spherical in shape with a red-colored base,
giving off intermittent green flashes from its upper section.

--The object moved slowly; the observation had a total duration
of 45 minutes.


=================
Translation (C) 2002
Institute of Hispanic Ufology








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 08:07:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:24:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>The pilot said that when the two "craft" appeared in front of
 >>his airplane he felt heat on his face.

 >>Hmmmm...... hot clouds! (Oh yes, the sun had set hours before.)>>

 >Bruce:

 >He was obviously embarrased that his tale was actually being
 >taken seriously by anyone.

Hmmmm.... obviously embarrassed that his tale was taken
seriously?

How do you know this? Did he look embarrased? Did he apologize
for saying something incorrect?

Or are you psychic? Perhaps you should apply for Randi's
megabuck test.

If the Captain were embarrassed, why did he tell this to the FAA
investigators during the interview?  He could have "admitted"
that he was wrong about the heat... or he could have just not
mentioned it at all.

It would seem that you know next to nothing about this case.
Check my web site for further info:

http://brumac.8k.com

Look for JAL1628








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                     Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:06:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:26:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>The pilot said that when the two "craft" appeared in front of
 >>his airplane he felt heat on his face.

 >>Hmmmm...... hot clouds! (Oh yes, the sun had set hours before.)>>

 >Bruce:

 >He was obviously embarrased that his tale was actually being
 >taken seriously by anyone.


 >No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
 >testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
 >miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

 >- - David Hume

Bob,

You are sounding more like your idol Phil Crass, er, Klass every
day. If you don't have a sensible answer to a question, make a
joke about it.

And what is this constant BS you are spewing about "miracles"
being necessary to recognize UFOs as something real and
unexplained?

As Bruce has pointed out, some of the skeptibunker
"explanations" are far more miraculous than simply accepting
relaible testimony as valid evidence.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                               Frank Kaufman?

From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:32:17 -0500
Subject: Frank Kaufman?


Dear List:

I heard on the Sci-fi channel's Roswell program that Frank
Kaufamn's story of the events were found to be false.

Since I have been out of touch for some time, I would be
grateful if someone on the List would bring me up-to-date on
what was found to be false with his statements.


Thanks,

Fred 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:58:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:34:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Sandow


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 8:57:44 -0500

 >Greg, here is the problem right here. You snipped out everything else
 >I said and aimed at this one item.

Jan, I'm happy to address all your points. The first was by far
the strongest, in my view, and so I used it to represent
everything you said, especially since my answers to all of them
are somewhat the same.I should have said this, though, to
explain why I only answered your first point. You're entirely
justified in asking for a fuller response.

So here goes:

 >>1. Some 'abductees' have deep problems, and they need help from mental
 >>health professionals. I have letters from a very intelligent woman who

 >>apparently is also member of upper society, and who has serious mental

 >>problems. Her story is that the Aliens and the Communists are chasing
 >>her and have been since her husband, a newspaper publisher, died. She
 >>now rides buses up and down the East Coast never staying in one place
 >>for more than a few months. She sends letters from a variety of
 >>places, a beauty salon, a diner, a laundromat and receives answers at
 >>such places.

As I said in my earlier answer, "some" isn't very useful or
informative. Do you think the number is large enough to make
abduction research itself questionable? And if so, how do you
know that?

That last is an important question, because - as I also said in
my previous reply - several psychological studies of abductees
have been published. All of them showed that the abductees
studied had no significant psychopathology. That is, they
weren't mentally or emotionally disturbed.

Kevin Randle, I should add, reports otherwise in his abduction
book, but the data he and his collaborators report is, at this
point, fairly informal. It's not fully quantified, and the
research methods aren't clearly stated. I have to regard the
results as provisional, until they're put on the same scientific
basis as the results of the published papers I've mentioned.

The first of these studies was done way back in the '70s, by the
way, so it's not as we're talking about anything new.

Plus, as Dick Hall pointed out, many therapists have worked with
abductees. Really a large number. Some abduction researchers,
moreover, _are_ therapists. And so are some abductees. I
personally know one abductee who's a therapist, and three non-
abductee therapists who've worked with abductees. One of these
three is a recently minted MSW, though a very smart, grounded
guy; the other two are senior professionals. It's worth noting,
too, that there's a therapist in Washington, DC - Dick, help me
here - who works with abductees. He's not an abduction
researcher, and I don't know what he believes about the
abduction phenomenon. What he does, as I've read, is help
abductees in a non-judgmental way with whatever anxiety their
abduction memories may cause.

If a large number of abductees had mental problems, you'd think
these many therapists would - during more than 30 years of
abduction research - have detected them. So, Jan, when you say

 >Quite
 >honestly, I don't know how many people are like this woman,  but my
 >limited  experience indicate that there are significant numbers like
 >that not the majority, not a huge minority but still significant.

your experience really _is_ limited. You're joining a discussion
that's been going on for quite a while. If you think the
published studies aren't adequate, I'd be interested to know
why. Likewise, if you think the therapists who've work with
abductees aren't qualified, or have done a bad job, I'd be happy
to know your reasons.

 >>2. Some 'abductees' have stories which are very similar to child sex
 >>abuse stories. They are tortured or used sexually by entities who have
 >>almost complete power over them.

Well, once again, many competent therapists have worked with
abductees, for many years. If any large number of these
abductees were denying memories of sexual abuse, surely this
would have surfaced by now. And again, you're joining a
discussion that's been going on for some time, since the
question you raise has been raised before.

I'd also caution against raising an alarm about the possibility
that any large number of abductees are denying histories of
sexual abuse. This is because - as has been widely reported -
  too many people have been encouraged (by credulous therapists)
to uncover false memories of sexual abuse. In fact, the whole
notion of "false memory syndrome" comes from these cases. Jan,
I'm  not lumping you in with these therapists, and certainly not
suggesting you're trying to start a witch hunt. But after what
I've read on this subject, I'm wary of telling any group of
people that they might have suffered sexual abuse, when they
themselves don't think so.

Luckily, the abductees I've known are pretty hard-headed. They
don't jump to believe things about their abductions, and they
probably wouldn't jump to believe they've been sexually abused.

 >>3. Some 'abductees' are the voice of the abductors. I call these the
 >>"queen bees" that will tell us all there is to know about the aliens.
 >>While people hang around listening to every word like recievied
 >>wisdom. And, of course, each story gets better than the one before. "I

 >>have one abductee who murdered a Grey." "The Greys are getting tired
 >>of the Rebel Reptilians! If things do not change, there will be an
 >>interstellar war with earth at the center in the next six months!" I
 >>didn't make this up, but heard this at the 1996 MUFON Symposium, I
 >>promise.

I've heard worse. But so what? We know there are people in the
UFO game who don't have their heads screwed on. We learn to
avoid them in other branches of ufology. We can ignore them when
we deal with abductions.

So the real issue you raise, if you ask me, is which people who
say they're abductees we should take seriously. I'd stick to
abductees who've worked with respectable investigators. Budd
Hopkins, I know, won't work with anyone who comes in spouting
nonsense. And he discourages such talk when it comes up among
the abductees he's already worked with. That doesn't happen
often, by the way, which suggests he does a reasonable job of
weeding out the crazies.

 >>4. Some 'abductees' are jumping on the band wagon. I received a letter
 >>from a country and western singer. He had a UFO crash story from 1947
 >>in Colorado, and, of course, recently he had been abducted. Do you
 >>think his stories might help his music career? (I did an extensive
 >>search in Colorado for any evidence of unusual activities there during

 >>the supposed crash.)

 >>My friend took a telephone call from a fellow who wanted to know "all
 >>about UFOs" because if he did, then he could be abducted, and then, he

 >>could be in book about his abduction, go all over the country
 >>lecturing, get on TV and become famous. Hmmm.

If they're jumping on the bandwagon, let them jump. We can
ignore them. In any case, serious investigators don't, as a
rule, work with people who want publicity for their abductions.
Most abductees (of the serious kind, anyway) don't want any
publicity of any kind.

By the way, I don't agree that the singer's stories would help
his career. I know one pop singer with some degree of fame who's
an abductee. She doesn't talk about it publicly. Take it from
me, as a music biz professional: It's hard to make a career in
music, country music included, and the last thing you need is
people thinking you're a nutcase. If we made a list of
celebrities who've talked about being abducted, it wouldn't be
very long. Rosie O'Donnell - who else?

 >>5. Finally, there are military or intelligence people going around the
 >>country kidnapping, torturing and planting abduction scenarios in
 >>people's heads as part of insidious mind control experiments. The
 >>popularity of such ideas in the UFO community astounds and disgusts
 >>me! The Viet Vietnam war brought out the worst in some in the
 >>military. A great deal of soul-searching went into development of
 >>senior leaders after this searing national experience. That people of
 >>integrity would not step forward and denounce such actions is hard to
 >>believe. The proof of such paranoid ideas is thin indeed.

What does this have to do with serious abduction research?
Serious researchers are just as outraged as you are. At the
recent Sci-Fi Channel symposium, the panel was asked about these
alleged military abductions, and Budd's reply was scathing.

To conclude, Jan, I think two of your five points are things
that have been discussed before, the first point for 30 years.
The other three points have nothing to do with abduction
research, at least in my view. And they're nothing new. Crazy
people, as I've said, have gotten involved with UFOs for years.
We know the difference between them and people with serious
sightings.

I do understand that abductions are a slippery subject, and that
even the best abduction researchers haven't always done fully
scientific work. But there's a core of serious research to draw
on, and some reasonably scientific papers on aspects of
abductions (some of them, to pick up something Dick touched on,
in the proceedings of the 1992 abduction conference at MIT).
There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                       Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs

From: Raymond Fowler <eveleth@prexar.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:11:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:38:56 -0500
Subject: Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs


Hi,

FYI

Best,

Ray Fowler

-----

Just Published.....


UFO Testament: Anatomy of an Abductee (542 pages)

Raymond E. Fowler


This book entails the life of one who has not only become
internationally respected as a UFO investigator and author but
now as a so-called UFO abductee.

It is strikingly different from other works dealing with UFO
abductions in that it will provide an overview of the complete
life of an abductee from early childhood to sunset years of his
life.

The exciting descriptions of UFO sightings, investigations and
documentation would be worthy of a book themselves.

The Chief Scientific Consultant for the USAF UFO Project
Bluebook, Astronomer Dr. Hynek is on record as stating:

"Raymond Fowler_whose meticulous and detailed investigations_
far exceed the investigations of Bluebook."

However, this book is about much more than investigating UFO
sightings.

Throughout the warp and weft of the author's UFO and paranormal
experiences is the slow but sure realization that he has been
investigated since childhood by the very phenomenon he was
investigating!


Autographed: $29.95

(Price includes postage & book bag)

Check or Money Order to:


Ray Fowler
249 Maguire Road
Kennebunk, ME 04043









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:13:34 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:41:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:15:35 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >>Except that what the witnesses said that they say does match was
 >>was in the sky at the time of the sighting.

 >On a clear night there is bound to be some combination of
 >astronomical objects that matches a given set of three points
 >through chance alone - especially when the patterns are being
 >matched post-hoc, and when one allows arbitrary levels of error
 >in the measurements. You of all people should know, Bob, this
 >sort of post-hoc pattern-matching is just not reliable -
 >scientists use elaborate statistical procedures precisely to
 >prevent this sort of thing.

Cathy:

This sort of analysis was used by Carl Sagan and others in
regards to the so-called star map which Betty said she saw on
board the saucer and investigated by Marjorie Fish, who thought
she had identified nearby stars which fit the "map".

I don't think this sort of statistical treatment would lend
itself, though, to a solution of this sighting. The Hills said
the two "stars" (one of which was the UFO) were below the Moon,
which was only about 14 deg high. Jupiter, the brightest planet,
was only about two degrees (four Moon widths) from the Moon.
Saturn was a couple degrees further. These and the Moon were the
brightest astronomical objects in the sky. Jupiter was more than
100 times brighter than the nearest dimmer star. They all
occupied an area smaller than your outstretched hand at arm's
length and just above the horizon.

The real problem was the 75% illuminated Moon, which would have
made visual observation of the brightest nearby 3rd and 4th
magnitude stars impossible. There would have been no other stars
to see.

 >>The Hills case is one of the most interesting because of it's
 >>key role in the development of the folklore of the UFO
 >>abduction. I'm using folklore in the sense that even if some
 >>abductions are genuine the UFO phenomenon includes a folkloric
 >>element, which could account for IFOs, hoaxes, or whatever was
 >>not a "real" event.

 >I think "folklore" is a dangerously ambiguous term in this
 >context - not to mention that it's loaded with political
 >subtexts. "Folkore" and "myth" mean one one thing to an
 >anthropologist, for example, and possibly quite another to a
 >physicist.

This Hill's incident was the subject of a popular book by John
G. Fuller, "The Interrupted Journey", which was serialized in
two parts in Look magazine. These two issues had the largest
newstand sales in Look's history! A movie was made for TV, "the
UFO Incident". The whole story was a sensation in its time.

It included many elements which have been common in subsequent
abduction tales. Saucer folklore exists, whether it's
"politically" charged or not. This is one of the great chapters
in the UFO tale.

<snip>

 >In fact I'll admit that it's the sociological issues surrounding
 >UFO research and the discussions which accompany them, which
 >actually interest me more than the UFOs themselves.

I couldn't agree more.

 >UFO discussions seem to involve much the same academic
 >politics, and power struggles over institutionalized authority,
 >that one sees in science generally - but much more raw and
 >exposed.

To say nothing of the sociological value of studying the
practice of Ufology (and these Lists).

 >>The question being, if the initial sighting was prosaic, what
 >>ccounted for Barney latter seeing "nazis" and little figures
 >>when he looked at the UFO in binocs, as Betty without binocs
 >>still described it as a "star"?

 >Well, it seems to me that you've indulged in some rather
 >gratuitous and fanciful re-writing of the original case-report
 >here.

Hey, I'm not making this up. See, The Interrupted Journey,
Chapter 3, for their own words.

<snip>

 >>Are you familiar with Martin Kottmeyer's discovery of the
 >>possible source of key elements of Barney's story under hypnosis
 >>in a TV program broadcast a few days earlier?

 >>Please see "The Eyes That Spoke" at:

 >>http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html

 >>and "The Eyes Still Speak" at:

 >>http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/eyes-still-speak.html

 >But once again, we have the problem of post-hoc pattern-
 >matching. Did anyone test this out (by, for example, examining a
 >random sample of TV programming and seeing how many pattern
 >matches of this sort turned up?)

That's what I love about UFO stories and folklore, they're fun,
they're very fuzzy, and we never have any elves, faireies or ETs
to actually examine.

Unfortunately it seems that when we can actually conjure up a
star map to consult, the stars were invisible through the
Moonbeams, or something, and when we have a star map direct from
a saucer, well, it turns up that it was drawn by somebody who
read about it in the New York Times. Before hypnosis.

I think that you may be on to something.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"...the basic data consist of _reports_ of UFO sightings, not
the _existence_ of what was reported. This distinction is
crucial because the fact that some people have reported such
things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no
doubt that people have made such reports. That the people in
question actually saw or experienced what they say they did,
however, is open to question". -- Ronald N. Giere, Understanding
Scientific Reasoning, p. 166.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

             Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:34:16 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:45:16 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Gates


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:40:02 +0100
 >Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS

 >>From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:12:59 -0500
 >>Subject: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS

 >>'Path of the Skinwalker'

 >>A new investigative report from George Knapp, who became famous
 >>for introducing the world to the story of Bob Lazar in the late
 >>1980s.

 >>This time Knapp looks at the now famous "paranormal" ranch
 >>bought by millionaire Bob Bigelow in northern Utah.

 >>Source: The Las Vegas Mercury

 >>http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Nov-21-Thu-2002/20095845.html

 >>Thursday, November 21, 2002
 >>Copyright Las Vegas Mercury

 >>Cover story: 'Path of the Skinwalker'

 >>A small ranch in northern Utah may be the strangest place on
 >>Earth
 >>
 >>by George Knapp

 ><snip>

 >>Warning to paranormal enthusiasts: Do not travel to the ranch.
 >>You are not welcome there. It is private property and the people
 >>who live on or near it don't want to be hassled by curiosity
 >>seekers or the media. What's more, the level of unexplained
 >>phenomena has taken a steady nosedive over the past several
 >>months, so chances are you wouldn't see anything even if you
 >>could get on the property.

 >Grant and fellow Listerions,

 >I just finished reading the above quoted article and I did not
 >want to burden our beloved EBK with reposting chapter one of
 >this suspenseful, sensational story. I quoted the above warning
 >from after the story while wondering, since the word is out,
 >whether the paranormal posse and hordes of curiosity seekers
 >will descend on the ranch, forcing the above warning to be
 >posted on the road leading to this ranch and its neighbors with
 >large block lettering proclaiming DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED! ala
 >Area 51.

Hi Josh, listers,

The 'Ranch' is on private property and Knapp got permission to
be on it and do a story about it. I would expect that after
Knapp's story appeared, you in fact would get the "curiosity
seekers " who would do just about anything to get on the grounds
of the ranch. If you own the ranch and somebody gets killed,
injured on the ranch, it is likely they or the family are going
to sue, and blather about why didn't anybody post warnings, why
didn't anybody post signs on the property etc., etc., etc.

 >From a liability stand point the signs have to be in place.

<snip>

 >But this is the mysterious Gorman ranch. I remember about the
 >first mutes there and I remember being excited that it was
 >purchased by Bigelow for the serious study of muteness. Instead
 >of me learning more about cattle mutilations, a cloud of
 >muteness withheld research data and caused people to wonder
 >about the mysterious shroud of secrecy of the ranch and the
 >newly formed NIDS.

As I recall the people who sold it were the Sherman's, and what
they did is buy a place down the road 5-10 miles, where
apparently their lives have gotten back to normal. I would make
the observation that being a caretaker and only being on the
ranch when you needed to be, versus having your family 'living'
on the ranch and having all the strange things happen to you on
a constant basis would be two different things all together.

 >What am I to make of George Knapp's story? It is beyond my
 >imagination that what he claims is plaguing that ranch and being
 >studied by Colm Kelleher. Is there anything _not_ seen there?

Apparently the lid is being lifted and we will get some
information as to what NIDS in fact found... in next week's
installment. First the history, then the meat... blah, blah.

Kind of like Sci-fi Roswell. First the history, then another
special as to what the artifacts actually were...stay tuned.

 >Of course, if true, Gorman made two serious mistakes.

 >#1 = Learn the history. I learned from buying mountain property
 >in California that if I were shown a property that interested me
 >to not only check the property records but to ask the neighbors
 >if they had anything that they wanted to say regarding the
 >property. I would certainly ask a lot of questions if the
 >property I was shown had all kinds of extra bolt locks and
 >fortifications that it seemed to need for security. Something is
 >wrong with this picture.

This thought would be lost on many people, who might be inclined
to dismiss it as paranoia on the part of the people you are
buying it from rather then weird wolves and creatures,
diminsional type doorways, and UFOs.

 >#2 = Go while the going is good. The Gormans allegedly suffered
 >on that property. Along comes Bigelow who offers to buy the land
 >and gets the Gorman family to stay at the property as caretakers
 >of suffering more of the same horrors?

As I mentioned earlier the family is not actually living on the
ranch but in fact live down the road somewhere. Dan Sherman just
goes back to do his job. As I understand it Dan and his family
signed Non Disclosure Agreements with NIDS/Bigelow of their own
free will and choice so they are not able to talk about
anything.


Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:48:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:48:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Velez


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 07:52:04 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:55:33 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:49:52 -0700
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>>>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 ><snip>

 >>Oh man, (or 'woman' as the case may be) I can't begin to tell
 >>you how disappointing and disheartening it is for me to hear
 >>you all talking this way. I respect it and I can even understand
 >>'why' you all think/feel this way about the abduction reports.

 >>You three in particular, Jan, Wendy, Jim, all represent (to me)
 >>among the 'best' there is in ufology. You are all clear, honest
 >>thinkers who offer a solid approach to the subject. (UFOs) It
 >>just takes all the wind out of my sails to watch you
 >>collectively throwing your hands up in the air in frustration
 >>over the abduction material.

Hi Wendy,

You wrote:

 >I do believe that the abduction scenario is a part of Ufology
 >and that it needs to be researched and studied. My only
 >deviation from this are the points that I don't believe the
 >abduction scenario is the core element of Ufology. It is being
 >made to appear so and I disagree with that assessment.

By whom, Wendy? Spielberg? The Sci-Fi Channel? Other than those
two, I don't recall there being any recent efforts being made by
anyone in ufology to make the abduction phenomenon 'appear to be
the core element in ufology.'

Please don't tell me that all the hype surrounding Taken is what
is making veteran ufologists nervous. I'll be dipped in dung and
rolled in peanuts if that's true. (!)

 >Further,
 >that the abduction researchers haven't shown a baseline of thier
 >research and investigations, which have gotten way out of hand
 >in many ways. I cannot speak for Jan, but these are the reasons
 >that I am frustrated by the abduction scenario as it is
 >currently being presented.

And 'who' do you think will be the person or persons to do
something about that situation? I suppose if we wait long enough
'somebody' will come along and take on the job. It just seems to
me that, that is precisely what everyone is doing... waiting for
someone else to do it.

Once again, the only ones that get left out in the cold are the
witnesses/abductees. I am going to reprint the comment I made in
my last post.

Stating the problem, is not the 'problem'. We _all_ know what's
wrong. Finding someone willing to brainstorm sound solutions and
to do the work of implementing them is the 'problem'.

I wrote:

 >>I was waiting and hoping for some 'fresh blood' to enter the
 >>fray. To bring better methodology and a less 'carved in stone'
 >>mind-set to the problem than we get from Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs
 >>et al.

 >>A 'monopoly' like that, in any field of investigation, almost
 >>insures that 'dogma' will rear its ugly little head. It's what
 >>we have now. There's the 'Hopkins camp' the 'Mack camp' etc.
 >>with little input from anybody else in the field. There is no
 >>one else who shares an equal foothold in the public arena with
 >>them who is challenging them or putting their findings to the
 >>test.

It's ok if _you_ don't want to be the one to take on the job. I
suppose we will all (the witnesses/abductees) just have to wait
(as we have been) for 'someone' to pick up the baton. It is not
our place to initiate or participate such a thing. That job
falls to those who do the research. The only responsibility we
have is to provide whatever evidence we can that will help
researchers decide if the case merits further investigation. To
help _substantiate_ our reports in any way we can. To make
ourselves available. Period.

Deciding what criteria will be used to define those cases is up
to trained/skilled research people. Not the subjects.

 >From a practical standpoint I believe that too much is expected,
 >both from the research standpoint and the position of the
 >abductees, in what can be accomplished to bring the matter to
 >resolution at this point in time.

How much has been tried? Did I miss something?

I agree with your basic statement that to date, very little if
anything at all has been 'accomplished.' But that is due to the
fact that little, if anything, has been done at all. But _not_
that it is a "Mission Impossible" to do such a task.

I think you have given up too easily. Maybe I'm being naive but
I believe that something of value, something tangible, can be
accomplished in relation to the abduction phenomenon - through
research. That's not going to happen if people like Jan and
yourself bow out in frustration.

 >Just the fact that discussions
 >revolve around alien hybridization, Raelian vs whatever
 >conflicts and the like, suggest to me that the abduction
 >scenario research has jumped track and running amuck.

Of course the ratio of signal to noise is high. During the last
ten years the Internet has put a bullhorn into the hands of
every wahoo with a computer and an e-mail account. All that
means is, there is an acute need to define what it is that
constitutes a UFO abduction case. Therefore eliminating at least
a half to three-quarters of the static noise in one fell swoop.

You surprise me Wendy. Instead of calling for a set of criteria
to be created that will help to 'define' just what constitutes a
UFO abduction case, you proffer your opinion that abduction
research has "jumped the track and run amok." Like I said, we
can all pretty much agree on what the 'problems' are.

How about becoming a part of the solution by challenging your
peers to create, and agree upon, a generally accepted definition
of what constitutes a 'UFO abduction' case? Attempts have
already been made by people like Stuart Appelle and Dick Hall.
They have both written papers filled with suggestions to help
deal with abduction cases in a practical way. Ones that utilize
sound methodology in tandem with an open-minded approach. Why
does all the groundwork that has already been laid continue to
collect dust on a shelf?

Wendy, if I could, I would _do-it-myself_ without making a big
fuss about it. I can't. As a witness/experiencer of the
phenomena it is not my (proper) place to involve myself in the
establishment of a set of criteria that helps to define
something that is affecting me personally/directly. Objectivity
problems, conflict of interest and all that. I had always held
out some hope that White Hat wearing good guys like yourself,
Jan and others would 'one day' collectively take on the job of
helping to create solutions to the problems we are all,
witnesses and researchers alike, so painfully aware of.

'Sounds like' that ain't gonna happen.

 >It has
 >lost focus and therefore is causing the frustration that Jan, I
 >and others are experiencing.

"People" lose focus - not 'things.'

 >That doesn't mean that I have lost
 >interest in the abduction scenario or turned my back on
 >abduction research. As a metaphor, It just means that I think a
 >few trains in the rail yard have derailed, causing chaos. That
 >chaos needs to be rechanneled and research put back on track.

Then grab a crowbar and let me you hear you grunt as you help to
push the derailed train back onto the tracks. :)

"If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the
problem."

*I 'think' that quote is attributable to: Huey Newton, Black
Panther Party


Warm regards,

John Velez






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                     New Articles @ Presidents UFO Site

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:41:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:50:47 -0500
Subject: New Articles @ Presidents UFO Site


Three new articles have just been published to the Presidents
UFO Web Site which might be of interest to readers.

Steven Schiff - The Political Roswell Hunter
www.presidentialufo.com/steven_schiff1.htm

The Canadian Flying Saucer Observatory
www.presidentialufo.com/flying_saucer_observatory.htm

Ottawa Interplanetary Society
www.presidentialufo.com/ottawa_interplanetary.htm

I also now have a news update site that hopefully contains new
stories not found elsewhere.

www.presidentialufo.com/news_update.htm


Thanks

Grant Cameron


"I have been asked that question so many times. In five months
in space, I have seen unidentified flying objects for sure.

"Sometimes I looked out of the window and I could see a metallic
thing like a spoon flying methodically. The biggest problem in
space is that it is very hard to judge distance. It could have
been a spoon or a space ship thousands of miles away.

"Let me tell you one thing, I have never heard someone knock at
the door and say - Hey Jerry let me in!"

              --Dr. Jerry Linenger talking about 5 months on 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                             Roswell Dig Report?

From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:36:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:53:13 -0500
Subject: Roswell Dig Report?


Does anyone on the List know if the archaeologists that recently
surveyed the Roswell crash/debris area intend to prepare a
professional report of the findings which will be submitted to a
peer-reviewed, academic journal?


Thanks,

James Houran







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:43:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:57:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:22:43 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

 ><snip>

 >>a) A cloud was actually there. "A 'few' scattered
 >>clouds . ." Did anyone else there actually notice
 >>clouds present? Did Sheaffer query people or did he
 >>simply discount this? I think this information is
 >>important to arrive at a meaningful analysis.

 >The nearby weather observers reported this, I believe.

Bob, that isn't quite the same. One problem with the cloud
theory is that other than the possibility that there were a few
scattered clouds in the area, we don't have any visual
witnesses. Who is going to remember a cloud if they don't
remember a sighting; other than Carter. Was Carter asked if he
saw any clouds?

So what we have is, there may have been a cloud or there may not
have been a cloud. We know there weren't a lot of them; the
weather report was mostly clear.


 ><snip>

 >>your viewpoint is that Carter may have mistaken the
 >>size of what he saw. He may have seen a star and
 >>mistaken it for an object almost as large as the moon.
 >>I do not believe there is a certainty he would have
 >>made this mistake.

 >The object would have been brilliant Venus.

No, it "may" have been Venus, or it "may" have been something
else. One person thought it could have been a balloon.

 >>>Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet
 >>>or star for a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have
 >>>many examples of such IFOs.

The question is: "Which science trained
professionals with some sky observation training
amongst us have made this mistake in a "live" visual
sighting beside Carter. It's a meaningful question.


 >>And examples of UFOs that have yet to be explained,
 >>and UFOs which were labeled IFOs and then found to
 >>still be UFOs. These things cancel each other out. So
 >>what's your point?

 >You are claiming that all identified IFOs are "cancelled
 >out" because there are still unsolved UFO reports out
 >there?

Of course not. Are you trying to tell me that if an astronomer
was standing there with Carter, that astronomer's view of the
situation wouldn't perhaps contain more valuable input than
Carters; things that Carter might not be aware of?

Bob, what I was saying was Robert is using a generalization from
past cases to solve a specific case and taking all his data
basically from one side but without even being specific to the
type of individual involved. What he's got is a "generalized"
hypothesis, not a honed-in specific answer and generalizations
can be wrong for a specific situation.

 >>I asked for a specific case; one where another person
 >>saw what he thought was a UFO the size of the moon
 >>or slightly smaller and also had the technical education
 >>(Nuclear Physics) and observer skills of Carter. I would
 >>think this would be one part of Sheaffer's proof
 >>concerning this point. Is this available for us to see? Is
 >>this perhaps found in Sheaffer's book?

 >If the only IFO explanations you will ever consider are
 >those in which the witness's background must be
 >matched to another IFO witness using your self-selected
 >criteria,

It's not my self-selected criteria. If you are going to
"generalize" a solution from other cases, it might not be a bad
idea to at least give some consideration to the profile of the
person making the claim to have some degree of accuracy in the
generalization.

People perceive things differently. A child trying to make a
determination concerning an object he sees views that object
from a simplistic point of view while a person with some degree
of scientific training is going to view that object from an
entirely different perspective. The scientific person is going
to have a number of questions he can ask himself about what he
seeing that the child can never begin to contemplate. Likewise,
a non-scientific person may not realize that Venus doesn't
blink, while a scientifically trained person might possibly have
this knowledge and run it by himself before jumping to a
conclusion; and you don't know what the person was thinking
until you ask him/her. That's got to be part of your analysis or
what have you really got?

And I ask again, did anyone ask Carter what means he used to
determine his various references to the UFO? Did he happen to
notice any clouds? Was he thinking about them when he made his
observation?


 >you will be doomed to studying old long-solved
 >cases reported by "expert" witnesses until the cows
 >come home. My life is too short.

This is not unimportant data. The investigation certainly isn't
as meaningful or complete without it. Robert is using "old long-
solved cases" to claim Carter didn't really see a UFO, but doing
so in a totally generalized manner. Also, you don't realize it
but, by saying what you just said, you're making a similar
mistake to one the Condon Committee made years ago when it
eliminated key- testimony from its report by eliminating 99% of
the past cases as though they never existed. Here are some
statements NICAP made in its January 1969 journal which explains
this and gives some examples of cases that were never studied
because of it.

http://www.cohenufo.org/nicapcondon.htm#casesignrd5

High quality cases that were eliminated:

http://www.cohenufo.org/nicapcondon.htm#keywitnesses

and testimonies eliminated:

http://www.cohenufo.org/nicapcondon.htm#inexpert

Yep, let's only look at what we want to look at and ignore the
rest. Well, "the rest" is really tired of being ignored. We need
totally fair studies and Robert's, although a good effort, is
not complete as is and is therefore still unresolved.

 >Human beings are fallible. Witnesses of every IFO ever
 >seen were fallible.

And so are researchers and their solutions. The
above Condon study is a prime example of this but we
both can give numerous others on both sides of the coin.

 >See The UFO Handbook by Allan
 >Hendry, p. 64 where he describes daylight UFOs which
 >turned out to be the planet Venus, Changes in brightness
 >caused by clouds and haze were interpreted as motions
 >toward and away from the witness.

In the Carter case we've established that there was no haze. It
was a clear night with "a few" scattered clouds. And the only
thing we established concerning clouds was that "perhaps" there
could have been a cloud present. Without first hand witnesses
testimonies concerning this, what do you have? Merely a guess, a
hypothesis this "may" or "may not" have occurred. The weatherman
wasn't standing there when the sighting took place.

It is also interesting to note the above mentioned Condon Study,
whose conclusions at the time were telling everyone that there
was absolutely nothing to UFOs, that the majority of them had
been solved and the ongoing studying of UFOs couldn't be
justified, was released on January 8, 1969, _two_ days after
Carter's incident. Isn't it slightly possible that might have
made it a lot easier for the witnesses to ignore what they had
seen and forget it over time, as did my wife in our own more
detailed daylight sighting?


 >Eleven other witnesses were present, some seeing the
 >little star or blue light, and none thought anything
 >unusual happened.

You bring this up again but you still haven't responded to what
Robert Gates and I wrote about this at

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m15-008.shtml

I think if you think about it, the "eleven witness" part of your
argument is greatly affected by the things we stated there.
Robert Sheaffer's argument isn't as cut and dried as it might
appear on the surface.

 >>Bob, a question for you: Do you feel the Rosalynn
 >>Carter piece has any truly meaningful place in a debate
 >>concerning Carter's sighting other than to cloud the
 >>issue at hand? Do you think it has any direct bearing
 >>on an investigation of Carter's specific sighting? Be
 >>honest.
 >
 >These are two seperate articles, actually five, two by
 >Sheaffer and three by local newspapers. I don't believe
 >the UFO article ever mentions the ghost story, or vica
 >versa. Robert Sheaffer bills himself, after all, as
 >"skeptical to the max." He also includes Opera,
 >Philosophy, astronomy and other debunking on his site,
 >too.

I respect "skeptical to the max," however, I think most will see
the obvious intent just by viewing the web page you told us to
see. It speaks volumes for itself.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html


 >>My point was that if Robert Sheaffer had a truly locked
 >>down solution concerning Carter's sighting, he wouldn't
 >>have had to resort to putting that stuff on his web site.

 >Oh, come on. He published that solution more than 20
 >years ago in a magazine article and a book. Aren't we
 >allowed to mix anything else with UFOs, too?

I hadn't realized that 'we' did it. I thought it was Robert's.
Perhaps I missed your name on the study. (I don't mean this in a
nasty way. Just asking.) However, my answer to your question is;
not if one is performing a serious scientific study on a
specific case and then throws in a lot of irrelevance along with
what he puts forth as the study. But if you feel this is
appropriate, no problem. I just wanted to get your view on it.


Thank you,

Jerry Cohen
http://www.cohenufo.org/

To facilitate analysis of these discussions and to reference
material therein for all parties, I have included the following
URLs to other discussions regarding this case at UFO UpDates.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m25-016.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m31-004.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m07-032.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m08-001.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m14-024.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m18-009.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m19-005.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m19-006.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m19-014.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m19-015.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m20-013.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m20-020.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m21-001.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m21-020.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m21-036.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m22-017.shtml

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m22-035.shtml








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Pflock

From: Karl Pflock <Ktperehwon@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:34:42 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:02:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Pflock


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A review
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:34:20 +0000

 >Here's my take on the Sci-Fi-Channel Roswell special....

And here are a couple of what I hope are welcome comments on
certain of Dick Hall's mostly well taken observations--

 >On the archeological aspects, it rates a positive because at
 >least two anomalies were found (the unexplained layer of
 >disturbed soil at the main site and the furrows at the nearby
 >area), plus some kind of "artifacts" were carted away for
 >future analysis....

Concerning the "unexplained layer of disturbed soil" and the
furrow found near the possible debris/skip site by University of
New Mexico archaeologist William Doleman, quoting from
Albuquerque Journal science reporter John Fleck's front-page
story in the paper's Saturday, 23 Nov. edition:

"Doleman found the first furrow near the main excavation site.
  But later [after the show was in the can] analysis of aerial
photos from 1946--a year before the supposed crash--shows a very
similar furrow already visible, Doleman said.

"The second [the "unexplained layer of disturbed soil"] showed
up when a backhoe dug a trench across the supposed path of the
crashing craft. Looking at the layers of dirt on the side of
the trench, Doleman found what he said could have been evidence
of a furrow created some time ago, then filled with sediment.

"Or, he told friends [and reporter Fleck] watching the show with
him Friday evening, 'It could be a coyote burrow.'"

As for the "artifacts," it is important to note that it was host
Bryant Gumbel who described the material carted away in 66 paper
bags this way. No one else, most notably Dr. Doleman, has
referred to the stuff as artifacts. In fact, Doleman has been
very careful not to do so.

<snip>

 >Finally, Karl Pflock came up with a typical whopper by
 >asserting that the entire "Roswell mythology" is attributable
 >to and dates back to the discredited witness, Frank Kaufman.
 >Huh?

HUH?! In fact, I was making the same point that Kevin Randle
also made on the program: With KaufmanN discredited (see Kevin
Randle and Mark Rodeghier's upcoming articles in IUR and, I'm
told, even sooner on the CUFOS website, and chapter 5 of my book
Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe), we're back
to square one, with some odd debris and the interesting
recollections of a few former military personnel--no bodies, no
nearly intact crashed saucer, no second "impact" site 2-3 (or,
later, about 35) miles from the debris field, no pre-crash radar
contacts, etc. During my interview for the show, I elaborated on
this, but as is always the case, the "creative" editing process
led to not much more than a one-liner making the final cut.

BTW, it's all but certain that Kaufmann and the also discredited
Glenn Dennis drew upon a pair of stories in the Roswell Journal
(June 7 & 8, 1987) for key elements of their claims: the
impact/bodies site a couple of miles from the debris field and
what the unfortunate aliens looked like. The first article
quoted Stan Friedman and Bill Moore at length about what they
had read in documents made public soon after as the MJ-12
Eisenhower Briefing Document. Among other things, Friedman
reported the documents revealed that "as many as four aliens,
small in stature, and not resembling any biological species
known on earth, were also found by [the Army Air Forces] about
two miles from the Corona crash site [the Foster Ranch debris
field]." The second article was illustrated by frontal and
profile sketches providing artist Vincent DePaula's conception
of what the faces and heads of "the aliens who crashed near
Corona might have looked like." Two years later, just before
interviewing Dennis the first time, Friedman displayed these
sketches on Roswell television, a program Dennis saw. Those
interested in seeing DePaula's sketches and the details of how
Dennis and Kaufmann very likely picked up and with straight
faces fed this stuff back to ufologists will find them in my
book (pp. 136-138 and photo section).

 >One thing that puzzled me was the absence of any reference to
 >Pappy Henderson (pilot of the B-29 who flew crash-field cargo
 >to Fort Worth)....

Henderson was a C-54 transport pilot, and he is reported to have
claimed to have flown debris and bodies to Wright Field, Ohio.


- 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                       Flying Saucer Reviews For Sale

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:31:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:04:59 -0500
Subject: Flying Saucer Reviews For Sale


Pilgrims,

Anyone interested in making me an offer for the FSRs etc listed
below.

They are all in extremely good condition, the earlier ones being
from the colelction of the first editor Derek Dempster (and are
stammped with his name).

I'm keen to get rid of them quickly and invite reasonable offers
- and here's a hint, I'm prepared to let them all go for _less_
than 600 pounds (plus postage). Anyone who knows anything about
the price of early FSRs will realise the first four or five
volumes would easily fetch that amount.


Vol 2            1/2/3/5/6
Vol 3            2/3/4/5
Vol 4            1/2/4/5/6
Vol 5            1/2/3/5/6
Vol 6            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 7            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 8            1/2/3/5/6
Vol 9            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 10           1/2/3/4/5
Vol 11            6
Vol 13           1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 14            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 15            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 16            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol  17            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 18            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 19            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 20             1/2/4/5/6
Vol 22             1/2/4/5/6
Vol 23            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 24            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 25            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 26            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 27            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 28            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 29            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 30            1/2/3/4/5/6
Vol 31            1/2/3/4
Vol 33            1/2/3/4
Vol 34            1/2/3/4
Vol 35            1/2/3/4
Vol 36            1/2/3/4
Vol 37            1/2/3/4
Vol 39            3
Vol 40            3/4
Vol 41            1/3/4
Vol 42            1

Special issues:      3/4/5
Case histories:    2/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                       Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:07:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:14:17 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

 >I disagree with the application of the analogy to "seeing faces
 >in the clouds". There are logical methodologies which can be
 >applied to such work as this. It is simiar to the type of
 >pattern matching often used by cryptologists.

 >If someone cares to challenge David Rudiak's interpretation of
 >the Ramey Memo, let him or her take a methodical approach to the
 >work and arrive at independent conclusions. I am sure that a
 >scientist like David Rudiak would welcome any serious peer
 >review of his work as a necessary part of the process of
 >discovery.


Tom,

While I agree with your sentiments and think Rudiak's work
definitely should be respected, the point is that several other
photoanalysts have, in fact, applied computer enhancement
technology and come up with quite different words and overall
readings of the Ramey telegram.

A few articles have been published on this.

Hence the comparison to seeing faces in clouds, which I tend to
agree with.

The answer, as you suggest, is better organized and reported
peer review. Unfortunately, as is so typical of 'ufology' in
general, relevant material gets reported in many different
places and seldom put together. One solution for this would be
an abstracts database (research awareness), which I have the
expertise (but not the money) to do.


  - Dick







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:57:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:13:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:36:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:02:32 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

<snip>

Dave, Tom, and all-

I have a great deal of respect for David's work in this, as well
as that of many other researchers who've spent hours on on the
new element to the discussion.

However, from the perspective of attempting to reach beyond the
UFO genre and gain some sort of respect for our work I believe
that using UFO researchers to analyze the Ramey Memo is the
wrong approach.

If independent analysts fail to come up with the same basic
interpretations that we have, then that needs to be addressed.

It may be that two groups of independant examiners would come up
with the same interpretation, which would lend tremendous
support.

Will we convince everyone, including the skeptics?

Of course not.

But you have a much better chance of gaining acceptance among
those who aren't a part of the genre, and would have a much
stronger case in seeking clarification.

This is not a criticism of the effort, but a suggestion as to
how we might take this a step further. Unless, of course, your
goal is to sit and discuss this among ourselves and complain
that the rest of the world just won't listen to us.


Steve








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Roswell Dig Report? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:16:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:30:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Dig Report? - Kaeser


 >From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:36:20 -0600
 >Subject: Roswell Dig Report?

 >Does anyone on the List know if the archaeologists that recently
 >surveyed the Roswell crash/debris area intend to prepare a
 >professional report of the findings which will be submitted to a
 >peer-reviewed, academic journal?

Hi Jim-

In speaking with the Director of Special Projects with the SciFi
Channel last week at the screening of TAKEN, it was stated that
a final report is being prepared. However, it was acknowledged
that it wouldn't be ready by the time the show aired last
Friday, and how it would be published was not mentioned. Not
knowing how the program would end, no one thought to ask if that
report would follow the final examination of the soil samples
that were

I also believe that IUR has expressed an interest in publishing
a write up by the archeologists, but that (of course) is not
peer reviewed, per se.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                  Re: Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs - Hale

From: Scott Hale <sh5259a@american.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:18:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:32:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs - Hale


 >From: Raymond Fowler <eveleth@prexar.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:11:42 -0500
 >Subject: Ray Fowler's Last Book On UFOs



 >Hi,

 >FYI

 >Best,

 >Ray Fowler


Ray,

It takes lots of guts to put your own stories of abduction-
related experiences out there for the whole world to see. Kudos
to you sir!



Scott Hale








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:22:47 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:35:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Randle


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review


Good Morning, All -

 >Of these people, who would be likely to have summarily labeled
 >the MJ-12 documents as a fraud?


I would certainly be one of those, had I been asked...

 >I invite that person(s) to take responsibility for it, and to
 >present a legitimate reason for such an underhanded subterfuge.


Underhanded subterfuge? Aren't we a little over the top here? I
think an objective look at the evidence for MJ-12 will yield
some interesting comments... one of which is simply: What is the
provenance of any of those documents?


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                         Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:23 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:37:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle


 >From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
 >Subject: Frank Kaufman?


Good Afternoon, List, All -

 >Since I have been out of touch for some time, I would be
 >grateful if someone on the List would bring me up-to-date on
 >what was found to be false with his statements.


The whole story will be laid out in the next issue of IUR and a
version should be up any day now on the CUFOS website.

KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

             Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Burns

From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:47:38 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:41:22 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Burns


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:34:16 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS

 >As I mentioned earlier the family is not actually living on the
 >ranch but in fact live down the road somewhere. Dan Sherman just
 >goes back to do his job. As I understand it Dan and his family
 >signed Non Disclosure Agreements with NIDS/Bigelow of their own
 >free will and choice so they are not able to talk about
 >anything.


Hey List,

Anybody know of any other resources about this ranch outside of
the old press articles? There used to be a site at the address:

http://www.aliendave.com

that had some material on the ranch, but I can't seem to access
it.

Upsetting stuff, if true. Let's see if NIDS comments on the
article after the second installment.

Thanks,


Chris Burns







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                    Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:06:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:58:18 -0500
Subject: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters


Could they not just show you a computer rendered
moon, controlled by the real telescopes controls then just
leave the lens cap on?  ;-p


-----

Source: The Sydney Monring Herald - Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html



Telescope to challenge moon doubters
By Robert Matthews in London

November 25,2002

Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to
silence claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked,
European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest
telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar
surface.

For years, doubters have claimed that NASA, the United States
space agency, spent billions of dollars faking the landings to
convince the world that it had beaten the Soviet Union to the
moon. Evidence cited has ranged from the absence of stars on any
photographs taken by the astronauts to the way that the Stars
and Stripes they planted seemed to flutter in a vacuum.

This month NASA tried to put an end to the controversy by
commissioning a definitive account of the evidence for the
landings. Days later it dropped the idea after criticism that it
was wasting money by taking on the lunatic fringe: naturally,
this only boosted claims that the agency was trying to hide
something.

Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory forever
by using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most
powerful telescope in the world - to spot the Apollo lunar
landers.

Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT
has four mirrors eight metres across linked by optical fibres.
It can see a single human hair from 16 kilometres away.

Trained on the moon, such astonishing resolution should enable
it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules that
NASA insists landed on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

Supporters of the conspiracy theory welcomed the news that
astronomers were to photograph the landing sites. But Marcus Allen,
the British publisher of Nexus magazine and a long-time advocate
of the theory, said photographs of the lander would not prove that the
US put men on the moon. "Getting to the moon really isn't much
of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959," he said. "The big
problem is getting people there."

According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the
moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in
space were lethal to humans.

-----

Trevor Seguin
dragko@shaw.ca






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                     Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Anthony

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:47:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:02:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Anthony


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:12 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:14:17 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>>>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

 >>I disagree with the application of the analogy to "seeing faces
 >>in the clouds". There are logical methodologies which can be
 >>applied to such work as this. It is simiar to the type of
 >>pattern matching often used by cryptologists.

 >>If someone cares to challenge David Rudiak's interpretation of
 >>the Ramey Memo, let him or her take a methodical approach to the
 >>work and arrive at independent conclusions. I am sure that a
 >>scientist like David Rudiak would welcome any serious peer
 >>review of his work as a necessary part of the process of
 >>discovery.

 >While I agree with your sentiments and think Rudiak's work
 >definitely should be respected, the point is that several other
 >photoanalysts have, in fact, applied computer enhancement
 >technology and come up with quite different words and overall
 >readings of the Ramey telegram.

 >A few articles have been published on this.

 >Hence the comparison to seeing faces in clouds, which I tend to
 >agree with.

 >The answer, as you suggest, is better organized and reported
 >peer review. Unfortunately, as is so typical of 'ufology' in
 >general, relevant material gets reported in many different
 >places and seldom put together. One solution for this would be
 >an abstracts database (research awareness), which I have the
 >expertise (but not the money) to do.


Hi List, Dick and Tom,

I agree with Dick on his point of faces in clouds. However,
amorphous images aside (as Neil Morris may corroborate to some
degree) it has not prevented us from sending photographic
representations of the Ramey Memo (both enhanced and
computerised samples and normal best photographic paper copies),
to two separate competent 'cryptanalysts' (who have no interest
in UFOlogy) a few months ago. Status - currently awaiting
responses! Apparently the process takes time, especially on a
limited budget... Checking out whether the Ramey Memo can be
deciphered is a worthwhile project, it is one of the unanswered
questions in the Roswell arena that needs addressing properly, I
am encouraged others have thought of engaging in it, though for
my two-penneth's I am of the opinion this requires the input of
qualified experts outside of ufology before anything useful
(either way) can be learned. Whether this will happen is
questionable.

Despite confusing posts, problems and ignorance associated with
such analysis is demonstrable on list -- reassuringly this is
how some 'cryptanalysts' earn a crust and the tools and
resources at their disposal (especially government employed
chaps) are fantastic, beyond what most can really imagine even
in some high-tech quarters of academia. (Though I don't intend
this mail to show a naive advocator of anything or everything
government-wise).

 From an American perspective we are talking about guys who can
decipher a range of blurry texts from long range photography,
even in some cases from spyplane aerial reconnaissance. To
emphasise an important fact, this type of cryptanalysis is
worked from technique, application and pure brain power, there
are many limitations and this is no small task An area of
cryptology called cryptoeidography (which Bruce Macabee may be
familiar with?) is a good analogy for this problem.

Cryptoeidography is very effective in rendering either pictures
or text on an image secret, one employs cifax which modifies
electrical patterns to distort an image while the latter
involves actual optical alterations to it. I am not suggesting
either has been done in the case of the Ramey Memo, but in
reference to the latter, an expert can confirm the second form
of altering optical images can be very effective in disguising
content. Here is the kicker, there are natural counterparts to
this type of optical concealment which sometimes crop up in
photographic images that possess text or similar patterns. This
is a major factor and consideration for the prescribed
undertaking.

If anyone can make head-way with an enquiry like this though,
it is in a specialised area of cryptanalysis, which should
also be capable of pointing out any limitations. Be warned,
this process is not cheap, unless you know someone in the
trade (which is mostly doubtful given the nature of the work)
or unless you can find someone qualified and willing to do it
for free? A scholar in Ohio River Valley named Fred. B.
Wrixon, may be able to indicate a suitable candidate or two,
if he can be contacted?

David Rudiak makes a very valid point with his post about
possible word combinations on the Ramey Memo, which could be
borne out to some extent with grammatical, orthographic and
other analyses done by cryptanalysts, if a workable sample of
the Ramey Memo could be used? I would add one thing to David's
initial assessment from a humble but slightly informed
perspective - there may be other possibilities for applicable
words and meaning; and the scope of this work may be a bit
larger too.

Suggestion of a simple 'scientific' method for Ramey Memo
analysis to substantiate or refute David Rudiak's assessment may
go something like this:

Encourage the participation of at least two independent
cryptanalysts and ask them to:

1. Obtain clearest photographic representations of Ramey Memo.

2. Allow a photographic expert (linked with cryptanalysis) to
enlarge, enhance and manipulate the images in a number of useful
ways to obtain workable sample/s.

3. Submit samples to any feasible analyses

4. Publish all conclusions and peer review.

It may be a brilliant coup to see if this can be followed up
State Side! Would the Sci Fi channel go for a follow up on this
aspect, perhaps they could fund it?


Best Regards

Gary Anthony








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:04:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Bowden


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:22:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 ><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

 >Good Morning, All -

 >>Of these people, who would be likely to have
 >summarily labeled
 >>the MJ-12 documents as a fraud?


 >I would certainly be one of those, had I been
 >asked...

 >>I invite that person(s) to take responsibility for it, and to
 >>present a legitimate reason for such an underhanded subterfuge.

 >Underhanded subterfuge? Aren't we a little over the top here? I
 >think an objective look at the evidence for MJ-12 will yield
 >some interesting comments... one of which is simply: What is the
 >provenance of any of those documents?

Yes, thanks for the reply. I just received more information
about those documents from another source. I was unaware of any
published information arguing clearly against the authenticity
of these documents.

When I read Stan Friedman's book on the subject, it seemed he
made a case for them probably being authentic while reserving
some doubt. It seems he would have liked to have a little
provenance, if it could have been found. I must have been out of
the loop during any follow-up debate on them.

In a program like the SciFi show, it seems that it is not really
right to start labelling this or that case as a hoax unless
there is at least discussion of the arguments. The case of the
photos Bob Guccione bought was described in summary, but the
MJ- 12 documents were dismissed out-of-hand with no discussion.
I realize you did not write the script, but this sort of thing
bothers me.

Once again, thank you for clarifying things for me.


Tom Bowden






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:07:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Bowden


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:57:28 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:36:54 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:02:32 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser

 >>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>>>Subject: Re: Roswell Hhad Victims?

<snip>

 >However, from the perspective of attempting to reach beyond the
 >UFO genre and gain some sort of respect for our work I believe
 >that using UFO researchers to analyze the Ramey Memo is the
 >wrong approach.

 >If independent analysts fail to come up with the same basic
 >interpretations that we have, then that needs to be addressed.

 >It may be that two groups of independant examiners would come up
 >with the same interpretation, which would lend tremendous
 >support.


I absolutely agree. This is the proper way to go. It might be
necessary, though, for the researcher to at least have some
knowledge of the context of the document to be able to get a
foothold on the selection of words and phrases from the lexicon.
Just knowing that the note is allegedly a military telex would
probably be enough.

Tom B.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:52:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:10:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:13:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

Bob:

 >I don't think this sort of statistical treatment would lend
 >itself, though, to a solution of this sighting. The Hills said
 >the two "stars" (one of which was the UFO) were below the Moon,
 >which was only about 14 deg high. Jupiter, the brightest planet,
 >was only about two degrees (four Moon widths) from the Moon.
 >Saturn was a couple degrees further. These and the Moon were the
 >brightest astronomical objects in the sky. Jupiter was more than
 >100 times brighter than the nearest dimmer star. They all
 >occupied an area smaller than your outstretched hand at arm's
 >length and just above the horizon.

 >The real problem was the 75% illuminated Moon, which would have
 >made visual observation of the brightest nearby 3rd and 4th
 >magnitude stars impossible. There would have been no otherstars
 >to see.

The problem is, unless you know the exact positions of the
objects in the original report, or you have a priori set limits
to the errors you'll accept in the measurements of those
positions, any pattern-matching you do is inevitably arbitrary
and post-hoc.  You simply can't quantify the possibility that
the match may have ocurred entirely by chance.

In fact, the brightness of Jupiter only adds in another problem
for the "Jupiter" explanation.  According to the description in
"The Interupted Journey", Betty Hill at first saw a star or
planet close to the Moon, and later on noticed another object
above the star.

One of the features of the image segmentation process I
described before, is that the objects which "pop out" of the
visual display are those which are most dissimilar to the
background.   In this case, that obviously means the biggest and
brightest objects.  So the two pop-out objects should have been
the Moon and Jupiter, and not the Moon and Saturn as the
"Jupiter" hypothesis would require.

Of course, one can't be sure of this - Jupiter might have been
obscured behind a cloud, or a tree, or the rear-view mirror, or
anything, during the first observation - but given the
configuration you describe, with Jupiter effectively in the
center of the alignment and Saturn at the edge, that actually
seems extremely unlikely.

But the real point I want to make is that there's no need to get
involved in an increasingly myopic cycle of interpretation and
reinterpretation of the initial sighting.  The "Jupiter"
hypothesis can readily be tested against the subsequent
evolution of the sighting.  All we need to do is ask whether the
subsequent events are consistent with an observation of Jupiter,
given what we know of the human visual system.  And the answer,
of course, is no, so the "Jupiter" hypothesis is effectively
falsified.

Of course, you could still argue that the complete sighting was
an observation of Jupiter plus something else, but you would
obviously have to say what that something else was, and I don't
think the science of visual perception can help you there.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                 Re: More British Columbia Sightings - Vike

From: Brian Vike - HBCC UFO <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:20:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:13:03 -0500
Subject: Re: More British Columbia Sightings - Vike


Terrace, British Columbia

Date: Novemeber 23, 2002
Time: 5:15 p.m.

I had a telephone call from two separate witnesses who live in
the Terrace, B.C. area explaining that they just had witnessed
some strange lights over Thron Hill Mountain in Terrace, B.C.
 From Terrace you would be looking east towards Thron Hill
Mountain. (HBCC UFO Note: There were actually 5 people who
watched the lights in total, but I only have talked with the two
who called me on this matter).

The weather condition at the time of the sighting was good,
clear but rather windy. Also in the area where the lights were
noticed there are some large towers close by.

One of the witnesses said the object, or bright light was
approx: double the size of the planet Venus. White in color. All
of the witnesses watched the light for approx: 10 to 15 seconds
until it grew smaller in size and disappeared. (HBCC UFO Note: I
found this rather strange, all of the witnesses mentioned in all
the clear sky there was a large cloud which hung over the
mountain where the lights were spotted. Seeing if was so stormy
(windy) the witnesses all found it weird that the cloud stayed
in it's position and did not move until all the lights were
gone. BTW - In this report I have only mentioned one light, but
it was approx: 15 minutes later after the one light left, two
lights showed up).

Approx: 15 minutes later the witnesses claimed to see two balls
of white light over the same area where the single liught was
sitting, it watched this for a few seconds before the lights
blinked out.

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

Prince Rupert, British Columbia

Date: June 20, 2002
Time: After midnight ?

The witness I chatted with, and a friend watched bright a bright light shot
across the sky at a fairly high altitude. What they both found strange
about the sighting, or light was that it zig-zagged back and worth as it
crossed the sky. As they watched the first object disappear, three more
bright (objects) lights were seen to the north. One of the lights shot
straight up and a few seconds later a the second seemed to follow the
first, by shooting straight up and gone. The third light was stationary,
but grew brighter then followed the first and second light which flew
straight up and out of sight.

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


Bella Bella, British Columbia

July 2002
Time: ???

Another short description of a sighting which took place in this
community. HBCC UFO was told not much on this event which was
through a third party. A worker witnessed on two consecitive
nights the same object flying (around) through the skies at
where he was working, the camp worker brought his camera in
hopes to catch a photo of the object, but nothing ever showed up
again. From what I gather the object was very bright and flying
at a low atitude.

(HBCC UFO - As I mentioned, not much on this report).

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

Not a new sighting below:

Ontario, Canada

Date: 2000
Time: not given

A witness gave me a short description of a strange sighting he
and a few other folks had a couple years back while having a
party at a lake in northern Ontario. The witness told me that an
object was observed dropping down from the night sky and
straight into the lake. He explained that all of them were
amazed at what they just saw. The next morning, "early" all of
the witnessed said they noticed military helicopters flying over
and around the area. The fellow I talked with was surprised to
see nothing in any newspaper about what they all witnessed.

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

Kitwanga, British Columbia

Date: 2002

HBCC UFO Note: - Also gang, I received a call from another lady
from terrace, British Columbia over a sighting in Kitwanga.
"But" the lady would not give me the report over the telephone,
so it looks like I will have to wait until I get up to the
Terrace area again. She also said this sighting ties into a
sighting which took place in the Kitwanga area this year. So I
guess we will have to wait for a while to see what this is
about.

----------
Brian Vike   (Yogi)
Independent UFO Field
Investigator/Researcher

HBCC UFO Research
         &
Canadian Communicator







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:13:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:13:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Rudiak


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:02:32 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Kaeser


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >Subject:

 >>The only one of these matches that makes any possible sense in
 >>the context of a military telegram and Roswell is the word
 >>"VICTIMS". That is, unless you want to believe that Ramey was
 >>somehow dealing with a crisis in the capital of Lithuania
 >>(VILNIUS), or was dealing with something involving glass-making
 >>(VITRICS), or was involved somehow with the bacteria that causes
 >>cholera (VIBRIOS), or something lining the guts (VILLI'S), or
 >>maybe music (VIOLINS), or sex (VIRGINS). [VILLI'S is also the
 >>wrong part of speech given the grammatical context.]

 >>The point of this illustration is that the possible choices for
 >>a word are not infinite and interpreting this message isn't an
 >>exercise equivalent to "seeing faces in the clouds." Use of
 >>various forms of context weeds out a vast majority of possible
 >>word matches in most cases.

Allow me re-emphasize this, because the point doesn't seem to
get getting through. People might come up with all sorts of
interpretations. But which interpretation(s) make(s) sense
given various forms of context?

That's a _huge_ point that is being repeatedly overlooked.
  ***Not all interpretations are equally viable.*** Some are
grammatically incorrect. Some are syntactically incorrect
(wrong part of speech, wrong word order). Some have the wrong
letter count. Some make no sense in the context of surrounding
words or in the context of the entire message itself or in the
historical context.

Context of various types can be used to disambiguate the message
and decide between interpretations. Unlike cloud formations,
this _isn't_ a random collection of letters or words that can be
anything. There are constraints that limit the choices. This is
an actual message written in English, not Polish or Hungarian.
It has a known character set. The letters have equal spacing
(thus allowing accurate letter counts for most words). It
follows rules of English grammar, syntax, and spelling. It is a
military telegram and concerns Roswell. We know it concerns
Roswell because 1) it contains the words "WEATHER BALLOONS",
which _everybody_ agrees are there, and 2) it is being held in
the hand of Gen. Roger Ramey, who at the very moment the photo
was taken was having his picture taken with a weather balloon to
explain what was found at Roswell.

And ultimately the message must make sense and read something
like fluent English instead of being disconnected gibberish.

 >Let me start out by stating that many of us appreciate your hard
 >work in this arena. It takes a certain kind of person to get
 >involved in this and make themselves a target for criticism from
 >all directions, and IMO you've raised important issues that need
 >to be addressed (or at least taken into account).

 >That being said, I believe that many of the letter
 >interpretations of the Ramey Memo are, indeed, like "seeing
 >faces in the clouds", and as long as UFO researchers perform the
 >interpretation there will be criticism of the effort.

Steve, I think people should use their own two eyes and make
their own judgments. As I have previously discussed, the two
really critical phrases in Ramey's memo with the crucial words
"victims" and "disc" right out in the open, can be seen in my
graphic at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

Another graphic of the word "victims", just revised, with brand
new scans from the negative funded by the Roswell International
UFO Museum, can be seen at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Victim_compare.html

This compares "VICTIMS" to two other proposed readings of
"REMAINS" and "FINDING". I don't see how either "remains" or
"finding" fits what is actually there. Honestly, does the first
letter look anything like an "R" or an "F"?

I showed virtually the same graphic at Lou Farrish's Ozark UFO
conference last Spring and said that some people have proposed
"remains" or "finding" and see the first letter as either an "R"
or an "F". To my surprise, people shouted back from the
audience, "No way!" People were voting with their eyeballs
instead of listening to chestnuts like "it's all faces in the
clouds."

Again, just because people propose different interpretations
doesn't make them all equally viable.

I have also used actual teletype font of that period to compare
interpretations with the scans. As far as I know, I am the only
person to have done this. This is really important in doing any
comparison between interpretations and actual images.

E.g., the newer high-res negative scans have really helped bring
out the outlines of the letters, even, in some cases, showing
the seriff outlines at the tips of the letters. You can make out
some of these subtle letter flourishes in both the "V" and the
"M" of "VICTIMS". Where are the comparable seriff matches for
the proposed "R", "F", or "N" in "REMAINS" or "FINDING"?

The new scans also make the outline of the central dip in the
"M" of "VICTIMS" more evident and further distinguish it from
the alternate "N".

Another constraint I applied in analyzing the word was equal
letter spacing. This tells us where the center of a letter
should show up. Letters like "F" and "R" at the beginning of
the word again fail because the downstroke would lie to the left
of where the center of the real letter lies. Same with "E" vs.
"I" in the second letter position. The downstroke of the "I" is
exactly where one expects to find it.

Once again, just because people propose different
interpretations doesn't make them all equally viable.

POINT: This word is "VICTIMS", not "FINDING" or "REMAINS" or
"VIRGINS" or "VIOLINS", etc., etc. In fact, it's the _only_
possible word match in the English language, not only in terms
of best matching the letters in the image but also in terms of
semantics and historical context. Systematically applied
constraints plus context weed the universe of possible words
down to only one in the end.

If there were "victims", then that alone conclusively rules out
a Mogul balloon crash as an explanation. People can squabble
over every single other word if they want. There were still
"victims" of the Roswell crash.

I find as I monitor criticism of the Ramey "smoking gun", that
most critics don't even bother to look at the images or maybe
just glance at them. Instead I hear these annoying flippant
dismissals of "faces in the clouds." They're like the clerics
who wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope.

Example in point: About 18 months ago, I received an e-mail from
a rather well known UFO debunker whom I won't identify to spare
him the embarrassment. (To hell with that-- it was Philip
Klass.)

Uncle Phil wrote words to the effect that maybe the message
really read that there were "NO victims of the wreck" instead of
"THE victims of the wreck."

There was a very simple way to settle that debate. I pointed out
that if he actually bothered to look at the image, the word
before "victims" was 3 letters long, not 2. Furthermore, it
looked an awful lot like the word "THE". In other words, Uncle
Phil was trying to make an argument without even properly
looking at the actual evidence.

So POINT 2: Skeptics of the Ramey memo, try looking through the
damn telescope first!

 >A number of people have suggested a more independent (and
 >hopefully scientific) approach to interpretation, with this
 >effort performed by individuals not connected to the genre in
 >any way. I believe that Kevin has outlined one good
 >investigation scenario, and I know this has been the subject of
 >discussion by the FUND and CUFOS.

If I understand these proposals correctly for a more
"scientific" approach, they basically amount to placing people
who know nothing and giving them no context at all in which to
interpret what's there. Removing all knowledge and context
supposedly makes for a more "objective" reading. Unfortunately,
it's also an absurd approach to the task that no intelligence
agency, e.g., would use for a similar task.

The brain interprets _everything_ in terms of context. Context
is everything. Perceptual psychologists have probably known
that for over 100 years. Doesn't matter what the perceptual
task is. Raw sensory data is often highly ambiguous, and the
brain has to rely on various avenues of context working
together, plus accumulated knowledge of the world, to
disambiguate the possibilities.

To give but one example amongst millions, if somebody says,
"You're such a genius!", it means one thing if said by an
admirer and just the opposite if said dripping in sarcasm by an
enemy. Same words, but the inflection in the voice, or
surrounding words, or past history -- i.e the context -- changes
everything.

Here's a better example, a classic in perceptual psychology
books, more in fitting to the discussion of what's in the Ramey
memo:

   12
A 13 C
   14

Now what's the "correct" or "better" interpretation of what's in
the middle? It's ambiguous, isn't it? If one reads straight
across, the context would suggest a broken alphabetic letter
"B". But read vertically, people will more likely see a
numerical context and read it as the number "13".

(Also check out my Web site, where I have a page devoted to
interpretation of broken, partially obliterated words based on
context, similar to what one might encounter in reading the
Ramey memo: http://www.roswellproof.com/Word_completion.html )

So does this mean that this is nothing but "seeing faces in the
clouds" because different contexts can produce different
results? No, not at all. What it means is that you need to
supply correct context, not eliminate it, to come up with a
"best" answer.

Is it any surprise that in Kevin Randle's study that if you
mislead two-thirds of your experimental subjects or tell them
nothing about the proper context of the message that people will
come up with many different readings? Tell some subjects that
it's about a rock concert instead of a military message about
Roswell and what's the big surprise if people come up with
different interpretations for the words, especially since the
average time spent per subjects was a meager 12 minutes for the
rock group and 20 minutes for the Roswell group?

How many people could solve the N.Y. Times crossword, with its
many ambiguous clues, in 12 - 20 minutes? What do you think the
results would be if you also misled a bunch of them with the
theme of the crossword. Is every person doing the crossword
equally adept with the English language or understanding the
clues or experienced in doing crosswords? Do you think, under
these experimental circumstances, that an absence of agreement
on many of the words they do fill in would be surprising? Should
one then draw the conclusion that the absence of agreement means
that doing the N.Y. Times crossword is nothing but seeing "faces
in the clouds" and a solution to the crossword is not feasible?

Allow me to cite one more example to illustrate a far more
sensible approach. It also illustrates just how vital it is to
make use of context and knowledge of the situation instead of
trying to eliminate both to supposedly be more "scientific" and
"objective" about it.

Suppose instead of a written message, this had been an auditory
one. Suppose electronic intelligence had intercepted a cell-
  phone message. However, the reception of the conversation is
extremely poor. There is a lot of static and the signal keeps
fading in and out. Understanding this message is a very similar
perceptual task to reading the printed Ramey message, with a lot
of film grain noise, where some of the message is hidden from
view by obstacles, such as Ramey's thumb or paper folds, and
where some letters aren't particular clear because of photo
defects, uneven emulsion development, etc.

Let's say further that a voice on the phone is clearly
identifiable as being from a known terrorist. This is analogous
to knowing that Ramey is holding the message in his hand and is
likely either the sender or the recipient.

In the case of the Ramey memo, this immediately provides
additional context to the message. It tells us that it is a
military message and probably a communication either up or down
in the chain of command. Maybe Ramey is contacting the Pentagon
or vice versa, or maybe Ramey is contacting or being contacted
by one of his subcommands.

Similarly, knowing the associates of the terrorist and his
position in the chain of command might suggest who was the
person on the other end of the line.  If this terrorist was one
step below the top of the people running the terrorist network,
then maybe the other person was Bin Laden himself.

Furthermore, let's say in the intercepted terrorist message that
the words "plane" and "United Nations" come through clearly.
That might very well suggest further context that they were
planning another hijacking and attack. Analogously, the words
"weather balloons" come through very clearly in the Ramey
message. This immediately indicates the context is Roswell and
this might suggest the communication was either to or from
Roswell base about the "flying disk" and the base press release
or to or from the Pentagon about the same matter. Now put that
context together with a clear "VA" at the the beginning of a
word in the address header and I think a strong case can
immediately be made that the message was directed to acting
chief of staff VAndenberg.

Now how do you think our intelligence agencies would tackle the
problem of the noisy terrorist phone message? Would they turn
the interpretation over to three different intelligence
divisions that know little or nothing about linguistics or the
terrorists networks, maybe the janitors in the building? Would
they deliberately mislead one group about who the message was
from, telling them perhaps it was from a man talking to his
travel agent. That group might very well surmise, absent the
proper context, that maybe the man was an average schnook
booking a flight to New York to visit the United Nations, since
the words "plane" and "United Nations" were easy to hear.

Would they tell a second group nothing, and only the third would
be given the information that the message involved a known
terrorist?  Obviously the latter group might reach a very
different conclusion about the overall contents of he message,
namely maybe another plane hijacking and terrorist attack was
being planned on New York with the U.N. as a target. Of course
for them to arrive at that conclusion, it would help if the
group also knows about 9/11 and previous terrorist methodology
of hijacking planes and flying into buildings.

POINT: It doesn't make much sense to use a bunch of know-
  nothings just so their reading of the message will be more
"objective."

Do you think further that if these groups spent no more than 12
to 20 minutes listening to this very noisy phone conversation
that this would be sufficient for any of them to reach a
reliable interpretation? If the three groups came up with many
differences for the words in this limited time with their
limited knowledge and with two-thirds of them in the dark about
what they were supposed to be interpreting, does this really
prove anything?

What this does illustrate is that if you design a poor protocol
in the name of "objectivity" you aren't going to get anywhere.
As I said before, no intelligence agency in their right mind
would tackle the problem this way. The point is to read the
message, or at least get a reasonable gist of what it is saying.
They would turn the message over to their best linguists, signal
analysts, and people with the most knowledge of the terrorists.
They wouldn't hide anything from them such as the identity of
the terrorist or the date and whereabouts of the phone
conversation.  They wouldn't arbitrarily eliminate experts who
might be biased one way or another in some hopeless quest for
"objectivity."

These experts would apply all the knowledge they have acquired
about the terrorists, linguistics, etc., i.e. context, which I
repeat, is absolutely _essential_ in a situation like this. You
aren't going to get very far without it

Now I'm not saying that there aren't other things that might be
done with the memo that might not render some aspects of reading
it more "objective." For an audio message, data analysis experts
could apply certain filters to try to reduce the background
noise and render the voice signal easier to hear. They could
have a computer compare one voice spectrum against a library of
spectrums on known terrorists to identify the other speaker,
etc.

In the case of the Ramey memo, I did simple objective things
such count the number of letters in the words. Thus when one
group tries to squeeze the nine-letter word "MAGDALENA" into an
8-character space, I can very objectively say that their
interpretation is wrong. Or if the same group reads a phrase as
"POWERS ARE NEEDED", but when I count the letters and find only
two for the second "word", I know that this interpretation
cannot be correct. (I am assuming here no misspellings in the
message, which is something I held my own feet to the fire in my
own interpretation. Methological constraints like this, even if
not totally correct, are important in preventing things from
becoming "anything goes" or "faces in the clouds." Did other
groups or individuals apply equal rigor in their analysis?)

REPEAT POINT: Not all interpretations are equally viable.

Right now I'm looking into perhaps having the computer do an
autocorrelation between the teletype font and selected sections
of the memo. This would (in principle) give probabilities for
different letters at a given position. It is certainly more
"objective" in that the computer is completely naive about
Roswell and certainly has no axe to grind. But it won't
necessarily add that much to the reading of the memo.

E.g., I have no doubt that such an exercise will demonstrate
that the beginning letter of the "VICTIMS" word is much more
probably a "V" than the "R" of "REMAINS" or the "F" of
"FINDING." But anybody looking at the word can see that
already, just like the audience at Lou Farrish's UFO conference.
  The human brain is still far and away the best known visual
pattern recognizer. The best computer programs still don't come
remotely close.

Further, humans still have to step into the loop and render a
final verdict no matter what you do. Let's say, for example,
that an objective statistical computer analysis for the word
shows that "VIOLINS" is the best match for the word and a
slightly better match than "VICTIMS". Do you just blindly go
with the computer's most probable result of VIOLINS or do you
apply a little common sense, i.e., real world logic that the
computer can't do? What are "VIOLINS" doing along with "WEATHER
BALLOONS" in a message being held by Gen. Ramey while he is
trying to kill the flying disk story by showing a weather
balloon in his office? Nothing that I can think of, can you?

Ultimately one would have to throw out "violins" as making no
sense in context. There's that dirty word context again. Anybody
who thinks there is a purely "objective" approach to reading
this message is just deluding themselves. Ultimately human
judgment will always enter into it and the application of
context is a vital component of such judgment.

 >Whether this will take place in the near future is still up in
 >the air, with funding needed to pursue this effort.

In the meantime, everybody reading this can do their peer review
by going to my Website and looking at key words and phrases with
their own eyes.  You don't have to wait for any funding to do
it, and you can make up your own mind.


David "Not just seeing faces in the clouds" Rudiak

www.roswellproof.com


SHAMELESS PLEA FOR FUNDS: Speaking of funding, the heavy traffic
on my Web site after the SciFi special is severely taxing it and
it may blow up like a Roswell saucer in the next few days when
allotted bandwidth for the month runs out. I have had to
temporarily remove links to some of my higher resolution images,
such as a scan of the Ramey message, in order to delay the
seeming inevitable. Purchasing additional bandwidth for the year
goes at $40/gigabyte, and I might very well need another 20 or
30 Gbytes/month (maybe more). That adds up to a fair amount of
moolah.

You can give this poor Website a better life by contributing a
few dollars at my donation page so that little Roswellproof can
afford some more bandwidth.  Donations can be as little as $1
and are paid through PayPal.

http://www.roswellproof.com/donations.html

Thank you, and thank you to a contributor to this List who has
already generously donated some money.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                   SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:00:17 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:41:22 -0500
Subject: SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings



November 25, 2002

SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings

Roswell Documentary Becomes Highest-Rated Original Special in
SCI FI Channel History

On Friday, November 22, in anticipation of its upcoming epic 10-
night miniseries, Steven Spielberg Presents TAKEN, SCI FI hosted
a night of original documentary specials aimed at unearthing the
truth behind UFOs, government conspiracies and alien abduction.
  In the process, the Channel uncovered a ratings winner. SCI FI
was the #1 adult-targeted cable network from 8-11 PM with a
1.7/1,342,000 HHs*.

Intrigued by SCI FI's smoking gun shocker, an average of
2,365,000 viewers** tuned in for The Roswell Crash:  Startling
New Evidence, hosted by Bryant Gumbel.  The documentary,
chronicling the Channel's landmark scientific excavation of the
1947 crash site in Roswell, New Mexico garnered a 2.0 rating
(1,560,000 HHs)*** - making it the highest-rated original
special in SCI FI Channel history. The Roswell Crash surpassed
the previous record-holder, the one-hour special Curse of the
Blair Witch (1.8 / 1,032,000 HHs 7/12/99), by over half a
million HHs.

Following The Roswell Crash, the 10 PM documentary Abduction
Diaries earned a strong 1.1 (901,000 HHs)****, with the overall
primetime block earning a 1.7 (1,340,000 HHs)* - tying with the
SCI FI original movie Sabretooth for the highest-rated night
this November.

TAKEN, the SCI FI Channel's ambitious science fiction adventure
that weaves together over 50 years of alien abductions into the
compelling story of three families' experiences, premieres
Monday, December 2, 2002 @ 9pm ET/PT.

SCI FI Channel transmits fantastic images to 80 million human
homes. Launched in 1992, SCI FI features a continuous stream of
cinematic hits, new and original series, and special events, as
well as classic sci-fi, fantasy, and horror programming. Check
out SCIFI.COM=AE, the SCI FI Channel's award-winning Web site, at
www.scifi.com.  SCI FI Channel is a program service of Universal
Television Group (www.universalstudios.com), a division of
Vivendi UNIVERSAL Entertainment (VUE), the U.S.-based film,
television and recreation entity of Vivendi Universal, a global
media and communications company.

###

Contact:        Karen Clifton
(212) 413-5895
kclifton@usacable.net

*source: NMR/Galaxy, Friday 11/22/02, 8-11PM coverage area time period=
 rating
**source: NMR/Galaxy, Friday 11/22/02, 8-11PM, average coverage area time
period HH rating/delivery
***source: *Nielsen Media Research/Galaxy Explorer, Friday 11/22/02, 8-10PM=

coverage area rating
****sourcee: NMR/Galaxy, Friday 11/22/02, 10-11PM coverage area rating






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:25:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:28:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:22:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

 >Good Morning, All -

 >>Of these people, who would be likely to have summarily labeled
 >>the MJ-12 documents as a fraud?

 >I would certainly be one of those, had I been asked...

 >>I invite that person(s) to take responsibility for it, and to
 >>present a legitimate reason for such an underhanded subterfuge.

 >Underhanded subterfuge? Aren't we a little over the top here? I
 >think an objective look at the evidence for MJ-12 will yield
 >some interesting comments... one of which is simply: What is the
 >provenance of any of those documents?

Hi Tom, Kevin, List

The concept of a secretive, highly classified organization is
very real. That being said I disagree about the authenticity of
the MJ-12 documents, not necessary what they contain, but
because of one of the principles who brought them to light, i.e.
Bill Moore, who later claimed to be part of a government
disinformation plot against UFO researchers, blah blah blah.

As I recall the Eisenhower Briefing document claims 4 ETs. With
the current Roswell telling on Sci-Fi we now have 5 ETs. If this
is correct, this discredits both the EBD account and the Corso
account of 7 dead aliens.....


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                      Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:57:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:30:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hebert


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:58:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 8:57:44 -0500

<snip>

Please excuse me for jumping in, Gentlemen, but I can only
participate in discussions when I have the time and it's my turn
on the computer - teenage kids out of school for the holidays.
(yeeha)

 >That last is an important question, because - as I also said in
 >my previous reply - several psychological studies of abductees
 >have been published. All of them showed that the abductees
 >studied had no significant psychopathology. That is, they
 >weren't mentally or emotionally disturbed.

There have been many psychological studies both for and against
the psychopathology of claimed abductees over the years.
However, there are no psychological studies that can first
_prove_ each person who claims to be an abductee is, indeed, an
abductee. Therefore, until tests/surveys/studies that can
definitively sort genuine abductees from non-abductees are
designed and applied, any study in reference to abductees based
only on a sample of individuals who 'claim' to have been
abducted must be considered valid only in reference to
individuals who claim to have been abducted and not applicable
to the abductee population as a whole (according to the
definition of "abductee" used in the study/test/survey). This is
why I refer to any individual claiming to be an abductee as a
"claimed abductee". Until claims can be validated, I leave the
door open to further evidence.

Furthermore, results, conclusions, statistics derived from any
study/test/survey are only valid in reference to the sample
population included in the study/test/survey. Since there is yet
no scientific method for separating the genuine abductees from
those who claim to have been abducted but where not abducted,
all studies/tests/surveys past and present must be considered as
based on a probable mix of both abductees and non-abductees.
This means we only have information about the incidence of
psychopathology among individuals who _claim_ to have been
abducted.

In addition, the absence of significant psychopathology does not
mean the individual does not suffer from other, less severe,
forms of psychopathology. A large portion of the human
population suffers from some form of chronic or acute
psychological distress. It is quite common for an individual who
seems to be "normal" to suffer from minor forms of mental
illness. Again, any study/test/survey is only valid for the
symptoms referenced and cannot be generalized to all forms of
psychopathology. This works both in favor and against studies
about claimed abductees.

And although psychological tests/surveys are designed to prevent
subjects from creating a false profile, they are not infallible.
There are many sane criminals in mental institutions who knew
just what to do and say to convince examiners they were not
responsible for their actions due to mental incompetence (and
many insane criminals on the streets who used the reverse
psychology). Depending on the test/survey administered, many
individuals of average intelligence are quite capable of
redirecting the results. For example, if you know the
test/survey measures fantasy prone characteristics, you might
alter your answers to reflect a disposition towards or against
fabricated realities, depending on your motives.

Psychological profiles of claimed abductees neither prove nor
disprove their claims of having been abducted. Results of
studies/tests/surveys of claimed abductees are only as valid as
the qualifications and _objectivity_ of the examiners,
therapists and/or researchers who administer and/or interpret
the results. Results, conclusions, statistics derived from
studies of claimed abductees can only be generalized to the same
population of individuals who claim to have been abducted but
not necessarily those who have experienced genuine abduction
phenomena. Therefore, we know a little about the personality
profiles of individuals who claim to have been abducted but even
less about the personality profiles of genuine abductees.

 >Kevin Randle, I should add, reports otherwise in his abduction
 >book, but the data he and his collaborators report is, at this
 >point, fairly informal. It's not fully quantified, and the
 >research methods aren't clearly stated. I have to regard the
 >results as provisional, until they're put on the same scientific
 >basis as the results of the published papers I've mentioned.

Greg, if the studies/published papers you reference had no
scientific method of validating claims of abduction, then the
results were based on a population sample of claimed abductees
and valid only in reference to the same or similar population.
Same for the data in Mr. Randle's book. As far as I can tell, we
are not talking about genuine abductees but only individuals who
claim to have been abducted - not necessarily the same thing.

 >Plus, as Dick Hall pointed out, many therapists have worked with
 >abductees. Really a large number. Some abduction researchers,
 >moreover, _are_ therapists. And so are some abductees. I
 >personally know one abductee who's a therapist, and three non-
 >abductee therapists who've worked with abductees. One of these
 >three is a recently minted MSW, though a very smart, grounded
 >guy; the other two are senior professionals. It's worth noting,
 >too, that there's a therapist in Washington, DC - Dick, help me
 >here - who works with abductees. He's not an abduction
 >researcher, and I don't know what he believes about the
 >abduction phenomenon. What he does, as I've read, is help
 >abductees in a non-judgmental way with whatever anxiety their
 >abduction memories may cause.

You're not gonna like this but I have yet to find a therapist,
licensed, certified or otherwise, who made any 'real' attempt to
distinguish a genuine abductee from someone who only claimed to
have been abducted but was not. The best any therapist,
investigator or researcher can discern, based on past and
current studies, is the _probability_ someone may or may not
have been abducted. I mean, let's face it, abduction evidence is
few and far between.

Any therapist who treats an individual according to their claims
and in the absence of substantial evidence supporting those
claims, is potentially doing more harm than good. If an
individual claiming to have been abducted but was never abducted
is treated as an abductee by the therapist, the therapy may only
reinforce the individual's delusions. This is much like treating
an individual who claims to be President Kennedy reincarnated as
if he/she actually were President Kennedy reincarnated (unless
there is substantial evidence supporting their claims of being
the reincarnated president). Any therapist worth his or her salt
would know better than to buy into the client's claims and treat
the client, instead, according to their goals for therapy (the
client's goals). Therapy is not research nor is it designed to
prove or disprove an individual's claims.

This is why I stopped providing free counseling for individuals
who claimed to have been abducted and became a researcher
instead. I felt I could not conduct objective research of a
phenomenon and at the same time provide ethical counseling to
those who claimed to have been abducted. Objective research and
ethical counseling do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. In order
to conduct research objectively, the researcher cannot allow
personal bias to interfere with the study. And in order to
provide an ethical basis for counseling, a therapist must also
suspend personal bias in his or her efforts to help an
individual to help themselves. Objectivity and unbiased
professionalism are standards repeatedly emphasized in
institutions that train graduates to become qualified therapists
and researchers. What happens in post graduate life may be
another story.

Greg, whether these therapists have an MSW, M.Ed. (like me), or
a Ph.D., does not make them automatic or qualified authorities
on abduction phenomena. Although I have been studying abduction
phenomena since 1992, I have found the phenomenon involved to be
more complex and more confusing than anything I have ever
imagined (now you know why I am not writing books and rushing
them into publication). I don't think any of us has even begun
to scratch the surface of abduction phenomena and until we do,
any studies, research or therapies can only be considered
preliminary and incomplete.

 >If a large number of abductees had mental problems, you'd think
 >these many therapists would - during more than 30 years of
 >abduction research - have detected them. So, Jan, when you say

 >>Quite
 >>honestly, I don't know how many people are like this woman, but my
 >>limited experience indicate that there are significant numbers like
 >>that not the majority, not a huge minority but still significant.

 >your experience really _is_ limited. You're joining a discussion
 >that's been going on for quite a while. If you think the
 >published studies aren't adequate, I'd be interested to know
 >why. Likewise, if you think the therapists who've work with
 >abductees aren't qualified, or have done a bad job, I'd be happy
 >to know your reasons.

Although I, too, am joining this discussion that has been going
on for a while, my experience with claimed abductees and
abduction phenomenon is not limited (whatever that means to
others). I investigated abduction claims for many years,
interviewed dozens of claimed abductees, co-facilitated various
abductee support groups and spent hours upon hours providing
counseling (free of charge) to individuals who claimed to have
been abducted. I knew Dr. Karla Turner (deceased, 1996) as a
good friend and associate, have read all of Dr. Jacobs and Mr.
Hopkins' books (and all the other books) about abduction
phenomena, have met many therapists at conferences, conventions,
lectures and discussed abduction phenomena with them including
those who published their own studies/books about abduction
phenomena.

I have a large file containing materials from my research of
abduction phenomena not to mention my own encounters with
unexplained phenomena I experienced while interviewing and
investigating claimed abuctees. I know there is something going
on with reference to abduction phenomena but it is too slippery
and far too complex to reach any conclusions at this point.
Although I have enough material for several books, I refuse to
publish anything until I have substantial evidence to back it up
and enough evidence to convince _me_ that I know what's going on
(or have a pretty good idea about what's going on).

Because I was trained in scientific methodology (and as a
therapist), I know what to look for in these studies that may
indicate adherence to proper protocol and accurate analyses or
the lack of. Name the study and I will tell you what I found
inadequate about it. Name the therapist/researcher and I will
give you my opinion. But this doesn't mean I know how to conduct
research or therapy better than anyone else. It only means I
recognize the need for improvement and the need for better, more
scientific studies in the future.

I'm not sure how everything fits together but I think abduction
phenomena, UFO phenomena and related phenomena are all part of a
much larger picture than anyone has yet imagined let alone
studied. I also think, based on my studies of CC&D (Camouflage,
Concealment and Deception), the status quo in reference to these
phenomena is being manipulated and maintained to keep us from
asking questions we need to be asking and seeking answers we
need to seek.

Why? Why has UFO and abduction research progressed only this far
in all these years? What is maintaining the status quo? Why has
there been so little progress and so few answers? Could we be
looking in the wrong direction? What are we not seeing?

(IMHO) We need to focus less on who or what may be abducting
people, less on what the abductors say or don't say, do or don't
do, less on information gleaned from claimed abductee encounters
and focus more on the forensics of these encounters. I'm not
saying we should ignore anything, just look beyond the obvious
and above all - be objective in our analyses.

If a researcher, investigator, or therapist _believes_ people
are being abducted, they are not conducting objective research
or analysis. If a researcher, investigator or therapist believes
aliens or the military are responsible for abducting people,
their studies and/or therapies are biased from the beginning and
will probably reach preconceived conclusions and results. In the
same vein, a researcher, investigator or therapist who believes
or concludes abductions are merely due to psychopathology or
sleep paralysis, they cannot conduct objective research or
therapy either.

First, if we are going to study abductees, we must _first_ find
a way to separate the genuine abductees from the non-abductees
or we go back to the status quo. And the only way I know to
discern a genuine abductee from the rest is to find sufficient
evidence to support the individual's claims of having been
abducted (remember, I am speaking as a researcher-investigator
NOT as a therapist). Since what constitutes evidence in
reference to abduction claims seems to vary from one person to
the next, this area needs to be defined and established
according to scientific consensus.

Second, if the abductors, the environments or other elements
involved are physical in any way at any time during an
abduction, we need to focus on obtaining physical evidence that
may be present before, during and after the encounter. The BLT
team has been conducting fascinating experiments but we need to
conduct more studies (using scientific protocol) in this
direction. If the abductors are physical at any time when they
enter the abductee's immediate environment, they may leave some
kinds of physical traces behind. We may not be finding these
traces because we are not looking for them.

If the abductee is physically abducted to an environment that contains
any kinds of physical elements, the abductee's body (internal and
external) may be collecting some of these elements (involuntarily) and
returning with them to their initial environment. This means the
abductee himself or herself may be collecting specimen from the scene
of the abduction (scene of the crime?) that the abductors are not aware
of nor able to prevent. The 'cocktail napkin' we seek may have been
right there under our noses all along...or in/on the abductee's nose,
clothes, hair, arm, leg, etc.

Third, since electronic and battery operated devices often fail to
operate during these types of encounters, we need to focus on devices
that depend on kinetic and other energies to collect evidence
before, during and after an abduction (it can be done).

Fourth, we must conduct more blind, double-blind, triple-blind,
etc. studies/experiments. Whoever or whatever the abductors are
(or are not?), they operate according to systems even we lowly
humans incorporate in our defense and intelligence strategies.
They appear to use stealth and deception tactics on all levels
of their operations from avoiding detection to implanting
confusing and conflicting information (disinformation?) among
their victims. Since we don't know who might be involved in the
overall abduction scenario, researchers and investigators need
to operate as if anyone could be involved and conduct
investigations and studies under the tightest security. Only
those conducting the investigation/study should know the true
design of the operation and should take steps to incorporate
various intelligence strategies of their own into the project
(time for a little payback?).

I'm sorry, my turn on the 'puter is over and I must go.

<snip>

 >I do understand that abductions are a slippery subject, and
that >even the best abduction researchers haven't always done
fully >scientific work. But there's a core of serious research
to draw >on, and some reasonably scientific papers on aspects of
 >abductions (some of them, to pick up something Dick touched on,
 >in the proceedings of the 1992 abduction conference at MIT).
 >There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath.

We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water but that
water has become murky and needs to be changed. Studies and
investigations conducted to date are the precursors of
tomorrow's research. We learn from past successes and mistakes
and move on. If we focus too closely on what we think we know,
we may not allow for new information floating just beyond our
awareness.

A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                Request USAF Secretary Undergo Polygraph Exam

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:56:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:48:47 -0500
Subject: Request USAF Secretary Undergo Polygraph Exam


== Request that the USAF Secretary Undergo a Polygraph Exam ==

TO: Hon. James G. Roche
Secretary of the Air Force
Headquarters, Department of the Air Force
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330

From: Larry W. Bryant

Date: November 25, 2002


For more than 50 years, a number of high USAF officials have
contributed to misleading the public about the true nature of
reported UFO encounters. Cases in point: former assistant
secretary of the Air Force R. E. Horner, back in the late
fifties, reiterated that no hard evidence of UFO reality was
being withheld from public view, that no UFO-sighting reports
were being marked "classified." And, on Jan. 20, 1959, a
legislative liaison chief named Maj. Gen. W. P. Fisher wrote
this retort to Va. Sen. Harry F. Byrd: "The allegation that the
Air Force is withholding vital UFO information has no merit
whatsoever." They both lied.

Thanks to various UFO-related records freed up via the U. S.
Freedom of Information Act, we now know that scores of UFO-
sighting reports originating from within the U. S. military
community once bore classifications of CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET
(and, doubtless, to this day -- even TOP SECRET). This official
stranglehold on UFOtruth not only diminishes public
participation in our government's decisionmaking process on such
a vital public issue; it also reveals the falsity of Horner's
arrogantly dismissive statement.

Decades later, in a cynical, transparent effort to maintain the
status quo typified by Horner's remark, the Air Force hierarchy
conspired to dismiss the Roswell (N.M.) UFO-crash-retrieval
incident of 1947 as a "mogul balloon" experiment gone awry.
Trouble is, that dismissal required the then USAF secretary to
admit that the original AF explanation for Roswell falsely had
been ascribed to a downed weather balloon. So this means that
somebody in the USAF chain-of-command had been lying all along
about Roswellian UFO reality.

Of course, any employee's lying in performance of official
government duty happens to be unacceptable behavior, calling
into question his suitability for acquiring/retaining a security
clearance. Besides raising serious questions of ethics, a lying
federal employee also endangers the good order and discipline
expected of a person entrusted with public service. (S)he
therefore must be held accountable for this form of misconduct.

We know that numerous federal agencies rely on the polygraph
exam to root out and separate employees unworthy of
receiving/retaining a security clearance. The exam's efficacy
for this purpose has stood the test of time.

Accordingly, in the interest of setting the record straight, of
assuring fair play for all key players in this politically
charged matter, and of restoring public confidence in USAF
policy/programs/activities, I hereby request that you, sir,
undergo, as soon as possible, an independently administered
polygraph examination -- to be expressly tailored to determining
your veracity in answering such questions as the following:

(1) Do you now possess, and have you ever possessed, verifiable
knowledge that the U.S.-military-retrieved Roswellian UFO
artifacts and technology originated from an extraterrestrial
source?

(2) Do you believe that all your predecessor AF secretaries were
telling the truth whenever they tried to convince the public
that so-called "flying saucers" (i.e., alien spacecraft visiting
Earth) have no basis in fact?

(3) Do you know the current physical location of the Roswellian
UFO artifacts consigned to the Air Force for intelligence
analysis and eventual R&D back-engineering (as explained by Army
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Philip J. Corso in his book "The Day After
Roswell")?

(4) Do you know the identity and whereabouts of any USAF
personnel who took part in the autopsies and forensic analysis
of the UFOnauts retrieved from the Roswell crash-landing?

(5) Do you possess knowlege, official or otherwise, that the
classified jet-interceptor "scramble" mission in July 2002 near
Waldorff, Md., determined that the pursued unidentified flying
object was an alien spacecraft?

(6) If your answer to question (5) is YES, are you willing to
share that knowledge completely and immediately with the public?

(7) To your knowledge, did the Waldorff interception succeed in
acquiring gun-camera photos of the pursued craft?

(8) Have you instructed any of your staff to refrain from
publicly discussing hard evidence of UFO reality?

(9) Do you know of any ongoing program within the federal
Executive Branch that focuses on collecting, analyzing, and
disseminating hard evidence that the Earth has been, and
continues to be, visited by alien spacecraft?

(10) Do you know of any cases of UFO-E.T. abduction occurring
within the Air Force community?

Please tell me the name and phone number of the administrative
point-of-contact within your office by which we can coordinate
the fulfillment of this request that you submit to the sought-
for polygraph exam.

LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

P.S.: I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of this
e-formatted letter.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

               Kinross Incident - Radar Witnesses & Testimony?

From: Gord Heath - UFO*BC <gwheath@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:37:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:51:50 -0500
Subject: Kinross Incident - Radar Witnesses & Testimony?


I am trying to locate radar observation information relating to
the disappearance of an F-89C fighter interceptor jet aircraft
over Lake Superior, on Nov. 23, 1953.

If anyone has any information as to who witnessed this incident
on radar or was on duty that evening at the 665th AC&W Squadron
at Calumet Michigan, I would be most appreciative of your
assistance.

Richard Hall recalls that there might already be some radar
observer documentation out there, so if anyone is aware of this,
I would be interested in hearing from you.


Gord Heath, UFO*BC
gwheath@shaw.ca
(604) 576-6400
42 - 14977 58th Ave.
Surrey, BC  V3S 8Y9








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                      Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Houran

From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:10:15 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:56:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Houran


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:13:55 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:49:45 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:10:35 -0800
 >>>Subject: Roswell Had Victims?

<snip>

I certrainly appreciate David's work, but my experimental work
with Kevin Randle that was recently published in the peer-
  reviewed, scientific journal, Journal of Scientific
Exploration, indeed demonstrated that the interpretation of the
"memo" follows predcitably from the context assumed by the one
trying to decipher the message.

We found that by changing the context, words also changed.

Interestingly, however, a few words did not change across
various experimentally-imposed contexts.

Therefore, it is clear that research on Ramey memo is not
conclusive and that improved research designs need to confirm
the findings of Rudiak and others before this document is cited
as evidence (pro or con) in the Roswell case.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                      Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:28:48 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:01:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret - Auchettl


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:28:24 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:13:16 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:07:43 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:12:58 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret


Hi Jan,

 >>A few in my 20 years of service as a Gunner Officer.

 >Well is it Flight Lt. or Lt. Col.? Your mates can't seem to
 >get it right.

Then they are not my mates. My mates know me very well.

This old web page may help you.

http://hometown.aol.com/praoz/zerror/ErrorMag.htm

                                ***
 >>>And John, you have, of course, done similar work, correct?

 >>Got it in one.

 >Several people I respect here say you have a good knowledge of
 >US military history and equipment in addition to extensive
 >knowledge of military aircraft.

 >Sorry, I can't say the same for your knowledge of the security
 >system.

Oh.... it's sound Jan, very sound. Still serves me well, even
today.

                                ***

 >So, looking at SOM 1-01 what is your opinion of the document. Is
 >it tactically sound? How about the discussing it from the
 >operations, intelligence and logistical points of view?

 >And from the historical point of view, I would like you comments
 >the document at the Woods' site, "The First Annual Report."

 >I do sincerely look forward to your comments and opinions.

With regard to your SOM 1-01 questions, my short replys are on
the RHS:

* Tactically sound?            = Non TAC.
* Operations points of view?   = Weak, lacks military rigor.
* Intelligence points of view? = Not sound.
* Logistical points of view?   = Very poor.


The copy we received is a digital copy (RE: Dr Wood), we don't
have any original material.

 From PRA's point of view, (and this is also my view) after some
analysis by our research group back in 2000, our examination of
the SOM 1-01 document produced 12 questions (errors).

The general concessus was that if this document is a 'DRAFT',
and we believe it to be that, then our questions (errors) could
not be ruled in or out and thus became neutral.

The key to this is the word 'DRAFT'.

Thus, using Dr Robert M. Wood, data & research, at present PRA
(and I) are happy to state that:

[1]. SOM 1-01 is authentic.

Then, if authentic who are the SOM 1-01 author(s)/producer(s)
for the want of a better word?

This was not easy to answer, and remains open to discussion.

 From PRA's point of view, (and this is also my view) the
author(s) are NOT a normal or standard Armed Services unit - Re:
Army, Navy or Air Force. It is most likely (on review) a Federal
Government Agency drawing staff, ideas, and data from the Armed
Services. It looks like a group effort, but SOM 1-01 does not
have the rigor or quality of a Armed Service (standard) manual.

So...

[2]. SOM 1-01 manual aim, purpose or character, is not like any known
Armed Service manuals aim, purpose or character.

And...

[3]. "Special" - yes, nothing normal about this product.

It looks wrong to me, but I have no evidence to defend this
position, so it's still a live & valid doc. Would I use the
document in my defence case? No I would not! But I can not rule
it in or out = neutral.

                                ***
I can only praise Bob and Ryan Wood efforts and analysis,
although some don't carry that view, I believe that their
analysis has rigor, and their hypothesis the best of the lot. If
future evidence arises then, I would be happy to review my
position & decision.


Regards,

John W. Auchettl

Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2002 - 41 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                             Positive Symbol ID

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:29:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:04:03 -0500
Subject: Positive Symbol ID


Since I added the three UFO abductee symbols to my on-line
survey for psycho-electronic mind control victims, I've had
about a dozen returns saying people have seen some or all of
these symbols. Often, they cannot remember where. Some have said
they have seen them as graffiti, one on two different trees on
an expedition into the Amazon jungle.

Here below is an exchange from a fellow who has seen all three
and was, like some unfortunate colleagues, forced into a mental
hospital, which is where he saw them. When you add this to the
very interesting Roper poll results which UFO abduction is more
common than often believed, you can see this is getting more
interesting, (though still far from definitive.)

The two hypotheses I ponder are:

1. ETs have some part in the very advanced effects experienced
    by psycho-electronic experimentees

2. Government, (probably the shadow government of the ultra
    wealthy) has been taking advantage of the abduction
    phenomenon to stage their own homespun variety. Some MKULTRA
    survivors say they learned this while serving as Manchurian
    Candidates, so it is not just an urban myth.

Eleanor (exchange below)

On 25 Nov 2002 at 22:07, <anonymous>wrote:

From:           <anonymous>
Date sent:      Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:07:02 EST
Subject:        Re: (no subject) regarding the symbols
To:             eleanor@raven1.net

 >With regard to the triangle with three lines coming from the
 >three corners and meeting in the center to connect, I used to
 >draw it a lot right after I got out, of my forced stay at the
 >Xxxxxxxxxx stress center in Xxxxxxxx, however I did not see the
 >round circles on the corners.

The original symbol has "lights" radiating from the corners. I
simply used radial lines to represent the shining corners when I
traced the symbol, because the original is very likely
copyrighted.

 >This symbol was planted in my mind very strongly. The funny up
 >side down F symbols, were shown to me by a man in the stress
 >center. I Asked him how their propulsion systems worked and he
 >had me look out the window a couple of hours later and told me
 >to watch down below out of the window, a group of boys made the
 >shape of the up side down F's and begin to kick their two soccer
 >balls per F formation back and forth I did not understand what
 >he meant, I have also seen these symbols in pictures of crop
 >circles. I would like your email please, and if you need any
 >help at all let me know I am <anonymous, a direct ascendant of
 >John Adams, and yes I am a Patriot!!!!!


We need more Patriots!

 >P.S.
 >The man clamed he was from Mars and he was there to help me.


Interesting!

God speed,

Eleanor








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:05:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Tonnies


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:25:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

<snip>

 >Hi Tom, Kevin, List

 >The concept of a secretive, highly classified
 >organization is
 >very real.

Arthur Exon referred to this control group as the "Unholy
Thirteen," if I'm not mistaken. An interestingly close match to
the "Majestic Twelve."

<snip>

 >As I recall the Eisenhower Briefing document claims 4 ETs. With
 >the current Roswell telling on Sci-Fi we now have 5 ETs. If this
 >is correct, this discredits both the EBD account and the Corso
 >account of 7 dead aliens.....

And then there are the various stories of surviving aliens, none
of which I find very credible, although I understand this notion
was advocated by the Sci-Fi program.

=====

Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                   Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 03:51:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:26:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Velez


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:06:52 -0800 (PST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:22:47 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

 >>>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
 >>>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

<snip>

Hi Tom,

You wrote:

 >The case of the
 >photos Bob Guccione bought was described in summary,

Just as an aside; that was me! <vbeg>

I posted, to this List several years ago, a report about how
Budd and I had been invited to to participate in a newscast
along with Dick Hall (via remote camera) and Bob Guccione (in
studio with Budd and myself).

The day before the broadcast Budd had told me about how
Penthouse magazine was planning to publish this "alien photo"
which allegedly depicted a 'Grey' alien on a hospital gurney.

It sounded familiar!

Coincidentally, just days before, I had visited the the Roswell
UFO Museum website. Budd's description of the Penthouse 'alien
on a gurney' rang a bell with me. The description of the
Penthouse alien photo seemed to match the photo of the
'Hollywood movie dummy on a gurney' that I had seen at the UFO
Museum so closely, that I made it a point to download and print
out a copy before going to do the news program. I (innocently)
wanted to show it to Guccione just to see how closely it matched
the one he had purchased and was planning publish.

The next day in the green-room I showed Guccione the photo I had
downloaded from the Internet. The guy turned purple! The reason
he was on the newscast was to hype the upcoming Penthouse
"alien" issue. After I showed him that picture from the Roswell
Museum he went on air and denied that he had paid anything for
the picture! He launched into what can only be described a
pre-emptive 'public' ass-covering. The news guy was stumbling all
through the interview because every question he put to Guccione
regarding the photo was met with complete denial. A complete 180
to the hype-job he was supposedly there to do.

Guccione stormed out of the studio after his segment. I only
found out weeks later that the photo I had shown him was the
same one that he had paid over $200,000 US for. I was the guy
that put Guccione wise to the phoney nature of the photo he had
purchased. And it wasn't intentional. I did it purely by
accident!

Funny, he never thanked me. I wonder why? He might have been
slightly pissed at finding out that he had been snookered out of
a quarter million bucks by some lady with a Russian accent.
<VBEG>

Below is the original post for anybody who may want to read it,
from before The UFO UpDates Archive went online.

Ufology isn't just an avocation... it's an adventure! :)

Regards,

John Velez

----------

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ebk@nobelmed.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Velez & Hopkins On CNBC Tonight

In response to Kevin's post,

 >From: KRandle993@aol.com
 >Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:01:42 -0400
 >To: ebk@nobelmed.com
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Velez & Hopkins on CNBC tonight

 >In a message dated 96-08-01 01:42:27 EDT, you write:

 >>These photos have been floating around the internet for a few
 >>years now. I hve copies of the 3: upper torso, middle torso, and
 >>legs. They are NOT from the Roswell movie or the autopsy films
 >>(some people have made that claim).

 >>They are very similar to the Roswell movie and dummy at the
 >>Roswell museum. Since the photos came FIRST, the other obviously
 >>were based on them, not vice-versa. Of course, that does not
 >>prove the photos are authentic. I just wish people would not put
 >>the cart before the horse. Bad information is as bad as dis-
 >>information.

 >This is not a matter for debate. There is no doubt that the
 >photos are of the special effects models made for the film. They
 >were not based on photographs of real bodies. What part of this
 >don't you people understand? This story in Penthouse is a hoax.
 >It is not disinformation, misinformation or anything else. It is
 >an attempt to make money on the new interest in the Roswell
 >case. I can't believe that anyone, seeing the special effects
 >model, as displayed in Roswell could conclude anything else. We
 >have enough trouble in this field and we don't need to support
 >something that can be demonstrated as part of the special
 >effects created for a movie. That is all it is. There is nothing
 >more to be said. The case is over.

 >KRandle

Hi again Kevin, hi all,

I got to hold and look at Bob Guccione's "original prints" which
he had brought to the studio with him. They are airbrushed
versions ( the protective bed railing that appears behind the
'alien' in  the web versions had been deleted.)

Kevin is right, there's _nothing_ to fuss about here, they are
identical to the mock-ups used to make the Roswell film, and
which now resides at the museum. Hey guys I'm an experiencer and
there's nothing I'd like more than to see some photographic
evidence of these little grey bastards, but _this_ isn't it. Be
patient though, it's only going to be a matter of time before
the genuine article surfaces.

Guccione got 'visibly upset' when I showed him the photos that I
copped off the web. I sincerely believe that the man was conned.
I also believe after having spoken to him that Mr G believes in
the authenticity of the pix, and is not trying to
_intentionally_ hoax the public. His 'crime' here is shared by
many other alleged investigators and journalists. He didn't
check his sources or verify the material before he published.

Hope this helps Mr Randle.

See you guys out there.

John Velez
Intruders Foundation

jvif@spacelab.net
       "Starman"







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                  A Case From The Southern Chilean UFO Flap

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:35:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:42:04 -0500
Subject: A Case From The Southern Chilean UFO Flap


SOURCE: Guillermo Aguilera (C.I.O.)
DATE: November 20, 2002

CHILE: A CASE FROM THE SOUTHERN CHILEAN UFO FLAP

Location: City of Angol, southern Chile
Eyewitness: Juan Carlos Beltr=E1n Gonz=E1lez
Age: 37
Occupation: Journalist

In the early morning hours of September 18, 2002, at 0300 hours,
the witness was in the dining room of the Alberto Larraguibel
Morales Sports Facility along with his friends, Cristi=E1n Aguilar
Flores, 30, married, a high school graduate and a traveling
salesman by profession, and Miguel Albar=E1n Poblete, 22, single,
a high school student. Two unnamed security guards were also
present.

The witnesses saw a luminous orange object in the sky from whose
edges there emanated a ruby hue. The witnesses calculate that
the object was flying over 1,500 meters in elevation and moved
in a West-East direction, but remaining suspended over the
witnesses until 04:30 hours, when it changed course toward the
south. Then abruptly, it changed course once more toward the
northwest, forming a triangle in the sky as it followed its
route. The object then gradually disintegrated until it vanished
from sight.

=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
Translation (C)2002 Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Guillermo Aguilera and Raul Gajardo Leopold








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                     New Argentine Mutilations Reported

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:05:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:45:26 -0500
Subject: New Argentine Mutilations Reported


Source: Diario 'El Liberal' (Santiago del Estero)
Date: November 15, 2002

COW DISCOVERED WITH HEAD MUTILATION

**At the El Oso wilderness, 33 kilometers south of Malbran**

**Animal's owner claims locals neither heard nor saw anything
strange**

In the El Oso wilderness of the Aguirre department, a cow was
found with mutilations to its head and genitalia. This event is
quite similar to the discovery made in late June of this year in
the Quimilioj pasture some 16 km south of Garza in the
department of Moreno. The mutilated animal was discovered last
Sunday in a field 33 km south of Malbran, and is the property of
Oscar Suarez, who also owns the cow.

Suarez told El Liberal: "The cow was missing the hide off its
maxillaries, its tongue and left eye, an ear and four teats, but
the remainder [of the animal] was quite sound even though it had
been dead for several days. He likewise stated that no locals
saw or heard anything unusual several kilometers around. The
owner is startled because "it's odd that no carrion animals, no
vultures or crows, have turned up, which they do whenever
there's a carcass present."

The cow's body was inside the El Oso ranch along an internal
road that runs parallel to the barbed wire fence. "On Wednesday
the 6th we let the animal out of its pen, and I found it on
Sunday the 10th. It had apparently been dead for some two days."

Another detail that drew Suarez's attention is that when he
returned on Wednesday to where the animal was found, it was
still intact and had not yet decomposed in spite of the days
elapse from its death and the intensely hot weather. Upon being
consulted about the situation having happened before, Suarez was
adamant: "This the first time something like it has happened in
the region."

He dismissed the possibility that cattle rustlers could have
been involved, "because when they are involved, they take the
meat and all of the animal's useful organs for sale, but that
didn't happen here, since the cow was whole with all of its
hide."

As a casual remark, Oscar Suarez related that a local advised
him that this could be either the work of a Martian or of the
Devil, "but locals saw nothing strange."

===========================
Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales, IHU
Special thanks to Gloria Coluchi








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       Re: Positive Symbol ID - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:01:11 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:48:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Positive Symbol ID - Young


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: eleanor@raven1.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:29:06 -0500
 >Subject: Positive Symbol ID

 >Since I added the three UFO abductee symbols to my on-line
 >survey for psycho-electronic mind control victims, I've had
 >about a dozen returns saying people have seen some or all of
 >these symbols

<snip>

 >The two hypotheses I ponder are:

 >1. ETs have some part in the very advanced effects experienced
    by psycho-electronic experimentees

 >2. Government, (probably the shadow government of the ultra
 > wealthy) has been taking advantage of the abduction
 > phenomenon to stage their own homespun variety. Some MKULTRA
 > survivors say they learned this while serving as Manchurian
 > Candidates, so it is not just an urban myth.>>

Hi, Eleanor:

I would like to suggest a third hypothesis:

3) You are creating the date which you believe that you are
collecting by including the information on a self-selected
questionnaire.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       Re: Frank Kaufman? - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:17:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:51:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman? - Goldstein


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:23 EST
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
 >>Subject: Frank Kaufman?

 >Good Afternoon, List, All -

 >>Since I have been out of touch for some time, I would be
 >>grateful if someone on the List would bring me up-to-date on
 >>what was found to be false with his statements.

 >The whole story will be laid out in the next issue of IUR and a
 >version should be up any day now on the CUFOS website.


Hello Kevin and fellow Listerions,

Frank Kaufman certainly seems to be a poseur, claiming to be
someone who he is not. His drawing of the alleged Roswell UFO
may have come entirely from his own imagination.

However, I give his imagination one credit. From a purely design
angle he drew the best looking planform for a Roswell craft. It
is what I wish one looked like but that has nothing to do with
the reality of the case.

As for the MJ-12 documents, it has been years since I read the
Stan Friedman book. With his research plus the Woods technical
research into the documents they received, how much effort went
into finding out if any of the people named in those documents
were still alive to be interviewed?


Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 48

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:39:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:52:56 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 7 Number 48


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 7, Number 48
November 26, 2002
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


MORE CATTLE MUTILATED
IN NORTHERN ARGENTINA

       "A veterinarian stated that there were several
mutilation cases" in Argentina's northern Misiones
province.  "Julio Frette is the only professional who
presented a report on the event, which occurred during
the month of August (2002) in Concepcion de la Sierra."
       "'There were four more cases that were never made
known,' he remarked.  He added that they were not
reported due to the ignorance of the parties who made the
discoveries, and that the mystery has not been solved."
       "Three weeks after the discovery of a mutilated cow
in the vicinity of Concepcion de la Sierra, veterinarian
Julio Frette stated that in fact four similar cases had
been recorded in the province's southern reaches but
which were not made known."
       "The veterinarian, a resident of the aforementioned
community, was the only one to present a detailed report
to the National Health and Agroalimentary Quality Service
(Spanish acronym: SENASA)."
       "Frette explained that he did not witness the other
findings, but that the events are known to local
residents."
       "'At the town of Apostoles, in the Las Tunas
wilderness, a producer (rancher--J.T.) found a mutilated
animal and set it on fire,' he remarked."
       "The case which became public is the one Frette
participated in and occurred on August 8, 2002.  On that
day, a zebu hybrid cow was found dead, and strange
incisions were found on its body in Lot 245 of the
Concepciones neighborhood, on a small farm only a few
meters (yards) from the city limits."
       "The animal, which was about to give birth, had
disappeared four days earlier (August 4, 2002) and,
according to the report, suffered the mutilation of its
internal organs."
       "'The absence of the muscles of the left side of the
jaw is evident, leaving the maxillary bare of all tissue.
Absence of larynx, pharynx and upper portion of the
esophagus and trachea.  Absence of ocular orb and left
ear.  Tongue was not found but the hyloides bone was
present and perfectly dessicated.  Absence of mammary
gland; the abdominal cavity presented an opening
corresponding to the region where the calf that was soon
to be born could not be found.  Absence of the rectum and
the large intestine, genitals, with the dexterity of how
said organs were extracted being a stand-out,' said the
report."
       "What drew the attention of those who saw the
carcass--as in other cases--was that one of the incisions
was perfectly cauterized.  'An incision measuring
approximately 20 centimeters (8 inches) was made in the
region of the brisket, showing red tissue as though it
had been dead for only hours, and within approximately
ten minutes, those present attested that the tissue
rapidly acquired an almost shiny black coloration.'"
       "Witnesses to the event, aside from the
veterinarian, were the owner of Lot 245, Emilio
Fernandez, cattle merchant Osvaldo Kreclevich (the
animal's owner--S.C.) and (Argentinian) police officers."
       "On August 19 (2002), "the carcass gave off such an
intense odor that it was noticeable 70 meters (231 feet)
away, says the report.  No sign of a struggle or self-
defense by the animal were noticed at the site.  Although
no new cases were recorded, these elements led Frette to
believe that the mystery is still unsolved."  (See
Misiones On-Line for November 15, 2002.  Muchas gracias a
Scott Corrales, Liliana Nunez y Guillermo Gimenez para
eso articulo.)
(Editor's Comment:  Welcome to Target: South America Week
at UFO Roundup.  The aliens have been pretty active south
of the equator.)


UFO AND MUTILATIONS
REPORTED IN URUGUAY

       On Saturday, November 2, 2002, in a rural area near
Laguna del Sauce in Uruguay's Maldonado province, "a man
who works in the (rain) forest claims to have seen a V-
shaped object with two white lights on it.  It was moving
backwards."
       "His mates didn't give much importance to what he
said."
       "But two days later (Monday, November 4, 2002), they
found several mutilated calves" near that location.  "It
seemed as if something had extracted the flesh and the
organs from the animals.  There were no brains, no
tongues, no flesh, and the cowhide was affected only in
the place where the anus should be."
       "On Friday, November 8, 2002, a similar (mutilation)
case took place in the Establecimento Stella Maris, near
Laguna del Sauce.  For their workers, the cases are
related to extraterrestrial visitation, although
government authorities have established that strange
mutilations are due to a kind of wasp that could attack
cows.  And in some other cases, they put the blame on a
little red mouse that lives in the woods."  (Muchas
gracias a Carlos Barboza para eso informe.)


CHILE'S ARMY CORDONS OFF
UNUSUAL CROP CIRCLE

       "A circular imprint measuring 30 meters (100 feet)
in diameter was found by military personnel from the La
Concepcion Regiment based in Lonquimay, in Chile's Ninth
Region," near the city of Angol.
       "The troops isolated an area consisting of pasture
fields and trees in a radius of 1,200 meters (3,960
feet)."  The area was declared "Off-Limits" to both
civilians and to the Carabineros (Chile's national
police--J.T.).
       "In a telephone conversation from the city of Angol,
ufologist and retired Carabinero Raul Gajardo said, 'It
was approximately two months ago (September 2002) that a
mounted patrol from the Carabinero barracks at Liucura, a
dependency of the 5th Sheriff's Office in Curacautan,
established that in a location some three hours away from
Angol there were a considerable number of (Chilean)
military personnel belonging to the La Concepcion
Regiment in Lonquimay."
       "The reason for the show of force was the discovery
of a large burnt patch of grass.  The phenomenon extended
for over a diameter of 30 meters (100 feet) with burned
tree trunks and a substance similar to whitewash (calcium
carbonate--J.T.) could be observed."
       "'At equidistant points of the circle there were
four circles measuring 15 centimeters (6 inches) which
were not scorched.  They are like four legs at the center
of the circle.  What is strange is that the snow never
got to cover the circles.  The exact location of the site
shall be kept confidential in order to research it
carefully,' Gajardo said."
       "A strange fact was that the measurements made by
the military showed that a Geiger counter had recorded a
high level of radiation in the area."
       "Another interesting fact is that the Carabineros
were denied entry to the site, while a member of the
(Chilean) Army's upper echelon visited the area by
helicopter."  (See Terra Chile for November 15, 2002,
"Possible UFO landing in southern Chile."  Muchas gracias
a Scott Corrales y Liliana Nunez para eso articulo de
diario.)
(Editor's Note:  The city of Angol has been the site of
an ongoing UFO flap for the past two years.  For more,
see UFO Roundup, volume 7, number 22 for May 28, 2002,
"Abductee comes forward in Angol, Chile," page 3, and
volume 7, number 44 for October 29, 2002, "UFO fires blue
beams in Angol, Chile," page 4.)


CIGAR-SHAPED UFO SIGHTED
IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

       A silvery cigar-shaped UFO was sighted in several
cities in Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul, located
900 kilometers (540 miles) southwest of Rio de Janeiro.
       On Friday, November 1, 2002, the silver UFO "was
seen moving relatively rapidly over the cities of
Gravatai, Cachoeirinha and Canoas in Rio Grande do Sul.
Hundreds of people saw the bright object."
       The same day, at 4:35 p.m., the silver UFO was
spotted in Praia do Cassino, a town on the South Atlantic
shore, 100 kilometers (60 miles) south of Porto Alegre,
the state capital.
       Eyewitness Eduardo Enderle Oliveira reported, "I was
playing ball on the beach with my son and his friend when
the boys sighted something unusual in the sky.  My son's
friend pointed it out to me.  At first it looked like a
bird making a sharp curve in the air, but then I looked
closer and saw that it was a metallic fuselage in the
form of a cigar.  There were no wings.  I called the
attention of several beachgoers to this object, which
flew at a very high altitude overhead.  There was a
brilliant gleam in the sky, most likely a reflection of
the sun, and, as it departed, it resembled a brilliant
sphere about the size of Venus, which gradually
diminished in size."
       Elsewhere in Brazil, on Monday, November 18, 2002, a
UFO appeared over the mid-sized city of Casimiro de
Abreu, located 175 kilometers (105 miles) northeast of
Rio de Janeiro.  The object, seen by dozens of
eyewitnesses, was videotaped by Sergio Chapelin, a local
resident.
      On Friday, November 22, 2002, at 8:50 p.m.,
"witnesses observed for a number of seconds the
overflight of a ring-shaped object with alternating
yellow, white and blue lights around the rim.  The
colored lights alternated rapidly.  The object flew from
the northeast to the southeast" over Santos, the port
city serving the state of Sao Paulo.  "The unusual object
was seen by hundreds of people along the Rua Alexandre
Herculano in the bairro Boqueirinho (neighborhood)" in
Santos.  (See the Brazilian newspaper O Globo for
November 19, 2002.  Muito obrigado a Eduardo Enderle
Oliveira, Rodrigo Branco e Ufologia Brasileira por eso
casos.)


MORE UFOs SIGHTED
IN MALAYSIA

       On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 10:15 p.m., Ahmad
Rithaudin was in the town of Kampung Seri Kendong, Alor
Gajah district, Melaka state in western Malaysia when he
saw something unusual in the night sky.
       "It was a clear night," Ahmad reported, "An object
was spotted in the landing approach flight path normally
used by aircraft approaching Kuala Lumpur International
Airport.  (Kuala Lumpur is eight minutes flying time from
here--A.R.)  That night, aircraft were using a different
direction to land.  The object was stationary for the
first five minutes and then began to move eastward.  It
changed altitude and rose again to its original
altitude."
       "I called my wife, my brother and his wife and
watched the object.  Right afterward, it moved towards
the south and disappeared.  Altogether we witnessed it
for about 15 minutes."
       Ahmad described the UFO as "an orange light, ball-
shaped and glowing and no sound.  It was at 3,000 meters
(10,000 feet), slow-moving and increased its speed before
departure."
       Kuala Lumpur is Malaysia's capital.  The Southeast
Asian country has had several UFO incidents since October
1, 2002.
       "An unidentified flying object has been spotted over
the skies of Kota Kinabalu," a Malaysian port city on the
northeastern tip of the island of Borneo, "puzzling air
traffic controllers, who said the craft was bigger than
an airliner."
       "The UFO was first spotted on radar screens, but
later there were naked-eye sightings even in broad
daylight."
       On October 5, 2002, a closed-circuit TV camera at
Terminal 2 of Kota Kinabalu International Airport
captured the image of "a cigar-shaped object.  Air
traffic controllers were surprised because the craft was
flying at great speed..  The controllers were tracking a
Fokker airliner taking off when they noticed the large
UFO."
       "Air traffic controllers knew for certain that there
were no commercial or private planes in the skies at that
time--at least none that were scheduled."
       "On (Tuesday) October 22 (2002), Sabah TV-3
cameraman Kassem Mahmun took (video) of a Boeing 737
taking off.  He then noticed an object in the distance,
that appeared at a higher altitude but was stationary."
       "Kassem said the object suddenly disappeared just a
few seconds after he noticed it."
       "The (Malaysian) Department of Civil Aviation has
yet to given an explanation for the incidents, except for
saying that it could not identify them for sure."  (See
the Sabah TV-3 News broadcast for November 19, 2002.
Many thanks to Ahmad Rithaudin and Jim Hickman for these
reports.)


STAR-LIKE UFO SEEN OVER
INDIA'S PUNJAB STATE

       On Wednesday, November 21, 2002, at 6:15 a.m.,
eyewitness Dinesh Hukmani reported, "Early in the
morning, when it was still dark, I went outside to
collect the newspaper" at his home in Mohali, a town in
the foothills of the Himalayas, in India's Punjab state.
"The sky was clear with a full moon on the western
horizon and a lot of bright shining stars."
       "Suddenly I noticed a bright object, looking like a
star but much brighter, moving away from the moon in an
easterly direction.  It moved fast and was gone in a
minute or so.  I called my wife, and she saw it, too."
       "I also managed to videotape the object, but it is
not very clear and the image is moving a lot due to
camera shake due to moving (zooming--J.T.) in.  Height
and speed were difficult to ascertain.  I did not have to
look up to see it.  It was right in front of us."  (Email
Form Report)


CIGAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, UK

       On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 8 p.m., motorist
Colin Hoskins had a UFO encounter while driving in
Buckinghamshire, England, UK.
       Colin reported, "We were driving from Slough,
Berkshire on the (motorway) A412, (also known as)
Uxbridge Road, towards Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, and
witnessed an extremely bright light on the right-hand
side of the road in Langley Park."
       "At the time, I thought this was strange, as the
light was approximately 40 feet (12 meters) high and
above a wooded area," i.e. a country park.  "Driving out
of Iver Heath towards Uxbridge, we saw the long object
with three white lights equally spaced down the length
and one white flashing light on the rear.  The object was
travelling at what I would guess to be about 150 miles
per hour (250 kilometers per hour) towards the east."
       "I'm under the impression that all aircraft must
have a red flashing beam.  Can you verify this?  I am not
a believer in UFOs, but I would like to have any possible
explanation for this event, as it's made me look into UFO
Web sites for the first time."  (Email Form Report)


WOMAN SHOOTS A VIDEO OF
A UFO IN ASKER, NORWAY

       "Helene Solberg glanced out her window on a dark
wintry afternoon earlier this week and saw something she
won't soon forget.  Luckily, her family's video camera
was close at hand."
       "Helene Solberg shot a video of what she calls a UFO
on Tuesday," November 19, 2002.
       "Solberg, who lives in a village of the same name in
Asker, west of Oslo (the capital of Norway--J.T.), first
called her husband while marvelling at the comet-like
flying object that soared through the late-afternoon
sky."
       "It was just after 2 p.m., when dusk already starts
settling over southern Norway at this time of year, when
Solberg noticed the object with the long bright tail.
She excitedly called her husband Stig Solberg, who
reminded her that their video camera was lying on a table
in the living room.  Just the night before, the couple
had tried to capture video of the Leonid meteor shower."
       "Helene Solberg then grabbed the video camera and
started shooting.  The entire episode lasted about eight
minutes, with three minutes of it captured on tape,
before the unidentified flying object disappeared from
view."
       "'Can I explain what it was?  Absolutely not,' Stig
Solberg told (the Norwegian newspaper) Aftenposten
Thursday night after showing the video."
       "He said he determined that the comet-like object
came out of the west and disappeared to the south.  He
also sent the videotape to the Astrophysics Department at
the University of Oslo, where a professor thought the
object may have been a plane."
       "Solberg disagrees.  'It absolutely did not look
like a plane,' he said, 'When we look out the window in
the other direction, we sometimes see planes.  But we
have never seen a plane in the direction where my wife
was filming.'" (See the newspaper Aftenposten for
November 22, 2002.  Many thanks to Jim Hickman for this
newspaper article.)


ORANGE UFOs HOVER OVER
SUBURBS OF MELBOURNE

       On Saturday, November 16, 2002, just after 2 a.m.,
"Wayne A. Winter and Adin Monks took a video of three
orange lights in a triangular form" that was hovering
over a mountain in Chirnside Park in Lilydale, a suburb
of Melbourne, the capital of Australia's Victoria state.
"The object flew around for 20 minutes before
disappearing completely."
       Twenty-one hours later, at 11 p.m., two orange UFOs
"approached from the north" and hovered over Mill Park,
another Melbourne suburb.  Eyewitness Sean D. reported,
"The two balls originally looked like a plane from a
distance.  Then they started to move in a 360-degree
circle and were crisscrossing each other.  Then one
disappeared and then reappeared and went at a slow speed
with no sound.  Yellow-orange, like balls of light, the
two of them.  Maybe 500 meters (1,650 feet) off the
ground and going 50 kilometers per hour (30 miles per
hour) in speed."  (See the Sunday Herald-Sun of Melbourne
for November 17, 2002.  Many thanks to Sean D. for these
reports.)


FOUR MYSTERY LIGHTS SEEN
IN TIPP CITY, OHIO

       Donnie Link, 21, of Tipp City, Ohio reports, "I
believe I witnessed a UFO sighting last night (Sunday,
November 17, 2002) from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.  First I live in
a tiny town called Tipp City (population 9,221), located
about 15 miles (25 kilometers) north of Dayton.  I
stepped out on my porch to smoke a cigarette, and I saw
something I've only dreamed of seeing."
       "There were four disk-like objects floating
around...They were making a perfect formation, almost
like an oval, and they would meet in the center at the
same time and then go out in their pattern and meet again
in the center every two seconds or so.  They were very
low to the ground, almost as if they wanted me to see
them.  They were in the clouds.  That's why I saw the
lights reflecting.  I didn't actually see the objects,
just the lights."
       "But now is the most peculiar thing--the definite
reason why I know they were UFOs.  As I walked towards it
to get a better look, it moved away, keeping the same
distance between me and it, but keeping formation at the
same height from the ground as before.  I even broke into
a full-body sprint, and it moved steadily away without
much effort.  But as I walked backwards, back to my
house, it came back with me.  I was freezing my butt off
to see them, but I feel this was a once-in-a-lifetime
vision."  (Email Form Report)


TWO WOMEN SPOT A UFO
IN GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS

       On Saturday, November 16, 2002, at 2:55 a.m.,
Katherine McConnell reports, "I was driving on Highway
360 North in" Grand Prairie, Texas (population 127,427).
"The passenger in my car looked out the driver's-side
window and said, 'Look!  What is that?'"
       "Being near Dallas-Fort Worth airport, I just
naturally assumed it was an airplane, looking only with a
quick glance.  My friend then pointed out that the object
was not moving at all.  It was just hovering very low to
the ground.  This time I took a better, longer look and
realized it was just hovering."
       "At first it looked like a plane, but it had two
really big head-lights that were sort of aiming towards
the ground.  As we continued driving at about 25 miles
per hour (40 kilometers per hour), I noticed the vehicle
(UFO) made an extremely slow turn towards the east.  It
didn't turn in the usual manner like a plane or a
helicopter.  I noticed that it did have a red and a green
light.  The vehicle moved extremely slow.  It was
nighttime, but, from what I could tell, it (the UFO) was
probably a dull gray.  I was unsure about the shape, but
my passenger said that it looked to her like kind of a
round shape.  The height from the ground was
approximately 60 to 80 feet (18 to 24 meters).  It could
have touched a treetop."  (Email Form Report)


STRANGE CATTLE DEATHS
REPORTED IN ETHIOPIA

       "Farmers in an Ethiopian village are keeping a close
eye on their cows after a local hippo herd developed a
taste for meat, devouring eight cows in the past eight
weeks, the (Ethiopian) government press reported Friday,"
November 22, 2002.
       "The people of Ginbo Woreda village in the southern
province of Kaffa," about 400 kilometers (250 miles)
south-southwest of Addis Ababa, the national capital,
"told local police that the normally herbivorous hippos
had taken to devouring cows and calves, the Amharic daily
(newspaper) Addis Zemen reported."
       "Local animal health and wildlife protection expert
Alemayehu Alemu said the hippopotami's (plural for
hippopotamus--J.T.) unusual behavior may have been
provoked by humans."
       "Alemu said that pregnant hippos tended to react
aggressively to acts of provocation around delivery time
but cautioned that the 'bizarre phenomenon' required a
thorough study for a 'scientific explanation.'"
       World-famous cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, noting
that a hippopotamus is unlikely to switch from being a
herbivore to a carnivore, speculated that the cattle
deaths might have been caused by a mokele-mbembe, an
enigmatic creature, similar to a small brontosaurus,
which has been seen occasionally in central Africa, most
often along the Congo River.  (See the Ethiopian
newspaper Addis Zemen for November 21, 2002.  Also the
South African Press Association report for November 22,
2002.  Many thanks to Loren Coleman for this newspaper
article.)
(Editor's Comment: Ethiopia's Omo River empties into Lake
Rudolf in neighboring Kenya.  Perhaps a Nessie-type "lake
monster" swam upstream and is feeding on stray cattle
near Ginbo Woreda.)


  From the UFO Files...

1902: STRANGE CRUISE OF THE
            BANNOCKBURN

       When people of the Lake Superior region sit around
and talk about ghost ships, there's one whose name
inevitably comes up.  She is truly the "Queen of the
Ghost Fleet," the Flying Dutchman of Lake Superior, and
the mere mention of her name is enough to send a shudder
through the toughest sailor in the taverns of Duluth,
Minnesota or Superior, Wisconsin.
       She's the S.S. Bannockburn, and she disappeared on
Lake Superior exactly one hundred years ago.
       As author Frederick Stonehouse points out, "The
classic Lake Superior ghost ship story is that of the
245-foot, 1,620-ton Canadian steel steamer Bannockburn."
       The story begins in Middlesborough, Scotland, UK in
1893, when workmen put the finishing touches on a new
breed of ship known as a canaller.  The vessel's
dimensions were specifically designed to let her pass
through the Welland Canal in southern Ontario, Canada.
       "Rated A-1 by Lloyd's of London insurance, she was
owned by the Montreal Transportation Company of Quebec.
Her captain was George Woods.  His brother, John (Woods),
commanded the Rosemount, Bannockburn's sister ship."
       "On November 20, 1902, the Bannockburn departed Port
Arthur, Ontario  (now Thunder Bay, Ont.--J.T.) bound for
Midland, Ontario on Lake Huron, with a cargo of 85,000
bushels of wheat."
       "The following afternoon (November 21, 1902) she was
sighted on Lake Superior by the upbound steamer Algonquin
southeast of Passage Island and northeast of Keewenaw
Point (on Michigan's Upper Peninsula--J.T.).  The weather
was hazy, and the Bannockburn was bucking a good
headwind, but, to the crew of the Algonquin, all appeared
normal."
       "The Bannockburn must have been a majestic sight
this fine day because" Captain James McMaugh of the
Algonquin "told his mate to take a look at her.
McMaugh's remark caused some confusion in the pilot-
house."
       "The Bannockburn was no longer there."
       "McMaugh was the only one who saw her.  He may have
felt silly pointing at a blank horizon.  The mate may
have reserved some doubts about McMaugh.  But no one
suspected the Bannockburn of sinking.  McMaugh saw no
signs of distress, and a ship cannot sink in the time it
takes to look through a pilot-house window.  McMaugh was
confused by what he saw--or what he thought he saw.  He
was not sure what had happened."
       "One minute she was in plain view.  After turning
away for several minutes, he looked back again, but she
was gone, vanished from sight.  Did she sink while the
captain turned away, or just fade into the gray mist?"
       Darkness fell.  "Later that night, a storm rolled
across Lake Superior.  It wasn't the worst of storms, but
it was certainly a 'banger.'"
       In the northern reaches of Lake Superior, at about 9
p.m., crewmen aboard the S.S. Huronic, a Canadian steamer
of the Northern Navigation Line,
spotted mysterious bright lights passing south of them.
       Strange lights were also seen from the beaches at
Rossport and Schreiber, Ontario, on the big lake's north
shore.
       When the Bannockburn "failed to reach Sault Sainte
Marie (Michigan), a massive search was launched.  Three
tugs combed the lake, looking for any sign of the missing
vessel...Stories circulated that she was sighted ashore
near Michipicoten Island and other north shore locations.
Investigations proved them all false."
       "A single battered life jacket was found on the
beach at Grand Marais, Michigan by a patrolling
surfman...One especially intriguing wreckage story was
the legendary 'Bannockburn oar.'   The tale goes that 18
months after the loss (May 1904) a single oar, carefully
wrapped in a worn tarpaulin, was found by a grizzled old
trapper on the desolate Michigan shore.  The word
Bannockburn was scraped crudely into the wooden shaft."
       "As soon as a year afterward (1903), Lake Superior
sailors reported seeing this Flying Dutchman of Lake
Superior steaming past Caribou Island, plowing on for the
Soo to complete her unfinished voyage.  Others said that
she appeared 'as a ghostly apparition of ice, scudding
through the gloom.'  Another writer stated that
'sometimes at night when the chill north wind sweeps
across the swollen bosom of Lake Superior and the
stinging ice devils fill the air, the lookout on some
lonely point calls loudly to his companions and points to
where he imagines the Bannockburn, all white with ice and
ghostly in the darkness, slipping through the black
mystery of the lake.'"
       For sailors who have seen the Bannockburn up close,
the experience is unforgettable.  "Some beery-eyed
mariners even said they could see the skeletal faces of
crewmen staring blankly out the pilothouse windows!"
       "Regardless of the legend, the fact remains that
Bannockburn and her crew of 22 went missing on Lake
Superior" the night of November 21, 1902.  "To this day
she has never been found nor has the cause of her loss
been determined.  The Bannockburn has truly joined the
fleet of the lost."  (See the books Ghost Ships of the
Great Lakes by Dwight Boyer, Dodd, Mead and Company, New
York, N.Y., 1968, pages 114 through 122; The Great Lakes
Triangle  by Jay Gourley, Fawcett Publications, Inc.,
Greenwich, Conn., 1977, pages 19, 20, 100, 138 and 159;
Haunted Lakes by Frederick Stonehouse, Lake Superior Port
Cities, Inc., Duluth, Minn., 1997, pages 92, 93 and 103;
and Haunted Lakes II by Frederick Stonehouse, Lake
Superior Port Cities, Inc., Duluth, Minn., 2000, page
88.)
(Editor's Note:  There was also a strange "alien
encounter" in New London, Minnesota the night of November
21, 1902.  For more on the Caylor family's weird sighting
at the railroad depot, see UFO Roundup, volume 4, number
31 for November 25, 1999, "1902: Who's out there?" page
10.)

       That's it for this week.  Join us in seven days for
more UFO, Fortean and paranormal news from around the
planet Earth, brought to you by "the paper that goes
home--UFO Roundup."  And to all our readers in the USA,
have a happy Thanksgiving holiday!  See you next week.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2002 by Masinaigan Productions,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from
UFO Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided
that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name
and list the date of issue in which the item first
appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       Re: Positive Symbol ID - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:44:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Positive Symbol ID - Rimmer


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: eleanor@raven1.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:29:06 -0500
 >Subject: Positive Symbol ID

 >>P.S.
 >>The man claimed he was from Mars and he was there to help me.

Add this to the three great lies:

The cheque's in the mail

Of course I'll still respect you in the morning

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                Re: SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:58:25 -0500
Subject: Re: SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings -


 >From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:00:17 -0500 (EST)
 >Subject: SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings

 >November 25, 2002

 >SCI FI Digs Up Record-Breaking Ratings

 >Roswell Documentary Becomes Highest-Rated Original Special in
 >SCI FI Channel History

<snip>

 >Intrigued by SCI FI's smoking gun shocker, an average of
 >2,365,000 viewers** tuned in for The Roswell Crash:  Startling
 >New Evidence, hosted by Bryant Gumbel.  The documentary,
 >chronicling the Channel's landmark scientific excavation of the
 >1947 crash site in Roswell, New Mexico garnered a 2.0 rating
 >(1,560,000 HHs)*** - making it the highest-rated original
 >special in SCI FI Channel history. The Roswell Crash surpassed
t>he previous record-holder, the one-hour special Curse of the
 >Blair Witch (1.8 / 1,032,000 HHs 7/12/99), by over half a
 >million HHs.

Nice to know reality still as a chance against fantasy!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

             Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:01:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee


 >From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:06:53 -0800
 >Subject: Telescope to challenge moon doubters


 >Could they not just show you a computer rendered
 >moon, controlled by the real telescopes controls then just
 >leave the lens cap on?  ;-p


 >-----

 >Source: The Sydney Monring Herald - Australia

 >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html



 >Telescope to challenge moon doubters
 >By Robert Matthews in London

 >November 25,2002

 >Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to
 >silence claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked,
 >European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest
 >telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar
 >surface.

<snip>

 >Supporters of the conspiracy theory welcomed the news that
 >astronomers were to photograph the landing sites. But Marcus
 >Allen, the British publisher of Nexus magazine and a long-time
 >advocate of the theory, said photographs of the lander would
 >not prove that the US put men on the moon. "Getting to the moon
 >really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in
 >1959," he said. "The big problem is getting people there."

 >According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the
 >moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in
 >space were lethal to humans.


Mr. Allen is an idiot.

And yes, for the conspiracy theorist there is _no_way_ that
anyone could prove that there were objects left on the moon....
other than sending the person there to see for himself and even
that might not be convincing. He might believe that the trip was
faked.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                     Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:04:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:47:45 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:12 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:14:17 -0800 (PST)
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?


 >I agree with Dick on his point of faces in clouds. However,
 >amorphous images aside (as Neil Morris may corroborate to some
 >degree) it has not prevented us from sending photographic
 >representations of the Ramey Memo (both enhanced and
 >computerised samples and normal best photographic paper copies),
 >to two separate competent 'cryptanalysts' (who have no interest
i>n UFOlogy) a few months ago. Status - currently awaiting
 >responses! Apparently the process takes time, especially on a
 >limited budget... Checking out whether the Ramey Memo can be
 >deciphered is a worthwhile project, it is one of the unanswered
 >questions in the Roswell arena that needs addressing properly, I
 >am encouraged others have thought of engaging in it, though for
 >my two-penneth's I am of the opinion this requires the input of
 >qualified experts outside of ufology before anything useful
 >(either way) can be learned. Whether this will happen is
 >questionable.

<snip>

 >From an American perspective we are talking about guys who can
 >decipher a range of blurry texts from long range photography,
 >even in some cases from spyplane aerial reconnaissance. To
 >emphasise an important fact, this type of cryptanalysis is
 >worked from technique, application and pure brain power, there
 >are many limitations and this is no small task An area of
 >cryptology called cryptoeidography (which Bruce Macabee may be
f>amiliar with?) is a good analogy for this problem.

 >Cryptoeidography is very effective in rendering either pictures
 >or text on an image secret, one employs cifax which modifies
 >electrical patterns to distort an image while the latter
i>nvolves actual optical alterations to it. I am not suggesting
 >either has been done in the case of the Ramey Memo, but in
 >reference to the latter, an expert can confirm the second form
 >of altering optical images can be very effective in disguising
 >content. Here is the kicker, there are natural counterparts to
 >this type of optical concealment which sometimes crop up in
 >photographic images that possess text or similar patterns. This
 >is a major factor and consideration for the prescribed
 >undertaking.

 >If anyone can make head-way with an enquiry like this though,
 >t is in a specialised area of cryptanalysis, which should
 >also be capable of pointing out any limitations.
SNIP


 >Suggestion of a simple 'scientific' method for Ramey Memo
 >analysis to substantiate or refute David Rudiak's assessment may
 >go something like this:

 >Encourage the participation of at least two independent
.cryptanalysts and ask them to:

 >1. Obtain clearest photographic representations of Ramey Memo.

 >2. Allow a photographic expert (linked with cryptanalysis) to
 >enlarge, enhance and manipulate the images in a number of useful
 >ways to obtain workable sample/s.

 >3. Submit samples to any feasible analyses

 >4. Publish all conclusions and peer review.


Of course it would be "nice" to have cryptanalysts ... or anyone
with experience, analyze the Ramey message., However, as Dr.
Rudiak has pointed out, understanding the message, which appears
to be in plain text (not encrypted, we presume), comes down to
correctly identifying individual letters, such as the V, I, and
I in the word that Dr. Rudiak used to illustrate his technique.
Identifying each letter is a problem of separating the "signal
shape" from the "noise shape." The noise shape is a complex area
density of dark spots... the photographic grains. Each grain has
a probability of registering the correct amount of exposure
level for its position in the image. One way of looking at it is
that there are "holes and excesses" in the image. Consider the
letter I, a straight vertical line (perhaps with a "cap" at the
top and bottom). Suppose this letter is correctly focused onto
the film. Since the background paper is white, the letter I
appears as a dark image i.e., an unexposed (or at least less
exposed) area of film which is surrounded by "white" or highly
exposed areas. (Of course, the original picture is a negative,
but I am talking about the printed format. IN the negative the
white paper will look dark and the letter will look bright.) A
correct photograpic representation would have a uniform density
of _unexposed_ film grains running along the location on the
film where the I is focused., That is, the I will appear as a
straight dark line surrounded by uniform white. Would not
require cryptanalysis to identify the I. Even "richer" for
photographic information would be more complex letters like a,
e, V, etc.

Sounds nice, but sorry... things don't work that way. The focus
is not perfect so the image on the (negative) film has
brightness gradients where one would like to have sharp
boundaries. The focused line might not even be straight because
of aberrations in the lens (distortions of the image.... not
noticeable for large images like Ramey's face, hand, hat, etc.
but noticeable for small images). The film does not react
perfectly: the creation of a bright spot on the film (print) is
a result of high light exposure. Where the light is very bright
the complete development of a film grain (a tiny region... 10's
of microns in size...) is 100% or nearly so. However, where
there is less brightness (more darkness!) or where there are are
brightness gradients in the image (regions between full light
and full dark) the development of a grain is less probable.
That's the problem. Development of film grains is a probability
problem! The edges of the letter I, as focused on the film plane
are actually regions of brigthtness gradient, and in such
regions the probability of development of film grains is less
than 100%. The result is that the letter I will have jagged
edges... in some places the film grains will develop correctly
and in some places they won't. If the focused image of the
letter I is so narrow as to be a few tens of microns wide, that
is, if the width is comparable to the size of a film grain, then
the developed image may have "bumps" along the vertical sides,
that is, dark areas which should be white. This is the
"bleeding" of the darkness of the letter I into the white
surround, Conversely, there can be "bleeding" of the bright
surround into the dark area (because of the aberrations in the
lens or slightly imperfect focus or veiling glare - a phenomenon
that became important in the Trent photo analysis). The net
result is that the nice vertical straight line I becomes a
distorted line. And the relative amount of distortion increases
the smaller the image gets. In the Ramey case one gets a large
amount of distortion in some cases, making it very difficult or
impossible to determine the exact shape of the image of a
letter. With more complex letters it requires even more accuracy
to determine. Consider the difference between e and c. Suppose
the letter is an e. If, in recording on film the image of the
letter e, the image of the horizontal line is slightly blurred
so that brightness of the surrounding white are "bleeds" into
the thin area that should be the horizontal line, then some film
grains that should not develop actually do develop making the
center of the e quite bright. The analyst might look at the
image and conclude it was the letter c, not e. Conversely,
suppose the letter is a c. If in creating the letter c (assumed
to be a small image, not much bigger than grain size) a film
grain at the middle of the c did not develop (i.e. did not
correctly represent the brightness at the center of the c) then
one might think the letter was an e.

This is the "salt and pepper" noise problem one has when
analyzing tiny images (such as the face on Mars!). (Here "tiny"
means not much larger than the pixel or film grain size.) One
has speckles of "salt" (bright spots) where one should have dark
and conversely, speckles of dark "pepper" spots where one should
have white.

Under these circumstances the best one can do is assign
probabilities to the accuracy of detection. If the letter
appears to be a c then one can assign a probability that is
based on the physical size of the letter (image) compared to the
grain (or pixel) size. If the size of the letter is only a few
times grain size the probability of c vs e might be only 50%. If
the letter is ten times grain size the probability might be 90%.
As the size increases the probability of
accuracy increases.

For small letters one could say that if the image _looks_
clearly like that of a particular letter, then the probability
is high that it is that letter. In any other situation one
should assign a probability even though this is an
"unscientific" probability. Using only letter images that seem
to have high probability of being what they look like is a good
way to proceed with the Ramey memo. Use only the highest
confidence letters at first and then work "downward" to the
least confident. OF course, since this is a language there are
other constraints besides ust identifying the letters. The
letters come in groups... words... so if a few letters of a word
are readable then one can search the entire vocabulary for words
with those few readable letters and that many letters in the
word.

The Ramey memo has another problem, which is distortion of the
letters, not b the camera optics, but resulting from curvature
of the paper as Ramey was holding it. (Why didn't he hold it
upstraight and flat... that would have made things so much
easier!!) That means one must try to identify letters from
images that are distorted in shape as well as being
photographically noisy.

Hence it is not a pretty sight, that of a diligent investigator
sweating over the interpretation of the Ramey memo, working
his/her way through the film-grainy, blobby, bent images of
letters that, when properly interpreted, could change our view
of humanity's place in the universe.

My complements to those who have slugged it out with the data,
those who have dug in the muddy ditches of noisy photography and
who, it appears, have struck some gold!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       Dr. Mack On NY Times Article -

From: Will Bueche - Center for Psychology & Social Change
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:28:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:26:12 -0500
Subject: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article -


Dr. John Mack would like everyone to know that the paraphrasing of his
position in the following paragraph from last Sunday's New York Times --

which is reprinted at Dr. Mack's site for your convenience:

http://www.centerchange.org/passport/nyt112402.html

-- is not entirely perfect. He's had a few calls asking what he meant.
The paragraph in question comes near the end of the article:

 >Dr. Mack said he no longer refers to people [as] "abductees,"
 >calling them "experiencers" instead. He said he did not doubt
 >that the people he studied had had some kind of encounter with
 >another form of intelligence, but he did not now believe that
 >they were abducted by alien beings and taken into spaceships.

Had Dr. Mack been the one to paraphrase himself he'd have
phrased it a little differently, perhaps changing it to "he did
not now believe that they were _SIMPLY_ being abducted by alien
beings and taken into spaceships."

For lack of a qualifier, the meaning may have come out wrong.
The paragraph that follows that one may have been enough of an
explanation for most people to pick up on what he meant, but
just in case it was not enough for you, he wanted you to know.
Thanks.

 >"There are all sorts of subtleties that are very hard to talk
 >to a reporter about," he said. "We are all so literal. I
 >believe these people have encountered some kind of intelligence
 >by an opening of consciousness to a whole other level of
 >reality. Philosophers are starting to think of a third zone -
 >some kind of intermediate reality - that enters this reality.
 >They are having an experience that is experientially real but
 >the beings are not necessarily physically or materially real."

We thought the article was very good.


Will Bueche

Center for Psychology & Social Change
http://www.centerchange.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                           Frank Kaufmann Exposed

From: Brad Sparks
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:29:38 -0500
Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed


The new expose of Frank Kaufmann's patently obvious bogus
storytelling has now been posted to the CUFOS website:

http://www.cufos.org/

with compelling evidence that Kaufmann forged his military
papers which he showed Roswell investigators in order to bolster
his ridiculous story of special intelligence assignments (the
original and the forgery were both found in his papers and there
is evidence of rubber cementing of papers over the original).

My question is why should it take so long to realize that
Kaufmann was a hoaxer and a liar? Didn't Karl Pflock dissect his
lies quite well in his 1994 and 2001 books? What else was really
needed? Bloody signed confession?

We can now read a copy of the forged Maj. Easley memo of "July
30, 1947" describing the imaginary saucer recovery operation,
which had previously only been flashed to Roswell researchers
who were not allowed by Kaufmann to take a copy.

My question here is why, if the memo is addressed at the top
"To: JRDB, AFSA, AIRD" weren't these agencies followed up as
they might have been sources for confirmatory copies of the
Easley memo and other documentation? Wouldn't Vannevar Bush's
JRDB have been an exciting lead to chase in light of the
misguided Wilbert Smith memo of 1950? Didn't anyone have a good
enough memory to recall these telltale agency paper-trail clues?

Or did Roswell researchers indeed follow up on these agencies --
  and didn't tell anyone about the negative results? Do we need
an investigation of the investigators just to find out what is
really going on with the Roswell case? Did UFOlogists find out
that AFSA did NOT EVEN EXIST YET in 1947, that it was created
two years later by JCS Directive 2010 of May 24, 1949, and was
the predecessor of the NSA? Wouldn't this be damning proof that
the Easley memo was a blatant hoax by a con man who was a moron
on military and intelligence history, who couldn't keep agencies
and their dates of formation straight? (BTW, the bogus MJ-12
"1st Annual Report" of Oct 1952, which should be dated 1948 if
it was the first annual report after 1947, suffers from the same
stupidity of the nitwit hoaxer by claiming it covers 5 years of
AFSA intelligence activities, when AFSA had only been in
existence 3 years.)

Why wasn't the AFSA reference the smoking gun that should have
disposed of Kaufmann years ago? Are we going to be told that no
one saw the forged Easley memo long enough to remember "AFSA"
was at the top? Did anyone get shown the forgery more than once
or get to take some notes? Are we going to hear excuse after
excuse that no one was really a document investigator, or their
attention was on other things in the memo, or no one knew what
the abbreviations meant (yeah right, no one knew Vannevar Bush
headed JRDB)?

All three of the Kaufmann-forged memos of July/Sept 1947 on the
alleged disc recovery suffer from still another dumbbell
historical error: They recite that the "Directorate of
Intelligence" of Air Intelligence was to receive file copies of
reports, etc. But the "Directorate of Intelligence" of the Air
Force (and/or possibly its predecessor the AAF) also DID NOT YET
EXIST. When the AF separated from the Army and reorganized, air
intelligence was DOWNGRADED in organizational stature from an
Assistant Chief of Air Staff to a mere Director of Intelligence
under a deputy chief of staff, and he headed what was now called
a "Directorate of Intelligence" (D/I) for the first time and
that occurred on Oct 10, 1947. So the D/I did not exist in July-
Sept 1947. Duh!!!!

One of the CUFOS articles recites the following:


"He said that the bodies had been taken to the base,
to one of the hangars. They were put into large boxes,
and then flown out of Roswell. According to Kaufmann,
the bodies were on two separate flights in case of an
aircraft accident. One plane flew directly to Wright Field,
but the other diverted to Washington, D.C., so that high
ranking members of the administration and the military
would have a chance to see what the creatures looked
like. Then, those bodies were sent on to Wright Field.
There was nothing in this scenario that seemed unlikely
or that could be disproved."


NOTHING that "seemed unlikely"??? Why would bodies or biological
material be shipped to Wright Field for pete's sake??? What
biological labs did they have at the aeronautical engineering
facilities at Wright Field??? Were they going to subject the
alien cadavers to the tender analytical mercies of a supersonic
WIND TUNNEL??? Doesn't that at least "seem" unlikely?

In 1947 the beginning and end of any military biology and
pathology research was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
(AFIP) at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the chemical biological
warfare lab at Ft. Detrick, Md. Yet not one crashed saucer-alien
body story I can recall -- certainly not Kaufmann's nonsense --
  ever mentions AFIP or Ft. Detrick. (I predict that now because
I have posted this that new MJ-12 forgeries will now turn up
citing lab analyses or autopsies from AFIP and Ft. Detrick --
  and they will be falsely backdated to appear to have emerged
months before my posting, complete with affidavits from the
usual liars swearing they "received" the documents in 2000 or
2001 or whenever.)

Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Seguin

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:24:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:22:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Seguin


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >>From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:06:53 -0800
 >>Subject: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >And yes, for the conspiracy theorist there is _no_way_ that
 >anyone could prove that there were objects left on the moon....
 >other than sending the person there to see for himself and even
 >that might not be convincing. He might believe that the trip was
 >faked.

I have to agree. There would be many ways to fake a moon landing
today, at the time I think it would have been hard, and even
harder to not get caught. There is _some_fairly_ compelling
evidence against a moon walk but in the end I would say this is
one thing that is not a lie.

I think you are also right in the fact a conspiracy theorist
would think the trip was faked, and after thinking about that,
that would be a great April fools trick. Make you victim think
they went to the moon! Anyone out there think they could pull it
off without the victim knowing? LOL

Peace

Trevor Seguin







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                       Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:55:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:24:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Hall


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:40 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:47:45 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:12 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>>>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:14:17 -0800 (PST)
 >>>>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

 >>I agree with Dick on his point of faces in clouds. However,
 >>amorphous images aside (as Neil Morris may corroborate to some
 >>degree) it has not prevented us from sending photographic
 >>representations of the Ramey Memo (both enhanced and
 >>computerised samples and normal best photographic paper copies),
 >>to two separate competent 'cryptanalysts' (who have no interest
 >i>n UFOlogy) a few months ago. Status - currently awaiting
 >>responses! Apparently the process takes time, especially on a
 >>limited budget... Checking out whether the Ramey Memo can be
 >>deciphered is a worthwhile project, it is one of the unanswered
 >>questions in the Roswell arena that needs addressing properly, I
 >>am encouraged others have thought of engaging in it, though for
 >>my two-penneth's I am of the opinion this requires the input of
 >>qualified experts outside of ufology before anything useful
 >>(either way) can be learned. Whether this will happen is
 >>questionable.

 >>From an American perspective we are talking about guys who can
 >>decipher a range of blurry texts from long range photography,
 >>even in some cases from spyplane aerial reconnaissance. To
 >>emphasise an important fact, this type of cryptanalysis is
 >>worked from technique, application and pure brain power, there
 >>are many limitations and this is no small task An area of
 >>cryptology called cryptoeidography (which Bruce Macabee may be
 >f>amiliar with?) is a good analogy for this problem.

 >>Cryptoeidography is very effective in rendering either pictures
 >>or text on an image secret, one employs cifax which modifies
 >>electrical patterns to distort an image while the latter
 >i>nvolves actual optical alterations to it. I am not suggesting
 >>either has been done in the case of the Ramey Memo, but in
 >>reference to the latter, an expert can confirm the second form
 >>of altering optical images can be very effective in disguising
 >>content. Here is the kicker, there are natural counterparts to
 >>this type of optical concealment which sometimes crop up in
 >>photographic images that possess text or similar patterns. This
 >>is a major factor and consideration for the prescribed
 >>undertaking.

 >>If anyone can make head-way with an enquiry like this though,
 >>t is in a specialised area of cryptanalysis, which should
 >>also be capable of pointing out any limitations.

 >>Suggestion of a simple 'scientific' method for Ramey Memo
 >>analysis to substantiate or refute David Rudiak's assessment may
 >>go something like this:

 >>Encourage the participation of at least two independent
 >.cryptanalysts and ask them to:

 >>1. Obtain clearest photographic representations of Ramey Memo.

 >>2. Allow a photographic expert (linked with cryptanalysis) to
 >>enlarge, enhance and manipulate the images in a number of useful
 >>ways to obtain workable sample/s.

 >>3. Submit samples to any feasible analyses

 >>4. Publish all conclusions and peer review.

 >Of course it would be "nice" to have cryptanalysts ... or anyone
 >with experience, analyze the Ramey message., However, as Dr.
 >Rudiak has pointed out, understanding the message, which appears
 >to be in plain text (not encrypted, we presume), comes down to
 >correctly identifying individual letters, such as the V, I, and
 >I in the word that Dr. Rudiak used to illustrate his technique.
 >Identifying each letter is a problem of separating the "signal
 >shape" from the "noise shape." The noise shape is a complex area
 >density of dark spots... the photographic grains. Each grain has
 >a probability of registering the correct amount of exposure
 >level for its position in the image. One way of looking at it is
 >that there are "holes and excesses" in the image. Consider the
 >letter I, a straight vertical line (perhaps with a "cap" at the
 >top and bottom). Suppose this letter is correctly focused onto
 >the film. Since the background paper is white, the letter I
 >appears as a dark image i.e., an unexposed (or at least less
 >exposed) area of film which is surrounded by "white" or highly
 >exposed areas. (Of course, the original picture is a negative,
 >but I am talking about the printed format. IN the negative the
 >white paper will look dark and the letter will look bright.) A
 >correct photograpic representation would have a uniform density
 >of _unexposed_ film grains running along the location on the
 >film where the I is focused., That is, the I will appear as a
 >straight dark line surrounded by uniform white. Would not
 >require cryptanalysis to identify the I. Even "richer" for
 >photographic information would be more complex letters like a,
 >e, V, etc.

 >Sounds nice, but sorry... things don't work that way. The focus
 >is not perfect so the image on the (negative) film has
 >brightness gradients where one would like to have sharp
 >boundaries. The focused line might not even be straight because
 >of aberrations in the lens (distortions of the image.... not
 >noticeable for large images like Ramey's face, hand, hat, etc.
 >but noticeable for small images). The film does not react
 >perfectly: the creation of a bright spot on the film (print) is
 >a result of high light exposure. Where the light is very bright
 >the complete development of a film grain (a tiny region... 10's
 >of microns in size...) is 100% or nearly so. However, where
 >there is less brightness (more darkness!) or where there are are
 >brightness gradients in the image (regions between full light
 >and full dark) the development of a grain is less probable.
 >That's the problem. Development of film grains is a probability
 >problem! The edges of the letter I, as focused on the film plane
 >are actually regions of brigthtness gradient, and in such
 >regions the probability of development of film grains is less
 >than 100%. The result is that the letter I will have jagged
 >edges... in some places the film grains will develop correctly
 >and in some places they won't. If the focused image of the
 >letter I is so narrow as to be a few tens of microns wide, that
 >is, if the width is comparable to the size of a film grain, then
 >the developed image may have "bumps" along the vertical sides,
 >that is, dark areas which should be white. This is the
 >"bleeding" of the darkness of the letter I into the white
 >surround, Conversely, there can be "bleeding" of the bright
 >surround into the dark area (because of the aberrations in the
 >lens or slightly imperfect focus or veiling glare - a phenomenon
 >that became important in the Trent photo analysis). The net
 >result is that the nice vertical straight line I becomes a
 >distorted line. And the relative amount of distortion increases
 >the smaller the image gets. In the Ramey case one gets a large
 >amount of distortion in some cases, making it very difficult or
 >impossible to determine the exact shape of the image of a
 >letter. With more complex letters it requires even more accuracy
 >to determine. Consider the difference between e and c. Suppose
 >the letter is an e. If, in recording on film the image of the
 >letter e, the image of the horizontal line is slightly blurred
 >so that brightness of the surrounding white are "bleeds" into
 >the thin area that should be the horizontal line, then some film
 >grains that should not develop actually do develop making the
 >center of the e quite bright. The analyst might look at the
 >image and conclude it was the letter c, not e. Conversely,
 >suppose the letter is a c. If in creating the letter c (assumed
 >to be a small image, not much bigger than grain size) a film
 >grain at the middle of the c did not develop (i.e. did not
 >correctly represent the brightness at the center of the c) then
 >one might think the letter was an e.

 >This is the "salt and pepper" noise problem one has when
 >analyzing tiny images (such as the face on Mars!). (Here "tiny"
 >means not much larger than the pixel or film grain size.) One
 >has speckles of "salt" (bright spots) where one should have dark
 >and conversely, speckles of dark "pepper" spots where one should
 >have white.

 >Under these circumstances the best one can do is assign
 >probabilities to the accuracy of detection. If the letter
 >appears to be a c then one can assign a probability that is
 >based on the physical size of the letter (image) compared to the
 >grain (or pixel) size. If the size of the letter is only a few
 >times grain size the probability of c vs e might be only 50%. If
 >the letter is ten times grain size the probability might be 90%.
 >As the size increases the probability of
 >accuracy increases.

 >For small letters one could say that if the image _looks_
 >clearly like that of a particular letter, then the probability
 >is high that it is that letter. In any other situation one
 >should assign a probability even though this is an
 >"unscientific" probability. Using only letter images that seem
 >to have high probability of being what they look like is a good
 >way to proceed with the Ramey memo. Use only the highest
 >confidence letters at first and then work "downward" to the
 >least confident. OF course, since this is a language there are
 >other constraints besides ust identifying the letters. The
 >letters come in groups... words... so if a few letters of a word
 >are readable then one can search the entire vocabulary for words
 >with those few readable letters and that many letters in the
 >word.

 >The Ramey memo has another problem, which is distortion of the
 >letters, not b the camera optics, but resulting from curvature
 >of the paper as Ramey was holding it. (Why didn't he hold it
 >upstraight and flat... that would have made things so much
 >easier!!) That means one must try to identify letters from
 >images that are distorted in shape as well as being
 >photographically noisy.

 >Hence it is not a pretty sight, that of a diligent investigator
 >sweating over the interpretation of the Ramey memo, working
 >his/her way through the film-grainy, blobby, bent images of
 >letters that, when properly interpreted, could change our view
 >of humanity's place in the universe.

 >My complements to those who have slugged it out with the data,
 >those who have dug in the muddy ditches of noisy photography and
 >who, it appears, have struck some gold!

Bruce,

As Colin Bennett has demonstrated, wordy outpourings simply
don't hack it here, especially amongst we intellectually
deprived seekers of truth.

In 50 words or less, what exactly are you saying?

David Rudiak is/is not on the right track?

Those who question accepting his findings at face value are/are
not correct in asking for peer review? He has/has not found
"gold"?


- Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:04:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:26:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall


 >From: Will Bueche - Center for Psychology & Social Change
<info@centerchange.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:28:11 -0500
 >Subject: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >Dr. John Mack would like everyone to know that the paraphrasing of his
 >position in the following paragraph from last Sunday's New York Times --

 >which is reprinted at Dr. Mack's site for your convenience:

 >http://www.centerchange.org/passport/nyt112402.html

 >-- is not entirely perfect. He's had a few calls asking what he meant.
 >The paragraph in question comes near the end of the article:

 >>Dr. Mack said he no longer refers to people [as] "abductees,"
 >>calling them "experiencers" instead. He said he did not doubt
 >>that the people he studied had had some kind of encounter with
 >>another form of intelligence, but he did not now believe that
 >>they were abducted by alien beings and taken into spaceships.

 >Had Dr. Mack been the one to paraphrase himself he'd have
 >phrased it a little differently, perhaps changing it to "he did
 >not now believe that they were _SIMPLY_ being abducted by alien
 >beings and taken into spaceships."

 >For lack of a qualifier, the meaning may have come out wrong.
 >The paragraph that follows that one may have been enough of an
 >explanation for most people to pick up on what he meant, but
 >just in case it was not enough for you, he wanted you to know.
 >Thanks.

 >>"There are all sorts of subtleties that are very hard to talk
 >>to a reporter about," he said. "We are all so literal. I
 >>believe these people have encountered some kind of intelligence
 >>by an opening of consciousness to a whole other level of
 >>reality. Philosophers are starting to think of a third zone -
 >>some kind of intermediate reality - that enters this reality.
 >>They are having an experience that is experientially real but
 >>the beings are not necessarily physically or materially real."

 >We thought the article was very good.

 >Will Bueche

 >Center for Psychology & Social Change
 >http://www.centerchange.org

Sorry Will, but this sounds all too much like political spin
control.

Can John Mack speak plainly to the issues, or not?

Does he think we are dealing with alien abductors or not?

And don't try to snow me with "Philosophers are starting to
think of a third zone(?)".

I have a degree in philopsophy and cannot identify with
experineces that are "experientially real but the beings are not
necessarily physically or materially real."

Just exactly what the hell does that mean? It sounds like total,
undefined gobbledegook to me!


  - Dick







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                  Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:18:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:28:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review - Rudiak


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:34:20 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:02:02 -0500
 >Subject: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

<snip>

 >David Rudiak (one of our List contributors) held forth on his
 >analysis of the Ramey message, and if his interpretation is
 >correct the telegram certainly is a smoking gun. But the program
 >failed to mention that several other individuals and groups keep
 >coming up with other interpretations of key words in the
 >telegram. Some kind of organized peer review is badly needed
 >here. Rudiak's Roswell web site is excellent and he deserves
 >praise for his conscientious and honest efforts.

I don't object to peer review. I just want to know exactly what
you mean by an "organized peer review" and exactly how they
would go about doing such a review. Who would be doing the
reviewing and who would be doing the picking of the reviewers?

I don't want this turning into a repeat of the "scientific"
Robertson Panel and Condon Commission, which, as everybody
knows, were just whitewashes designed to bury the subject under
the cloak of being "scientific reviews" by esteemed scientists.

If this isn't done very carefully, then I can just see the
headlines a year from now, "Esteemed Scientific Panel Disproves
Alleged Roswell 'Smoking Gun' - Deemed To Be Nothing But the
'Will to Believe'"

Back in 1947 we had similar headlines that killed the story for
a long time, such as the Daily Record headline: "Gen. Ramey
Empties Roswell Saucer - Ramey Says Excitement Is Not Justified
- General Ramey Says Disk is Weather Balloon"

Propaganda like this can be very powerful. Ridicule and appeals
to authority tend to work very well.

In the meantime, people without PhD's and pointy heads can do
their own "peer review" by simply looking at key words and
phrases at:

www.roswellproof.com/reconstruct.html

The main "qualification" is the ability to read. See for
yourself whether the critical words "victims" and "disc" are
there or not.

The fact that other groups and individuals have come up with
different interpretations does not automatically render them
equally viable. E.g., some people didn't even bother to do
objective letter counts, so we end up with them trying to
squeeze a 9 letter word into an 8 letter space, or elsewhere a 3
letter word into a 2 character space.

I have spelled out other examples in my response to Steve
Kaeser, particular with the critical word VICTIMS as opposed to
other renderings of REMAINS or FINDING. See, e.g.,

I applied various forms of analysis such as comparing to actual
teletype font, determining expected letter positions based on
even spacing, comparing to other words (the elevated printed "C"
in both "victims" and "disc") and doing extensive searches for
possible alternates. Did they?

I have tried to be very rigorous and consistent in my approach
and applied many constraints to narrow down the possibilities,
as I outlined in my methodology discussion on my Website (which
hardly anybody bothers to read):

www.roswellproof.com/methods.html

Has anybody else spelled out exactly how they went about doing
their interpretations? Not that I know of. So why are all
readings being treated as equal?

 >Finally, Karl Pflock came up with a typical whopper by asserting
 >that the entire "Roswell mythology" is attributable to and dates
 >back to the discredited witness, Frank Kaufman. Huh?

Well that's Karl Pflock for 'ya. Once a CIA propagandist, always
a propagandist. Equally "convincing" was his statement that he
started out as a true-blue Roswell "believer". He's been
debunking Roswell as a Mogul balloon ever since 1994 in "Roswell
in Perspective." He employed the same propaganda techniques then
as now. Example: He claimed hardly anybody reported "memory
metal" (and those one or two accounts he flippantly dismissed as
foggy memories, such as Bill Brazel's).

My Website now has an updated compilaton of eyewitness
descriptions of debris:

http://www.roswellproof.com/debris_main.html

with the memory metal descriptions at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/debris2_memory_foil.html

At the start is a chart of all the people reporting this
property, either 1st or 2nd-hand. I count 16 that I know about.
  Even if you throw out a few of questionable ones, like Jim
Ragsdale, that still leaves in the neighborhood of a dozen such
descriptions. In addition to Marcel, there was Bill Brazel,
Gen. Exon, Loretta Proctor, Sgt. Robert Smith, neighbors Loretta
Proctor, Sally Tadolini & mother Marian Strickland, sheriff
Wilcox's daughter Phyllis McGuire, etc.

I also got the word today that he's putting a lot of heat now on
Bill Doleman, the archeologist at the Univ. of N.M. who led the
dig. You think as a major proponent of Mogul and tinfoil radar
targets, Pflock would welcome such a search for physical
evidence that might even bolster his own case. What if Doleman
ultimately turned up pieces of an old radar target or Mogul
equipment? I'm sure Pflock would then change tunes and be
praising Doleman to the high skies.

 >One thing that puzzled me was the absence of any reference to
 >Pappy Henderson (pilot of the B-29 who flew crash-field cargo to
 >Fort Worth) and later told both friends and members of his
 >family that he had transported alien bodies and described in
 >general terms what they looked like. Though his "testimony" was
 >second-hand, like that of Maj. Easley's daughter I found it very
 >persuasive.

I agree. Henderson told his story to a lot of people before his
death. I, for one, consider it to be very credible and certainly
one of the better accounts of small bodies being recovered at
Roswell. If interested, people can have a look at the affidavits
of his wife, daughter, and business partner:

http://www.roswellproof.com/henderson.html

And as we both know, the best Karl Pflock could come up with to
dismiss Henderson's story was that he was a "practical joker".
Or in his post yesterday, they were all just second-hand
stories, so ignore them.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:20:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:30:48 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway - Ledger


 >From: Paul Novak <nib68@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:29:13 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:20:40 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: 'UFO' Spotted Over Asker Norway

 >>Could anyone reasonably match this to a rocket booster re-entry
 >>and still stay withing the timeframe of at least three minutes?

 >I have been trying to do just that. Unfortunately precision
 >seems to be a bit hard to come by. I have found a close match or
 >two but nothing irrefutable.

 >"Object Description: Type: Vostok Stage 2 Rocket Body
 >NORAD Name: SL-3 R/B
 >NORAD Number: 11156
 >Int'l Designation: 1978 117B
 >Launched: 19 DEC 1978 @ 01:40 UTC
 >Site: Plesetsk Cosmodrome
 >Mission: Tselina-D 18

 >Reentry Prediction: Predicted Reentry Time: Late November
 >Predictions will begin 5 days prior to expected reentry"

 >Here's one decent link that may help you out.

 >http://www.aero.org/cords/reentries.html


Hi Paul,

I've been away since Sunday.

Thanks for the URL. It now seems that this was a short duration
con-trail from a single engined jet. The Sun was also at a low
angle [Norway this time of the year] and lighting the trail in
an odd manner. But thanks again  for the URL.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                     Prince Rupert Sightings - 05-18-02

From: Brian Vike - HBCC UFO <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:44:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:32:58 -0500
Subject: Prince Rupert Sightings  - 05-18-02


Prince Rupert, British Columbia

Date:  May 18, 2002
Time: not given:
Email Report

My mother was on her way to the kitchen when she stopped to look
outside the living room window towards the North. She saw this
craft with different color lights around it and it had two
smaller black objects following behind it, my mother was calling
me to wake up and look at what she saw outside, I got up just in
time to see this light slowly moving to the East and it slowly
Blinked 3 times before it vanished and behind Mount Oldfield
which is 1885 ft. high. The objects never made a sound, and this
is the first time that my mother had ever seen any real UFO's.

Thank you to the witness for the report.

------

Correction for the sighting below. I just reported the below
sighting to you folks, but had the date wrong. The correct date
is August 6, 2002. I had June 20, 2002 which was the wrong date.
Sorry eveyone, my goof up at HBCC UFO Research.


Prince Rupert, British Columbia

Date:  August 6, 2002
Time: 11:45 p.m.
Email Report

Hello Brian

On Tuesday, August 6th at 11:45. My cousin (name deleted) and I
went down to the Ocean Fish Plant to check on our fishing boats
when we saw this bright light shoot across the sky from the
North West to the South East in just about 3 seconds and it
zigzagged at the end, then we looked up toward the North and saw
this light go straight up into the sky, we saw two more lights
that were stationary one light got a little brighter them it
followed the first light, the third one looked like it was
coming towards us it was getting brighter and brighter then it
stopped and went back to where we first saw it then it went
straight up into the sky. This all happened in just 15 min.
there were three other people down on the floats at Royal and
they too saw what we just saw, we all talked about it, we never
saw anything like it before.

Sincerely

(deleted by HBCC UFO)

Thank you to the witness for their report.

HBCC UFO Research
               &
Editor: Canadian Communicator






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                 Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:00:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Tonnies


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:04:12 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

<snip>

 >Can John Mack speak plainly to the issues, or not?

 >Does he think we are dealing with alien abductors or
 >not?

Mack believes that the "experiencers" he has worked with have
encountered an as-yet unclassified and unknown form of
intelligence. He is unwilling to speculate beyond that because
doing so would merely pigeonhole a global and mythologically
rich phenomenon with present cultural and technological
conceits.

Other civilizations have used myriad interpretations
conveniently suited to what they knew (or thought they knew):
gods, demons, devils, goblins, fairies, etc.

The late Philip K. Dick interpreted his "close encounters" to
some sort of cosmic "trickster," and spent the end of his life
wrestling with the very uncomfortable notion that the phenomenon
might never reveal itself.

Read the quote by Jacques Vallee posted toward the top of my UFO
page:

http://mactonnies.com/ufos.html

--Mac

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                              Randle On 'Coast'

From: Lester Hahn <lesterhahn@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:02:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:00:16 -0500
Subject: Randle On 'Coast'


Dear Mr. Randle:

Given that you were the main consultant on the Sci-Fi Roswell
special and overhearing your comments this past Saturday night
on Coast, where you mentioned the recommendations you made
regarding the archaeological expedition to the crash site, did
you ever suggest seeking the expertise of an FAA crash
investigator to assist with the project.


Les Hahn







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                              Albany TV Object

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:07:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:03:00 -0500
Subject: Albany TV Object


I have posted at my web site my preliminary analysis of the
video taken by a TV cameraman for an Albany TV station back in
October. This preliminary analysis shows some image enhancements
that are intended to answer the question... did it or didn't it
pass behind a cloud.

I think the presentation is self-explanatory. I look forward to
other analysts commenting on the question... how high was 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:28:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:05:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:06:26 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:41:35 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
 >>testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
 >>miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.


 >And what is this constant BS you are spewing about "miracles"
 >being necessary to recognize UFOs as something real and
 >unexplained?

 >As Bruce has pointed out, some of the skeptibunker
 >"explanations" are far more miraculous than simply accepting
 >relaible testimony as valid evidence.

 >- Dick

Dick, Bob and List,

Hume's argument purports to be rationalism, but is in fact a
'miracle' of rationalisation. The notion of the miraculous can
only be discussed meaningfully in the context of the sociology
of knowledge, where it is axiomatic that 'reality' is
fundamentally socially defined. That is, it is a consensual
understanding based on systems of theory, experience and belief
that are braced and underpinned by socially cemented
'legitimations' and all this stuff has to be built and
maintained by the activities of human beings in history. In
this context questions about truth and falsehood are often less
useful than questions about the appropriateness of this or that
response in terms of the ongoing self-producing and self-
justifying cultural dialectic. Evidently this point of view
embraces a scepticism more radical than that which Bob espouses,
because it transcends both the absolutely miraculous and Hume's
speciously absolute refutation of it.

Hume's argument was this:

"There must be a uniform experience against every miraculous
event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And
as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a
direct and full _proof_, from the nature of the fact, against
the existence of any miracle."

That generations of wise philosophers, who continued to quote
it, failed to see the extraordinary ineptitude of this circular
argument can only be explained by reference to the kind of
reality it was becoming culturally appropriate to inhabit in the
early 'rationalist' Britain of the eighteenth-century, where
'natural law' was coming to be seen as a set of absolute
unchangeable templates laid down at the beginning of time. Today
we know that natural 'law' is a continually reinvented product
of human effort where even the notion of 'the beginning of time'
itself is something conceived and re-engineered by human
intellect and imagination.

Hume's argument attempts to put underneath this process
something absolute and unconditional, cunningly disguised in the
form of an argument from experience. Miracles he defined as
violations of the 'laws of nature' and argued that

"as a firm and unalterable experience has established these
laws, the proof against miracles, from the very nature of the
fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly
be imagined."

This is not an argument _from_ experience, however, but a
sophistical _embargo_ on experiences of a certain kind - that
is, experiences that are anomalous in terms of a philosophical
system and, more particularly, in terms of the psychosocial
homeostasis of the organism 'David Hume'.

This is a primitive rationalism that hasn't yet learnt that
experience is both personally and culturally dynamic. Nature is
for Hume a static truth. But a genuine argument from experience
is the argument from _all_ experience, which is conducted by
human society all along the breaking wavefront of its advance
into the unknown future, and which demonstrates that no cultural
experience is 'firm and unalterable'. All that is now 'law'
represents merely a temporising 'fudge factor' for an unknown
physics that is the miraculous waiting to become.

Clear minds

Martin Shough








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                  Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:39:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:13:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hatch


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:04:12 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >>From: Will Bueche <info@centerchange.org>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:28:11 -0500
 >>Subject: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >>Dr. John Mack would like everyone to know that the
 >>paraphrasing of his position in the following paragraph
 >>from last Sunday's New York Times --

 >>which is reprinted at Dr. Mack's site for your convenience:

 >>http://www.centerchange.org/passport/nyt112402.html

 >>-- is not entirely perfect.

<snip>

 >>>"There are all sorts of subtleties that are very hard to talk
 >>>to a reporter about," he said. "We are all so literal. I
 >>>believe these people have encountered some kind of intelligence
 >>>by an opening of consciousness to a whole other level of
 >>>reality. Philosophers are starting to think of a third zone -
 >>>some kind of intermediate reality - that enters this reality.
 >>>They are having an experience that is experientially real but
 >>>the beings are not necessarily physically or materially real."

 >>We thought the article was very good.

 >Sorry Will, but this sounds all too much like political spin
 >control.

 >Can John Mack speak plainly to the issues, or not?

 >Does he think we are dealing with alien abductors or not?

 >And don't try to snow me with "Philosophers are starting to
 >think of a third zone(?)".

 >I have a degree in philopsophy and cannot identify with
 >experiences that are "experientially real but the beings are
 >not necessarily physically or materially real."

 >Just exactly what the hell does that mean? It sounds like
 >total, undefined gobbledegook to me!


Hello Dick:

It sounds like totally typical John Mack to me. I wasn't far
into his noted book 'Abduction' before my head (and stomach)
started to spin.

A Third Zone of reality? What's the second one?

What I see is a man who cannot bring himself to say that (some)
people are simply seeing things that aren't there.

What's more, I suspect that Mack believes his own BS!  Hey!
Here's your brain. (crack... splat... splutter...) Here's your
brain on Mack.

None of this should reflect on cases which may have a genuine,
if unproven physical (objective) basis, I'm not addressing that
now. What I see is a good, intelligent man, who has lapsed into
mysticism to the point where reality and fantasy intrude on one
another like two flavors of melting ice cream. This just revolts
me.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:47:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:16:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Kaeser


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

<snip>

 >>According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the
 >>moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in
 >>space were lethal to humans.


 >Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >And yes, for the conspiracy theorist there is _no_way_ that
 >anyone could prove that there were objects left on the moon....
 >other than sending the person there to see for himself and even
 >that might not be convincing. He might believe that the trip was
 >faked.

Just as we have those who still promote the "Flat Earth" theory,
I think we'll always have those who doubt the moon landings. As
we've seen here on this List (as well as others), beliefs can
sometimes cloud our view of the world around us... er..... At
least in the view of those who don't share those beliefs.

When I worked at a small radio station in the early 70's, about
a year after the last moon landing, the news department (that
would have been me) received a packet of material from the
southwest (Arizona, I believe) that included a mimeographed book
on the faking of the moon landings. Most of the world had
accepted the landings at face value, but even then there were a
few individuals that were driven to prove that they had been
faked. I now wish that I had kept it.

I DID keep a kit used to train your cat to use the toilet and
flush when it was done. Perhaps that shows my feelings on the
veracity of each.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:00:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:11:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Ledger


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:47:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 ><snip>

 >>>According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the
 >>>moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in
 >>>space were lethal to humans.

 >>Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >>And yes, for the conspiracy theorist there is _no_way_ that
 >>anyone could prove that there were objects left on the moon....
 >>other than sending the person there to see for himself and even
 >>that might not be convincing. He might believe that the trip was
 >>faked.

 >Just as we have those who still promote the "Flat Earth" theory,
 >I think we'll always have those who doubt the moon landings. As
 >we've seen here on this List (as well as others), beliefs can
 >sometimes cloud our view of the world around us... er..... At
 >least in the view of those who don't share those beliefs.

<snip>


Hi Steve and Bruce,

NASA certainly didn't help the situation by playing around with
some of their photos, for whatever reason. Likely publicity
shots. The camera lens graticule seemingly behind the flag is a
classic-probably airbrushed out. NASA has to carry some of the
blame themselves.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                          Filer's Files #48 - 2002

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:50:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:16:36 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #48 - 2002


FILER'S FILES #48 -- 2002, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,  Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 27, 2002,   [ Majorstar@aol.com ]Majorstar@aol.com
Webmaster: Chuck Warren
My new website is at: http://www.georgefiler.com

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, UFO SIGHTINGS MOVE WEST

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space.  Features this week are: Yes Virginia, We
went to the Moon, Pennsylvania pulsating cylinder, Virginia
craft without wings, North Carolina strange flash, Georgia UFO
zigzags, Tennessee canard, Michigan saucer, Wisconsin bright
lights, Arkansas huge boomerang, Texas orange light, Arizona
blue object, California flying triangle, Canada gold saucer
above copper mine, Chile UFO landing site, English sighting,
Norway video, Ukraine sightings, and Turkish UFOs spotted by
airline pilots may be space debris.  Announcing the Grand
Opening of our website with 100 stores for all your Holiday
shopping at fantastic prices. FILER.unfranchise.com

YES, VIRGINIA, WE WENT TO THE MOON

Virginia asks, "Did we really go to the Moon?"  Yes, Virginia I
worked at Langley Air Force Base in the late 60s and drove
through the NASA facility daily watching the preparations for
our flights to the Moon.  I stood next to the Moon Lander and
watched closely as they practiced Moon landings from a giant
steel network.  I followed the television broadcasts, read the
classified data, stood next to the rockets, and talked to
astronauts all of which convinces me the US actually landed on
the Moon.  The real story is what they found there.

Researcher Jim Marrs also found transcripts of the technical
debriefing following the Apollo 11 mission. Astronauts Niel
Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins told of an encounter
with a large cylindrical UFO even before reaching the moon.
Aldrin said, "The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was
one day out or pretty close to the moon.  It had a sizable
dimension to it." Aldrin said the Apollo crew at first thought
the object was the Saturn 4 booster rocket (S-IVB) but added,
"We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6,000 miles
away."  Aldrin described the UFO as a cylinder while Armstrong
said it was "...really two rings.  Two connected rings." Collins
also said it appeared to be a hollow cylinder which was
tumbling.  He added, "It was a hollow cylinder.  But then you
could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced
by this open-book shape. It was really weird."

Even more strange was the experience of Aldrin and Armstrong,
after they reached the moon. According to an Associated Press
story of July 20, 1969 (my file copy is from the San Bernardino
Sun-Telegram), the astronauts sighted eerie lights inside a
crater near the point on the moon where their lunar lander was
due to touch down the next day.  On their first sweep around the
moon, Armstrong described a mysterious bright light on the inner
wall of the crater Aristarchus, located north of their flight
path.  "It seems to have a slight amount of florescence to it.
The area in the crater is quite bright," he reported. "That area
is definitely brighter than anything else I can see. There
doesn't appear to be any color involved in it=E2=C7=A6It looks like an
eerie sight," confirmed Aldrin.  Thanks to Jim Marrs
http://www.jimmarrs.com/

PENNSYLVANIA BRIGHT CIGAR SHAPED PULSATING OBJECT

ALSACE TOWNSHIP -- The witness reports, "My wife and I were
driving home at 9:30 PM, on November 7, 2002, after visiting
some friends.  I admit I had a couple of cocktails before
dinner, but my wife hadn't, and she saw the same object,
hovering above a house on Alsace Avenue.  We saw a cigar shaped,
pulsating object, which seemed to change its size and shape,
becoming brighter and more elongated as we watched it.  This
aroused our curiosity, and my wife said "Quick, stop the car!"
"So I pulled over and we got out, and though I was scared stiff,
I attempted to draw a little closer.  But we were overcome by
flashes of light that seemed to emanate from the object, and we
experienced what seemed like an out of body experience, as
though we ourselves were being uplifted into space.  Frankly, it
was pretty hairy; we were quite excited, though it didn't last
long, for it shrank and disappeared as quickly as it came.
Thanks to Peter Davenport  [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

VIRGINIA CRAFT WITHOUT WINGS

RICHMOND -- On November 4, 2002, the witness was driving home on
Route 95 at 3 AM, and reports,  "I noticed ahead a flying object
with red, green, and white lights "glide" around in a circle
about 300 feet above the highway."  I thought it was a
helicopter except the light pattern suggested a different shape,
as the lights were where the wings should have been.  It swooped
down toward the ground then back up again and didn't act like a
plane by its maneuvers.  There were no other aircraft in the
sky, but it seemed to be searching for something on the ground.
I only watched for about two minutes as we drove north and
couldn't see it anymore. It just seemed "odd" in its actions and
appearance and the lights didn't seem to fit those of an
aircraft.  The lights didn't blink but were constant.  I have no
idea what it was; it did not glow, but only had those lights.
It just seemed "different" from any aircraft.  Thanks to Peter
Davenport.  [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

NORTH CAROLINA STRANGE FLASH OVER QUEEN MOUNTAIN

HIGHLANDS -- My husband and I had just gone to bed at 11:30 PM,
on November 9, 2002, when we saw a flashing light that we
thought was lightning, but the flashes were very fast and
bright.  We got out of bed and looked out the window and saw a
light flashing over Queen Mountain.  The light was flashing
white then red and lighting up the entire the valley.  At first
we thought maybe a car had hit a power line, because after we
saw the flashes the power went off. We went down the road where
the lights had been flashing and we found nothing out of the
ordinary.  Our neighbors had power and we still don't know what
could have caused flashing lights.  We live on the outskirts of
a small town and have never seen anything like these lights
ever.

GEORGIA ZIGZAGGING CRAFT WITH RED BLINKING LIGHTS

MORROW -- The witness says, "While unloading supplies at my
office 9:45 AM, I saw a strange looking craft on November 13,
2002, that had three blinking red lights."  It appeared to hover
then zig zag around the sky and eventually diving behind a group
of trees.  In a few seconds it appeared again off in the
distance at an even lower altitude.  At the same time another
craft with a very bright light and two red flashing lights
appeared behind the same group of trees and just seemed to hover
there!  These lights were not blinking and were rather large
lights.  My family and I have observed a passenger type aircraft
for 8 or 9 months with a extremely bright double headlight that
can hover in one place for any amount of time, and turn on a
dime!  It doesn't have to make a large turn like a regular
plane.  We watched twenty to thirty minutes.  It could be some
new type of craft that the military is testing?  We do have an
Army base nearby.  I don't think it is really an UFO.  But it is
something new we have never seen in the skies over middle
Georgia!  [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

TENNESSEE CANARD WING CRAFT

CHATTANOOGA -- I saw the largest canard wing craft I have ever
seen traveling ESE on November 11, 2002, in East Ridge.  The
canard with its wings in front, appeared to have at least a 60
foot wingspan, traveling quietly at 3.30 PM. Several other cars
stopped to see it go over as I did.  It wasn't alien but I
believe it may be secret.  After spending two hours searching
the net for a similar craft, I can't find one.  It was white and
may have had wing tips on the main wings.  Biggest Canard I have
ever seen.  Chattanooga Airport said they didn't know what it
was.  "LearStar" aircraft, which has a canard wing is a
turboprop driven aircraft, which therefore should have been
audible.  Thanks to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/
]NUFORC

MICHIGAN SAUCER WITH RED AND WHITE LIGHTS.

FLINT -- The witnesses, a mother and daughter saw a saucer type
craft hovering above their home on November 13, 2002, as they
pulled onto their driveway at 10:35 PM.  They state, "They saw a
structured saucer type craft fifty feet in diameter with many
white and red lights on it.  They observed the craft traveling
slowly west for two minutes, and neither could believe what they
were witnessing.  The craft was just above the tree lines,
making a weird humming noise.  "The craft was not an airplane or
something manmade."   [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

WISCONSIN UFO's SIGHTED

ADAMS -- The witnesses claim they saw a UFO as they drove home,
that had two strobe lights on each side.  Other cars were
pulling over and stopping to look as the object was just sitting
there at 5:50 PM.  They stopped and took images with their
digital camera.  The witness reports, "When we shot the first
picture, it was about 350 feet away with a red blinking light in
the middle of the strobe lights."  We kept taking pictures and
it started to move slowly towards us and stopped overhead for 40
seconds, before we decided to get in the car and leave.  We
drove off and it tries to follow us home, but we lost it. We
were almost home when, we blanked out and turned onto the wrong
street, and had to turn around and go back two streets, that we
know we never passed.  We finally got home and looked at the
pictures, but they were pitch black.  We have sighted this
object two times.  There silverish lights blink right in front
of us about 200 feet high.

SPARTA -- A bright object was first seen above reddish morning
clouds on November 13, 2002.  It was a bright light around the
perimeter of an egg shaped object with a blinking light in the
center.  The object descended slowly downward into a cloud and
slowly dropped beneath the cloud and then disappeared.  When
looked at through binoculars, the light way too bright to make
out object." The object then disappeared like magic and was gone
at 6:45 AM.  Thanks to Peter Davenport  [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

KANSAS THREE LARGE HOVERING UFOs AND A BOOMERANG

ARKANSAS CITY -- On November 9, 2002, I walked outside to help
my daughter and her son to their car.  She said she had seen a
brilliant green shooting star earlier in the evening.  So, we
looked up, and we both said, "Oh my God, what is that?"  We both
were looking at an immense gray flying boomerang with no lights,
that was flying north at approximately 9:30 PM, without a sound.
It was so big that the only way to see its shape was by the fact
that it was blocking out the stars behind it.  The event passed
and my daughter and grandson left.  I returned to the house to
try to continue watching a movie with my neighbor.  Later, at
1:00 AM, I asked my neighbor to walk outside with me; I wanted
to look again.  My neighbor yelled and pointed up, and there was
the craft again!  This time, the object was moving to the
southeast and was directly above our house.  It seemed to be in
orbit, with the object near the Little Dipper.  The neighborhood
dogs were all barking frantically, when both events occurred.
During both sightings, I also witnessed shooting stars near it.
I live close to McConnell Air Force Base and frequently see
standard aircraft, but this thing was really scary, it was so
huge..

WICHITA -- Matthew A. Hitt phoned to tell me, "On November 21,
2002, he left work and went outside in the parking lot and
looked up and saw three pinkish white UFOs in the sky.  He
watched for a few minutes as normal commercial aircraft flew
over.  He went back to his place of work and asked other
employees to come out and look.  He pointed the objects out to
fifteen other witnesses, who agreed these were not a normal
flying objects.  He grabbed a pair of binoculars and watched for
ten minutes around 5:45 PM, as the sun set. The three UFOs
hovered in the sky about a thousand meters away.  The UFOs were
larger than commercial aircraft and there was no sound like a
normal plane would make.  No one knew what it was.  Mathew says,
"I live close to McConnell Air Force Base and they were nothing
like anything flying from the base.  The objects disappeared
after ten minutes as the sun was going down.  They were bigger
than an aircraft.  Thanks to Webmaster Mathew Hitt
(mathewhitt@ufoedge.com),

TEXAS FLICKERING STATIONARY ORANGE LIGHT

COMANCHE -- My girlfriend and I were leaving my church at 8:45
PM, on November 13, 2002, in Hasse, about seven miles away from
Comanche.  She saw an orangish yellowish light in the sky to the
west that got brighter on and off and then dimmed out after a
few seconds.  Later, we were at a traffic light in Comanche and
she pointed it out to me.  It got bright then dimmed out again.
As we headed toward the west side of town, we saw it again in a
different part of the sky, so I'm not sure whether there was
more than one.  The second time I saw it, I observed a small
dark speck in the middle.  It was definitely hundreds if not
thousands of feet up.  It remained stationary during each of the
sightings.  Thanks to Peter Davenport  [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

ARIZONA ROUND DISC AND BRIGHT BLUE OBJECT

PHOENIX -- Michael reports, "In the cooler evening in the desert
myself and three friends often escaped the big city to get some
fresh air, back in the summer 1974."  Then there were no homes
built in the deserts north of Phoenix. We were just idling along
northbound on Happy Valley Road just talking, laughing, and
listing to rock and roll music.  "We heard a sound in the sky
and all four of us leaned out the windows of the 72 yellow Dodge
Duster, gazing skyward, when we saw this perfectly round craft
with orange glowing lights around it."  The sound emanated in
every direction of the craft, which must be why we heard it
approaching.  It flew right over us whoosh, from horizon to
horizon in about 15 seconds.  It seemed to glide or just skim
the sky very smoothly in a straight line until it was out of
sight.  I asked, "Did you see that?  Still silence, then the
driver said, "Yaw, but I'm not telling anybody." I have never
forgotten.  I was 15 now 44, a native.  Thanks to Michael

TEMPE -- The witness saw an object with a blue/white center with
a bright blue outer ring traveling west at 9:33 PM on November
9, 2002.  This was brighter and larger than any object I have
seen at night in the sky.  It was huge.  I was facing north and
saw it fly past in about five seconds at 60 degrees above the
horizon.  NUFORC Note: Please see report from Arkansas City,
Kansas, for same date.  PD

CALIFORNIA FLYING TRIANGLE AND ORANGE STAR

BURBANK -- On Sunday morning at 12:30 AM, on November 10, 2002,
I saw a circular object heading east over the Santa Monica
mountains roughly around Sherman Oaks/ Studio City.  The
circular object had four pairs of lights positioned at, 2, 4, 8,
and 10 o'clock, (if the object were the face of a clock).  I
walked out onto my back lawn as the pairs of lights went off,
and the object seemed to change shape.  It sort of undulated as
it morphed shape. As it morphed it took the shape of a boomerang
for a second, and then back to an undulating shape and then took
a 45-degree right hand turn and headed south.  There was a white
light flashing in the middle of the changing shape, as it moved
away from me.  It was very bizarre!

LOS ANGELES AREA -- On November 11, 2002, the witnesses were
driving to Ventura at 7:30 PM, when motorists from another car
told them to look at the UFO.  The witness said, "We saw a green
oval shaped object floating in the sky and a minute later we saw
at least ten helicopters, I'm not kidding."  We even saw a huge
Army/Navy helicopter, with letters on the side, and it was a
goverment helicopter.

SAN JOSE -- My friend and I were just leaving the post office on
November 11, 2002, in my pickup when I saw an orange star like
object moving slowly beneath the moon.  I asked my friend, "Do
you see that?"  He replied, "Yes!"  I stopped the truck in the
parking lot at 8:08 PM, and we both quickly got out for a better
look.  It was an orange, flame colored, star like object that
was moving slowly east, much slower than a plane.  Then it just
seemed to disappear or perhaps flew into the nighttime clouds or
haze behind.  I briefly saw it dimly flare again, and then it
seemed to be totally gone.  Thanks to Peter Davenport [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

CANADA GOLD SAUCER ABOVE MINE

TORONTO, ONTARIO -- The witness reports, "I saw the strange
object at 1:00 AM, on or about November 10, 2002.  My co-worker
also saw the same object, last week around 10:30 PM, at the same
place.  I am not saying what it was in the sky but it didn't
look like a plane to me. My coworker thought the same.  The
altitude of the object was higher than planes normally fly and
it was heading toward Toronto.

GRANISLE, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- Brian Vike reports I was contacted
by a gentleman, who is an authority from Granisle a town of 400
residents.  The witness was with another fellow driving on
October 22, 2002, when they observed a large glowing orange/gold
almost saucer shaped object hovering right over the top of the
old Bell Copper Mine on an island in Babine Lake at 10:25 PM.
They pulled over and watched the object hover low to the ground,
then rise up very slowly and come to a complete stop, move
sideways then stop and drop down again.  The light intensity
grew as they watched  and the object moved out over the lake and
stopped for a few seconds, then went back over the top the mine
once again. They estimated it was about the size of the Moon.
They said the ground area around the object, was lit up for some
distance and the brightness of the craft cast it's reflection on
the lake.  The men watched for about seven minutes before it
rose up and left slowly heading north, still at a low altitude
until out of their sight.

(HBCC UFO Note: I find this a very interesting case since the
craft was sitting over the closed Granisle Bell Copper Mine
where numerous fossils are found, including Mammoth. Bones.
Thanks to Brian Vike Editor: UFO Canadian Communicator

CHILI UFO LANDING SITE

SANTIAGO -- Retired Carabineros Major Raul Gajardo Leopold
reports a circular imprint measuring 30 meters in diameter was
found by military personnel from the "La Concepci=C3=B3n" Regiment
based in Lonquimay on November 15, 2002.  The forces isolated an
area in Chile's Ninth Region consisting of pasture fields and
trees in a radius of 1200 meters like a soccer field,.  The
reason for the show of force was the discovery of a burned patch
of grass.  The phenomenon extended over a diameter of 30 meters
and burned tree trunks and a substance similar to whitewash was
found.  "At equidistant points of the circle there were also 4
circles measuring 15 cm, which were not scorched.  They are like
four legs at the center of the circle.  What is strange is that
the snow never got to cover the circle.  The exact location of
this site is confidential.  A Geiger Counter recorded a high
level of radiation in the area.  Another interesting fact is
that local authorities were barred entry to the site, while a
member of the Army's upper echelon visited the area by
helicopter.

SAN VICENTE DE TAGUA TAGUA -- Guillermo Aguilera reports that on
November 21, 2002, the witness, Luis Sepulveda Castro, a
security guard at a corporate warehouse-- went outside the
building to look at the sky and was able to see a strange object
moving in a NW to SW direction at 11:00 PM.  Using binoculars,
he was able to make out the object was spherical in shape with a
red-colored base, giving off intermittent green flashes from its
upper section.  The object moved slowly; and the observation
lasted for 45 minutes.  Thanks to Scott Corrales, Institute of
Hispanic Ufology for the Translation (C) 2002, and Liliana
Nu=C3=B1ez O and Terra.Cl's Ufology Channel.

ENGLAND FORMATION FLIGHT OF TWO CRAFT

WOLVERHAMPTON -- Two craft were seen flying in formation one
over the other at very low speed on November 11, 2002.  After 2-
3 minutes the craft split up. One disappeared for a about a
minute and then was visable again.  It may be its lights went
off.  The craft then flew in east at 6:40 PM. The other craft
traveled away in the same direction slowly. One craft left its
lights on all of the time, the other turned them off, or just
disappeared.  See some great video at
http://www.rense.com/general31/woods1A.htm

NORWAY UFO VIDEO RECORDED

ASKER-- Kelly Peterborough reports that on November 19, 2002,
comet-like flying object was videotaped for three minutes by
Helene Solberg at 2:15 PM, who lives in a village west of Oslo.
Helene saw a that soared through the afternoon sky, Solberg
noticed an object with a long, bright tail when dusk started
settling over Southern Norway.  She excitedly called her husband
Stig, who reminded her that their video camera was in the living
room where they left it after video taping the Leonid meteor
shower.  Swedish researcher Clas Svahn claims the UFO was short-
duration humidity condensation contrail coming from a jet
aircraft that was illuminated by the low-lying sun.  The sun was
only six degrees high in the south and was shining on the
unusually short contrail giving the appearance of a shiny disc.
The contrail lasted for only a few seconds because of the local
high-altitude conditions.  Thanks to Kelly Peterborough and
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos SeeSat and Clas Svahn.

NEW UFO HOVERING OVER SOUTHERN UKRAINE

SIMFEROPOL -- Anton A. Anfalov reports, that on Monday, November
18, 2002, about 6 AM, a bright object was noticed hovering
stationary over the Eastern Crimean Autonomous Republic
southeast of Simferopol.  The object was several times brighter
than the planet Venus, and 30 degrees above the horizon.  After
ten minutes it suddenly vanished, like an electrical lamp
switched off.  The last detail indicates that it was a UFO, not
Venus just covered by cloud.  The object died out very sharply,
not gradually.  Anton as witnessed several similar observations
of strange moving and hovering bright stars that are definitely
not satellites, Venus or Jupiter.

Anfalov writes, "For some reason the Crimean Peninsula is the
subject of peculiar interest for UFOs."  Alien activity may be
present here using something like "portals" that were detected
above the Lograf mountainous ridge north of Yalta.  Some kind of
"alien navigation beacons," very likely serve to indicate
approaches to those portals on Mt. Ayju-Dag (The Bear Mountain),
Mt. Northern Demerdzhi, and some few other points here.  Thee
strange dots of light during daytime were observed on the
eastern sharp slope of Mt. Ayju-Dag in 2001.  There are
absolutely no houses, frontier guard posts, etc., absolutely no
people that could cause the lights.  Thanks to, Research
Specialist for MUFON in Ukraine, UKUFAS (Ukrainian UFO Research
Association) an@crimea.com

TURKEY SIX AIRCREWS ENCOUNTER UFO FLEET

AFYON and YALOVA -- John Alexander writes concerning the
November 1, 2002, sighting of UFOs by six aircrews.  The objects
the aircrews saw were most likely the Russian Soyuz debris
entering the atmosphere near Turkey at the time of this
sighting.  The time, location and trajectory were all predicted
before the event happened.  Further, in checking with those who
observe asteroids it was determined that none were in the area
at that time.  Thanks to John Alexander.

The Turkish UFO Research Group Sirius responds, "One of the
claims that has been put forward is that the object was the
2002-050b decay that broke up from Soyuz rocket launched on
October 30, at 03:11 heading for International Space Station.
The empty rocket body weighs 2350 kg, is 2.7 meters in diameter
and 6.7 meters long. (We are confident that examination of the
footage and the related reports will help them change their
minds) A rocket fragment 2.7 in diameter and 6.7 meters long
would have burned up and scattered the in the mesosphere between
70 and 100 kilometers altitude.

Let's we suppose that it had kept its original size (by a
miracle) until it reached to 40.000 feet.  How can we explain
its splitting into 15-20 pieces, each 30-40 meters in size and
they were still so bright?  And how did this piece fly
horizontally violating the laws of gravity?

The rocket debris was traveling 256,000 feet from southeast to
northwest, and the UFO was traveling between 20,000 to 40,000
feet from west to east. Simulations of the UFO's flight in front
of the airliner clearly show that the UFO and the rocket debris
were different objects, traveling in different directions and
heights.  Rocket debris was traveling southeast to northwest,
the same general direction as the airliner, thus it could not
have flown across (intersected) the airliner's path.  The rocket
debris was at least 229,000 feet above and traveling in the same
direction as the airliner.  Harro Zimmer, reports the
"satellite" (debris) was at 78+ km, and 78 km converts to
255,905 feet. - And finally how come another luminous and
flashing (in a regular way) object appeared behind it? Sirius
UFO Space Sciences says, "A meteor entered into the atmosphere
that would possibly wreak havoc on Earth was broken into pieces
and rendered ineffective by a UFO before it hit." The photos are
excellent.  See [ http://www.siriusufo.org/engnews/haber.htm
]http://www.siriusufo.org/engnews/haber.htm

Editors Note:  It is my experience that space debris or meteors
breaking apart can easily be confused for UFOs.  However, both
meteors or space debris last for seconds, perhaps at most a
minute.  The pilots testimony seems to indicate they had the
objects in sight between 5:30 and 5:45 PM and at least for
several minutes flying horizontally across the nose of the
airliner. There is also some evidence that UFOs use events such
as debris or meteoroids to conceal their own entry.  However, it
seems unlikely that the debris was a meteor broken apart by a
UFO.

CHINA UFO HOVERS OVER CITY

Yi-NING -- Creeders news reports that on November 1, 2002, from
2:30 AM to 6:00 AM, a UFO was hanging over the eastern sky of
Yi-NING city, XinJiang Province in Western China.  Four
journalists observed and photographed the UFO from different
angels and locations.  One caller called the hotline of a
newspaper at 2:30 AM and said "Come out, there is a flying
saucer in the eastern sky!" One journalist said, "He saw a
bright rice sized object with yellow, blue, and pink lights.
Around 4:20 AM, the ball like object became 1/4 size of the moon
and the color changed to deep red.  The surface of the object
has different cycles.  Later, the object moved to the south, a
few seconds later, it became a rice size again.  Around 6:05 AM,
the object became big again and disappeared. A professor at
Nanjing Chinese Science Academy studied 27 pictures and believes
the object came from somewhere other than Earth.  He also
estimated this object was turning and emitting some small
objects, the height of this object was about 10000 meters above
the earth.  The images:
http://news.creaders.net/headline/newsImage/A150802.jpg>

ROSWELL DOCUMENTARY IS HIGHEST-RATED SPECIAL IN SCI FI CHANNEL
HISTORY =3D STILL CONFUSED ABOUT ROSWELL?

By far the best explanation of the "Holy Grail of Ufology" is in
researcher Robert Durant's new video/DVD.  Much of the material
from this exciting and authoritative presentation has never
appeared in books or on TV. You will meet the central military
officers and witnesses, examine the Air Force explanation for
the Roswell Incident, and hear the pros and cons of the case.
When you are through, you will know why Durant titled his video
"Roswell? Yes!"  and, why I agree.  Available from MVP-F, P.O.
Box 1292, Kearny, NJ 07032, $15.00 + $4.00 S/H, or call (201)
991-8227. Specify VHS or DVD.  Major credit cards accepted. Or,
visit my online UFO Store  [ http://www.georgefiler.com
]http://www.georgefiler.com

YOU'RE A PREFERRED CUSTOMER AT 100 TOP STORES ONLINE

FOR THE HOLIDAYS GET BIG DISCOUNTS FROM YOUR FAVORITE STORES!
Consider shopping at: FILER.unfranchise.com for your Holiday
gifts.  You can shop on line in a hundred different stores such
as Ashlane Gift Baskets, Books, Brooks Brothers, Diamonds,
Disney, and Sweaters from Elizabeth's by Liz Claiborne,
Fragrances, Hallmark cards and flowers, Jewelry, Spiegel,
Customatix Shoes, Toy Chest, and Wine.Com.  For your Health and
Nutrition Store there are unbelievable products to feel fitter,
and healthier again.  My hair is growing in darker and I feel
younger.  There is a store for your every special need, and you
qualify as a preferred customer by reading these files, and you
usually will qualify for special discounts.  Click: Register as
a Preferred Customer and pick the store of your choice.  [
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com/ ]FILER.unfranchise.com

UFO DEFENSE TACTICS - WEATHER SHIELD TO CHEMTRAILS

A. K. Johnstone, Ph.D., explores with evidence, the creation of
a weather shield to deter UFOs from entering earth's atmosphere,
as well as the erratic weather changes in recent years.
Numerous UFO sightings are examined from a scientific viewpoint
and a chemtrail correlation is suggested.  Order illustrated
book, $14.95 from Hancock House 1-800-938-1114 or Fax 1-800-983-
2262.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL.  A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year.  To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/.  To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com.  Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2002 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved. Readers may post the complete files on their Web Sites
if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue that the item appeared.  These reports and
comments are not necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint.  Send
your letters to Majorstar@aol.com.  Sending mail automatically
grants permission for us to publish and use your name.  Please
state if you wish to keep your name, address, or story
confidential.  CAUTION, MOST OF THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS AND
REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Happy Thanksgiving: =3D Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Regards, George Filer
http://www.georgefiler.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                   Open-Records Request To UNM - Response

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:03:07 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:29:10 -0500
Subject: Open-Records Request To UNM - Response


November 27, 2002

Mr. Larry W. Bryant (via e-mail and U.S. Mail)
Director, Washington, D.C.
Office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Dear Mr. Bryant:

Pursuant to the terms of the Inspection of Public Records Act, I
am sending cd-rom disc in partial response to your Nov. 12, 2002
request.

There remains a total of 252 pages of other public records that
are responsive. As previously indicated, pursuant to the terms
of the Inspection of Public Records Act, UNM charges a .25
cents/page copying fee. Upon receipt of $63.00 for the total
copying fee (payable to UNM University Counsel Office), I will
forward the remaining documents. I'll await your reply. Thank
you.


Sincerely yours,

Frank D. Martinez,
UNM Custodian of Public Records

cc:  William Doleman, Contract Archeology;
    Nick Estes, University Counsel;
    Ann Powell, Research Office

*****

LWB Note to Mr. Martinez (Nov. 27, 2002):

Thank you for your e-response of Nov. 27, 2002, by which you
notify me of your fulfillment of my Nov. 12 open-records request
for access to all University of New Mexico records pertaining to
the UNM archeological excavation of the Roswell UFO-crash debris
field.

In a few days, I'll be sending you a check for $63.00 in payment
of your copying fee.


Larry W. Bryant








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                          Secrecy News -- 11/27/02

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:21:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:33:12 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/27/02


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 118
November 27, 2002


**      KISSINGER NAMED HEAD OF 9/11 COMMISSION
**      "TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS" CONTROVERSY UNFOLDS
**      "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED" BECOMES LAW
**      RUMSFELD: "STRATEGIC INFLUENCE" LIVES ON
**      INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
**      PUBLIC INFO ON INTELLIGENCE POSES A THREAT, STAFFER SAYS
**      NATIONAL SECURITY LAW CASEBOOK
**      THE ENDURING SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHN RAWLS
**      WRITE THE CLASSIFIED HISTORY OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM


KISSINGER NAMED HEAD OF 9/11 COMMISSION

In an astonishing move that heralds stark limits on the scope of
the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks,
President Bush today named former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger to be head of the congressionally mandated Commission
that will conduct the next phase of the investigation.

"Dr. Kissinger will bring broad experience, clear thinking and
careful judgment to this important task," the President said in
signing the 2003 Intelligence Authorization Act.

But Kissinger is not distinguished as an impartial judge of
government misconduct, to put it mildly.  To the contrary, he is
an investigatee, not an investigator, and one who has stubbornly
resisted the disclosure of official information to members of
Congress, courts of law, private researchers, and others.

With his appointment, it becomes hard to imagine, for example,
that the new Commission would ever subpoena the White House for
access to the President's Daily Brief that reportedly warned of
the potential for terrorism in August 2001.


"TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS" CONTROVERSY UNFOLDS

New information about the scope and budget of the Pentagon's
Total Information Awareness (TIA) initiative has emerged, as the
controversial program to develop a vast transactional database
of personal information for hunting terrorists continued to draw
bipartisan criticism.

Though the Pentagon said last week that the TIA budget was a
mere $10 million, a close analysis by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center found that total spending for all TIA
component programs was closer to $245 million during FY 2001-03.
  See materials from a November 25 EPIC press briefing on TIA
here:

http://www.epic.org/events/tia_briefing/

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the incoming Chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, questioned "why DoD resources are
being spent on research for domestic law enforcement," and asked
the Pentagon Inspector General to "conduct a complete and
thorough review of the TIA program."  See Sen. Grassley's
November 22 letter here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/gr112202.html

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told ABC News This Week on
November 24 that he had asked Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to fire
Adm. John Poindexter, the head of the DARPA Information
Awareness Office, because of Poindexter's record of having lied
to Congress.

Questioned about the whole matter on November 18, Secretary
Rumsfeld told Americans not to worry.

"I haven't been briefed on it [TIA]; I'm not knowledgeable about
it. Anyone who is concerned ought not be. Anyone with any
concern ought to be able to sleep well tonight. Nothing terrible
is going to happen."   See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html

See also "A One-Way Information Highway:  The homeland security
bill shows a government that wants to learn more and divulge
less" by James Kuhnhenn and Drew Brown, Philadelphia Inquirer,
November 24:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/4589307.htm

"Lawmakers, privacy advocates and civil libertarians are
criticizing a controversial Defense Department research project
as an invasion of personal privacy, and are questioning whether
it should be scrapped," writes Shane Harris in Government
Executive, November 25:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1102/112502h1.htm

"Big Brother Will Be Watching America," according to the
headline of a story by Suzanne Goldenberg in the Guardian,
November 23:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,845777,00.html

Author and security analyst George Smith notes that the Total
Information Awareness program bears a spooky resemblance to a
system conceived by the Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw
Lem in one of his dystopic tales.  See Smith's article "When
Washington Mimics Sci- Fi" in Security Focus, November 24:

http://online.securityfocus.com/columnists/126


"SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED" BECOMES LAW

In an open-ended congressional invitation to increase official
secrecy, the new Homeland Security Act instructs the President
to "identify and safeguard homeland security information that is
sensitive but unclassified" (Section 892).

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/hr5710-111302.html#hsi

Because the new law provides no formal definition of the word
"sensitive," this provision could be used to justify expansive
new restrictions on the disclosure of unclassified information.

While "sensitive" information has been referenced in a number of
laws such as the Computer Security Act of 1987, this is
apparently the first time that the problematic category of
"sensitive but unclassified" information has appeared in a
federal statute.


RUMSFELD: "STRATEGIC INFLUENCE" LIVES ON

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld last week likened the brewing
controversy over the Total Information Awareness program to an
earlier dispute over the Pentagon's Office of Strategic
Influence, which critics asserted -- erroneously, according to
the Pentagon -- was created to engage in disinformation.

As a result of all of the negative publicity, the Office of
Strategic Influence was shut down.  Or maybe it wasn't.
  Rumsfeld said last week that only the name has been abandoned.
  The Office's intended functions are being carried out.

"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence," Rumsfeld
reminisced on November 18.  "You may recall that. And 'oh my
goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is
going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you
want to savage this thing, fine, I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep
doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."

See excerpts from Rumsfeld's November 18 media availability:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html


INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

In an ongoing review of previously declassified public records
at the National Archives, Energy Department reviewers found 47
pages of classified nuclear weapons information that was
inadvertently disclosed out of approximately two million pages
that they reviewed earlier this year.

An assessment of the damage, if any, that might have resulted
from the disclosures was said to be underway.

The inadvertent disclosures were described in a classified
report to Congress dated May 2002 that was published in
declassified form by the Department of Energy this week.

While some of the disclosures apparently involved sensitive
nuclear weapons design information, the most common accidental
disclosures concerned historical "nuclear weapons storage
locations" from decades ago that, while formally classified, are
no longer sensitive, some Energy Department officials privately
acknowledge.

At a meeting with Energy Department and National Archives
officials last week, a working group of non-governmental
historians resolved to press for a revision of classification
policy so that historical nuclear weapons locations would no
longer be considered classified.

A copy of the DOE latest Report to Congress on Inadvertent
Releases of Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data is
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/inadvertent7.html


PUBLIC INFO ON INTELLIGENCE POSES A THREAT, STAFFER SAYS

The performance of U.S. intelligence is degraded by the public
availability of information about intelligence, according to a
congressional staffer, and non-governmental organizations that
publish such information, such as the Federation of American
Scientists, are part of the problem, he said.

"Too many people in the world today know how we go about our
business," said Timothy R. Sample, staff director of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, speaking November 22
at an American Bar Association conference on "National Security
Law In A Changing World" in Arlington, Virginia.

"I would argue that what I will call intelligence oversight
'hobby shopping' by individuals who get a kick out of just
supplying information -- especially when it's for no real cause;
but in the name of 'openness' -- have absolutely no idea what
the impact of their information is, and how damaging it can be,"
Mr. Sample said.

"And I would take, for example -- though I may pay for it later
-- I would take, for example, if you go to some of the things
that have been released by the American Federation of Science
[sic].  There is a web site that has information on it.  And I
can't say whether it's good information, bad information -- it's
a lot of information.  And it is for no particular purpose.
  Other than, hey, look what I found out, and I'm going to put it
out."

"That, to me, is a specific area that nobody wants to talk about
too much.  And that, to me, is something we also have to put
into the equation," he said.

Limiting publication of intelligence information to that which
has an approved "purpose" would not be a sensible way to
navigate between competing and occasionally conflicting
interests in security and public disclosure.  It does, however,
help to explain why Mr. Sample's Committee's web site is
practically barren and devoid of interest:

http://intelligence.house.gov/


NATIONAL SECURITY LAW CASEBOOK

The study of national security law is not only intrinsically important,
it can also be very interesting.  The premier casebook for students of
the subject is "National Security Law" by professors Stephen Dycus,
Arthur L. Berney, William C. Banks, and Peter Raven-Hansen.

The third edition of the book has just been published with a timely new
section on "Fighting Terrorists and International Criminals."

The book offers an excellent selection of key statutes and
rulings, along with interpretive commentary, questions for
discussion, and further references.

For further information search "National Security Law" on the
publisher's web site:

http://www.aspenpublishers.com/


THE ENDURING SIGNFICANCE OF JOHN RAWLS

"The Enduring Significance of John Rawls" is an appreciation of
the work of political philosopher John Rawls, who died November
24.  It was written by Martha Nussbaum and appeared in the
Chronicle of Higher Education on July 20, 2001.  See:

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i45/45b00701.htm


WRITE THE CLASSIFIED HISTORY OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM

The Defense Department is looking for a historian to research
and write a classified history of the role of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff (JCS) in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).

"The contractor shall research and write a volume that will
provide a narrative account of the CJCS/Joint Staff and JCS
involvement in the development of national security/counter-
  terrorism policy and counter- terrorist operations for the GWOT
during the eighteen months following the attacks of 11 September
2001."  (Thanks to WMA.)  See:

http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/DSS-W/DASW01/DASW01-03-R-0002/SynopsisP.html


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                   Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:27:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:36:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Hall


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:39:44 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:04:12 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >>>From: Will Bueche <info@centerchange.org>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:28:11 -0500
 >>>Subject: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article

 >>>Dr. John Mack would like everyone to know that the
 >>>paraphrasing of his position in the following paragraph
 >>>from last Sunday's New York Times --

 >>>which is reprinted at Dr. Mack's site for your convenience:

 >>>http://www.centerchange.org/passport/nyt112402.html

 >>>-- is not entirely perfect.

<snip>

 >>>We thought the article was very good.

 >>Sorry Will, but this sounds all too much like political spin
 >>control.

 >>Can John Mack speak plainly to the issues, or not?

<snip>

 >Hello Dick:

 >It sounds like totally typical John Mack to me. I wasn't far
 >into his noted book 'Abduction' before my head (and stomach)
 >started to spin.

 >A Third Zone of reality? What's the second one?

 >What I see is a man who cannot bring himself to say that (some)
 >people are simply seeing things that aren't there.

 >What's more, I suspect that Mack believes his own BS!  Hey!
 >Here's your brain. (crack... splat... splutter...) Here's your
 >brain on Mack.

 >None of this should reflect on cases which may have a genuine,
 >if unproven physical (objective) basis, I'm not addressing that
 >now. What I see is a good, intelligent man, who has lapsed into
 >mysticism to the point where reality and fantasy intrude on one
 >another like two flavors of melting ice cream. This just revolts
 >me.


Larry,

I couldn't agree more with what you say here. Mack, whom I met
and interacted with a little at the M.I.T. symposium,
undoubtedly is a very nice man, and I think he was persecuted by
his peers over taking abduction reports seriously. But he lost
me very quickly (intellectually speaking) when he lapsed into
New Age jargon and, as you say, (Eastern) mysticism. His mindset
colors his entire approach to research.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                       Re: Randle On 'Coast' - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:33:44 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:38:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On 'Coast' - Randle


 >From: Lester Hahn <lesterhahn@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:02:22 -0600
 >Subject: Randle On 'Coast'


 >Dear Mr. Randle:

 >Given that you were the main consultant on the Sci-Fi Roswell
 >special and overhearing your comments this past Saturday night
 >on Coast, where you mentioned the recommendations you made
 >regarding the archaeological expedition to the crash site, did
 >you ever suggest seeking the expertise of an FAA crash
 >investigator to assist with the project.


Good Morning, All -

There really is nothing for such a crash analysis at the moment.
All we have is a pasture in the high desert and no real sign of
debris.

Yes, the Sci Fi Channel investigation found a subsoil
disturbance that could be the remains of the gouge, but at the
moment there is nothing for expert analysis from the FAA point
of view. I have consulted with aircraft accident experts inside
the military, but without photographs of the debris strewn about
or with all sides of the crash long gone, they couldn't
contribute much.


KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                     Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:41:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle


 >From: Brad Sparks
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
 >Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

Good Morning, List, All -

Brad Sparks wrote:

 >The new expose of Frank Kaufmann's patently obvious bogus
 >storytelling has now been posted to the CUFOS website:

 >http://www.cufos.org/

 >with compelling evidence that Kaufmann forged his military
 >papers which he showed Roswell investigators in order to bolster
 >his ridiculous story of special intelligence assignments (the
 >original and the forgery were both found in his papers and there
 >is evidence of rubber cementing of papers over the original).

 >My question is why should it take so long to realize that
 >Kaufmann was a hoaxer and a liar? Didn't Karl Pflock dissect his
 >lies quite well in his 1994 and 2001 books? What else was really
 >needed? Bloody signed confession?

Because we gave him the benefit of the doubt because there was
nothing to prove him a liar and a hoaxer. We investigated,
checked and attempted to confirm but we didn't have the PROOF.
Now we do.

Nothing against Karl here, but no, he didn't dissect Kaufmann's
lies because there were alternatives. Kaufmann told us about
something in the Congressional Record and Karl proved that
nothing of the kind was in the Congressional Record, but Frank
had the document. It was a Congressional Recognition, which
isn't the same thing, but it struck me at the time this was
splitting a fine hair. Karl, with his experience in Washington
would know the difference, but would Kaufmann have known it? And
yes, I verified that it was an real document.

And Frank introduced Martin Scanlon into the mix. Here was a
general who had helped establish Air Force Intelligence. Of all
the generals he could have named, he picked this one. An
interesting coincidence now, but at the time it seemed like a
minor corroboration...

So yes, a confession would have been nice before we began to
brand the man a liar. We were very careful with what we said
about Gerald Anderson as his tale began to collapse. He wasn't
as clever as Frank and Anderson provided all sorts of
information that we checked, proving him a liar. Frank held
tightly to the stuff.

 >We can now read a copy of the forged Maj. Easley memo of "July
 >30, 1947" describing the imaginary saucer recovery operation,
 >which had previously only been flashed to Roswell researchers
 >who were not allowed by Kaufmann to take a copy.

 >My question here is why, if the memo is addressed at the top
 >"To: JRDB, AFSA, AIRD" weren't these agencies followed up as
 >they might have been sources for confirmatory copies of the
 >Easley memo and other documentation? Wouldn't Vannevar Bush's
 >JRDB have been an exciting lead to chase in light of the
 >misguided Wilbert Smith memo of 1950? Didn't anyone have a good
 >enough memory to recall these telltale agency paper-trail clues?

For crying out loud, he flashed the damned document at us but
would never allow us to have a copy. I was busy looking at Easley's
signature block and trying to find anything I could in the thirty
seconds I had it in my hand. Sorry that my powers of observation
aren't as honed as they should have been. I just didn't notice that
when I saw the document.

When we got our hands on his separation papers, after his death,
I noticed, immediately the flaws in it. At one place where it
says grade, he had put in NCO/IC. Well, I knew that NCO/IO was a
position and not a grade. That, and other flaws told me the
document was a fraud, which is probably why I never saw it until
after he died.

 >Or did Roswell researchers indeed follow up on these agencies
 >and didn't tell anyone about the negative results? Do we need
 >an investigation of the investigators just to find out what is
 >really going on with the Roswell case? Did UFOlogists find out
 >that AFSA did NOT EVEN EXIST YET in 1947, that it was created
 >two years later by JCS Directive 2010 of May 24, 1949, and was
 >the predecessor of the NSA? Wouldn't this be damning proof that
 >the Easley memo was a blatant hoax by a con man who was a moron
 >on military and intelligence history, who couldn't keep agencies
 >and their dates of formation straight? (BTW, the bogus MJ-12
 >"1st Annual Report" of Oct 1952, which should be dated 1948 if
 >it was the first annual report after 1947, suffers from the same
 >stupidity of the nitwit hoaxer by claiming it covers 5 years of
 >AFSA intelligence activities, when AFSA had only been in
 >existence 3 years.)

 >Why wasn't the AFSA reference the smoking gun that should have
 >disposed of Kaufmann years ago? Are we going to be told that no
 >one saw the forged Easley memo long enough to remember "AFSA"
 >was at the top? Did anyone get shown the forgery more than once
 >or get to take some notes? Are we going to hear excuse after
 >excuse that no one was really a document investigator, or their
 >attention was on other things in the memo, or no one knew what
 >the abbreviations meant (yeah right, no one knew Vannevar Bush
 >headed JRDB)?

Had we been allowed to hang onto the documents, we would have
investigated them, just as we did once we had them in hand. A
couple of these things didn't surface until recently. We did the
best we could with the resources at hand and even if it took us
a while, we did get to the right conclusion. Frank Kaufmann was
making it up. And I really don't need to see someone attempt to
rehabilitate him as happens in the UFO field. (Let's see, that
would be Allende, Corso, Dennis, Adamski, van Tassel... and so
on.)

But get this. We continued to work, looking for both
confirmation of his tales, and ways to disprove them. When we
found the evidence, we prepared it and then published it, as we
have done in the past. We exposed Gerald Anderson (though I
conducted the first interview with him) we exposed Glenn Dennis
(with the lion's share of the work done by Vic Golubic), we
exposed Jim Ragsdale after he began to spin stories of golden
helmets and jewel encrusted thrones (and someday I'll tell you
the personal cost there) and we have ignored other stories that
were so contradictory that it was difficult to even listen to
them.

With Frank, I got free food, and some pleasant conversation. He
seemed to know what he was talking about, had some of the right
names, and kept saying that he had documentation to prove
everything, if it became, in his words, "Nut cutting time."
There was a hint of others to confirm including Thomas, Fletcher
and Adair... and then Fletcher died and Frank went to the
funeral. He played the string very carefully, and when we became
suspicious, there was another document handed to us. He was
careful there because had he provided any of those we found
after he died, the game would have been over in minutes.

So the point is, I saw the Easley letter once. I don't know
about some of the others. I did notice that the letterhead and
the little "war bond" symbols were on it, just as they appeared
on one version of the 1947 Twining letter. I tried to pick out
key phrases that would tell the thing was a fake, but just
didn't have time. Had he provided a copy, then, I think that
would have ended the game. He must have known that.

 >All three of the Kaufmann-forged memos of July/Sept 1947 on the
 >alleged disc recovery suffer from still another dumbbell
 >historical error: They recite that the "Directorate of
 >Intelligence" of Air Intelligence was to receive file copies of
 >reports, etc. But the "Directorate of Intelligence" of the Air
 >Force (and/or possibly its predecessor the AAF) also DID NOT YET
 >EXIST. When the AF separated from the Army and reorganized, air
 >intelligence was DOWNGRADED in organizational stature from an
 >Assistant Chief of Air Staff to a mere Director of Intelligence
 >under a deputy chief of staff, and he headed what was now called
 >a "Directorate of Intelligence" (D/I) for the first time and
 >that occurred on Oct 10, 1947. So the D/I did not exist in July-
 >Sept 1947. Duh!!!!

You know, now that we have the documents in hand, we could begin
the analysis. But we had only been shown the Easley letter
briefly and had I been looking closely, I would have asked (a)
why this seemed to be a xerox of the original (where would he
have gotten the xerox machine in 1947) and not a copy of a
carbon copy and (b) where were the classification markings
because, surely, this letter would have been classified.

No, I didn't study it as carefully as I could have because Frank
promised a copy and my first task would have been to verify
Easley's signature. Besides, he was standing right there,
yammering in my ear while I was trying to concentrate on what it
said.

The other documents were new to us. When we got our hands on
them, we began the verification process. Had Frank not died and
had we not gotten a hold of these papers, we wouldn't have the
PROOF that Kaufmann was lying.

 >One of the CUFOS articles recites the following:


 >"He said that the bodies had been taken to the base,
 >to one of the hangars. They were put into large boxes,
 >and then flown out of Roswell. According to Kaufmann,
 >the bodies were on two separate flights in case of an
 >aircraft accident. One plane flew directly to Wright Field,
 >but the other diverted to Washington, D.C., so that high
 >ranking members of the administration and the military
 >would have a chance to see what the creatures looked
 >like. Then, those bodies were sent on to Wright Field.
 >There was nothing in this scenario that seemed unlikely
 >or that could be disproved."


 >NOTHING that "seemed unlikely"??? Why would bodies or biological
 >material be shipped to Wright Field for pete's sake??? What
 >biological labs did they have at the aeronautical engineering
 >facilities at Wright Field??? Were they going to subject the
 >alien cadavers to the tender analytical mercies of a supersonic
 >WIND TUNNEL??? Doesn't that at least "seem" unlikely?

It seemed likely that everything would be taken to a central point
and then sent on for analysis. It seemed likely that it might be
taken to a central point, traceable by investigators, to be routed
elsewhere to inhibit that search. In that light does it make sense
to take the debris to Fort Worth for identification? Yet, balloon
debris was taken there so that we could be treated to the analysis
and identification by a warrant officer.

Arthur Exon told us that he heard the bodies were coming into
Wright Field. He said that one was taken to Lowry where the
Army had a mortuary service. So, it wasn't just Frank, but a
real, life, honest-to-God general officer who was there in
1947 telling us this.

Exon also told me that during his time at Wright-Patterson,
investigators were flown into the field, and then flown out to a
UFO investigation. If some wise guy reporter attempted to
backtrack the investigators, he would come to Wright-Patterson,
where the UFO investigation was housed, even though the people
on that particular mission weren't assigned there. It was just
one step in covering their tracks, so, it seemed natural that
everything would go first to Wright Field and then out from
there.


 >In 1947 the beginning and end of any military biology and
 >pathology research was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
 >(AFIP) at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the chemical biological
 >warfare lab at Ft. Detrick, Md. Yet not one crashed saucer-alien
 >body story I can recall -- certainly not Kaufmann's nonsense --
 >ever mentions AFIP or Ft. Detrick. (I predict that now because
 >I have posted this that new MJ-12 forgeries will now turn up
 >citing lab analyses or autopsies from AFIP and Ft. Detrick =E2=C7"
 >and they will be falsely backdated to appear to have emerged
 >months before my posting, complete with affidavits from the
 >usual liars swearing they "received" the documents in 2000 or
 >2001 or whenever.)

 >Brad Sparks

So, it took us a while, but we got there. We have posted the
information for all to see as quickly as we could. We arranged
the evidence very carefully before revelation because we had
learned our lessons with Gerald Anderson. Back in those days, I
talked to members of the Albuquerque High School who, while I
was on the telephone, told me that Anderson took the
anthropology class from Dr. Buskirk. I called Fred Whiting, who
called Stan Friedman, who called Gerald Anderson (in an attempt
to verify this information) and Gerald Anderson called the
school, threatening a lawsuit if they EVER revealed anything
about his transcript.

Now, we knew Anderson lied, but we had lost an opportunity to
prove it by sharing that data prematurely. Later, Anderson,
because he wasn't nearly as smart as he thought he was, gave us
a second chance, and I very carefully guarded that information
until we could publish it. I didn't want to lose the
documentation.

Here we did the same thing. We wanted to make sure that we had
everything aligned and wouldn't lose this opportunity. I think
we did the right thing here. But now we have the truth, and we
put it out there for all to see. I don't know how we might have
handled the end of this situation better. Maybe we should have
been more skeptical, but there were areas where Frank was
checking out.

And let me point out, in one final alibi, that others might have
been skeptical, and they might have suggested Frank was not
telling the truth, but they couldn't, and didn't, prove it. We
did. And once we had that proof, we provided it for all to see,
rather than sitting on it. Had we not published, no one would
have known the truth.

Again, it might have taken us a little longer to get there but
we ended up in the right place. Now, please, everyone, all
together, "We told you so."


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                          Re: Thanksgiving - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:44:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:42:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving - Velez


Hello All,

I just wanted to wish all of my American compatriots wherever
they roam, (that's _you_ in Germany Josh!) a happy, peaceful day
of thanksgiving.

The whole Velez clan will be descending on our shack tomorrow.
This is one of the few holidays that I can get behind
(spiritually) because it hasn't been tainted with the crass
commercialism that others have. (Not yet anyway.) It is a day
that for us signifies an opportunity for the whole family to
unite under one roof and spend time together getting loaded on
Triptophan and falling asleep on the couch afterwards.

That's _my_ kind of holiday.  :)

For all my International friends, I wish you Peace.

Regards to All,

John Velez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                       Looking For That Special Gift?

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:09:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:44:21 -0500
Subject: Looking For That Special Gift?


If you're looking for that special gift this holiday season, you
might be interested in the Lionel Area 51/UFO train set:

http://www.discounttrainsonline.com/Lionel-Trains-Alien-Recovery-Train-Set-Area-
51/item434-31926.html

Or perhaps:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=738015682

or

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1972105109

or

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1790787861

I hope everyone has a happy and safe Holiday weekend (and if
this isn't a Holiday where you are, please have a safe weekend).


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                 Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:25:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:46:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article - Maccabee


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:39:44 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Mack On NY Times Article


<snip>

 >What I see is a good, intelligent man, who has lapsed into
 >mysticism to the point where reality and fantasy intrude on one
 >another like two flavors of melting ice cream.

Next time I'm eating van-choc-strawberry ice cream I'll remember
your analogy.

Yummmmm.....






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                     Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:25:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:48:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims? - Maccabee


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:55:39 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:40 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Had Victims?

<snip>

 >>Hence it is not a pretty sight, that of a diligent investigator
 >>sweating over the interpretation of the Ramey memo, working
 >>his/her way through the film-grainy, blobby, bent images of
 >>letters that, when properly interpreted, could change our view
 >>of humanity's place in the universe.

 >>My complements to those who have slugged it out with the data,
 >>those who have dug in the muddy ditches of noisy photography and
 >>who, it appears, have struck some gold!

 >Bruce,

 >As Colin Bennett has demonstrated, wordy outpourings simply
 >don't hack it here, especially amongst we intellectually
 >deprived seekers of truth.

 >In 50 words or less, what exactly are you saying?

 >David Rudiak is/is not on the right track?

 >Those who question accepting his findings at face value are/are
 >not correct in asking for peer review? He has/has not found
 >"gold"?

In words of one or more syllables, the photographic noise makes
it difficult in many cases to determine exactly what the letters
are making up the various words.

Therefore one must pick the images which seem the clearest,
i.e., the letters in a word which are most likely to be correct,
and use them to estimate which word "fits" in the same way as
Rudiak and others have done (compared to finding a word in a
crossword puzzle). In some cases the letters are clear enough
that there is no argument.

In other cases the noise is overwhelming and there will always
be arguments. Nevertheless, I think Rudiak is on the right track
and that he is working his way along the vein of gold.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                               HB Jerome Clark

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:28:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:49:54 -0500
Subject: HB Jerome Clark


Besides Jerry Clark... other famous people born today include:

Agee, James - November/27/1909
Celsius, Anders - November/27/1701
De Camp, L. Sprague - November/27/1907
Hendrix, James Marshall - November/27/1942
Kennedy, Caroline - November/27/1957
Lee, Bruce - November/27/1940
Rabbit, Eddie - November/27/1941








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:48:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:55:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Cohen


 >From: Tim Printy <Tprinty2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:14:26 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - >Printy

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:51:41 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 ><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

Tim,

Glad to make your acquaintance. Your comments are well taken and
well put together. I really can't fault anything you say; i.e.
the things about Carter, "use it or lose it," the length of time
the report was turned in after the sighting, etc.

The only thing I can think to say is that after I had my own
sighting I began to take cases very seriously and I wanted to
make sure that every case I looked at was truly investigated to
its fullest degree (to my own satisfaction) before calling it
solved. Just as you, when I come across any information that I
think nullifies what someone has said concerning a case, I feel
that case is not fully solved.

After having my sighting and collecting data for years trying to
find an answer to what I saw, I eventually wound up with a
certain number of cases I couldn't fully solve and others I felt
weren't fully investigated, i.e. cases I still had unanswered
questions about.

Probably just as you, before feeling 100% confident a case is
solved, all _my_ questions about it have to be answered to my
satisfaction. Your satisfaction and my satisfaction may be two
different things. You may be looking at this whole thing from
the perspective "it probably doesn't exist" but I'll look at it
anyway. I'm looking at it as, "son of gun. I saw something
extraordinary and I want to make sure when we look at cases,
we're not leaving _anything_ out. These are two very different
ways of looking at a case, so we may be coming from different
directions. But, I hope you'll believe me when I say, I
basically want the same thing that you want, a fair analysis of
each case.

The following are answers to your questions regarding my
previous post:

 >>However, as to the "sharply outlined" point, I said
 >before, he had three choices on the form:

 >>Fuzzy or Blurred, Like a bright star, or sharply outlined
 >He chose "sharply outlined"

 >I am not sure how a star can be described as "fuzzy" or
 >"blurred".

For two reasons I can think of, and I am sure there are probably
others: a) It was cloudy or hazy and the star "appeared" that
way  b) It wasn't a star/planet at all but something else that
had a "fuzzy/blurred" look to it on a perfectly clear night.
(Not applying this to the Carter case, but simply to answer your
question.)

 >Most stars are pinpoints that twinkle. However,
 >planets do not appear like stars. They do not twinkle (at
 >least not very much) and usually exhibit a steady light
 >giving them a distinct appearance. One could easily see
 >how a planet would be described as "sharply outlined".

O.K. We both have contrasting views of same that cancel each
other out. I personally don't believe that is what Carter meant.
(Not that either one of us can't be wrong.)

 >>Exactly my point. Not good enough. We really need
 >solid examples of a person(s?) _with Carter's skills who
 >either thought the moon was a UFO or thought Venus
 >was a UFO_, and we are entitled to see this as well.

 >Exactly how do we acquire individuals with Carter's
 >"skills"? Can you quantify them so we can measure
 >them?

Tim, what I was trying to say was give me an example of a
person(s) with a good scientific background that had at least
some sky observation training as Carter had and that
misidentified Venus as a UFO. I wasn't trying to say that Carter
had to be perfect in his identification or that he couldn't
possibly be wrong. What I was trying to say was . . before we
completely discount what Carter indicated to us, let's at least
demonstrate that other people with similar scientific background
and at least some sky identification training have made the same
mistake of misidentifying Venus as a UFO. I wasn't trying to
"load the deck" from the other end.

I have just written this to Bob Young and fully explained
what I meant at

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m25-012.shtml

 >However, there are some examples of
 >Venus/stars being described as large as the full moon or
 >having a distinct size:

 >1) Condon report case #37. Hynek even admitted this
 >one was Venus:

 >"The latter case should be read by all UFO investigators.
 >It is a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet
 >Venus can be as a nonscreened UFO." (The UFO
 >Experience)

Yes, you are correct. But this case wasn't one simple sighting.
It was actually multiple sightings. Over the years, looking at
multiple sighting cases and having thought about what I myself
saw back in 1967, I began to wonder if there might not have been
one precipitating sighting in some of those cases which had the
possibility of being the real thing even though other people
stimulated by this might have made mistakes in what they
"thought" they saw. When I look at this case, as crazy as you
may think I am, I get that feeling.

I just want to mention here that the case (Condon - #37) you
gave as an example was a very good one, but dealt with police
officers who for the most part don't fit the criteria I was
attempting to delineate. Also, the flight controller that made
the mistake wasn't outside looking at Venus visually, he was
working totally electronically on his radar screen. So, that's
not really what I meant. But I think the case is a good one to
talk about. You have to try to look at it from my perspective to
see that I am not just trying to pull your chain about this.

When I first glanced at it, I thought you were 100% right and I
was ready to fully agree with you about it. You were correct in
what Hynek had to say about it concerning the final outcome of
same. I think it was probably true that Venus was responsible
for many of the officer's sightings. However, after reading it a
second time I noticed something interesting concerning the first
two officer's _initial_ sighting.

On page 370 of my soft cover edition of the Condon Study, case
#37, in the section that says "Ground Observation", A. (the
first paragraph) could be interpreted exactly as you have
indicated. But the second and 3rd paragraph gives us some
interesting information.

A)   The object was closest the first night we saw it.

"This object, whatever it was, caught up with us as we
approached the city limits. The other officer started making a
pretty scared sound and pointing out behind us. That is when I
turned around and saw it.

At this point I was expecting to hear him give a description of
Venus or anything that could be interpreted that way. However,
this is what he said

"It lit the police car enough inside to make the hands on
your wristwatch visible. The whole surroundings were lit
up. I radioed in that we were being followed by a flying
object. I didn't know what it was, but it was following us. I
could see the object in the rear-view mirror, but when we
stopped the car and I got out, it veered away and
disappeared behind the trees."

A couple of questions: Did anyone ask the officer "how" it
veered away? Did it veer away before he got out of the car or
did he witness it veer away just as, or immediately after, he
got out of the car. Two different animals indeed.

A second question: Have you ever seen the light from Venus
strong enough to do what that policeman said? You'll probably
say to me, "Maybe it was the moon shining in the window" or
"Maybe it was a streetlight shining in" Maybe something else lit
up the car. Could you be right? Perhaps.

We do know it wasn't Venus that caused it. Although I've seen
Venus pretty bright, I've never seen it able to do what that
officer described. I've never seen the light of any star light
up the ground or light up the inside of a car to the intensity
of what the officers indicated. In the woods, when the moon is
gone, it's dark, even in a clearing. (been there, tried it for
my own curiosity) You can't see your hand in front of your face,
although you can see the stars quite plainly, even when Venus is
super-bright,. So I'm pretty sure the light of the intensity the
officers seemed to indicate didn't come from Venus or the stars
present that night.

Then, I asked myself how two officers could get so spooked in a
patrol car that they would think this was happening. I went
looking for other cases like this. Yes, there have been cases
where Venus may have been the triggering factor in people's
reports, but there have also been cases where it's virtually
impossible to attribute this as the culprit. Here's one case
where the Air Force tried to give it as an explanation but was
caught severely lacking.

NICAP Journal, March-April 1966:

Police Chase Low Flying UFO
(actual case: April 17, 1966)

[Begin quote]

A series of incredible close-range UFO sightings during March
and April has been reported by pilots, police officers, doctors,
lawyers, and many others, continuing the intensified pattern of
low-level operations which began last July. Statistical study of
27 sample cases between March 11 and April 18 reveals distinct
patterns of appearance and behavior.

One of the clearest and best-witnessed cases began around dawn,
April 17, when Portage County, Ohio, sheriffs Dale Spaur and
W.L. Neff investigated citizen's reports of a UFO in the area of
Ravenna. They quickly noticed a light hovering over a hill and
stood watching it. The UFO suddenly moved directly toward them,
illuminating the ground brightly, sending them fleeing to their
patrol car for cover. As they radioed headquarters, the object -
  now seen as a distinct disc like object with a curved antenna-
like projection on top - began moving away from them down the
highway.

On instructions from the dispatchers, Spaur and Neff began
following the object. The underside glowed bright blue-white;
the top was a dark color. As they sped eastward in pursuit of
the UFO at speeds up to 100 m.p.h. it repeatedly pulled out of
sight. Then the sheriffs would encounter it again, hovering near
the highway as if waiting for them. In the sunlight, the UFO
appeared to have a metallic surface.

[end quote]

Still sounds as though it might have been mistaken for Venus?
Possibly. However, appearing immediately beneath the above quote
was a clear sketch drawn by deputy Spaur.

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/portage.htm

It was not simply a bright light, it was a specific semi egg-
shaped craft of some kind with some kind of projection on the
top towards the rear. Hmmmn.

[resume quote]

The chase continued for 85 miles, from Ravenna across the
Pennsylvania border to the vicinity of Conway, as officers of
other police departments along the way joined in. There were
reports that jets were scrambled from an Air Force Reserve
squadron in Ohio, and that radar had detected the UFO. (Both the
Air Force and FAA later denied the radar report.)

William Weitzel, chairman of the Pittsburgh NICAP subcommittee,
drove to Ravenna the following day and interviewed the
witnesses. A widely circulated report that a police chief had
obtained a clear photograph of the UFO proved to be erroneous.
The chief was not involved in the chase, saw only a "distant
light - possibly Venus - which he attempted to photograph. The
print, viewed by Weitzel, shows two small arcs of light which
could be accounted for in many ways. Copies have been obtained
for further analysis.

[end quote]

Well, the Air Force and FAA didn't support it and the supposed
photographs from the police chief didn't support it. Maybe the
officers are "smoking a pipe."


[resume quote]

On April 23 the Air Force released a statement attributing the
sighting to a satellite, and a later confusion with Venus
shining brightly in the SE sky. In a statement taped by Mr.
Weitzel, Deputy Spaur said "I don't know how much investigation
they made, but evidently it wasn't a very lengthy one or it
didn't involve me." An AF Major, he said, had telephoned him
twice talking with him for a total of about 4 minutes. "If it's
ours, tell me it's ours," Spaur said, "and if it isn't, by God,
they ought to help us find out what it is." No satellite would
fly that low, he added, and he wasn't "quite that bad off" that
he would be chasing Venus and "running wildly over the
countryside."

Hmmmn. The Air Force said it was a satellite and confusion with
Venus. But the policemen are apparently still adamant about it.
They are either nuts or they just misidentified something.

[resume quote]

The testimony most damaging to the USAF explanation came from
East Palestine, Ohio, police officer Wayne Huston, situated near
the Pennsylvania border. Huston had picked up the radio
transmissions of the Portage County sheriffs and waited at an
intersection that they would soon be passing. Shortly
afterwards, he clearly saw the UFO pass by quickly followed by
the sheriffs' cruiser. The UFO was shaped like a flattened cone,
with the point of the cone downward. Officer Huston immediately
joined the chase.

[end quote]

Holy smokes! A third officer saw both _it and the cruiser_ go
by. What was it? If that was Venus, that planet came pretty low.

Whole thing sound a little familiar? This was the scene they
used in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" except in the
movie, they added another couple of UFOs with it and had one of
the police cars chase it off the end of a cliff. Only thing is,
this happened in 1966 long before the movie. It's where
Spielberg got his material, then hyped it up for the movie.
(Like it really needed hyping.)

[resume quote]

Mr. Weitzel also got reports that police had overheard radio
transmissions from one of several pilots chasing the UFO, to the
effect that the pilot had maneuvered directly above the object
and estimated its size as 45 feet across. If this report can be
verified, full details including the text of the transmission
will be printed in the next issue.

[end quote]

I didn't see it verified so we have to assume it wasn't.

[resume quote]

On May 10, three weeks after the sighting, the Air Force first
sent an investigator to the scene. Major Hector Quintanilla,
chief of Project Blue Book, was ordered to re-investigate the
case after strong protests to the Air Force by a Congressman and
a judge who formerly was Congressman in the same district.

Calling the USAF satellite-Venus explanation "ridiculous,"
Common Pleas Court Judge Robert E. Cook wrote to Congressman
William Stanton urging him to insist on a full investigation and
reevaluation. "The Air Force has suffered a great loss of
prestige in this community," Cook told Stanton. "People are not
swallowing this explanation about Venus. . . (it) doesn't have
form and an antenna. . .hover 100 feet off the ground and cast a
bright light. . ."

Congressman Stanton responded with a statement May 5 saying "The
Air Force failed in its responsibility in thoroughly
investigating this incident. . .Once people entrusted with the
public welfare no longer think the people can handle the truth,
then the people, in turn, will no longer trust the government."

According to private sources, Stanton personally visited Lt.
Col. John Spaulding in the Pentagon, who in turn set the wheels
in motion which resulted in the belated visit to the scene to
interview witnesses first-hand. Major Quintanilla's
investigation, observed by a NICAP representative, again failed
to include the significant elements of the officers' reports.
After a few hours, Quintanilla stated he was still satisfied
with his original explanation, and left.

[end quote]


It's for reasons like the preceding that I've been forced to
take a really close look at all cases people explain away as
Venus and why I had to review the Carter case for myself. It is
not the only case of its kind with similar mishandling. I'm
trying to explain what I saw to myself and I'm finding cases
like this.

For other information on this case, please see the NICAP web
site at:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/portagedir.htm

 >2) Alan Hendry lists several cases where stars/planets
 >were misperceived to have size:

 >"Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with
 >domes ("Like two plates put together"-case 332;
 >"elongated, as big as a distant plane"-case 377; "dome
 >on top and bottom" - for one and a half hours in case
 >332), domes, a "plate with a hole in the center," vertically
 >oriented small triangles, ovals, a football ...even
 >"teacups," "Mexican sombreros," and "bananas as large
 >as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People
 >have seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and
 >sparkles shooting out in all directions from bright stars."
 >(The UFO Handbook)

I know that Alan Hendry is well respected. But, I'd love to
reinvestigate every one of them and see if I found anything to
question.

 >When one has a hypothesis one needs to back it up
 >with some solid supporting examples or you can't even
 >submit the hypothesis for analysis. It is one thing for an
 >average person to be fooled by something like this but
 >another for a person with a nuclear physics degree and
 >trained sky observation skills.

Again, see my post to Bob Young

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m25-012.shtml

 >I am not sure exactly how a physics degree translates
 >into "trained sky observation skills". If you are referring to
 >Jimmy Carter's Navy training, there are some problems
 >with this. Exactly when did he acquire such skills? I am
 >sure Jimmy Carter had his celestial navigation course in
 >the academy but he was not a navigator on any ship.
 >This is a matter of "If you don't use it, you lose it." During
 >my twenty-plus years in the Navy, I knew many officers
 >and very few were had a working knowledge of
 >astronomy. Many were fascinated by me pointing out
 >various astronomical objects when I came up to the
 >bridge (which on a sub was not often). In one interesting
 >moment, we had several officers wonder what ship light
 >that was on the horizon they were looking at through the
 >periscope. The quartermaster (an enlisted man) went to
 >an old program called Sky Globe to identify Venus.
 >These were nuclear qualified officers, who were quite
 >knowledgeable in their trade but not to the point of
 >infallibility. Hynek addressed this when he noted that
 >pilots seemed to suffer from misperception problems:

 >"What we have here is a good example of a well-known
 >psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience
 >does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one
 >field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to
 >another one" (The UFO Report)

Can't fault what you say above.


 >Then we have the problem of Carter being outside the
 >military for almost two decades when he saw this event.
 >Exactly what proficiency did Carter have at identifying
 >planets at this time in his life? We really don't know but
 >speculating he could have easily identified Venus is not
 >being very accurate.

Nor is it accurate to use other witness lack of recollection.
Below is a quote from my 22 Nov post to Bob Young

[Begin quote]

Regarding Robert Sheaffer's specific hypothesis concerning the
witnesses: You still haven't considered what Bob Gates and I
submitted concerning this and which I pointed you to in my last
two posts. I apologize for being repetitive here but you haven't
commented on this yet and it is important.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m15-008.shtml

At the above URL is evidence that happens to fall right in
line with what Sheaffer said concerning witness
accuracy; namely, _witness recollection is not always
accurate._ We have given you other data available that
demonstrates that the Carter sighting witnesses "lack of
recollection" is most probably equally
accurate/inaccurate as Carter's. Omitting evidence such
as this is one basic error Sheaffer has made. It was
delineated on Cameron's web site, which I quoted in a
previous post beginning at paragraph 4 in the Cameron
quote toward the bottom of that page

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

[end quote]


 >Of course, we have to take Carter's report with a grain of
 >salt since it was made several years after the event
 >occurred. He could not even recall the date. Exactly why
 >are we to suspect that he got all the other details exactly
 >right?

Tim, you're absolutely right. That's also why I say the case has
to remain an unknown.


Respectfully,

Jerry Cohen

http://www.cohenufo.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Albany TV Object - Lopez

From: Edward Lopez <nyceddie@webtv.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:54:37 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:24:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Albany TV Object - Lopez


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:07:59 -0500
 >Subject: Albany TV Object

 >I have posted at my web site my preliminary analysis of the
 >video taken by a TV cameraman for an Albany TV station back in
 >October. This preliminary analysis shows some image
 >enhancements that are intended to answer the question... did
 >it or didn't it >pass behind a cloud.

 >I think the presentation is self-explanatory. I look forward to
 >other analysts commenting on the question... how high was it?

Bruce:

I'll look at your presentation when I get through here. But let
me answer your two questions first, whether my answers agree
with your findings or not. The Albany 'object' is simply a Rod.
Not a true, craft UFO, but a species of an as-of-yet-to-be-
acknowledged-by-mainstream-science creature that could turn out
to be a new species of insect.

What makes me so sure? Since 1994, when I got introduced to rods
via a video shown on UFOAZ and provided by Jeff Ferris, one of
the first to get involved with Jose Escamilla's prompting, I
also became a rod researcher. But, not having a camcorder at the
time and, co-incidentally, I became aware of rods via
television. Sorry to diverge to present the following, but I
have the ability to see what you could term "blurs." I may not
have seen what caused the blur but I knew instinctively that
something just flashed by on the screen. With the help of 3 VCRs
in our living room, I became aware that rods were being video'ed
by not only professional ENG videographers but just about
everyone that used a camcorder. I started to make a master tape
of what I considered to be rods, some very clear.

When I got WebTV in 1997 I started communicating with Jose
Escamilla who I'm sure you know is the discoverer of rods. We
exchanged video tapes. I introduced him to some underwater
creatures that behave like air rods. To cut to the chase, right
from the beginning I saw that regardless of whether rods were
inches long or big and seen primarily high in the sky, their
shape and method of propulsion was identical. You could say
similar to cats and tigers, big and small.

Rods have been featured in many TV documentaries and what you
see when they show small ones, as in the Oregon Vortex, or big
ones cruising the sky, is that they all look alike. So, whatever
your findings are the Albany UFO is a rod. There is just so much
footage of rods that for it to be questioned as a missile or UFO
or any esoteric description is not going to change nature.

Back in March '00, KFMB-TV in San Diego aired a 4-part rod
special. Marianne Mancusi became aware of my taping of rods off
TV and she requested that I send her a copy of my footage. By
that time I had over 80 segments of rods from all parts of the
world and in every situation. The last part of the above special
featured some of the footage I sent her.

All rods are identical, whether they are the Oregon Vortex size
(about 5"-6") or the Albany size. No other conclusion can be
arrived at. Take a look at 5 vidcaps of rods on my page at:

http://www.community-2.webtv.net/nyceddie/SkyRods0

If you could see the footage where a Swedish army tank is being
tested and it is shown firing 8 times and you can see the shells
arcing in the air, before a single shell nears the ground a rod
zooms by and can only be seen in slow-motion and frame-by-frame.
In some documentaries an arrow has been added to make sighting
the rod easier as rods are damn fast!

I do hope that when I arrive at your site you have come to the
conclusion I've stated above. If not, it will surely lend itself
to some spirited discussions.

Edward Lopez
The TV Rod Man


[Using the Google search facility to search virtuallystrange.net
  at the bottom of the page at:

  http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/

  will yield over 200 posts to UFO UpDates regarding Rods. Let us
  not get into repeating information already available at the UFO
  UpDates Archives --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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 27

             Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:34:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee

Hello List Savants all,

 >Mr. Allen is an idiot.

I don't think it is not so much the question of whether Mr.
Allen is an idiot so much as not letting scientists get away
with these very linear and binary assumptions of black or white,
false or true. I myself wholly admire Bruce Maccabee's work, and
people like him, and I believe much of what he and they believe.
The only difference between us that I think the universe is a
far sillier place than they believe it is. I think that the
assumption that Nature's laws are linear, profound, stable and
sensible, and accessible to only those full of good bourgeois
common sense, is a mistake. If we get rid of all plain daftness
by (as suggested) teaching our cat to flush it down the toilet
(a wonderfully daft action in itself) we lose out on vital
inspirations. Noise, mistakes, prejudice, waste  and indeed much
self-deception play a part in the human thinking cycle..

It is no good getting rid of daftness, absurdity, paradox,
humour, and anomaly simple because they cannot be comprehended
by the physical sciences. Daftness is Lear's Fool: throw the
Fool out of the Court, and we are doomed. There is no curse like
the curse of a wronged Fool. That is why I still like to see
John Rimmer on this List.

Noise appears to be functional to all healthy psychologies.
Play, wastes of time, silliness are the basis of fruitful
exploration. I make a plea here for daft complexity. For all we
know, we might be in the middle of some unimagineable
catastrophe, consisting of parts that work better than others,
parts that do not work at all, and other parts that are
beautifully silly, like the armour of the rhino, or the long
neck of the giraffe. We must surely assume that any beings
encountered in this catastrophe are going to be as daft and
silly as we are. The greatest evidence for alien contact is that
we have appeared as aliens from another world to others. It
would be high folly to assume that it has not happened already
or is not going to happen to us in turn. But what will arrive? A
long boat putting out from a two-stacker towards a Polynesian
island in 1910 is not going to contain the leading lights of the
19th century: Marx, Freud, or Einstein. It is more likely to
contain a mad cook, a psychopathic boson, and a few Portsmouth
boys with sore hindquarters. What the alien equivalents are to
such things is anybody's guess. Moreover, there will be than one
cultural level. Level A will make mistakes, and levels B and C
will make other mistakes, ad infinitum. When all these mistakes
are summed, contact will look more like a rain forest more than
anything else. Though Moseley is not a Believer and Pflock is
having all the doubts of one of Lytton Strachey's 19th century
Protestant Clergyman they have indeed (by default more than
anything else) created a mini Canterbury Tales of Ufology (I
think it is time we all used a capital U), in Shockingly,
showing Ufology to be rich and varied culture with characters
just as interesting as any of Chaucer's pilgrims.

Against this Fuzzy view, if we assume a two-state universe of
simply yes and no, then science becomes a Moloch driving a
rectangular bulldozer through the mad rainforests of the brain,
each severed tiny branch of which represents a murdered reality-
option. This of course leads to intellectual tragedy: what we do
not understand, we simplify. But Nature doesn't like the
completely squared-off rectangles of the strong factual-
objective view. Nature specializes in imperfections. These are
far more subtle than accuracies, which are largely an illusion
left over from the 18th and 19th centuries. As entities, both
Nature and experience consist of subtleties infinitely more
complex than absolute reality (truth) versus absolute unreality
(untruth), both of which are theoretical approximations. Both
Matter and Mind are intermediate states that oscillate between
the two theoretical extremes but some scientists talk about
reality as easily and glibly as if reality were a mere self-
evident something, worth no more thought than a piece of cheap
trash dropped into a supermarket trolley, and not one of Plato's
shadows, these being the imitations of some ineffable state.
They then proceed to judge and experiment from this illusory
figment of a datum line, that can be rigged any way which way.
For myself, I cannot wait to see the metaphysics of Oberg's
compromised virtual super-text join the equally compromised
metaphysics of the moving image. This partially official one-
third cancelled (he keeps $5000) is a systems animal that now
grazes in the region between fact and fiction as I have
indicated. This is a new form of life, and the cabalistic
feeding-frenzy we are about to see will make the whole house of
cards a little higher. This is the very cutting-edge of cultural
warfare, and the show is going to get full houses, opening with
a chorus of lines of different kinds of lens caps of which
Galileo would be proud. Oberg's future super-virtual text will
now join the MJ12 papers and the Ramey message as the only
authentic texts for our present human condition. Inventions? You
couldn't invent this drama if you tried for a lifetime.

Eventually these cerebral sagas will replace the novel and the
stage play, both of which are having grave difficulties with the
present world and are retreating into the deep past. Yes, the
Oberg text-cum-telescope drama is n-dimensional Web TV, and it
will certainly replace the old camp arts of yesteryear, most of
which look already like Orphan Annie's lost sock.

In this sense, all cultures practice smoke and mirrors. All is
media, and the Oberg-Moon-hoax show illustrates well that what
we call the real is always changing its position between
absolute limits. It cannot be "found" in this state any more
than the co-ordinates of a single electron at any point in time
can be "found" in the simple sense of a Euclidean position. The
real is the supreme actor. Tear off mask after mask, and the
real appears behind an audience member (the "investigator")
thumbing its nose with yet another set of remanufactured faces

The real is driven along this line of masking approximations by
the anomaly. The function of the anomaly within any set paradigm
is destabilization of the real, which makes the real appear at
another point along our theoretical line exactly as described by
quantum physics.  If the paradigm were not kept in such a
permanent state of uncertainty, then it could not give birth.
Without uncertainty (long ago admitted to by scientists) and
burgeoning Fuzzy noise, growth of objective fact would suffer
infinite vertical acceleration, and the entire universe would
lock itself up, become a one-dimensional tapestry frozen in era-
time.

Now as an automatically generated anomaly, cultural denials are
not new. The Right now denies the Holocaust as the Left once
denied the Russian camps in the Gulag Archipelago for half a
century or more. On that scale, certainly we are dealing with
degenerative pathological states, but outright denial on a more
normal and healthy human scale, is not only a fundamental human
right, it a common way of managing both individual psychologies
and human affairs, for better or for worse, and whether we like
it or not. Everything and everybody in turn denies in turn, both
for evil purposes and for good. Science has to take its place in
line as a culture amongst cultures, and its certainly does its
own share of denying, this denying being called the Big Lie by
Kropotkin long ago. Neither theoretical nor applied science,
when peer-reviewed by humanity comes up smelling of roses. There
are the comparatively small matters of the despoiling of all
land, sea, and air, animal experimentation, and nuclear tests in
the atmosphere, plus human experimentation. The history of
psychiatric practices in the Western world since 1945 is a
secret holocaust not readily admitted to by those who profess
liberal and democratic view. This constant attempt to portray
science as the only Mr. Clean who counts is very  boring. Yes,
science is materially successful at this cultural moment in
time, but then so are cultures based on tree-spirits and men who
walked on water. Science denies the UFO, Cold Fusion, and alien
presence, politicians deny all Creation, and NASA denies no
doubt that the wonderful glamorous and brilliant Moon landing
was organized, led and developed by Nazi SS Officers who were
guilty of the most brutal crimes in the history of the human
race. In turn, the British government denies that Princess Diana
was murdered, and how else do you get rid of 80,000 British Army
casualties in one day of the 1916 Somme battle or the useless
slaughter of Vietnam but shame-facedly deny such things? How you
get rid of thirty million corpses at Nuremberg but stand there
in the dock and deny it all? Answer: you tell one of Kropotkin's
Big Lies, whether they are about Watergate, Vietnam, or
assassinations.

Denial is an essential element of the battle-management of
warring cultures and psychologies. Anthropologically, it is a
tribal vanishing technique, old as mankind, and the need for it
as such goes that deep. Every good PR person knows the way it
works. Whether 2000 BC or in a CNN studio, the face of the enemy
is erased by de-advertising him. This is a process of forced
forgetting. If the opposition has no image, no media profile,
then he ceases to exist, especially in the modern world. His
blood might still be flowing, but with no face, he is very much
the bum in the doorway swinging at a bottle. Morally of course
he is just as valuable as anyone else, but on any other account,
deprived of a decent viewer rating, the non-achiever is nothing.
He has, bless him, been successfully exorcised or vanished in
any sense that means anything. Effectively, apart from his
chewing of a Salvation Army sandwich well past its shelf life,
he is invisible. Denial is not so much a battle for truth in the
old sense it is a battle for prime time in the full
consciousness show. In this sense, it might not some as a
surprise to scientists to realize that they are no longer in
charge of the show, and they have not been for some time. Media
is in charge. Media is the new Estate. It comes as a shock to
some to realize that Media cannot give information, or at least
it gave up trying long ago. Is there anything more ridiculous or
absurd in this universe than the idea of The News? Media has
quite other strengths. Media operates by visual images, not the
language of discursive dialectical rationalism, which in our
brave new world is as funny and odd and curious as Bud Abbot and
Lou Costello. If science is to survive, then it will become a
support base for entertainment; witness the New Cosmology and
the recent Sci-Fi Channel documentary on Roswell.

In this sense, cultural denials are prototype entertainment.
John Rimmer, a regular contributor to this List, and the editor
of Magonia magazine, is of all people is qualified to comment on
the denial phenomenon. For some years he has denied all Ufology,
from MJ12 to abductions, from Roswell to every single aspect of
alternative science and belief. He denies all New Age thinking,
along with paranormal, telepathy, and religious experience. He
denies all mystical intuition, and of course the experience of
the contactees and abductees. What better man to comment on
denials as a form of entertainment for the cerebral elite? For
those who not know, the Brentford Polonius as he is known, is a
noisy, prattling obsequious fellow, known for the most part for
his unremarkable attempts to reduce the entire cosmos and all
experience to a mundane base line on a graph which means in
surgical terms no heart, brain, or breath. Looking as if it were
put together on a kitchen table, and containing articles for the
most part written by the quarter -brilliant for the half-dead,
Magazine represents the greatest collection of the terminally
unpublished in Christendom, and is dedicated to the worship of
their dying god, the great Ordinary.

The almost suicidal paranoid fear of the fantastic oozes from
the pages of Magonia magazine like pus from a diseased fetlock.
It does not make denials so much as breed them. One particular
monstrous stillbirth is the so-called psychosocial view that
UFOs for example are mental projections caused in the main by
the absorption of American popular culture. An anti-American
streak is present in most Magonian thinking; witness the almost
violent anti-American Uncon speech given by a noted British
writer, savagely accusing American media for the ruinous
corruption of the entire nation.

Make no mistake about it; these people are crusading inquisitors
on the march. A group of Magonian pelicans were responsible for
reducing the Fortean Times almost to its knees by injecting such
an amount of crackpot pelicanist skepticism, much of it of a
strange late-Victorian vintage typical of Rimmer 's influence.
Magonia magazine is reminiscent of those sepia photographs from
the old SPR where famous mathematicians, physicists and
philosophers hold down a medium's legs, arms and head whilst a
nevertheless a stream of cheeky ectoplasm emerges from the
nostrils and mouth of the medium, almost to thumb its many noses
at them. Such a comic fear of cheating, hoaxes and frauds pours
from Magonia's chronically-depressed nail-biting trading-class
contributors reducing them at times to an almost suicidal
apoplexy at the prospect of God cooking the books. That the
universe might just not behave itself on occasion and bounce a
few cheques is anathema to Magonians. Rimmer on the fantastic is
Luther on Transubstantiation, minus the brains and the
scholarship.

The height of Rimmer's influence over the Fortean Times was
reached when all the pouting dames of the entire Magonian corps
de ballet were assembled onstage at the Fortean Times
Unconvention, with, bless him, the web editor of both the
Fortean Times and Magonia magazine acting as chairman! Talk
about the much-vaunted democratic scientific objectivity! For a
minute I thought I was watching a Miss Goody Two Shoes contest,
circa 1900, with such David Icke and his lovely alien lizards as
unmentionable as testicles and penis before great Victoria.

I had not seen so many British Dames together since the old
Lyric Empire was forced to close its doors just before the
Relief of Ladysmith. I thought for a minute some Lindy Hopper
was going to jump on stage and start doing the Charleston. I
asked myself if these people are pelicans, why are they called
supersonic? I supposed that this referred to the speed with
which they head for the nearest politically correct detox
chamber should the names David Icke (or George Adamski) be
uttered in their presence.

The subject of debate was no less edifying. It was The Death of
Ufology, no less.

To show the extent of Rimmer's influence, by trick or treat, he
managed to wangle himself a seat on the panel, and he was not
even an invited speaker at the Uncon.

I can't say much about what went on at this doomed event,
because my opening remarks caused a near riot, mainly sponsored
by Rimmer's well-organised card-carrying supporters at the back
of the hall. What all this had to do with the ideas of Charles
Fort (it was after all, the Fortean Unconvention) is a question
best asked of the editors, now recently retired, although the
title The Death of Ufology was not exactly a good note on which
to go into the Fortean sunset. Having known Rickard for nearly
thirty years, I personally warned him about the dangers he faced
by including unseemly amounts of skeptical material in the
Fortean Times. Nothing but contempt and ridicule has been poured
upon every single aspect of Ufology, from Rendlesham to Roswell,
from contactees to abductees, and the editors in their wisdom
decided to include such things as the original pelican article,
and prior to that, no less than five full articles by Peter
Brookesmith putting forward the view that the entire UFO
phenomenon was psychosocial in origin. Though Brookesmith is
always worth reading (being, like Karl Pflock one of the few
pelicans with brains), the pelican idea itself was a schoolboy
joke that did some considerable damage to the magazine's
intellectual credibility, and no good at all to the Fortean
cause. There was even an attempt at the Uncon to initialize a
hands-across-the sea attempt (Mr. Pflock was the other half, I
do believe), to trash the Betty Hill experience, though
fortunately this conspiratorial link failed at the last moment.

Whether the hand of Rimmer and his acolytes was behind all these
this, I can't quite say at the moment. Taking his recent advice
about investigations, I am investigating these matters. The
results of my research into skeptical groups will be included in
a book about the historical roots of traditional English
skepticism up to the UFO age. Perhaps I shall call it
Deconstructing Disbelief, a title Charles Fort himself might
have liked, although I might think up something sexier than
that, just to annoy Rimmer. I might consider calling it Rimmer
in Love. I might have a character in it who, just after he has
got all his rationalist assumptions under control, opens a door
to see a face of his dreams who smashes every single logical and
evidential assumption he has ever had into fragments lost beyond
all recall. The sleepless nights John, are heading your way.
Instead of having to constantly replace UFOs with thrown
dustbins and flying currant buns, you will be in love, utterly
possessed by some fantastic thing that you cannot possible
account for. Perhaps you might even be abducted, and like
Shakespeare's Bottom, you will be utterly translated, and you
will write letters begging forgiveness even to Jerry Clark.

Pending this miraculous event, considerable Magonian venom is
focused on the said Jerome Clark, the editor of the UFO
Encyclopedia. Rimmer can't complain if he gets some venom back.
Clark has earned this not so much because he is a believer in
the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis, and he has rejected the
psychosocial view, but because his brilliant and scholarly work
has made him certainly the Dr. Johnson of ufology. The Magonians
are clever enough to know that once a culture has sufficient
credibility to justify an encyclopedia proper, then that culture
has reached an acceptance level qualifying it to be judged
alongside other more legitimate cultures far older in the tooth.
Jazz for example was once in the embryo stage of ufology: it
soared, dipped, went into a steep dive, but yet leveled off to a
permanent state where it will last for all time as a cultural
"success". This is what annoys Magonians: the fear of the
official acceptance of ufology through brilliant work such as
Clark, Dick Hall, Loren Coleman, Jacques Vallee, and indeed of
late, the work of Richard Dolan and Hansen, the author of
Missing Time. Skepticism has yet to produce works that come to
within a million miles of this standard.

But back to History. The British skeptical movement was mainly
Puritan-Protestant inspired, and its paranoid fear of the
fantastic stems primarily from its fundamentalist hatred of
Catholic mysticism. Should anyone doubt that, then they might
bear in mind that, as in Saudi Arabia, they could get their
heads blown off tomorrow in Northern Ireland through making a
wrong remark about the interpretation of the Scriptures. Even
2000 years later, even slightly different versions of the
Incarnation as Symbol or the same Incarnation as real can
produce bullets zipping from all directions.  That is what
Fort's theories were all about: the flow and counter-flow of
warring information, different beliefs acting almost the bodies
of battling animals. After practicing mass genocide on the
Catholics of Great Britain for two hundred years, the bones of
their hung, drawn and quartered bodies are still under Marble
Arch in the center of London not far from where I live.

After reaching these dizzy heights of achievement, the skeptical
movement flourished particularly well in the 19th century when
taken up by various branches of Methodist Utilitarianism,
although some Methodists went in the other direction and became
Spiritualists. They split again, with some taking the inevitable
road to Rome via the Oxford Movement, and others forming the
original Atheist Society. In those days, Protestant-skepticism
was useful for scientists, socialists, and those communists
having doubts. It lacked the intense spiritual commitment and
glamour and mystery of Rome, but it left the door open for what
W.C. Fields called loopholes, just in case God chose finally to
come on stage and declare himself. The very last significant
representatives on Earth of this movement were the dim
luminaries Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher and the rather
brighter luminaries such as the left-wing rationalists Lancelot
Hogben, and  Bertrand Russell, who wrote Mysticism and Logic, a
skeptical bible, although I doubt if Magonians have heard of it.

An optimist could say that Magonia magazine represents the usual
play of very eccentric English petite-bourgeois egos. The time
line of many of the main characters is that of Well's novels
Kipps and Love and Mr. Lewisham. Others have not even reached
Complexity, Chaos, or quantum theory yet. Our optimist could add
that British skepticism in particular is all as dotty-harmless
as British Socialism, nudist vegetarianism, or tea at the
Vicarage and Alice in Wonderland. To a certain extent, I would
agree. But in recommending that UpDates folk investigate the
background of what he terms hoaxers, Rimmer reveals himself as
rather a dangerous fellow. Perhaps he should start investigating
the background of his main contributors and associates, because
at least six of them no less are to my knowledge, the biggest
UFO and corn-circle hoaxers in Merry England. He should
investigate also those loosely affiliated to Magonia magazine
who run regular denial-schedules and equally regular media
disinformation programs. Talk about hypocrisy! I myself have had
to run counter-hacking operations in order to protect the
computers of my own counter-intelligence organization. But in
turn of course, Rimmer will deny anything and everything.

As the author of Politics of the Imagination, skeptics who say
that Fort was the biggest skeptic of all time have criticized
me. That is true, but his skepticism is very different to
Magonian skepticism, which says that there is nothing
extraordinary going off at all. Fort, on the contrary, says that
there is so much going off that skepticism is a control, not a
means of "separating fact from fiction". That is very different.
It means that skepticism is needed to keep consciousness within
that spectrum of experience within which we still remain sane
and functioning. Otherwise, without this kind of frequency
filter as it were, we might come near to hearing, like George
Eliot's Dorothea in Rome, the beat of every squirrel's heart. In
this respect, the problem with Magonian pelicans is that, like
Holocaust and Moon Landing deniers, they want to disbelieve. And
some people will disbelieve anything.

But now John asks for a copy of my book.

John, if you are still listening and have not yet switched off,
I won't send you a book yet because I don't think you are quite
up to this kind of thing at the moment. However, since you say
your love life is at stake, I am prepared to be merciful. Try my
piece in Philosophy Now: A Late Disciple of Lucretius, in the
current edition issue 38 for starters before you dive in at the
deep end. If you have your usual difficulties with this piece,
then sir, I fear for both your education and your mind, never
mind your love life. And please do not use your favourite word
"incomprehensible" yet again. Constantly telling people about
your inability to understand is very boring, and makes you sound
like a complete idiot, which I know very well that you are not.
You have used this same word time and time again to describe the
work of Friedman, Clark, Keel, Jacobs, Hopkins et al, so I am in
good company. However, sir, if your love life still needs
improving after reading my article in Philosophy Now, you might
try and win one of the five copies of my Politics of the
Imagination on offer by the current Fortean Times as prizes in a
quiz, and give your other half the thrill of a lifetime. You
could of course buy a copy off the shelf and give it to one of
your amateur McCarthyist coffin-donkeys or petulant Harry
Potters and have them stamp their tiny little feet on it.
However, fortunately for me, the public you would try to mislead
have a nasty habit of clearing the bookshop shelves of my book,
so you had better be quick.

John, I am glad you say you find my work erotic, if somewhat
difficult. As far as you are concerned sir, that is its precise
intention. Such intellectual arousal might enable you to write
something equally as beautiful, extraordinary, original,
profound and magical. It might do just that, instead of running
around on your one-wheeled bicycle making comments worthy of a
mentally arthritic grocer's delivery boy, circa 1900 and frozen
to death. So concentrate, listen, read and learn, that will cure
your stifling ordinariness, which sir, is either an irritation
of cosmic proportions, the biggest front-conspiracy yet
encountered by humanity, or on the other hand, is a thing as
phony as a silicon tit.

So, UpDate folks, when John Rimmer asks you to covertly
"investigate" your friends, colleagues, and acquaintances and
report back to him, beware, because he is well plugged in to the
American skeptical circuit, and you never know where your
information might turn up, or who is going to use it, or more
dangerous, who might just act on it. There are old World War 2
names for Rimmer's suggestion, but fortunately I have forgotten
them.

Perhaps some people have better memories than myself, and will
take the legal risk of using them.

Be warned!

He is not called the Brentford Polonius for nothing.

Keep smiling!


Colin







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                          Russian 'Crash Footage'?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:26:59 -0500
Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?


List,

Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
production, the faces of military and medical personel are
visible.

I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
miss something?


Curious,

Mac Tonnies

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                  New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:32:38 -0500
Subject: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added


I have added a new citizen's poll to Roswell Proof to gauge
people's opinions on just how readable key phrases and words are
in Ramey's memo. You can take it or link other people to it at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html


I think the primary "qualification" anybody needs on this matter
is not scientific credentials but the ability to read. If people
see what I see, they can vote it up. Otherwise they can vote it
down.

I'm not claiming a Web poll is in any way representative of the
general population or controlled in how it is done. But it is
simple, requires no funding, and will give us a quick (though
imperfect) measure of the readability or lack thereof of some
critical sections of the Ramey memo from a large number of
people.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:39:37 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:35:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:28:40 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

<snip>

 >>No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
 >>testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
 >>miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

<snip>

 >This is a primitive rationalism that hasn't yet learnt that
 >experience is both personally and culturally dynamic. Nature is
 >for Hume a static truth. But a genuine argument from experience
 >is the argument from _all_ experience, which is conducted by
 >human society all along the breaking wavefront of its advance
 >into the unknown future, and which demonstrates that no cultural
 >experience is 'firm and unalterable'. All that is now 'law'
 >represents merely a temporising 'fudge factor' for an unknown
 >physics that is the miraculous waiting to become

Hello, Martin:

Fine words, but the unkown physics of which you speak is of
course unkown to you or anybody else, at this time. One has to
use _something_ to get a grip on reality. That something, today,
is the physics of today. Of course that may change, but usually
just in incremental advances. But, so what? To deny that we can
try to "know" anything because we can't know everything is just
nonsense.

Allows good philosophical discussions, but never solved an IFO.

Thanks for your contribution.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

             Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:36:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Tonnies


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

I'd like to take this opportunity to express how profoundly
appreciative I am of Colin's contributions to this list.  His
commentary is some of the best of its kind.  As long as Bennett
keeps it up, Western empiricism can run, but it can't hide.

--Mac



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:43:23 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:39:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:52:02 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:13:34 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>I don't think this sort of statistical treatment would lend
 >>itself, though, to a solution of this sighting. The Hills said
 >>the two "stars" (one of which was the UFO) were below the Moon,
 >>which was only about 14 deg high. Jupiter, the brightest planet,
 >>was only about two degrees (four Moon widths) from the Moon.
 >>Saturn was a couple degrees further. These and the Moon were the
 >>brightest astronomical objects in the sky. Jupiter was more than
 >>100 times brighter than the nearest dimmer star. They all
 >>occupied an area smaller than your outstretched hand at arm's
 >>length and just above the horizon.

 >The real problem was the 75% illuminated Moon, which would have
 >made visual observation of the brightest nearby 3rd and 4th
 >magnitude stars impossible. There would have been no otherstars
 >to see.

 >The problem is, unless you know the exact positions of the
 >objects in the original report, or you have a priori set limits
 >to the errors you'll accept in the measurements of those
 >positions, any pattern-matching you do is inevitably arbitrary
 >and post-hoc. You simply can't quantify the possibility that
 >the match may have ocurred entirely by chance.

Yes, I think in this case, one can with a lot of confidence.
This isn't a matter of a pattern of any three objects. Other
patterns of stars were almost certainly not visible in the
bright Moonlight. There wasn't much "below" below the Moon, less
than 14 degrees. The only natural astronomical objects visible
below the Moon, or anywher near the Moon, would have been the
two planets.

 >In fact, the brightness of Jupiter only adds in another problem
 >for the "Jupiter" explanation. According to the description in
 >"The Interupted Journey", Betty Hill at first saw a star or
 >planet close to the Moon, and later on noticed another object
 >above the star.

Which she also described as a "star". They were travelling in a
car, Saturn was only 9 degrees above a perfect sea horizon.
Horizon obtructions, or clouds for that matter, undoubtedly
blocked the view at times on their drive.

 >One of the features of the image segmentation process I
 >described before, is that the objects which "pop out" of the
 >visual display are those which are most dissimilar to the
 >background.  In this case, that obviously means the biggest and
 >brightest objects. So the two pop-out objects should have been
 >the Moon and Jupiter, and not the Moon and Saturn as the
 >"Jupiter" hypothesis would require.

You are assuming a completely static display. They were in a
moving car, with changing horizon obstructions. If one planet
was too low to be seen (Saturn), how would she know that the one
that she could see was the "brightest". Why weren't there three
stars reported (two planets and the UFO)?

It is clear that she at not time reported the number of star-
like object needed to have a UFO.

 >Of course, one can't be sure of this - Jupiter might have been
 >obscured behind a cloud, or a tree, or the rear-view mirror, or
 >anything, during the first observation - but given the
 >configuration you describe, with Jupiter effectively in the
 >center of the alignment and Saturn at the edge, that actually
 >seems extremely unlikely.

"Extremely unlikely"? Two star-like objects are described,
below the Moon, when no stars could be seen. Two planets,
bright enough to be seen, are known to have been below the
Moon. The upper one brighter than the lower one, matching
the description of the Hills. At no time were three star-like
objects reported. "Extremely likely" to be the planet Jupiter
is more like it.

 >But the real point I want to make is that there's no need to get
 >involved in an increasingly myopic cycle of interpretation and
 >reinterpretation of the initial sighting.

Myopic cycle? You are prepared to ignore what can be known
because the witness had a subsequent tale? This is a recipe for
non-investigation. If this were the only way to proceed, no UFO
sighting ever reported would have been discovered to have been
prosaic, because subsequently, the witness had claimed that it
was a UFO.

I don't know how many actual UFO sighting reports you have ever
investigated, but the overwhelming majority, if one has up-to-
date information and enough time to devote, turn out to be
various prosaic explanations. We would be nowhere if "myopic"
methods of identifying prosaic stimuli had been ignored because
we believed in the infallibility of unsupported eyewitness
testimony.

 >The "Jupiter"
 >hypothesis can readily be tested against the subsequent
 >evolution of the sighting. All we need to do is ask whether the
 >subsequent events are consistent with an observation of Jupiter,
 >given what we know of the human visual system. And the answer,
 >of course, is no, so the "Jupiter" hypothesis is effectively
 >falsified.

Oh, come on. A bizarre tale of little alien spacemen only
surfacing after months of reading saucer book folklore
"falsifies" a report of a "star" located just where a planet was
in the sky? I don't buy it.

But then, this case is one of the classics, and is a microcosm
  of the flying saucer conundrum. More than 50 years of
sightings, claims and investigations and not still not one
single unequivacly proven alien visit.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

When it comes to flying saucers, it is still January, 1950
- - - Curtis Peebles








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                          CI: New Animation Posted

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:40:36 -0500
Subject: CI: New Animation Posted


Cydonian Imperative
11-28-02

I've posted an intriguing GIF animation by Donovan Colbert
showing the D&M Pyramid's axes as seen in night-time infrared,
along with a rendering of suspected structural damage on the
D&M's eastern side:

http://mactonnies.com/cydonia.html

Click the animation to jump to the revised article.


Happy Thanksgiving!

Mac Tonnies








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 04:24:05 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:43:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Morton


 >Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett
 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters -  >>Maccabee

 >Hello List Savants all,

 >>Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >I don't think it is not so much the question of whether Mr.
 >Allen is an idiot so much as not letting scientists get away
 >with these very linear and binary assumptions of black or white,
 >false or true. I myself wholly admire Bruce Maccabee's work, and

<snip>

 >Be warned! He [John Rimmer] is not called the Brentford Polonius
 >for nothing.

 >Keep smiling!

 >Colin

Colin -

Can you clarify the term "Brentford Polonius"?

Is the "Brentford" the same "Brentford, England", which hosts
Trico Products - home of the dual-action wiper blade, and
perhaps John Rimmer's current hometown?

Could the "Polonius" be related to the Polonius who was unable
to master the "soul of wit" in his limbs and outward flourishes
of much unnecessary, although mildly amusing - amusing, that is,
if you're in the mood for it (although some are often not) -
  tediousness? Or even, "ordinariness"?

Also, what did you mean by a "McCarthyist coffin-donkey"? One
who mindlessly pulls someone to his funeral - deserved or not,
goaded by highly-placed government officials? You lost me on
that description.


Thank you, Colin.

And to all, Happy Thanksgiving/Ordinary-Thursdayness, as the
case may apply.


Dave Morton

A pre-tryptophaned Pilgrim in need of some clarifications before
Thanksgiving gratefully sets 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                               Articles Wanted

From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:52:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:45:08 -0500
Subject: Articles Wanted


Dear All,

I am the editor of a web site entitled BEYOND. It can be found
at: www.beyondpublications.com

We already have a great many contributors to the site but more
are certainly required. I am constantly on the look out for new
artiucle submissions. I cannot pay for any contributions but
insterad I can publicise any organisations, meetings, books etc.
Please take a look at the site.

I am looking for articles on a whole host of topics including:

UFOs
Alien Abductions
Cover-ups/Conspiracies
Alternative History
Alternative Health/Medicine
Crop Circles
Free Energy
Earth Mysteries
Paranormal/Psychic Phenomenon
Cryptoozoolgy
Anything Beyond accepted science.

If you are interested in contributing to BEYOND please e-mail me
direct at: philipmantle@hotmal.com

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:01:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:12:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >List,

 >Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
 >crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
 >question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
 >production, the faces of military and medical personel are
 >visible.

 >I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
 >UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

 >Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
 >miss something?


Are these the same images as shown on a television special a few
years back related to the KGB UFO files? There was never a
follow up to the program and the production company began to
scream about lawsuits when some of their images were posted.
Hmmmmmmm.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 369

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:47:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:48:27 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 369


ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 369 -  4 OCTOBER 2002

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:

CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH E.M. EFFECTS IN ORBASSANO


A clamor was raised all over Italy because of the mysterious
object sighted by a night watchman in Orbassano (Turin), in the
early hours of Saturday, 28 September.

According to the deposition given to Carabinieri policemen by
the witness who called them, the appearance of the UFO
phenomenon was preceded by control monitors in the surveillance
cabin failing, at the same time that the electronic-controlled
gate opened by itself in the truck rest-area.

The time was 4:27 a.m., and the young man went outside to
investigate what was going on. As he returned to his cabin, he
felt something akin to a slight breeze, which was accompanied by
a whistling noise. He then found himself enshrouded in a beam of
light emanating from above. Also, above a streetlamp he saw a
luminous disc approximately 3 meters in diameter rotating on
itself, which streaked out of sight after a few seconds, as if
swallowed up by the sky.

The witness awakened a truck driver who was asleep in his truck
in the rest area, but this man hadn't noticed a thing. In the
cabin, the monitor came back on. The frightened watchman then
telephoned the Carabinieri and, still shaken when the patrol
squad on duty arrived, recounted everything that had transpired.
He proceeded to repeat everything in a further deposition, which
took place that Sunday at their barracks.

[Ansa, 29 September; La Stampa, La Repubblica and Leggo, Turin
editions, 30 September; various national dailies, 30 September;
Luna Nuova, 1 October; L'Eco del Chisone, 2 October;
collaboration by Paolo Fiorino, Gian Paolo Grassino, Roberto
Labanti and Camillo Michieletto]


- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free phone/Internet
information service on UFOs edited weekly by  Edoardo Russo for
the Italian Center for UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi
Ufologici), available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294, or
by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website at
http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di
informazione ufologica", published by the Italian
Center for UFO Studies, registered at Tribunale
di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.
Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance IT-EN Translator/Proofreader
1123 Revere Beach Pky., # 12
Revere, MA 02151 USA
Tel.: ++ 1.781.485.1683, Fax: ++ 1.781.485.1684
ICQ: 110502923, E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2002  by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing - just send a
blank message to: cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                 Britain To Publish Files On UFO Sightings -

From: John Zupansic <zupansic@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:52:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:21:21 -0500
Subject: Britain To Publish Files On UFO Sightings -


Hey Everyone, Happy Thanksgiving!

This story just broke this morning.....

John Zupansic

-----

Source: Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=1821504

Thu November 28, 2002 10:59 AM ET

Britain to Publish Files on UFO Sightings


LONDON (Reuters) - The British government will publish files on
reported UFO sightings as part of a shake-up of its laws on
freedom of information. Among the documents to be published is
the "Rendlesham File," which deals with one of the country's
best known sightings of an unidentified flying object.

Until now, only about 20 members of the public have seen the
file, which relates to a sighting in Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk,
eastern England, in 1980.

According to some UFO enthusiasts, eyewitnesses including U.S.
officers at a nearby military base saw a brilliantly lit
spaceship land in the forest on two consecutive nights.

Skeptics say the witnesses were fooled by the beam from a
lighthouse on the nearby coast.

The Rendlesham file has been available to the public for some
time but only at the discretion of the Ministry of Defense.

Now, the government says it will publish it on the Internet
before the end of this week, along with other files on reported
UFO sightings.

"These first steps mark important progress toward changing the
culture of government and extending the public's right to know
what is being done in their name," Freedom of Information
Minister Yvette Cooper said in a statement.

The government says it intends to repeal or amend up to 100
pieces of legislation which currently prohibit disclosure of
information. It aims to replace them with provisions of a new
Freedom of Information Act, passed in 2000.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

             Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:58:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:27:03 -0500
Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added - Hall


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
 >Subject: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

 >I have added a new citizen's poll to Roswell Proof to gauge
 >people's opinions on just how readable key phrases and words are
 >in Ramey's memo. You can take it or link other people to it at:

 >http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

 >I think the primary "qualification" anybody needs on this matter
 >is not scientific credentials but the ability to read. If people
 >see what I see, they can vote it up. Otherwise they can vote it
 >down.

 >I'm not claiming a Web poll is in any way representative of the
 >general population or controlled in how it is done. But it is
 >simple, requires no funding, and will give us a quick (though
 >imperfect) measure of the readability or lack thereof of some
 >critical sections of the Ramey memo from a large number of
 >people.


David,

I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.
When I suggested the need for peer review you cried "foul" and
insisted that different analysts work is not necessarily of
equal validity (which of course is true, but entirely misses the
point). You even went so far as to link peer review with the
Condon Committee and NAS rubber stamp as pretty much being a
Government conspiracy.

By "peer review," of course, I mean exactly what I say: cross-
checking by people with similar and/or appropriate analytical
skills who are also working on the Ramey photo or who are at
least qualified to have an opinion.

Now you cheerfully suggest that a popular poll on the issue of
readability is a worthy thing. Science is not conducted by a
vote among non-scientists.


  - Dick







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                 Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone?

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:59:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:20:27 -0500
Subject: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone?


Hi -

Do family members, or anyone else staying at the homes of
abductees ever discover they are missing? Or is it always a case
of abductions happening when all in a given household are
asleep?

Probably very rare, but have there been cases where a family
member,roommate, or house guest actually saw the abduction
and/or return take place?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:10:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:23:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Shough


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:39:37 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:28:40 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 ><snip>

 >>>No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
 >>>testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
 >>>miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

 ><snip>

 >>This is a primitive rationalism that hasn't yet learnt that
 >>experience is both personally and culturally dynamic. Nature is
 >>for Hume a static truth. But a genuine argument from experience
 >>is the argument from _all_ experience, which is conducted by
 >>human society all along the breaking wavefront of its advance
 >>into the unknown future, and which demonstrates that no cultural
 >>experience is 'firm and unalterable'. All that is now 'law'
 >>represents merely a temporising 'fudge factor' for an unknown
 >>physics that is the miraculous waiting to become

 >Fine words, but the unkown physics of which you speak is of
 >course unkown to you or anybody else, at this time.

Well of course, that's exactly the point! I was rather hoping
you might conclude from this that you require a better argument
than the circular reasoning offered by Hume in order to support
your Canute-like denial that the tide of history will rise over
your head. The history of human knowledge is the history of the
physically miraculous becoming the 'physics of today'. Not every
miracle that is possible in principle becomes physically 'real'
of course, but again this is exactly the point: Those that do
become real do so because human experience is not bounded by the
sort of fatuous sophistry that defines 'possibility' as 'the
experience of the known' and then concludes that experience of
the unknown is impossible. The unknown is not merely possible
but, in some form, inevitable; and it is inevitable therefore
that what is unrecognised, yet actual, becomes an anomalous part
of our collective experience. By definition such experience will
escape the conventional categories of the socially constructed
reality.

 >One has tuse _something_ to get a grip on reality. That
 >something, today, is the physics of today. Of course that may
 >change, but usually just in incremental advances. But, so what?
 >To deny that we can try to "know" anything because we can't
 >know everything is just nonsense.

I did not remotely suggest any such thing!

 >Allows good philosophical discussions, but never solved an IFO.

Excuse me, but it was you who introduced the topic of the
miraculous, it was you who suggested that a non-IFO would imply
miraculously improbable physics, and it was you who invoked
Hume's incoherent philosophical argument against the miraculous
to support that view. If you have no taste for philosophy don't
rely on it. In this case you would have been wise not to rely on
it. My reply explained why. How about answering to the point?

If on the other hand you now wish to discuss physics, then bring
it on! What exactly is the 'physics of today' which you
graciously concede 'may change' (though 'usually only
incrementally'; oh really?) and which provides you with this
'grip on reality' that you speak of? Please be specific about
those theoretical principles or experimental results of today
which in your opinion are immune to reinterpretation in the
context of the physics of tomorrow? Since you concede our
universal human ignorance of the physics of tomorrow this is not
an argument that can be conducted by appeal to authority, so I
look forward with interest to your reasoning.

 >Thanks for your contribution.

Thanks for your condescension


Martin Shough








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:52:46 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:24:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Balaskas


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:01:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>List,

 >>Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
 >>crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
 >>question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
 >>production, the faces of military and medical personel are
 >>visible.

 >>I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
 >>UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

 >>Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
 >>miss something?

 >Are these the same images as shown on a television special a few
 >years back related to the KGB UFO files? There was never a
 >follow up to the program and the production company began to
 >scream about lawsuits when some of their images were posted.
 >Hmmmmmmm.

Hi Mac! Hi everyone!

We had a showing of the 'The Secret KGB UFO Files' just after it
was aired in the U.S. by Turner Network Television (TNT) at one
of our MUFON Ontario meetings in Toronto back in 1998. Although
we were very impressed with what we saw, most of us were not
convinced as to its reality. In the 1990s when many top Russian
scientists were getting paid about $100 a month and many high
ranking Russian government and military officials had not even
been paid for half a year or more, "cheque book" journalism by
foreign investigative reporters was a major concern in ufology.

If one checks the UFO UpDates archives they will find many posts
regarding this very controversial TV UFO documentary. Other
major Soviet/Russian UFO crashes (including the giant egg shaped
UFO which allegedly crashed in the mountains of Kirghizia in
1991 which Errol brought to our attention at a MUFON Ontario
meeting several months before the TNT TV special) seemed to
disolve away upon closer scrutiny.

To see many images of the alleged UFO crash and this other alien
"autopsy" and to read an independent evaluation of these "secret
KGB UFO" accounts mentioned in this UFO show aired on TNT, go to

http://members.tripod.com/~gufoa/ufokgb.html

Also, the TNT web site promoting this UFO documentary can still
be found at

http://alt.tnt.tv/kgb/frame_index.html


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:56:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:27:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Aldrich


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

 >>From: Brad Sparks
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
 >>Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

<snip>

The Kaufmann documents have all kinds of incorrect garbage in
them which would quick show them to be fakes. However, as Kevin
points out Kaufmann would just flash these things at people and
not let them see the documents. So he got a lot of milage giving
people the impression that he had some documented proof of his
tales. He took in the Popular Mechanics magazine reporter.

The Army Air Forces did not have a Directorate of Intelligence
in July 1947. That rather stupid mistake was not committed until
shortly after the USAF came into being. So "Easley's letter,"
which clearly violates established correspondence protocols,
talked about an entity that does not exist in July 1947. As I
have said before, any clerk with a few months' experience in the
military could probably turn out fair good forgeries. Kaufmann
apparently could not, so he depended on just flashing something
that looked official.

Kaufmann never impressed me, especially his story about the
radar trackings and the explosion on the screen. This is a dizzy
tale.

However, people who had briefly seen his documents could be
impressed enough to suspend judgement on his tales. A few months
ago Kevin in a long serious of postings on "UFO Frauds"
suggested that there should be peer review of such claims. The
original idea seems to have been diverted to review famous cases
like the Mantell case, but I think the original idea to review
"insider" tales is needed in ufology.

As I have said before, it is needed, but few in ufology have the
stomach for it.


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:43:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:31:31 -0500
Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:58:49 +0000
 >Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
 >>Subject: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

 >>I have added a new citizen's poll to Roswell Proof to gauge people's
 >>opinions on just how readable key phrases and words are in Ramey's
 >>memo. You can take it or link other people to it at:

 >>http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

 >>I think the primary "qualification" anybody needs on this
 >>matter is not scientific credentials but the ability to read.
 >>If people see what I see, they can vote it up. Otherwise they
can vote it down.

 >>I'm not claiming a Web poll is in any way representative of
 >>the general population or controlled in how it is done. But
 >>it is simple, requires no funding, and will give us a quick
 >>(though imperfect) measure of the readability or lack thereof
 >>of some critical sections of the Ramey memo from a large
 >>number of people.

 >David,

 >I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.
 >When I suggested the need for peer review you cried "foul" and
 >insisted that different analysts work is not necessarily of
 >equal validity (which of course is true, but entirely misses the
 >point). You even went so far as to link peer review with the
 >Condon Committee and NAS rubber stamp as pretty much being a
 >Government conspiracy.

 >By "peer review," of course, I mean exactly what I say: cross-
 >checking by people with similar and/or appropriate analytical
 >skills who are also working on the Ramey photo or who are at
 >least qualified to have an opinion.

 >Now you cheerfully suggest that a popular poll on the issue of
 >readability is a worthy thing. Science is not conducted by a
 >vote among non-scientists.

Richard, David, and List

I would again emphasize that commentary from those within the
field, no matter how qualified or correct, will never be
accepted as evidence by those who are not in the field.  If
we're hoping to interest political leaders and the press in re-
opening this can of worms, then we need to have independent
confirmation of any interpretation we come up with.  We recently
had a group of scientists sit on a panel in Washington to
discuss faster than light travel and the possibility of alien
visitation.   I think it's possible that we can find the
expertise needed to lend credibility to such an effort.

We can argue the specifics of this all day, but I hope we're
trying to broaden interest in this beyond that of the UFO lists.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Seguin

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:45:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:45:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Seguin


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:01:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>List,

 >>Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
 >>crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
 >>question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
 >>production, the faces of military and medical personel are
 >>visible.

 >>I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
 >>UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

 >>Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
 >>miss something?

 >Are these the same images as shown on a television special a few
 >years back related to the KGB UFO files? There was never a
 >follow up to the program and the production company began to
 >scream about lawsuits when some of their images were posted.
 >Hmmmmmmm.

If these images are the ones you are talking about I believe
this VHS is the same special. I also found a DVD out of HK but
those are mostly bootlegs.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000399XH/qid=1038508542/sr=8-2/r
ef=sr_8_2/102-6748565-7116919?v=glance&s=video&n=507846

This is the Official website

http://alt.tnt.tv/kgb/frame_index.html

There are some short clips one of which shows what looks like
KGB/Government surrounding quite the convincing disk. And
KGB/Medical officials disecting a section of a small body with
exposed rib cage.


Peace on this tiny little rock

Trevor








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added -

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:59:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:48:01 -0500
Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:58:49 +0000
 >Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
 >>Subject: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

 >>I have added a new citizen's poll to Roswell Proof to gauge
 >>people's opinions on just how readable key phrases and words are
 >>in Ramey's memo. You can take it or link other people to it at:

 >>http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

 >>I think the primary "qualification" anybody needs on this matter
 >>is not scientific credentials but the ability to read. If people
 >>see what I see, they can vote it up. Otherwise they can vote it
 >>down.

 >>I'm not claiming a Web poll is in any way representative of the
 >>general population or controlled in how it is done. But it is
 >>simple, requires no funding, and will give us a quick (though
 >>imperfect) measure of the readability or lack thereof of some
 >>critical sections of the Ramey memo from a large number of
 >>people.


 >David,

 >I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.
 >When I suggested the need for peer review you cried "foul" and
 >insisted that different analysts work is not necessarily of
 >equal validity (which of course is true, but entirely misses the
 >point). You even went so far as to link peer review with the
 >Condon Committee and NAS rubber stamp as pretty much being a
 >Government conspiracy.

 >By "peer review," of course, I mean exactly what I say: cross-
 >checking by people with similar and/or appropriate analytical
 >skills who are also working on the Ramey photo or who are at
 >least qualified to have an opinion.

 >Now you cheerfully suggest that a popular poll on the issue of
 >readability is a worthy thing. Science is not conducted by a
 >vote among non-scientists.


 >- Dick

"Peer review" should not be looked at an attempt to discredit.

Review is always neccessary regardless of skills/beliefs of the
reviewers. Every theory/opinion should be examianed and pondered
by several minds.  "Two heads are better than one"  A person may
find most reviewer will agree with them.  This prooves to
strengthen their argument.  If a reviewer disagrees, in my
opinion, it does not discredit the first.

Open review is looked at _too_ often viewed as a negative thing.
All this is my opinion.


Trevor Seguin








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                          Albany TV Object & Noise

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:45:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:49:55 -0500
Subject: Albany TV Object & Noise


I have added to the analysis of the Albany video at my
web site.

One sees here that noise has awesome powers.

(Hey, Mini-Me, that's Awesome Powers...not Austin Powers!!)

http:/./brumac.8k.com/AlbanyTVobject/AlbTVObjectPrelim.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:27:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:51:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:51:52 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >I'd like to take this opportunity to express how profoundly
 >appreciative I am of Colin's contributions to this list. His
 >commentary is some of the best of its kind. As long as Bennett
 >keeps it up, Western empiricism can run, but it can't hide.

 >--Mac

 >=====
 >Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

 >Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
 >http://mactonnies.com

- - - -

Hello Mac:

Thank you for making your position in these matters clear. This
simplifies things, unlike others who cannot decide whether the
Moon exists or not.


- Larry Hatch

Transcendental octopi and other post office adventures
entirely aside.
- - - -







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

             Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:30:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:54:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee


 >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Maccabee

 >Hello List Savants all,

 >>Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >I don't think it is not so much the question of whether Mr.
 >Allen is an idiot so much as not letting scientists get away
 >with these very linear and binary assumptions of black or white,
 >false or true.

Why answer with one word when you can expend dozens...
hundreds... to say the same thing?

Perhaps Mr. Allen is both and idiot and a non-idiot. A sort of
quantum mechanical entity that does not have real being until
observed. But, what can we say of the observer? Is he an idiot
too (it takes one to know one)? Or is the observer also a
semibinary entity, existing and sweaty like the steamy jungles
of Africa or non-existing and freezing as in the snowcapped
peaks of the Himalayas? To be an idiot or not to be an idiot...
alas poor Colin, that is the question. l... ooops, being dull and
binary agian... that is _A_ question (among many I should
assert). Anyway, are idiocy and non- idiocy merely the antipodes
like the north and south poles or perhaps the New Coke vs
Classic coke? Are are they merged within all of us.

As the ancient Greek philosophers, upon consulting with the
lovely oracle of Wherever and Whenever, while before, of course,
meeting with Sharon at the River Styx, would say, all is
rectangular.

(Arrgh, I can't go on like this... the dogs of war are nipping
at my heel's. I must confess... I am not as wordy as Colin!!!)

 > I myself wholly admire Bruce Maccabee's work,

Why, thank you! And I admire your writing... that which I can
take the time to read

 >and
 >people like him, and I believe much of what he and they believe.
 >The only difference between us that I think the universe is a
 >far sillier place than they believe it is. I think that the
 >assumption that Nature's laws are linear, profound, stable and
 >sensible, and accessible to only those full of good bourgeois
 >common sense, is a mistake. If we get rid of all plain daftness
 >by (as suggested) teaching our cat to flush it down the toilet
 >(a wonderfully daft action in itself) we lose out on vital
 >inspirations. Noise, mistakes, prejudice, waste and indeed much
 >self-deception play a part in the human thinking cycle..

Yeah, man! Dig it!

<snip>

about approximately 47 column inches later:

 >So, UpDate folks, when John Rimmer asks you to covertly
 >"investigate" your friends, colleagues, and acquaintances and
 >report back to him, beware, because he is well plugged in to the
 >American skeptical circuit, and you never know where your
 >information might turn up, or who is going to use it, or more
 >dangerous, who might just act on it. There are old World War 2
 >names for Rimmer's suggestion, but fortunately I have forgotten
t>hem.

 >Perhaps some people have better memories than myself, and will
 >take the legal risk of using them.

 >Be warned!

 >He is not called the Brentford Polonius for nothing.

 >Keep smiling!
 >Colin

ROFLMAO......

Whadhesay? Wahdhesay?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:50:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:56:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Hatch


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 04:24:05 EST
 >Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters

 >>Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett
 >>From: Colin Bennett <sharkley@panzerben.fsworld.co.uk>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:49:00 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - Bennett

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:09:35 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Telescope To Challenge Moon Doubters - >>Maccabee

 >>Hello List Savants all,

 >>>Mr. Allen is an idiot.

 >>I don't think it is not so much the question of whether Mr.
 >>Allen is an idiot so much as not letting scientists get away
 >>with these very linear and binary assumptions of black or white,
 >>false or true. I myself wholly admire Bruce Maccabee's work, and

 ><snip>

 >>Be warned! He [John Rimmer] is not called the Brentford Polonius
 >>for nothing.

 >>Keep smiling!

 >>Colin

 >Colin -

 >Can you clarify the term "Brentford Polonius"?

 >Is the "Brentford" the same "Brentford, England", which hosts
 >Trico Products - home of the dual-action wiper blade, and
 >perhaps John Rimmer's current hometown?

 >Could the "Polonius" be related to the Polonius who was unable
 >to master the "soul of wit" in his limbs and outward flourishes
 >of much unnecessary, although mildly amusing - amusing, that is,
 >if you're in the mood for it (although some are often not) -
 >tediousness? Or even, "ordinariness"?

 >Also, what did you mean by a "McCarthyist coffin-donkey"? One
 >who mindlessly pulls someone to his funeral - deserved or not,
 >goaded by highly-placed government officials? You lost me on
 >that description.

 >Thank you, Colin.

 >And to all, Happy Thanksgiving/Ordinary-Thursdayness, as the
 >case may apply.

 >Dave Morton

 >A pre-tryptophaned Pilgrim in need of some clarifications before
 >Thanksgiving gratefully sets in...


Hello David:

Radio North Korea comes to mind for some reason.

Its way too late to document this, but I could almost swear I
heard the phrase "warmongering tree squirrels", or something
very like that.

I hope I'm not just trivializing matters, we have lots of
regular tree squirrels here.

Radio NK came in clearly if unexpectedly. There were no
commercials whatsoever, just non-stop yak, presented as fak from
a very unhappy sounding woman.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                         Re: Articles Wanted - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:00:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:59:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Articles Wanted - Hatch


 >From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:52:59 -0000
 >Subject: Articles Wanted

 >Dear All,

 >I am the editor of a web site entitled BEYOND. It can be found
 >at: www.beyondpublications.com

 >We already have a great many contributors to the site but more
 >are certainly required. I am constantly on the look out for new
 >artiucle submissions. I cannot pay for any contributions but
 >insterad I can publicise any organisations, meetings, books etc.
 >Please take a look at the site.

 >I am looking for articles on a whole host of topics including:

 >UFOs
 >Alien Abductions
 >Cover-ups/Conspiracies
 >Alternative History
 >Alternative Health/Medicine
 >Crop Circles
 >Free Energy
 >Earth Mysteries
 >Paranormal/Psychic Phenomenon
 >Cryptoozoolgy
 >Anything Beyond accepted science.

 >If you are interested in contributing to BEYOND please e-mail me
 >direct at: philipmantle@hotmal.com

 >Regards,


 >Philip Mantle

- - -

Dear Mr. Mantle:

I did not see anything about the hollow Earth, nor faked moon
landings etc. Should we also forward you messages of this sort?
Howls about South America. No part of the globe is likelier to
come up with a 2 headed chupacabra. Translators are available
for nominal sums.


Thanks.

- 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -

From: Ingrid Hanson <froggy@cmc.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:29:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:02:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:59:37 -0500
 >Subject: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone?

 >Do family members, or anyone else staying at the homes of
 >abductees ever discover they are missing? Or is it always a case
 >of abductions happening when all in a given household are
 >asleep?

 >Probably very rare, but have there been cases where a family
 >member,roommate, or house guest actually saw the abduction
 >and/or return take place?

Hi Eleanor,

Yes. I believe it is in Katharina Wilson's website, or her book,
where she woke up before she was supposed to and saw her husband
returning through the wall.

Ingrid







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                  Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:32:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:48:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Deschamps


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
 >crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
 >question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
 >production, the faces of military and medical personel are
 >visible.

 >I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
 >UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

 >Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
 >miss something?


Mac,

You did miss something... just get yourself a copy of "The
Secret KGB UFO Files" on DVD or VHS, hosted by Roger Moore. It
discusses the incident and contains the footage that you saw
photos of... among other UFO-related items of interest.


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                    Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:34:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:50:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Kaeser


 >From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:45:04 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

[massive snip]

 >If these images are the ones you are talking about I believe
 >this VHS is the same special. I also found a DVD out of HK but
 >those are mostly bootlegs.
 >
 >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000399XH/qid=1038508542
/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-6748565-7116919?v=glance&s=video&n=507846

 >This is the Official website

 >http://alt.tnt.tv/kgb/frame_index.html

 >There are some short clips one of which shows what looks like
 >KGB/Government surrounding quite the convincing disk. And
 >KGB/Medical officials disecting a section of a small body with
 >exposed rib cage.

Trevor-

Good links, thanks. I didn't even check. You are correct about
the availability of the show, which I purchased on DVD more than
a year ago. It should be noted that I purchased it for its
entertainment value.

To be honest, I'm astonished that the TNT site is still active,
since the program aired in 1998. One segment mentions a
newspaper in Russia that mentions one particular incident on the
front page, but when the actual newspaper was obtained from an
archive, it didn't resemble the page shown on the program at
all.

It would be most interesting to learn the provenance of the
footage that is shown of a saucer shaped craft half buried in
the ground at a purported impact site. While I believe this is a
faked incident, it allegedly involved Russian military vehicles
that weren't readily available, and the uniforms appear to be
correct for the period portrayed.

I recall that one person on this list in late 1998, who was very
familiar with Russia, was quite involved in trying to verify
this program and learned of some major flaws that the pointed
out on his web page. Unfortunately, the production company that
was involved threatened him with a law suit, and being unfamilar
with US law he quickly took the site down and ceased posting to
the list.

Of course, this is only really interesting from an historical
perspective.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                        Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:25:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:17:39 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:23 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
 >>>Subject: Frank Kaufman?

 >>Good Afternoon, List, All -

 >>>Since I have been out of touch for some time, I would be
 >>>grateful if someone on the List would bring me up-to-date on
 >>>what was found to be false with his statements.

 >>The whole story will be laid out in the next issue of IUR and a
 >>version should be up any day now on the CUFOS website.

 >Hello Kevin and fellow Listerions,

 >Frank Kaufman certainly seems to be a poseur, claiming to be
 >someone who he is not. His drawing of the alleged Roswell UFO
 >may have come entirely from his own imagination.

 >However, I give his imagination one credit. From a purely design
 >angle he drew the best looking planform for a Roswell craft. It
 >is what I wish one looked like but that has nothing to do with
 >the reality of the case.

 >As for the MJ-12 documents, it has been years since I read the
 >Stan Friedman book. With his research plus the Woods technical
 >research into the documents they received, how much effort went
 >into finding out if any of the people named in those documents
 >were still alive to be interviewed?


Listers:

In case anybody is wondering why I haven't jumped in on the many
Roswell related threads, I must note that my wife and I took a
vacation for our wedding anniversary to San Diego where we went
for our honeymoon, 28 years ago. We were gone Nov. 18-27. There
were 600 email awaiting me. Couldn't see the Sci-Fi show, but
expect to see a dupe over the weekend (from my son in Maine).

Re Frank Kaufmann I would refer interested parties to my 27 page
MUFON 2000 paper "Roswell and the MJ-12 Documents in the New
Millennium".

Frank had admitted on December 13, 1999, at his home with 4
witnesses present that he had told lies about his involvement
during an earlier interview with me, with Kevin Randle and Don
Schmitt also present. I had noted other problems with Frank's
story earlier to Kevin, Don, Kent Jeffrey, Bob Wood.

Re his vehicle planform, I strongly recommend people to the
article with pix in Popular Mechanics, December, 1991, and an
even earlier piece in Aviation Week and Space Technology. Both
were about the TR3A superspy plane.

I will have more to say about the claim I am told was made that
MJ-12 is a fraud once I see the program.

My paper noted above does point out that despite Jan Aldrich's
recent false claim that the GAO must have been mistaken, that
the GAO found examples of the use of TOP SECRET RESTRICTED on
documents from the same time frame as the Cutler Twining memo,
that they indeed had.

I also noted that not all TS documents have TS Control numbers,
again despite Jan's false claim to the contrary.

In Jan's defense I must note that his excellent security related
background seemed to relate to classified military documents not
to NSC, White House, Industrial classified documents, tc. I
wonder if he wasn't the source of Ed Stewart's false claims
about control numbers?

With regard to the members of MJ-12, as I have noted in the
past, they were all dead when the roll of film was received. The
last survivor, Dr. Jerome Hunsaker, died 3 months before the
EBE-TF roll of film was received and just 2 weeks before the
National Archives Box 189, of Entry 267, of RG 341 was first
handled. That is where the TSR Cutler Twining memo was found the
following July by the first people to have access to it after
classification review was completed. Box 189 had been mentioned
in a postcard to Bill Moore.

I talked to members of the families of just about all the MJ-12
members including, for example, General Twining's pilot and 2
sons and a daughter, Bush's two sons, Montague's son (He liked
TOP SECRET/MAJIC) etc., etc.

The MJ- 12 guys were all wheels and many archives have at least
some of their papers. Twining's papers are at the Library of
Congress Manuscript Division which had 2one page TS memos from
Cutler to Twining, both without TS Control numbers.

I should add that the paper above also, I think convincingly,
demonstrated that the documents received by Tim Cooper were
indeed fraudulent.. in many cases, emulations.

One other comment: I have heard very favorable comments about
David Rudiak's Ramey memo work, and was very impressed with his
posting about context etc. Way to go David.


Stan Friedman

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                         No UFO On Westcoast Today!

From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 19:12:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:19:24 -0500
Subject: No UFO On Westcoast Today!


List,

I am here on the West coast, we had a re-entry of a piece of
Russian space junk off our coast.

The reason I bring this to your attention?

This looked _nothing_ like a UFO... I can see the difference!!
  ;-p


Trevor Seguin








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                      UFO Sightings OZ Files - 11-27-02

From: Diane Harrison <auforn@hypermax.net.au>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:21:13 +1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:28:06 -0500
Subject: UFO Sightings OZ Files - 11-27-02



I would like to thank all that have contributed to these reports
"there great'. Thank you

For those about to read these files they range from NL - DO - CE
1 to 4.

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

UFO Sightings OZ Files 27.11.02

SIGHTINGS OF 5 SEPTEMBER 2002-SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Keith Basterfield for his Final Report on these Callin Codes
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02058)

1. Methodology:

Data was collected from television and radio reports, the ABC
News website, and responses gathered from "Letters to the
Editor" in a number of South Australian country newspapers. The
following summary is drawn from this data.

2. The sighting:

At about 6 p.m. on the 5th September 2002 a brilliant sky object
was observed from a wide area of South Australia. Observers at
locations as far north as Woomera (400 Kms North of Adelaide),
and as far south as Bordetown (300 kms South-East of Adelaide)
reported the spectacular sight.

 From Woomera it appeared as a flash, low down hear the horizon
in a South-East direction. From Bordertown, it was described as
a green/yellow ball at 20-30 degrees elevation to the North-
West, and left a smoke trail which lasted about 30 minutes. From
Adelaide it was at an estimated elevation of 60 degrees to the
South.

The most detailed observations came from people in the area some
80 kms South of Adelaide, around Hindmarsh Island, Goolwa,
Encounter Bay and Victor Harbor. In these locations, the object
appeared as a multi (3-4) headed light followed by a trail of
"smoke."

Its reported colour varied from green to yellow to blue. It
travelled from East to West and was almost overhead at one
point. It passed on to a point estimated as 45 degrees in the
Western sky, when it "exploded" and disappeared from view. After
an interval of some seconds, a double "boom" sound was heard.
Prior to the object "exploding" some witnesses reported other
sounds described as "a swoosh" to "a sizzle." The estimated
duration of the visual event was 10-15 seconds.

Interestingly, there were also reports of "a ball of flame with
trailing vapour" from Shepparton, Victoria at about the same
time.

3. Analysis:

All details are consistent with the object being a natural
meteor, larger in size than those which most people see as a
nocturnal "shooting star." The East to West trajectory suggests
it was not a piece of "space junk" re-entering the atmosphere.
The reported "swoosh" and "sizzle" sounds have been previously
reported in association with other bright meteors. As the
object's trajectory was heading out into the ocean it is
doubtful if any pieces would have landed on solid ground.

4. Conclusion:
Almost certainly a natural meteor.


26.09.02 VICTORIA [ SUNBURY ] (NL)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02098)
Day: reported
Time: ?
Location: Tullamarine Airport
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: ?
Light colour: White
Apparent size: ?
Shape: Triangle
Noise: None
Objects observed: three
Activity when object seen: Driving to Airport
Other witness's: I passenger
Name: Barry
Date of Sighting. 4 years ago. 1998.

Barry and one passenger were driving past Melbourne Airport at
Tullamarine one evening 4 years ago. They both watched what they
thought was a plane approaching the runway to land. They were
watching what appeared to be aircraft landing lights, which were
extremely bright, and formed a triangle above the landing strip.
Just as they expected to see a plane touch down the three lights
suddenly dispersed in three different directions simultaneously.
Barry's comment was that planes "can't do that". I told Barry
that I'd never heard of planes doing that either.

Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN


05.09.02 MANNUM S.A 1755hrs
(Source: E-Mail online report UFOR(NSW)

Tanya I am really unsure as to what I saw, but I will try to
describe it as accurately as I can. Travelling back from Peake
SA my friends and I were half way between Peake and Tailem Bend,
when, out of the corner of my eye I saw what I thought was a
shooting star, in a split second I realised it was an
iridescent. blue ball shaped thing with a red/orange type of
light around it that could possibly have been flames. It was
trailed by a bright white stream similar to what jets leave
behind in the sky. It then just seemed to explode (maybe) and
disappear, like 'poof', as it was still daylight it could not
possibly be a shooting star, and there is absolutely no way that
it could have been 'a weather balloon'. To say that it 'freaked
us out' would be an understatement. It moved very fast and the
actual incidents duration is probably a matter of seconds.
Unusual: it was a round, bright blue light. Heard no sound.
Location: Travelling in car from Peake SA to Tailem Bend SA.
Approximately half way between the two. I was the driver. Other
people: My friend Zee Stevenson 4, Corella Ct, Murray Bridge
5253 was passenger in the front, and her friend Kerry was in the
back. Weather conditions: fairly cloudy, still broad daylight


05.09.02 VICTORIA [BROADMEADOWS] 2130hrs (NL)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02705)
Day: Monday
Time: 9.30 pm
Location: Broadmeadows Vic
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: Orange
Apparent size: ?
Shape: Mushroom
Noise: None
Objects observed:One
Activity when object seen: Local flight path
Other witness's: Parents
Name: Brad
Date of Sighting. 05.09.02

At about 9:30 pm Brad and his parents saw a bright orange light
in a local flight path area. It was silently and slowly moving
towards the airport, when it suddenly vanished in an instant. It
later reappeared, this time lower down, and went very close to a
passing plane. Again it took off, very quickly. It resembled a
top or a mushroom. They managed to record it on their new video
camera before it went. They saw the same thing on an English
news report the next morning on cable tv. Unfortunately the
video was hand held, and the autofocus was on.

Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN


05.09.02 SYDNEY(PEAKHURST) N.S.W (CE-4)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02063)

Day: Monday
Time: 9.30 pm
Location: Parkhurst
Classification:(CE-4)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: Blue- ish
Apparent size: ?
Shape: light
Noise: None
Objects observed:One
Activity when object seen: lying on her lounge looking out of a window
Other witness's: A story to tell
Name: Jenny
Date of Sighting. 05.09.02

I interviewed Jenny at her home in Peakhurst, she is a 32 year
old mother of 3 and appears to be quite sincere. This is her
story. Last year in early August she was lying on her lounge
looking out of a window that faces north and she saw a bluish
coloured light in the sky. The light was moving closer towards
her, mesmerizing her. That's the last thing she remembers before
falling asleep. When she woke up in the morning she felt groggy
and sick and noticed blood on her legs and spots of blood on her
feet. she thought this was strange because it wasn't that time
of the month.. A couple of weeks later, mid August, she was
lying on her bed looking out of the window, which also faces
north and she saw 3 bluish white bright lights in the sky moving
closer towards her. Once again that's all she remembers before
falling into a deep sleep. That night Jenny was wearing a
sarong, she was adamant there were no stains or discolouring on
or in the material. When next she washed it she noticed stains
and discolouring all the way down the front of it, perplexed she
washed it again, and realised the stains were in-ground. When
Jenny studied it she was shocked to see the imprint of her legs
in the material. She showed me the sarong in question and it
does appear to have the imprint of her body down the front. I
asked Jenny if I could take the sarong for examination but she
is afraid of losing it she said it is her proof of the blue
light and it keeps her from thinking she is going mad, but she
does want it scientifically tested.

Jenny also found a strange scoop mark on her shin, she still has
the scar and doesn't know how she got it. I questioned Jenny
about the lights, she said that They were round, not beams of
light and they had no sound. They moved forward in up and down
spurts and clouds or misty haze formed around them. When she was
9 years old she was confronted by a huge object with coloured
lights rotating around it at the time she didn't tell anyone and
she now finds this bizarre.

Around the same time as her experiences with the blue light her
10 year old daughter awoke from a nightmare. She told her mother
that small furry creatures with big black eyes were staring at
her and when she started screaming they told her not to be
afraid. Then she said it was very dark and there were lots of
stars all around her, she said she felt sick the next day and
stayed home from school. Jenny said her daughter had complained
she could feel something at the back of the roof of her mouth
and started picking at it with a pencil and to everyone's
surprise she picked out a bit of metal.

That night Jenny said her daughter had the same dream again, she
said her daughter described the creatures looking like furbies
and owls and the following night the same dream again. Jenny
said her daughter again complained about the roof of her mouth
and again she picked out a bit of metal. I asked Jenny if she
had kept the piece of metal, but unfortunately she had not.

To add to this bizarre story, Jenny's father was involved in a
cattle mutilation experience in Grafton in 1979. It involved a
horse they owned called Toby which was found dead with its flesh
stripped from its head and its rectum was cored out. END I will
keep you updated with any further information.(still under
investigation)

Larraine Cilia UFOSWS


24.09.02 ADELAIDE [ MORPHETTVILLE] SA 2030hrs (NL)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02092)
Day: Thursday
Time: 8.30 pm
Location: Morphettville
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: 4-5 Seconds
Light colour: Purple
Apparent size: ?
Shape: light
Noise: None 'Oz Factor'
Objects observed:Two
Activity when object seen: driving around the backstreets of
                            Morphettville
Other witness's: Friend & mother
Name: Colin
Date of Sighting. 24.09.02

Colin and his friend where driving around the backstreets of
Morphettville, just behind the Marion Swimming Centre on Tuesday
night around 8.30pmish. All of a sudden Colin and his friend
noticed a Purple flash of light which came from approx 200
metres above them and lit his car up completely.

Colin said that this Purple flash of light, only lasted approx
4-5 seconds.

Colin then stated that he blacked out momentarily, and when he
came too, quickly pulled over to the side of the road, as he was
starting to feel sweaty and hot.  His friend also told him that
when he saw the Purple light he started to feel as if he was
going to be sick [vomit].

Approx 2 minutes later there was another flash of the same
coloured light and this time both Colin and his friend didn't
feel anything.

During the time that both Colin and his friend sat on the side
of the road in his car and before the 2nd flash of light, Colin
and his friend both noticed that all the 'Noise had
disappeared'.  He said, that they couldn't hear any road noise,
normal night noises etc.  Colin states after the 2nd flash the
noise came back, like someone had thrown a switch.

Colin then proceeded home to tell his parents about the strange
thing that had  just happened to him and his friend. His Mother
is the person who called the Hotline number.

I asked Colin, if he had experienced anything like this before
in his life? He replied 'No, this was the first time'.  I also
asked Colin how he and his friend had been since last Tuesday's
incident.  Colin reported that both him and his friend had felt
fine. Colin did say that he had discussed this with some school
friends, who said that there had been a bit of lightening that
night.

Colin is adamant, that this Purple flash of light came down,
spread across his car to light up the interior completely and so
doesn't feel or believe that it was lightening that he and his
friend had seen.

I explained to Colin that, I had never heard of lightening to be
that colour and also for it to effect 2 people that way unless
of course they had been directly hit - which both hadn't.

I again asked Colin to re-explain how he saw the light from his
position in the car. He said that when he first saw it, it was
through the Left hand side windscreen [passenger side] and that
it had come down then spread across his car. He said its a bit
like when you ' drip a drop of paint into water and it spreads'
that's how the light was.

I then told Colin that the 'lack of noise' he and his friend
experienced  is a phenomenon called 'Oz Factor', which I
explained.

I told Colin that I couldnt explain much about what he had seen
and what he and his friend had experienced, but I did ask him,
that if anything else strange happens or occurs to him, he is
quite welcome to ring me, to discuss it and we would take it
from there. He was happy with that.

Charmaine Ballam AUFORN - Sth Australian State Director
http://www.hypermax.net.au/~auforn



28.09.02 VICTORIA [ TOCUMWALL ] 1930hrs (NL)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02695)
Day: Saturday
Time: 7.30 pm
Location: Murray River
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: White
Apparent size: ?
Shape: Egg Shape
Noise: None
Objects observed:One
Activity when object seen: Sit on the bank of river Murray
Other witness's: Family
Name: Terry
Date of Sighting.

(While on Holidays)
Terry and his family were up early for the last day of their
camping holiday on the banks of the Murray river. They all saw a
white 'egg shaped' object travel across the sky right above
them. It was travelling West to East, and was moving faster and
lower than a plane, and made no noise. It was travelling
horizontally to the ground. It was 7:30 am, the sun was up, and
there was a clear blue sky. It seemed to be larger than the
police helicopter.

Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN


  30.09.02 SOUTH AUST [ ADELAIDE ]
(Source: UFO ROUNDUP -Volume 7, Number 42- October 15, 2002)

OFFICE WORKERS SPOOKED BY UFO IN ADELAIDE, S.A.
Monday, September 30, 2002, was a typical workday in Australia.
Male witness A.A. was on the third floor of an office building
in downtown Adelaide, the capital of South Australia. He
reported, "Looking north through our  third-floor, wall-to-wall
window, I saw, for a moment, a round object outside the window.
It was out of view as soon as it got above my floor's window."
"I was talking to a co-worker and looking over his head when I
spotted it. But by the time I got to say, 'Hey! Did you see
that!?' my colleague turned round after it shot through...and
missed the whole thing." "The UFO appeared grey/white, large and
round in shape.

It crossed the field of view through the 2-meter (6 feet, 6
inches) high window in less than a second. Rose up from below
the field of view and shot straight up past the field of view,
which was obstructed by the ceiling and the next floor above."
"It (the UFO) seemed to be about 50 to 100 meters(150 to 300
feet) away from the building, the size of it relatively was
larger than that of a basketball (held) at arm's length." The
witness believed the UFO "to be 10 to 40 meters (33 to 132 feet)
in diameter." "Coincidentally (or not--A.A.), two days later, we
had the U.S. ambassador and some V.I.P.s turn up to hold a
private conference in our building. I didn't know of this extra
event till after it had passed. I just find these two things in
the same week (to be) exceptional events." (Email Form Report)
(Editor's Note: From the reports UFO Roundup has received,
Adelaide is rapidly overtaking Melbourne as southern Australia's
Number One UFO hotspot.

Editor: Joseph Trainor http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
Thank you for this report Joseph


11.10.02 QUEENSLAND [ GUNDIAH ]
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline)
ALIEN ABDUCTION MYSTERY PROBE
http://www.hypermax.net.au/~auforn/Gundiah.html
For those interested
By Kevin Corcoran

Why did they do it?
Fraser Coast Chronicle Newspaper
Front Cover Story
Friday October 11th 2002
By Kevin Corcoran

Mystery still surrounds the trio at the center of an alleged
abduction by aliens of a woman from her Gundiah farm a year ago.
Except for a few brahman heifers, the farm is deserted. It has
been unoccupied since English born Keith Rylance, his wife Amy,
then 22 and house-mate Petra Heller, left the country after the
story of Amy's abduction by aliens broke. A used disposable
razor still rests on the sink of the bathroom, testimony to the
suddenness of the trio's departure.

Officer in charge of the Tiaro police Acting Sergeant Robert
Maragna, who was first at the property after the alleged alien
visit, is 99.9% sure that the abduction was nothing more than an
elaborate hoax. Today Chronicle journalist Kevin Corcoran begins
series which re-examines event's in October last year and the
results of the police and UFO researchers investigations.

And where are they now?
Beam of light carries woman through
window to 1.8m alien.
Page. 9 Fraser Coast Chronicle Newspaper
Friday October 11th 2002
By Kevin Corcoran

THE STORY as it was reported in the chronicle a year ago: An
alien spaceship allegedly snatched a young Gundiah woman from
her home on Thursday night and left her dazed and muddy shortly
after in Mackay.

Gundiah resident Keith Rylance telephoned the police after he
woke to the screaming of house-mate Petra Heller about 11.30pm.
Petra and amy had been watching the television in a caravan
annex at the side of the house when Petra saw Amy, then 22
floating through the window (picture) carried on a beam of
light.

The officer in charge to Tiaro police, Acting Sergeant Robert
Maragna, who was among the first to arrive at the hoiuse about
midnight, said Ms Heller was panicking and crying. Police first
suspected foul play.

Sergeant Robert Maragna noted that the flyscreen covering the
window was ripped and the leaves of a bush near the window were
wilted at the spot the light beam was alleged to have picked up
the woman.

About three hours later as police waited for a scene of crime
officer, Mackay hospital staff telephoned to say Mrs Rylance had
been brought in after she had been found muddy and confused near
a service station.

Mrs Rylance told Mackay police she remembered watching
television that night before waking in a strange room confronted
by a 1.8-meter-tall being, "human-like in shape". She claimed
the being told her she would be returned not far from where she
was taken "because the light was wrong" Sergeant Robert Maragna
said. While Amy was only missing for a couple of hour she felt
she had been a captive for at least six or seven day because her
body hair and fingernails had grown considerably.

Mr Rylance and Ms Heller dashed to Mackay to rescue Amy and have
not been seen since.

IF a hoax - police say it was - what reason?

A BILL for wasting police time is waiting at the Tario police
station for Amy Rylance. A year after she was allegedly whisked
out of a caravan annex on a beam of light, no locals have seen
her.

Amy, who would now be 23, reportedly left for England with her
husband, Keith, and their house-mate Petra Heller, days after
the alleged abduction. The only contact with the Fraser Coast
since then has been two postcards sent to Tiaro mayor john
Horrex in December 2001 and January.2002.

Mr Horrex was a keen backer nof the trio's plans to develope a
winery and extreme sports center on their farm 9km from Gundiah
and was visisting the farm the morning of the day Amy went
missing.

The police file remains open and Sergeant Robert Maragna would
love to talk to Amy, Keith and Petra and give them the bill for
the hours of police time that went into investigating the alien
abduction. "There were too many inconsistencies in the their
story for it to be true" said Sergeant Robert Maragna. During a
search of the property police found black hair dye, paper towels
and the burn't out remains of two flood lights and electrical
wiring in an incinerator about 20 meters from the annex. "The
most daming evidence are the phone records," said Sergeant
Maragna "Keith made a big song and dance about not knowing where
Mackay was (where Amy was found three hours after she went
missing). He had to get an atlas to find it."

A review of the trio's mobile telephone records shows that a
phone call was made to their Gundiah home from Rockhampton at
3pm that day before the abduction and Mackay at 3.30pm. on the
day of the abduction. The calls came from motels.. A search of
the house uncovered black hair dye.

Sergeant Robert Maragna is sure that the dye was used to dye
Petra's hair back black after she had bleached it blond to
appear to look like Amy was still in Gundiah and Tiaro when she
Amy was on her way to Mackay. According to the police
investigation, Keith and an unidentified female were seen in
Tiaro during the evening Amy went missing. The pair went to the
shell service station. They then went to the hotel to by a
carton of beer. In both cases people can remember seeing Keith
and someone in the car but could not make out who it was,
Sergeant Robert Maragna said.

It was all a part of the stage a management to make it appear
that Amy was still in Tiaro that afternoon, he said. "One of the
thing I thought strange was that Petra always had jet black
hair," he said. "I think she bleached her hair blond to look
like Amy and then dyed it back black." An attendant of the Shell
service station remembers Keith coming in the shop, but he could
not say if the person in the car was Male or female, let alone
Petra or Amy.

Keith and Petra went home and waited for the appointed hour to
raise the alarm. "I am 99.9% sure it was a hoax," Sergeant
Robert Maragna said. But why stage such an elaborate hoax?
Perhaps it gave them an out. They could say they left the
because they were fearful of aliens rather than saying they
failed to attract backers for their winery and extreme sports
complex. maybe they realised that the grape vines would not do
well and the tourists would not come.

The only other people to show interest in the trio have been a
rural store and a grape vine supplier. They had between 20,000
and 30,000 vines seedlings in storage for them. The Whispering
Winds Winery is deserted but property records shows that the
farm is till owned by Keith Rylance.

Mayor reckons affair certainly was no hoax
Fraser Coast Chronicle Newspaper
Page 7 Saturday October 12th 2002
By Kevin Corcoran

THISTLES grows out the front path of the Whispering Winds Winery
at Gundiah.

The house and caravan beside it are abandoned. Only brahman
heifers stand guard on the lonly farmhouse from where Amy
Rylance was supposedly whisked away on a beam of light by aliens
more than a year ago.

The gate to the farm is locked. It has been that way since Amy,
her husband Keith and their house-mate Petra Heller fled
Australia to England a year ago. They were terrified and would
not stay in the farm-house, Tiaro shire mayor John Horrex said.
The window on the annex through which Amy was reportedly beamed
is shut tight against visitors. The ripped flyscreen, which she
broke as her body was claimed to be sucked skywards, has
disintegrated. Only the thin trip where the curtains material
was nailed to the wall of the annex remains. The shrub beside
the window, wilted and burnt a year ago bt they mysterious beam
of light, has recovered. No physical evidence of the alien
abduction remains. No one in Gundiah has had any contact with
the trio since that fateful day. Legend has it that within a
couple of days of the abduction story breaking a truck pulled up
and all their gear was whisked away as the three headed back to
England where Keith said he had been a champion motor cross
racer. The only contact has been through Tiaro Shire mayor John
Horrex who received two postcards from them in December 2001 and
January 2002. Neither had a return address and both bore a
London postmark.

Mr Horrex does not believe that the abduction was a hoax staged
by the threesome. While puzzled, he believes firmly that the
group would not lie, or had any reason to lie.

"I was on the property with (the shire's) economic development
officer the day Amy was disappeared." he said. "I saw Keith and
Petra down the paddock. Petra then left to take Amy shopping."
But did not see Amy.

" I heard activity in the house as we went by so it must have been Amy."
he said. "Petra rang me from Sydney a couple of weeks after the incident
and told me what she experienced. I don't believe it was a hoax.

"They left because they were very concerned and very scared and did not
want to stay on the property any longer.

"They did have big plans for the winery and extreme sports
circuit on the property. It was tragic that they left the
district. They would have been a great Asset." Mr Harrex said
Petra's father was well connected with German wine making
industry and Keith had connections around the world from his
days as a champion motorcyclist. Mr Horrex backed up his claim
the trio was above borad with the claim they turned down big
offers of cash, especially from American media outlets, to sell
their story.

Researchers find story did not add up
Fraser Coast Chronicle Newspaper
Page. 7 Saturday October 12th 2002
By Kevin Corcoran

THE STORY just didn't add up for Diane Harrison and Bill Chalker
from the Australian UFO research Network. Amy Rylance had been
abducted from her Gundiah property near Tiaro at 11.30 pm and
turned up three hour later muddy and confused at a Mackay
service station. Later, with her husband Keith and house-mate
Petra Heller beside her, Amy told how she was sucked out of the
annex of a caravan on a beam of light. While she was missing for
a matter of only three earth hours, Amy said she felt she had
been on the spacecraft for six or seven days. Proof of her
encounter included marks above each heel from implements used to
monitor her body functions and lots of body hair.

Amy was, according to Keith, always clean shaven and the hair
under her arms and legs had grown considerably in the time she
was missing. The alarm bells started to ring for AUFORN
researchers when Keith did not want to give details about his
life. "What really struck me was Keith said that as UFO-ologists
we should be only interested in the story and not the lead up,"
researcher Diane Harrison said. IN the end Bill Chalker and
Keith had an argument and contact was broken so the researchers
never actually got to meet the trio in the flesh.

Harrison and Chalker drove from Beaudesert to Gundiah to find
the trio were in mackay. They arranged to meet them in Mackay
and drove non-stop to get there. "They left in the morning
before we arrived. It was very annoying. Keith said they were
forced out of town by the Men in Black, "Ms Harrison said.

While the trio had everything UFO researchers dream about a beam
of light, a contact and the markings on her heels --- they could
not substantiate their claims Mr Harrison said. "Amy saaid that
at the time of the abduction she was wearing shorts and a T-
shirt. Yet the people at the service station said she was
wearing leggins and a long-sleve shirt," (video evidence) Ms
Harrison said.

The more the trio talked the more questions they raised. Without
being able to talk to them to have questions answered, the
AUFORN could only publish a preliminary report into the
incident. That report which is on its website and in its
magazine, was not well received. "We never said it was a hoax.
But I think people read between the lines, " Mr Harrison said.

The incident was not a waste of time for AUFORN. They were able
to work with the Tiaro police on the investigation, help sift
through the evidence for the police probe during their
investigation. "(Officer in charge of Tiaro police Acting
Sergeant) Robert Maragna kept an open mind and acted
professionally at all times," Mr Harrison said.

They believe that the links forged with the police will stand
them in good stead for the next time an abduction of UFO
sighting has to be investigated. With 400 sightings so far this
year, about 40 a month on average, there is plenty of
investigating to do. The AUFORN can be contacted on its freecall
hotline 1800 77 22 88.


End Note from Diane

I was contacted by a family member of Keith Rylance and this is
what he/she had to say anonymously.

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:34:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Gundiah 'abduction'

Hello Dianne,
Please keep my name anonymous.

I'm afraid a lot of people have wasted a lot of time over my
cousin Keith. But don't feel too bad, authorities on at least
three Continents have various interests in him.

It's hard to know where to begin. Even the bits I know would
fill a book, and I'm sure there's plenty I don't know. But what
you must understand is that Keith has always been an attention
seeker and would do anything to get into newspapers or on TV.

Why did he set-up the abduction claim? I'm sure his great,
deluded idea was to make a fortune from the scam. In his own
mind he could see Steven Speilberg giving him an unlimited
budget and total control over the movie. Unfortunately, in the
real world, experts like you begin to ask awkward questions
rather than take his word as gospel and shower him with money
and accolades. This is a familiar pattern. So I would guess
that's why they only made a measly $7500 AUD out of the whole
thing. Doesn't add up to much split three ways, does it?

Regards anonymous

The Gundiah Mackay Abduction Milieu
http://www.hypermax.net.au/~auforn/Gundiah.html

A preliminary report by Bill Chalker and Diane Harrison AUFORN Director
This case is still open.?
Regards Diane Harrison

National Director The Australian UFO Research Network and UFO Hotline.
Australian Skywatch Director



04-05.11.02 VICTORIA [ CARRUM DOWNS ] 2200hrs (NL)
(Source: Diane Harrison National AUFORN Director ]
Day: Monday & Tuesday
Time: 10.00 p.m
Location: Carrum Downs
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: Red
Apparent size: Big as the moon
Shape: Round
Noise: like a truck in the distance
Objects observed:Two
Activity when object seen:
Other witness's:
Name: Lindsay
Date of Sighting. 04-05.11.02

Caller Name. Lindsay.
Night of a thunderstorm, Lindsay saw 2 pulsating lights with a
large red light in the centre. It passed overhead, going towards
the Port Philip Bay. It was very low over the bay, then dropped
and banked in a sharp right hand direction and headed North
towards the city. It sounded "like a truck in the distance".
When it went over it was only about 200 ft up, it was rounded in
shape, and tapered. It was otherwise indistinct.


Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN


06.11.02 VICTORIA [ MURRUMBEENA ] 1943hrs
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02738)
Day: Wednesday
Time: 7.43 pm
Location: Murrumbeena to Chadstone
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: Blue
Apparent size: Big as the moon
Shape: Mushroom
Noise: None
Objects observed:One
Activity when object seen: Local flight path
Other witness's: Parents
Name: Christian
Date of Sighting. 06.11.02

Christian saw a very strange light in the night sky at about
7:43 pm, and wanted to know if anyone else reported the same
thing. He described a very large blue light that "flashed across
the sky very quickly". He saw it move from Murrumbeena to
Chadstone. He said it looked as large as the moon does.

This was interesting because my boss and his parents saw the
same thing at the same time from Frankston, which is about 20
kilometers South of Murrumbeena. They said it went so fast that
they were not sure what they did see, but it was a large bright
blue light travelling South East to North West, and very low
down from their viewpoint. There were no other reports of this
incident. The description is consistent with a meteoric event.

Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN



16.11.02 VICTORIA [ MILL PARK ] 2255hrs (NL)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02747)
Day:Saturday
Time: 10.55p.m
Location: Mill Park, Vic.
Classification: (NL)
Duration of sighting: Seconds
Light colour: Amber
Apparent size:
Shape: Basket Ball
Noise: like a truck in the distance
Objects observed:Two
Activity when object seen: Travelling
Other witnesses:
Name: Vince
Date of Sighting. 16.11.02

Vince saw 2 Amber lights heading in a South Easterly direction
towards the city. These lights didn't flash at all, but were
described as being "orange light beams". His girlfriend watched
them as well. As they travelled, one followed the other. When
the first one reached a particular point it went out
momentarily. The second one did the same when it reached the
same point. These lights made no sound. They travelled about as
fast as a Jumbo jet, and were only about 4 to 5 storys high.
Vince estimated that they were not much larger than a basket
ball.

Regards George Simpson Victorian State Director AUFORN


20.11.02 QUEENSLAND [ GOLD COAST ] 0407hrs (DO)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02754)

Day: Wednesday
Time: 0407hrs
Location: Surfers Paradise
Classification: (DO)
Duration of sighting: 1 hour
Light colour: Rainbow
Apparent size: 1cent
Shape: Star
Noise: non
Objects observed:One
Activity when object seen: Looking from high rise balcony
Other witness's:
Name: G/C Polic Comms Center
Date of Sighting. 20.11.02
Job Number #128 received through the Gold Coast Police Comms
Centre: Please contact Noni B (sorry I missed the surname) of
Surfers Paradise in regards to a report of seeing a
shiny/pulsating light out to sea.

Tanya reported a strange star like object while having an early
morning coffee while sitting on her veranda. She was not to sure
if it was the morning star or a UFO. She described the object as
flashing in and out all colours of the rainbow. After talking
with her for 15 minutes we decided it was the morning star and
she will be looking for tomorrow morning.


25.11.02 EDGEROI [ MOREE & NARRABRI ] 2040hrs (CE-1)
(Source: 1800 Freecallin National Hotline Callin Code: 02760)
Day:  Monday
Time:  8.40pm DST
Location: Edgeroi (between Moree and Narrabri)
Classification: CE1 (50 mtrs) approx
Duration of sighting: 3 seconds approx
Light colour: red/green
Apparent size: Two road lanes wide
Shape: Unknown
Noise: None
Objects observed: Single
Activity when object seen: Driving
Other witness's: Girlfriend
Name: Peter G
Date of Sighting: 25.11.02

Peter was driving down the Newell Hwy at 8.40pm DST on the 25th
of November just before Edgeroi (just outside of Narribri), with
his girlfried in his truck. They had the windows down and were
talking, the radio was not on.There was no vehicles in front of
him and a car a long way behind. Peter suddenly noticed an
object to his left hand side. The object had two red lights at
the front, two red lights at the back and two green lights on
the edges of the middle, no shape could be determined. The
object was approximately 50 mtrs away from the truck at about
telegraph pole height. When first noticed by Peter the object
was travelling at right angles to the ground, with the lights at
a North/South configuration. It appeared to Peter that the
object was either taking evasive action to miss the truck or was
trying to show him something. When Peter got the attention of
his girlfriend (who had not sighted the object due to it's
incredible speed) the object had now flattened out to a more
conventional East/West configuration and only the rear red
lights could be seen, this was viewed through the open driver's
side window on the right hand side. The geography of the area in
question consists of very flat plains. The object maintained
it's very low altitude over the plains to disappear within 1.5
to 2 seconds over the horizon. Peter stated that the object was
like "something out of "Star Wars" and was the quickest thing he
had ever seen". No noise was heard during the sighting. The
object was estimated to be about the size of two road lanes by
Peter. Peter rang Coonabarrabran Observatory, Police and various
observatories before calling Williamtown Air Base, who referred
Peter to the Hotline Number. When Peter got to Edgeroi, he had
cold shivers for three hours after the encounter. Previous to
this encounter, Peter had not given any thought at all to
possible ET visitation, he is now convinced he saw something
totally unexplainable. Due to the sincerity of the witness and
the facts pertaining to this case I have no doubt Peter saw a
genuine UFO. My personal belief is that Peter saw an ET craft.
Peter is going to call back in the next few days to the general
store in Edgeroi to see if there are any other reports and will
phone the Hotline if there is. I did not feel comfortable asking
Peter about missing time/abduction scenario's as he was
experiencing difficulty dealing with what had just happened to
him as it was, perhaps later. Regards Doug Moffett NSW State
Director AUFORN -- kind regards

Diane Harrison

National Director
The Australian UFO Research Network and UFO Hotline.
Australian Skywatch Director

Co Editor
The Australasian UFOlogist Magazine

Tel number 1800 77 22 88 a Free Call
Australian UFO Research Network -
http://www.hypermax.net.au/~auforn
E-mail auforn@hypermax.net.au

A non profit organisation
PO Box 738
Beaudessert 4285
QLD Australia
Tel 07 55 44 6888







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                     Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:18:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:57:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Myers


 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:56:28 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

 >>>From: Brad Sparks
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
 >>>Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 ><snip>

 >The Kaufmann documents have all kinds of incorrect garbage in
 >them which would quick show them to be fakes. However, as Kevin
 >points out Kaufmann would just flash these things at people and
 >not let them see the documents. So he got a lot of milage giving
 >people the impression that he had some documented proof of his
 >tales. He took in the Popular Mechanics magazine reporter.

 >The Army Air Forces did not have a Directorate of Intelligence
 >in July 1947. That rather stupid mistake was not committed until
 >shortly after the USAF came into being. So "Easley's letter,"
 >which clearly violates established correspondence protocols,
 >talked about an entity that does not exist in July 1947. As I
 >have said before, any clerk with a few months' experience in the
 >military could probably turn out fair good forgeries. Kaufmann
 >apparently could not, so he depended on just flashing something
 >that looked official.

 >Kaufmann never impressed me, especially his story about the
 >radar trackings and the explosion on the screen. This is a dizzy
 >tale.

 >However, people who had briefly seen his documents could be
 >impressed enough to suspend judgement on his tales. A few months
 >ago Kevin in a long serious of postings on "UFO Frauds"
 >suggested that there should be peer review of such claims. The
 >original idea seems to have been diverted to review famous cases
 >like the Mantell case, but I think the original idea to review
 >"insider" tales is needed in ufology.

 >As I have said before, it is needed, but few in ufology have the
 >stomach for it.

There have been so many instances in this field where people
have flaunted false credentials and hard copies of those
credentials don't materialize (i.e.: the person(s) won't supply
the documents, the documents were lost, et al), the big bag
gov't has come along and rounded them all up erasing them in the
process, and/or the credentials are bogus. I've ran into all of
the above as I'm sure many of you out there have.

Let's not forget the past of some other folks using bogus
documents or alleging to have doctorate degrees or other
educational credentials:


Jim Dilettoso: A degree from a university that he later said was
"honorary" - still no degree has ever turned up to my knowledge.
This among other credentials that he does not have.

Sean David Morton: Claimed to have earned a doctorate degree
from a university in Texas that is nothing more than an outreach
ministry. Claimed to have a degree in Advanced Drama from a
school that does not offer degrees and a school he has never
attended.

Lee Shargel: Claimed to be a NASA scientist with a degree in
Egyptian Quantum Physics...how the hell did aynone fall for
that?!

"Dr." Jonathan Reed: Not even his real name and the man has no
doctorate under any of his numerous aliases.

"Dr." Harold Chacon: Had a reference letter he claimed was from
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Daniel Munoz
claimed to have verified the letter. Problem was that the
numbers listed on it were all bogus. Chacon was never a doctor.


We all know there are far many more than just those listed here.
I think the lesson to be learned in the case of Kaufmann is for
investigators to demand copies of such documents if any such
claims are made or the documents are presented. Until then, all
information is suspect until it can be verified and should not
be disclosed. If the person turns out to be a fraud, then they
should be widely exposed.

Kevin appeared to be in a hard spot with this alleged witness at
the time as the witness appeared to not be co-operating with
supplying documents. The Kaufmann incident was a hard lesson
learned by all. If anyone is hesitant in providing you proof
they claim to have, then 99.99998% of the time they're full of
it.

No matter how good something looks, demand proof...

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:00:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Tonnies


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:32:10 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

<snip>

 >You did miss something... just get yourself a copy of "The
 >Secret KGB UFO Files" on DVD or VHS, hosted by Roger Moore. It
 >discusses the incident and contains the footage that you saw
 >photos of... among other UFO-related items of interest.


Thanks to Michel and other List members who have taken the time
to "clue me in."  Not being a TV viewer, I tend to miss things
like this.

If the Russian crash-retrieval is real (a big "if," obviously),
I don't think the prospect of a post-Cold War KGB selling such
footage is all that implausible.

Re. the photos of the crash site: what angle did this saucer
supposedly arrive at, anyway?  Some broken tree-branches suggest
it collided at the perimeter of the forest, yet this appears
inconsistent with the angle of the disk sticking out of the
ground.

Fake or real, I find the photos quite impressive.  And the fact
that no effort was taken to disguise or hide the faces of those
on film at least suggests that isn't a hoax.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

Transcelestial Ontology and Postmillennial Studies
http://mactonnies.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt. II

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:06:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:06:51 -0500
Subject: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt. II

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Nov-28-Thu-2002/20138162.html

Thursday, November 28, 2002
Copyright =A9 Las Vegas Mercury

Close encounters, part two

Las Vegas businessman sets up shop at Utah ranch to study
paranormal activities

By George Knapp

This is the second of two reports about persistent stories of
anomalous phenomena in a section of northeastern Utah. The
activity, as reported by hundreds of witnesses over several
decades, includes UFOs, unusual balls of light, animal
mutilations and disappearances, poltergeist events, sightings of
Bigfoot-like creatures and other unidentified animals, physical
effects on plants, soil, animals and humans, and a vast array of
other unexplained incidents.

The activities seem most concentrated on a 480-acre cattle ranch
owned by the family of Tom Gorman. (Gorman isn't his real name.)
In 1996, the ranch was purchased by Las Vegas businessman Robert
Bigelow, who arranged for an intense, ongoing scientific study
of events at the ranch. By agreement with Bigelow, and at the
request of many of the witnesses, a few names have been changed
or omitted to protect those who don't want to be hassled by
media outlets or UFO enthusiasts.

It began as a dull white light, appearing out of nowhere in the
darkness of the middle homestead of the Gorman ranch. Tom Gorman
saw it. So did a researcher named Chad Deetken. It was nearly 2
a.m. on Aug. 28, 1997. Gorman and Deetken were out in the
pasture as part of an ongoing effort to document unusual
activity on the property.

Both men watched intently as the light grew brighter. It was as
if someone had opened a window or doorway. Gorman grabbed his
night vision binoculars to get a better look but could hardly
believe what he was seeing. The dull light began to resemble a
bright portal, and at one end of the portal, a large, black
humanoid figure seemed to be struggling to crawl through the
tunnel of light.

After a few minutes, the humanoid figure wriggled out of the
light and took off into the darkness. As it did, the window of
light snapped shut, as if someone had flicked the "off" switch.
Deetken had the presence of mind to snap a few photos of the
event, but would later learn that his film had recorded little
of what the two men had witnessed.

Tom Gorman, his wife, two teenage kids and several extended
family members had grown accustomed to weird things happening at
the ranch. They had seen numerous UFO-type craft, as well as
balls of light that seemed to be intelligently controlled. Their
neighbors had seen them too. Residents of this basin have been
reporting similar phenomena since the '50s. Native Americans say
the sightings extend back even further. But aerial anomalies
weren't the strangest occurrences on or near the ranch, not by a
longshot.

In his two years on the property, Tom Gorman had lost 14 head of
cattle from his hybrid herd. Some animals simply disappeared, as
if plucked from the sky. Others were carved up with surgical
precision. Family members and neighbors had also seen Bigfoot-
like creatures, oversized wolves, animals and birds that no one
could identify. Their horses had been attacked, their dogs
incinerated, their cats abducted.

The Gormans themselves were bedeviled, almost daily, by odd
little household incidents that, separately, wouldn't amount to
much, but when considered together, were hard to dismiss.
Windows and doors in their home would rip open or slam shut,
seemingly on their own. Frequently, when Mrs. Gorman would take
a shower, she'd emerge from the tub to find that her towel and
personal items had been removed from inside the locked bathroom.
On one occasion, she returned from town with a large haul of
groceries and other supplies. She carefully put the provisions
away in various cabinets, walked into another room for a few
minutes, and returned to find all the supplies back out on the
kitchen table.

Clothing, tools and appliances seemed to develop lives of their
own. But this wasn't the equivalent of socks disappearing in the
laundry. For example, Gorman's son worked up a considerable
sweat to meticulously stack a one-ton pile of cord wood on the
south side of a treeline in the middle homestead. He took a 30-
minute water break and returned to find that the ton of wood had
been moved 100 yards to the north side of the tree line. Tools
often disappeared, then reappeared on the range. In one
instance, a heavy post hole digger vanished. It was finally
discovered, days later, high up in the branches of a cottonwood
tree, as if placed there by a crane. The uneasy feeling grew
among family members that they were constantly being watched,
but they had no idea who, or what, was doing the watching.

Enter Robert Bigelow

and NIDS

Las Vegas businessman Robert Bigelow first heard about the
Gorman ranch in the summer of 1996. A small newspaper article
about mysterious events at the property prompted Bigelow and his
team to fly to Utah. Bigelow bought the ranch and convinced Tom
Gorman to stay on as caretaker, against the wishes of his
family.

Bigelow is the founder of NIDS, the National Institute for
Discovery Science, a Las Vegas research organization dedicated
to the study of unexplained phenomena. NIDS staff members
include highly trained and educated scientists, engineers and
former law enforcement personnel with solid credentials, degrees
and experience. Although the organization investigates seemingly
bizarre events, it has no preconceived ideas about the true
nature of the subject matter and is primarily interested in
getting to the truth, wherever that truth leads. (This
observation is a personal one, based on more than six years of
interaction with the NIDS organization.)

NIDS staffers emphasize that they are constantly drilled by
Bigelow and by his Science Advisory Board to rigidly adhere to
the scientific method. ("The Science Board really holds our feet
to the fire," one staff member confides.) Because the subject
matter itself is so controversial in science circles, NIDS
realizes that any deviation from the scientific method would
mean a loss of credibility. If they were deemed a crackpot
organization, their findings, no matter how profound or well-
documented, would be dismissed out of hand.

The Gorman ranch presented a unique opportunity to study a rich
tapestry of strange stuff. It was as if someone had ordered up
the Weirdness Pizza With Everything on It. UFOs and Sasquatch,
balls of light and cattle mutilations, poltergeists and crop
circles, psychic manifestations and Native American legends--the
ranch sounded like a unique place in all the world. NIDS
staffers knew they had to be careful but also knew they couldn't
merely dismiss the stories told by locals.

"We had no preconceived ideas about what was going on, but we
decided to use an 'open-filter' approach to gathering
information," says one senior NIDS staffer. "We had a lot of
reservations about the legends of skinwalkers, Bigfoot
sightings, all the things the family claimed to have seen, but
we decided to collect all the data we could get, without
dismissing it outright, and figured we could evaluate it all
later."

The NIDS team set up shop. They installed a command post,
positioned video and other monitoring equipment around the
ranch, built new fencing around the perimeter of the property to
better control access to the site, constructed observation posts
in the pastures and staffed the property with trained observers.
The effort constitutes the most intense and thorough
surveillance of a UFO hot spot ever undertaken.

UFO researchers were incensed at being excluded from the study.
They floated rumors that Bigelow was working for the CIA, that
he and NIDS were already in contact with E.T., and that whatever
information was gleaned from the ranch probably would be locked
away in dark vaults under the Pentagon. The constant criticism
prompted the publicity-shy Bigelow to grant a rare interview. He
told a Utah newspaper that NIDS was not communicating with
either extraterrestrials or lizard people. He appealed, perhaps
in vain, for a reasonable amount of time, free from outside
interference, so a legitimate study might be undertaken.

"We know so little in terms of what the overall scope of the
phenomena are that it's just embarrassing to try and make some
conclusions at this point," Bigelow said. He admitted that the
activity at the ranch seemed to be "selective in how it exposes
itself and to whom," suggesting that a tailgate-party atmosphere
where people sit around outside the ranch, barbecueing hot dogs
while awaiting flying saucers, would not be conducive to a
scientific study. Not surprisingly, this plea for sanity fell on
deaf ears among the UFO faithful. They were so busy expressing
their outrage over being barred from private property that they
failed to grasp the major clue dropped by Bigelow during his
interview.

A pre-cognitive

intelligence

Contrary to some predictions, the odd phenomena at the ranch
didn't evaporate under the glare of scientific scrutiny.
Activity continued, but grew even harder to comprehend. NIDS
staffers saw the same balls of light, even UFO-type craft that
the Gormans had seen. But their attempts to photograph or
videotape the sightings were largely futile. Team members,
accompanied by Gorman and former lawmen who were hired for the
study, often saw anomalous aerial phenomena, with their eyes,
their binoculars and with night vision equipment. With few
exceptions, though, the images inexplicably could not be
recorded on film or video.

A confidential report prepared for NIDS board members and
obtained by this reporter documents dozens of encounters
involving NIDS staffers, the Gormans and other witnesses. After
several months of round-the-clock surveillance, a mind-boggling
pattern began to emerge. The phenomena, whatever they represent,
seemed capable of anticipating the moves of the scientists. If
they placed extra cameras and personnel in the southern field,
the activity would pop up in the northern pasture. If they
concentrated their observations in the center homestead, the
activity might move to the ridge overlooking the ranch.

Skeptics might suggest that such an explanation for a lack of
photographic evidence sounds a little too convenient. But
something happened on July 19, 1998, that sheds further light on
the challenge faced by the research team. Soon after arriving at
the ranch, NIDS had installed three telephone poles in one of
the pastures. Atop each pole was a sophisticated package of
sensoring equipment, including multiple video cameras. The
cameras had a full view of that section of the ranch and were
connected to video recorders back in the command post. At
exactly 8:30 p.m., the three cameras on the westernmost
telephone pole were suddenly disabled. When NIDS staffers went
to check out the problem, they saw that something had shredded
their electronic equipment. Wires had been ripped out of the
cameras with considerable force. Plastic brackets were snapped
in two. Thick layers of duct tape that had been used to secure
the equipment had been ripped away. A foot-long piece of TV
cable was missing. Analysis of the remaining cable showed it had
been slashed with a knife.

Team members excitedly returned to the command center, knowing
that the telephone pole that had been assaulted was in full view
of cameras positioned atop the second pole, located about 200
feet away. The assumption was that, whatever had ripped the guts
out of the first camera would be clearly visible on video
recorded by the second. But when they rolled the tape back, they
saw nothing. At the exact moment the first camera package was
being vandalized, nothing visible could be seen anywhere near
the second telephone pole. This incident set a pattern for what
was to follow.

"I came up with a term for it," says Col. John Alexander, a
retired Army intelligence officer who still works on classified
projects with Los Alamos National Laboratory and remains an
adviser to NATO organizations. "I called it a pre-cognitive
sentient intelligence. It certainly seemed to be intelligent,
and it seemed to know what we were going to do even before we
did it."

Alexander is a former adviser to NIDS who made the trip to the
ranch to see what was going on. As a scientist and military
insider, he is reluctant to jump to any conclusions about the
nature of what has happened there. But he suspects, after
exploring the property and reading the witness reports, that
there is an intelligence behind the assorted phenomena and that
it almost seems to be playing a game with those who are trying
to observe it.

Another NIDS staffer arrived at a similar conclusion. He has a
doctorate in physics, a long list of peer-reviewed papers about
cutting-edge scientific concepts, and a lengthy employment
history with prominent think tanks and classified military
programs. He asked that his name not be used in the belief that
he would never again be hired for sensitive scientific work if
his involvement with the ranch were made public.

"It's a very messy affair. Nothing is clear cut. It isn't as
simple as saying that E.T.s or flying saucers are doing it," the
scientist said. "It's some kind of consciousness, but it's
always something new and different, something non-repeatable.
It's reactive to people and equipment, and we set up the ranch
to be a proving ground for the scientific method, but science
doesn't seem amenable to the solution of these kinds of
problems."

Ice and dinosaurs

As if to punctuate the point, the phenomena at the ranch seemed
to constantly evolve. One of the most recent incidents occurred
on a cold morning in February. The caretaker for the property
was patrolling the grounds early in the morning. As he walked
past a watering hole, he noticed an odd circular impression in
the thin ice that had formed overnight. Something had carved a
perfect circle in the ice. The circle was just under six feet in
diameter and seemed oddly reminiscent of the crop formations
seen in English wheat fields.

The cuts extended only a quarter-inch into the ice and the ice
itself was perhaps another quarter-inch thick. The question
arises, how could this have been done? Someone standing on the
muddy bank would have left footprints. The only prints were
cattle tracks. The ice itself was so thin that it could support
almost no weight and certainly would have cracked and broken if
someone stood on it. Could someone have suspended themselves
above the ice patch and then somehow carved a perfect circle?
How, and more importantly, why? NIDS staffers, following the
scientific method, collected and analyzed ice shavings from the
spot, took readings for magnetic fields and EM radiation,
checked for tracks throughout the area but found no clues. There
is no natural explanation for such a subtle event, and it has
never been reported again.

NIDS employees compiled a confidential report containing
information about all the assorted incidents on the ranch.
Reading this report will make the hair stand up on your neck. To
date, the researchers have recorded seven distinct incidents
involving magnetic abnormalities. Simply put, their compasses
went nuts while out on the range. The needles of the compasses
either spun out of control, or pointed straight down at the
ground. No one has a reasonable explanation.

There were several instances involving some sort of invisible
force moving through the ranch and through the animals. One
witness reported a path of displaced water in the canal, as if a
large unseen animal was briskly moving through the water. There
were distinct splashing noises, and there was a foul pungent
odor that filled the air but nothing could be seen. A
neighboring rancher reported the same phenomena two months
later. The Gormans say there were several instances where
something invisible moved through their cattle, splitting the
herd. Their neighbor reported the same thing.

Of all the strange incidents at the ranch, this one may take the
prize. It occurred on the night of March 12, 1997. Barking dogs
alerted the team to something lurking in a tree near the ranch
house. Tom Gorman grabbed a hunting rifle and took off in his
truck toward the tree. Two NIDS staffers followed in another
vehicle. Up in the tree branches, they could make out a huge set
of yellowish, reptilian eyes. The head of this animal had to be
three feet wide, they guessed. At the bottom of the tree was
something else. Gorman described it as huge and hairy, with
massively muscled front legs and a doglike head.

Gorman, who is a crack shot, fired at both figures from a
distance of 40 yards. The creature on the ground seemed to
vanish. The thing in the tree apparently fell to the ground
because Gorman heard it as it landed heavily in the patches of
snow below. All three men ran through the pasture and scrub
brush, chasing what they thought was a wounded animal, but they
never found the animal and saw no blood either. A professional
tracker was brought in the next day to scour the area. Nothing.

But there was a physical clue left behind. At the bottom of the
tree, they found and photographed a weird footprint, or rather,
claw print. The print left in the snow was from something large.
It had three digits with what they guessed were sharp claws on
the end. Later analysis and comparison of the print led them to
find a chilling similarity--the print from the ranch closely
resembled that of a velociraptor, an extinct dinosaur made
famous in the Jurassic Park films. (For the record, no one at
NIDS is saying he shot a velociraptor. They don't know what it
was.)

More cattle deaths

Two days before the above incident, another animal was found
mutilated on the ranch, and it is the only case from the ranch
that NIDS has publicly confirmed before this article. Gorman and
his wife spent a bright Sunday morning tagging the ears of
newborn calves. They put a tag on the ear of a calf born near
the ranch house, then wandered out into the pasture for a period
of 45 minutes. In that interim period, with the Gormans only 200
yards away in the pasture, the calf was completely stripped of
flesh. The Gormans were alerted by a wail from the mother of the
calf. The calf's entrails had been placed, almost
ritualistically, on the ground, but all of its flesh was simply
gone, leaving only bone and hide behind. There was no blood on
the ground or on the animal.

A NIDS team was at the ranch and quickly scoured the area for
evidence. The remains were sent to two pathology labs. Both
pathologists concluded the calf had been butchered by two
distinct instruments, something like a heavy machete and
something like sharp scissors. How this was done in broad
daylight, in an open pasture and in clear sight of the ranchers
remains a mystery. (A second calf disappeared that same morning
after being tagged and was never found. In all, 12 cattle have
met a similar end since NIDS has been on the ranch. A full
report on the calf incident can be found on the NIDS website.)

So, what's going on?

Capt. Keith Wolverton spent more than 20 years as an
investigator with the Cascade County Sheriff's Department in
Great Falls, Mont. In the mid-'70s, that area experienced a
similar wave of UFO sightings and cattle mutilations, as well as
Bigfoot sightings, and Wolverton investigated them all.

"I asked my boss back then to give me six weeks to solve the
mystery," Wolverton says. "It's 30 years later and I'm still
left with a lot of questions but no answers."

Wolverton wrote a book about his Montana experiences. He came to
the ranch to share his expertise with NIDS, and while there are
similarities between the things that happened near Great Falls
and at the Utah ranch, Wolverton says he's never heard of any
place with such a concentration of weird activity as the Gorman
ranch. Microbiologist Colm Kelleher has reached a similar
conclusion.

"I thought that if we threw enough personnel and equipment at
this one, pull out all the stops, adhere to the scientific
method, that we would probably get answers," Kelleher says. "We
have all of these strange cases, close to 100, many of them
well-documented, but if you try to call that scientific evidence
of anything, you'd be laughed at."

The main reason NIDS has been unwilling to go public with
information about the ranch is there isn't much that can be
said. For a scientific organization to merely toss out a lot of
scary stories would be counterproductive, especially if it
resulted in hordes of UFO nuts flooding the property and
interfering with whatever goes on there. Make no mistake, the
activity at the ranch certainly seems to have an interactive
component. It responds to people, events and disturbances. In
many instances, it seems capable of anticipating things that
were about to happen.

"The only thing that jumps out of the data is how
unreproduceable these things are," Kelleher notes. "No two
events ever repeated themselves in the same fashion. It's almost
as if it's a learning curve and we were being led along. It's
the only thing consistent here."

What could possibly explain all that has happened at the ranch?
Natural predators, rustlers or pranksters might conceivably be
responsible for some of the events, but certainly not all of
them. NIDS staffers considered the possibility that Indian
shaman or black magic practitioners might have been carrying out
some sort of ritualist campaign at the ranch. They note that the
Ute people consider the ranch to be an unholy place, a forbidden
place, but that explanation falls far short on many levels.

Hardcore UFO believers have proposed an E.T. connection to
events at the ranch, but NIDS staffers say there isn't an iota
of evidence to prove such a hypothesis. The possibility exists
that unknown military units might be capable of producing nearly
all of the events that have been reported in the area, perhaps
as an experiment in psychological warfare. (Tom Gorman was
convinced of this for a long time, but came to realize the
theory was more than a stretch. Someone, somewhere would have
seen these military men operating in such a rural area.)

That doesn't leave much. There is one possibility that's worth
considering. Cutting-edge physicists have proposed the existence
of alternate dimensions or parallel universes. Quantum
physicists believe that portals may exist between our world and
other worlds. The concept of wormholes is no longer considered
to be the stuff of science fiction. New York physicist and
author Michio Kaku theorizes that there are 11 dimensions in our
universe, although humans have only identified four. Might a
wormhole resemble the portal of light that was seen on the
ranch? And if such portals do exist, could they allow beings on
the other side to travel into our world? As wacky as it all
sounds, leading scientists believe that wormholes and alternate
dimensions are perfectly consistent with known laws of physics.
If so, then it isn't much of a leap to suggest that UFOs,
aliens, Bigfoot beings or other creatures, even poltergeists or
spirits, could come and go and never be detected by puzzled,
mystified humans.

"Aliens may be here now," says Kaku, "here in another dimension,
a millimeter away from our own world."

Admittedly, it all sounds farfetched. But if anyone has a better
explanation, let's hear it.

A final note

For further discussion of the Gorman Ranch mystery, along with a
few personal observations, check out the Knappster column
elsewhere in this issue. Also, the website of the National
Institute for Discovery Science is packed with information and
research papers concerning these and other issues. Anyone with
information or insight about the ranch, UFOs or mutilations is
welcome to contact NIDS through the website. All such contacts
will remain confidential.

Another word of warning to UFO diehards: It is probably futile
to ask for restraint on the part of the faithful, but here goes
anyway. Visitors are not welcome at the Gorman ranch. The ranch
is patrolled 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and NIDS
emphatically declares that trespassers will be arrested and
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. One of the
principal caretakers of the property is a 20-year veteran of
Utah law enforcement and will not hesitate to bust people who
mess with the property, the animals or the staff. The people who
live in the area do not want to be hassled. So leave them alone.
Don't be a jerk.

Furthermore, anyone expecting to find the ranch and see UFOs or
Bigfoot will be deeply disappointed. Paranormal activity on the
property has all but disappeared over the past year, which is a
primary reason that access was obtained from NIDS for this
article.

The NIDS website is at www.nidsci.org. The NIDS online report
form, where people can electronically report UFO sightings,
animal mutilations, etc., is at www.nidsci.org/reportform.html.
The NIDS UFO hotline number is 702-798-1700.


Copyright =A9 Las Vegas Mercury, 2001 - 2002


[UFO UpDates thanks Thurston Reggae Burns for the lead]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:54:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:12:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Friedman


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:32:10 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:59:14 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>Does anyone know anything about the color footage taken of a
 >>crashed flying saucer (presumably in Russia)? The film in
 >>question includes a high-quality "autopsy." Throughout the
 >>production, the faces of military and medical personel are
 >>visible.

 >>I saw photos from the film in a rather sensationalistic British
 >>UFO magazine. But their high quality impressed me.

 >>Is this a story that somehow slipped through the cracks or did I
 >>miss something?

 >You did miss something... just get yourself a copy of "The
 >Secret KGB UFO Files" on DVD or VHS, hosted by Roger Moore. It
 >discusses the incident and contains the footage that you saw
 >photos of... among other UFO-related items of interest.

I was in the show and was very careful about what I said,
because there was no way to validate anything sitting in a
studio in California.

Then it was a "gray basket" case.

I would say now, that it was fraudulent.

Reminds me of the UPN show where was I asked a lot of sensible
questions about abductions. The editing made it seem as though I
was talking about the 'left-behind video of aliens. I was never
shown the video and was not asked about it. And it was for Dick
Clark Productions!!

I hope all the Americans on the List enjoyed Thanksgiving. As a
dual citizen, I was able to celebrate the 2nd Monday of October
in Canada.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:32:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:16:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Bourdais


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:34:50 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>From: Trevor Seguin <dragko@shaw.ca>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:45:04 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>If these images are the ones you are talking about I believe
 >>this VHS is the same special. I also found a DVD out of HK but
 >>those are mostly bootlegs.

 >>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000399XH/qid=1038508542/sr=8-
2/ref=sr_8_2/102-6748565-7116919?v=glance&s=video&n=507846

 >>This is the Official website

 >>http://alt.tnt.tv/kgb/frame_index.html

 >>There are some short clips one of which shows what looks like
 >>KGB/Government surrounding quite the convincing disk. And
 >>KGB/Medical officials disecting a section of a small body with
 >>exposed rib cage.

 >Good links, thanks. I didn't even check. You are correct about
 >the availability of the show, which I purchased on DVD more than
 >a year ago. It should be noted that I purchased it for its
 >entertainment value.

 >To be honest, I'm astonished that the TNT site is still active,
 >since the program aired in 1998. One segment mentions a
 >newspaper in Russia that mentions one particular incident on the
 >front page, but when the actual newspaper was obtained from an
 >archive, it didn't resemble the page shown on the program at
 >all.

 >It would be most interesting to learn the provenance of the
 >footage that is shown of a saucer shaped craft half buried in
 >the ground at a purported impact site. While I believe this is a
 >faked incident, it allegedly involved Russian military vehicles
 >that weren't readily available, and the uniforms appear to be
 >correct for the period portrayed.

 >I recall that one person on this list in late 1998, who was very
 >familiar with Russia, was quite involved in trying to verify
 >this program and learned of some major flaws that the pointed
 >out on his web page. Unfortunately, the production company that
 >was involved threatened him with a law suit, and being unfamilar
 >with US law he quickly took the site down and ceased posting to
 >the list.

 >Of course, this is only really interesting from an historical
 >perspective.


To Trevor, Steven and the List ,

I am also very surprised that such a question is still asked.
That video has been completely exposed as a hoax by Boris Shurinov,
at his web site - in English:

http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufindex.htm

I sent him a copy of the video and he made a thorough inquiry
in Moscow.

He found that the UFO sequences had been shot by an American
team: the UFO in the surroundings of Moscow; the autopsy in a
room at the school of medecine in Moscow !

He met with the Russian woman in the Moscow film studios who
was production assistant for them.

It was supposed to be a SF movie.

She provided the extras, such as the soldiers in the field.

The UFO was made of a light plastic material which gave them a
lot of trouble because it was blown by the wind!

The autopsy was shot with students, etc.

He also got the names of the American team.

I have another source.

I met, at the annual San Marino symposium in Italy, the American
ufologist Alex Chionetti who is a film producer. He told me, in
the presence of his friend Antonio Huneeus, that he knew a
member of that team in Los Angeles.

I think I said all that already on UFO UpDates.

Kal Korff claimed that he had obtained a fragment of that UFO,
and that he was going to have it analysed, and that he would
publish the results.

He never did. I asked him how he got that debris, but he never
answered.

Gildas Bourdais








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:23:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:19:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Reason


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:43:23 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

Hello Bob,

Thanks for your reply, especially since I realized after I'd sent
my last email that I hadn't actually said everything I wanted on
the subject.

This will unfortunately be quite a long email, because to
prevent any confusion I think I'm going to have to go into one
or two matters in rather a lot of detail. I hope no-one objects.

 >>The problem is, unless you know the exact positions of the
 >>objects in the original report, or you have a priori set limits
 >>to the errors you'll accept in the measurements of those
 >>positions, any pattern-matching you do is inevitably arbitrary
 >>and post-hoc. You simply can't quantify the possibility that
 >>the match may have ocurred entirely by chance.

 >Yes, I think in this case, one can with a lot of confidence.

Well then, what is this possibility you think you can quantify
with a lot of confidence? 5%? 30%? How do you compute such a
number?

 >This isn't a matter of a pattern of any three objects. Other
 >patterns of stars were almost certainly not visible in the
 >bright Moonlight. There wasn't much "below" below the Moon, less
 >than 14 degrees. The only natural astronomical objects visible
 >below the Moon, or anywher near the Moon, would have been the
 >two planets.

I think we have some confusion here, Bob.

I didn't mean, as you seem to have assumed, that if one looked
in the vicinity of the Moon one would find indefinite numbers of
astronomical alignments corresponding to any given set of
points. Indeed, I'm not at all sure why you should think I did,
since this would be a very odd thing to assume, given that one
of the points was uncontroversially the Moon, and one or other
of the remaining points was uncontroversially Jupiter.

Never mind, I'll explain some more below.

To start with, I think we need to define some terms. For reasons
that I hope will become clear, I'll refer to the actual objects
in the sky as "target objects", and the objects described by the
Hills as "perceived objects". Next I want us to imagine two
charts - one is a chart showing the positions of the target
objects, the other is a chart of the perceived objects. The
first chart I'll refer to as the "base", the second I'll call
the "template".

Now, we have the task of matching the base to the template in
some way which is permitted by the processes of visual
perception. Since the position of the Moon is uncontroversial,
let's put the template Moon over the base Moon and put a pin
through it. (Let's assume the template is transparent).

Ok, so far so good. How do we go about making a match?

Firstly we have to choose a scaling factor. By how much should
we scale distances on the template to match the base? Already we
have a problem, because there isn't any real constraint to
choose any particular number - so we are free to choose more or
less any number we please, or more to the point, any number
which enables us to make a match. That's not a good start, but
let's carry on.

Next we need to choose a rotation angle. How much do we turn the
template to match it with the base? Well we know at least one of
the objects was below the Moon, so that constrains us to a
degree, but not all that much - only to within, say, sixty or
ninety degrees. And thirdly, we need to choose an error
displacement - by how much can we move each perceived point to
match it up to the target point? This obviously depends on the
error function of the observers, which will presumably be a two-
dimensional Gaussian of unknown standard deviation - in other
words, effectively unconstrained.

Now the position of the Moon is fixed, so we only have two
points left to define the alignment. And yet we already have
three more or less complete degrees of freedom in how they can
vary. So we actually have more ways to manipulate the points
than we have points to manipulate.

Statistically, this is already starting to look extremely
dubious.

For example, we have two possible locations on the base which
could conceivably be matched to the object of the template
referred to by the Hills as a "star". It could be either Jupiter
or Saturn. Can we compute the relative likelihood of each?

Unfortunately no, we can't.

Why not? Well, assuming we can choose a scale factor and a
rotation factor, and that these are uncontroversial (which is
questionable in itself, don't forget) let's call the distance
between the perceived object known as the "star", and the target
object "Saturn" ds. Let's call the distance between the "star"
and Jupiter dj. Now, the relative likelihood of ds as opposed to
dj depends on the ratio of the value of the observer error
function at those two points. Since this is a Gaussian, we need
to find the ratio of G(ds) to G(dj).

But this ratio depends on the average gradient of G between ds
and dj. And that depends on the shape of the Gaussian, which in
turn is controlled by the variance of the observer error.

But we don't know the observer error. In fact as we've seen,
we're actually free to choose whatever value of the error
variance we want to get a match. And further more, we've done
this after the fact - that is, post hoc.

If all this seems rather technical, well we can get a much
cruder impression of what is going on by making some
simplifications. Instead of describing the observer error as a
Gaussian function, let's simply postulate an error boundary -
  some distance from the target object which gives the maximum
displacement which can occur in a measurement due to error.
Let's assume that the perceived object is equally likely to be
located at any point within the boundary (which is obviously
wrong, but does actually seem to be the way in which many
ufologists - including many self-declared skeptics - regard the
visual system). Let's refer to the distance of the error
boundary as E. Then we can try out some numbers.

Let's say ds is two degrees, and dj is four degrees. On the face
of it, ds would appear more plausible than dj.

But what if E were one degree? Then both dj and ds are ruled out
as error values and neither Jupiter nor Saturn would be
allowable as a match. Obviously the star must be either Jupiter
or Saturn, so that value of E is untenable.

What if E is three degrees? In that case, you are very happy
because ds is allowable and dj is ruled out, so the "star" must
be Saturn. But what if E happens to be five degrees? In that
case both ds and dj are equally likely and your match has no
statistical value. So it all depends on the value of E - a
completely indeterminable parameter.

In reality, of course, for the value of E, read the variance of
the error function.

But, if the "star" is Jupiter, then what about Saturn? Isn't it
rather coincidental (as you appear to think) that it happens to
be in just the right place?

Not really. Because it isn't actually in just the right place,
it's in approximately the right place, and how coincidental it
is depends, once again, on the observer error function. This is
what I meant when I said that one could always find a match for
a given set of three points in the night sky. The starry sky has
a distribution function which will give the probability of
finding a certain number of stars of specific magnitudes in a
given area of sky. That function pretty much guarantees that you
will find a match for any particular point if you search long
enough within a large enough area - and since the error variance
(or boundary) has been determined post-hoc, that area can be
arbitrarily large. We can arbitrarily choose the boundary to be
large enough to include the first reasonably bright object we
find, but not large enough to include all the other stars in the
sky also.

Of course, we might get over the odds if the first star we find
happens to be a couple of magnitudes brighter than the average
the distribution function for the night sky would predict, but
is that really significant? I wouldn't bet on it. Especially
since to take that into account, we would have to determine the
error function for the brightness post-hoc as well.

But, you might say, surely it's significant that we find only
one object in the sky below Jupiter, and not several?

Well, no. Because we didn't actually predict that there would be
one (1) object in the sky below Jupiter, we predicted that there
would be *an* object in the sky below Jupiter. We said nothing
at all about how many other objects might also have been in the
sky below Jupiter, whether they were dimmer and closer, or
brighter and further away. (Had we found an object that was both
brighter and closer, then of course we would simply have
declared the observer error variance to be less.) So we cannot,
after the fact, declare that the number of objects found in the
sky below Jupiter is significant - because had we found several
objects in the sky below Jupiter, we would obviously have
declared the number of objects to be non-significant.

I know much of this is probably counter-intuitive, but I hope it
serves to illustrate why what seems at first sight to be an
impressive match, is actually, statistically almost worthless.

In fact, the only number we can compute is the probability that,
of two objects in the sky, one will be below the other and the
lower one will be dimmer. Probability slightly less than 50%.
Not exactly impressive, is it? Especially when you have to weigh
against that the considerations below.

 >>In fact, the brightness of Jupiter only adds in another problem
 >>for the "Jupiter" explanation. According to the description in
 >>"The Interupted Journey", Betty Hill at first saw a star or
 >>planet close to the Moon, and later on noticed another object
 >>above the star.

 >Which she also described as a "star". They were travelling in a
 >car, Saturn was only 9 degrees above a perfect sea horizon.
 >Horizon obtructions, or clouds for that matter, undoubtedly
 >blocked the view at times on their drive.

I'm sure they did, but that isn't the point. Your hypothesis
requires that both the Moon and Saturn would have been visible
and close together, but the bright object almost in between them
would have been obscured. It's this combination of circumstances
which seems to me most unlikely - especially from a moving
vehicle. It sounds rather like special pleading.

However, I'm not saying that your hypothesis is untenable for
the initial observation, just rather unlikely. For example, in
visual search experiments, the brightest object isn't always,
only usually, the one that attracts attention first. But the
bright object is most likely to be missed when it's at the
periphery of a large visual field, and when there are a large
number of distractors - neither of which, by your own admission,
is the case here.

 >>One of the features of the image segmentation process I
 >>described before, is that the objects which "pop out" of the
 >>visual display are those which are most dissimilar to the
 >>background. In this case, that obviously means the biggest and
 >>brightest objects. So the two pop-out objects should have been
 >>the Moon and Jupiter, and not the Moon and Saturn as the
 >>"Jupiter" hypothesis would require.

 >You are assuming a completely static display. They were in a
 >moving car, with changing horizon obstructions. If one planet
 >was too low to be seen (Saturn), how would she know that the one
 >that she could see was the "brightest". Why weren't there three
 >stars reported (two planets and the UFO)?

Well, this appears to be a change of story. So now it's Jupiter
which was the star at the time of the initial observation, which
presumably means that during the second observation the star was
relocated to Saturn and Jupiter became the UFO. I certainly
won't deny that this is possible, but it's a considerably more
cumbersome theory than the original, requiring still more post-
hoc assumptions about the error variances in the observer's
estimate of brightness and position - and therefore, even more
unlikely.

 >It is clear that she at not time reported the number of star-
 >like object needed to have a UFO.

Bob, I've already explained to you how easily this can happen.

 >>Of course, one can't be sure of this - Jupiter might have been
 >>obscured behind a cloud, or a tree, or the rear-view mirror, or
 >>anything, during the first observation - but given the
 >>configuration you describe, with Jupiter effectively in the
 >>center of the alignment and Saturn at the edge, that actually
 >>seems extremely unlikely.

 >"Extremely unlikely"? Two star-like objects are described,
 >below the Moon, when no stars could be seen. Two planets,
 >bright enough to be seen, are known to have been below the
 >Moon. The upper one brighter than the lower one, matching
 >the description of the Hills. At no time were three star-like
 >objects reported. "Extremely likely" to be the planet Jupiter
 >is more like it.

I accept that you think it's extremely likely, Bob, but I think
it's clear that conclusion isn't scientifically supportable.
Possible, yes. Extremely likely, no.

 >Myopic cycle? You are prepared to ignore what can be known
 >because the witness had a subsequent tale? This is a recipe for
 >non-investigation. If this were the only way to proceed, no UFO
 >sighting ever reported would have been discovered to have been
 >prosaic, because subsequently, the witness had claimed that it
 >was a UFO.

 >I don't know how many actual UFO sighting reports you have ever
 >investigated, but the overwhelming majority, if one has up-to-
 >date information and enough time to devote, turn out to be
 >various prosaic explanations. We would be nowhere if "myopic"
 >methods of identifying prosaic stimuli had been ignored because
 >we believed in the infallibility of unsupported eyewitness
 >testimony.

It's myopic to argue indefinitely about matters which cannot be
established one way or the other to any meaningful degree of
probability. And that, Bob, is exactly what you're doing by
obsessing about this statistically meaningless, post-hoc
pattern-matching exercise and ignoring the features of the later
part of the sighting which falsify the hypothesis you're
offering.

Maybe this interminable discussion is starting to indicate to you
how utterly pointless this sort of thing is.


 >Oh, come on. A bizarre tale of little alien spacemen only
 >surfacing after months of reading saucer book folklore
 >"falsifies" a report of a "star" located just where a planet was
 >in the sky? I don't buy it.

Don't be silly Bob, I'm not talking about the hypnosis sessions.
To start with, we have Barney Hill's description of windows and
"Nazis", and the increase in diameter of the object during the
sighting. (It's the increase that's important, not the actual
dimensions given.)

According to TIJ, Betty Hill observed the object pass in front of
the Moon. If this is right, then that alone is enough to falsify
Jupiter.

 >But then, this case is one of the classics, and is a microcosm
 >of the flying saucer conundrum. More than 50 years of
 >sightings, claims and investigations and not still not one
 >single unequivacly proven alien visit.

Actually, I agree with you on this, at least up to a point.
  What conclusions one can draw from it are another matter, but
all of the theories I've seen so far involve extravagant,
unprovable hypotheses - whether extraterrestrials with near-
magical technologies, geophysical explanations that never
actually predict anything but mysteriously manage to explain
everything after the fact, or exotic psycho-social mechanisms
with no discernible scientific basis.

Personally I rather like the ETH, but that's because of some
rather complicated reasoning involving the Fermi paradox. I
certainly wouldn't claim it's proven. In fact I wonder if it's
provable even in principle, since extraterrestrials would
undoubtedly have access to many technologies which we don't, and
asserting the existence of a technology about which we know
nothing inevitably involves a vast number of propositions whose
probability (or improbability) we can't even quantify.


Cathy

"There are none so gullible as a devout sceptic"
                           -- Francois Bernieres







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                         Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:49:04 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:21:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman? - Randle


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:17:39 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:23 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>>From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
 >>>>Subject: Frank Kaufman?

<snip>

 >Frank had admitted on December 13, 1999, at his home with 4
 >witnesses present that he had told lies about his involvement
 >during an earlier interview with me, with Kevin Randle and Don
 >Schmitt also present. I had noted other problems with Frank's
 >story earlier to Kevin, Don, Kent Jeffrey, Bob Wood.

Stan, List, All -

I am confused by this paragraph because it seems to suggest that
on December 13, 1999, I was present when Frank admited to
telling lies. While I have little doubt about the veracity of
this statement, I was not present and hadn't seen Frank since
September 1998.

It certainly is clear now that Frank Kaufmann's testimony is
unreliable and he joins the ranks of so many others such as
Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and even Glenn Dennis


KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 373

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:39:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:23:06 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 373


ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 373 -  31 OCTOBER 2002

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:


- The First UFO DVDs in Italy
- Announcements For CISU Members


THE FIRST UFO DVDS IN ITALY

The first UFO DVDs are now also on sale in our country.

Cinehollywood is distributing the video DVD entitled "Dossier
UFO" ("UFO Dossier"), an 80-minute documentary containing 30
film clips, interviews and photos of classic cases. It costs
20.65 Euro and is actually the reissue, in digital format, of
the videocassette of the same title issued in 1995.

Under the Digital Adventure banner, Cinehollywood is also
distributing the Discovery Channel documentary "UFO: verita'
nascoste" ("UFOs: Hidden Truths"), which runs 60 minutes, sells
for 12.50 Euro, and may be purchased at all newsstands.

[Collaboration by Roberto Malini and Paolo Toselli]


ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR CISU MEMBERS

A reminder that the 17th National UFO Congress will take place
in Florence on Saturday, 23 November, with the theme: "CISU
2002: Projects, Investigations and Ongoing Activities." The
conference will not be open to the public, but UFO Ssudests and
enthusiasts (including non-CISU members) will be allowed to
attend the works, after arrangement through the Center's
administrative offices. All members of the Italian Center for
UFO Studies should already have received both their invitation
and notification of the annual meeting of members, which will
take place the following day, also in Florence.

And departing from Florence will be Giuseppe Stilo, who thus
leaves behind the regional coordination of the CISU for Tuscany,
following his marriage and resulting transfer to Pinerolo. The
new coordinator of the Italian Center for UFO Studies for the
region of Tuscany is the attorney Marco Bianchini, of Siena
[communication by Giuseppe Stilo].

Meanwhile, the homepage of "UFO ONLINE" has surpassed the
600,000-vistors mark. It is the first and largest Italian
Internet site on UFOs, managed for the CISU by Maurizio Verga,
at www.ufo.it [report by Maurizio Verga].


Collaborators on this edition were:
Roberto Malini, Giuseppe Stilo, Paolo Toselli and Maurizio Verga.


- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free phone/Internet
information service on UFOs edited weekly by  Edoardo Russo for
the Italian Center for UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi
Ufologici), available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294, or
by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website at
http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di informazione
ufologica", published by the Italian Center for UFO Studies,
registered at Tribunale di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.

Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance IT-EN Translator/Proofreader
1123 Revere Beach Pky., # 12
Revere, MA 02151 USA
Tel.: ++ 1.781.485.1683, Fax: ++ 1.781.485.1684
ICQ: 110502923, E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2002  by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing
(just send a blank message to:
cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate 'Contrails'

From: Karl Rotstan <karl.rotstan@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:39:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:28:11 -0500
Subject: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate 'Contrails'


Source: CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Central/11/28/contrail.scramble/index.html

NORAD investigates vapor trail reports

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- Fighter jets scrambled in an
unsuccessful attempt to investigate a contrail of unknown origin
first seen over the Caribbean and later reported over the
midwestern United States, the Department of Defense said
Thursday.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command scrambled the jets
soon after unverified reports were received around 4 p.m.
Wednesday that the contrail, seen near the Turks and Caicos
Islands, was headed northwest toward the United States, said Lt.
Cmdr. Curtis Jenkins, a spokesman for the Colorado Springs-based
group.

A contrail is a white trail of condensed water vapor that
sometimes forms in the wake of an aircraft.

The jets were scrambled from more than one base and more than
one location, he said, though he did not know how many jets or
from how many locations.

Commercial airline pilots later reported the contrail over
Florida and then over Indiana, after which no more sightings
were reported, he said.

The jets attempted to intercept and identify the source of the
contrail, but no visual or confirmed radar contact was made, he
added.

"I don't know that anybody was predisposed to think it might be
some thing or the other," he said. "We don't even know that it
was a thing. It was just simply reports of contrails. We don't
even know that it was the same one. We had reports from
different places and NORAD did its job and tried to find out."

NORAD is coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration and is
continuing to investigate the reports, he added.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                     Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:59:47 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:49:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Clark


 >From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:18:06 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:56:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
 >>>>Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed


Royce and listfolk:

 >There have been so many instances in this field where people
 >have flaunted false credentials and hard copies of those
 >credentials don't materialize (i.e.: the person(s) won't supply
 >the documents, the documents were lost, et al), the big bag
 >gov't has come along and rounded them all up erasing them in the
 >process, and/or the credentials are bogus. I've ran into all of
 >the above as I'm sure many of you out there have.

 >Let's not forget the past of some other folks using bogus
 >documents or alleging to have doctorate degrees or other
 >educational credentials:

It is an unending source of wonder to me why, in this
information age where educational and professional claims are
easily investigatable, some persons still think they can get by
for long with resume inflation. This is a problem that afflicts
not just ufology - by a long shot. In recent years we've seen a
spate of these in all areas of human endeavor, some even
involving prominent academics (e.g., the Revolutionary War
historian Joseph Ellis, who falsely claimed to have served in
Vietnam and experienced combat; in reality, he was teaching at
West Point at the time).

Where ufology is concerned, something about crashed-disc tales
that gets the hoaxer's juices flowing. I guess the principle is
that if you're going to lie, best lie about something big.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                    British FOIA Rendlesham File Released

From: David  Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:36:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:01:09 -0500
Subject: British FOIA Rendlesham File Released


Source: The Times (London)

www.times.co.uk

Friday, 20 November 2002

HOW UFO FEVER TAXED MEN FROM THE MINISTRY

A report of alien sightings prompted floods of letters to the
MoD, reports Alan Hamilton. New laws have made these public,
explains Frances Gibb.

While British and American defence chiefs were supposed to be
keeping a watchful eye on the Soviet threat in Europe during the
1980s, they were spending an undue amount of energy dealing with
little green men.

The so-called Rendlesham File, now available for public
inspection, is a fat catalogue of increasingly despairing
correspondence between the Ministry of Defence and members of
the public after the sighting of unexplained lights in
Rendlesham Forest, near the RAF base at Woodbridge, Suffolk, in
December 1980.

The story was given wing by its detailed disclosure in the News
of the World in 1983.

Soon after the alleged incident, reported by the USAF deputy
base commander at nearby Bentwaters, the MoD drew up an internal
memo: "No evidence was found of any threat to the defence of the
United Kingdom, and no further investigations were carried out.

"No further information has come to light which alters our view
that the sightings of these lights was of no defence
significance."

Nothing was picked up on radar that night, officials added, and
they concluded that the airmen had confused the lights with the
beam of Orford Ness lighthouse, distorted by trees, or a natural
fireball.

But the Ministry and the RAF were bombarded with inquiries from
the public.Officials suggested that besieged officers at
Bentwaters should take the line that "there was no question of
any contact with alien beings."

They should also dismiss rumours that the UFO story was a cover-
up for the crash of an aircraft carrying nuclear material.

Still the letters poured in. Two years later an increasingly
short- tempered MoD was writing to one correspondent demanding a
full investigation: "There is no organisation in MoD appointed
soleyl for the purpose of studying reports of such objects, and
no staff are employed on the subject full-time."

It added: "We have to recognise that there are many strange
things to be seen in the sky, but we believe there are adequate
explanations for them."

Things got worse as forged letters purporting to come from MoD
officials began to circulate. One, apparently on Ministry
notepaper, claimed that a craft of unknown origin and "crewed by
several entities" had landed near Bentwaters.

The entities, it went on, were about one and a half metres tall
and wore nylon-coated pressure suits but no helmets. They had
claw-like hands with three digits and an opposable thumb. One
self-styled researcher into "cosmic conspiracy", having seen the
letter, wrote to the MoD requesting further information on the
craft which had landed for several hours to carry out repairs,
during which time the USAF base commander had conversed with its
crew.

An MoD official replied tersely: "I am afraid that it is a
forgery... I have no idea where it came from or why it was
written and can only conclude that it was intended by someone as
a joke."

MPs forwarded letters from worried constituents convinced of a
cover-up. One passed on by David Alton, MP, said in part: "There
is clear evidence that British airspace and territory were
intruded upon by an unidentified vehicle on two occasions in
late December 1980, and that no authority was able to prevent
this."

Some correspondents continued to harry MoD until officials were
driven to reply: "I suggest that there is little point in
continuing this correspondence."

The final letter in the fiel is dated July 1992, in which an MoD
official writes to the RAF liaison officer at Bentwaters asking
if the original USAF report of the sightings was genuine, "as a
number of hoaxes have been circulating for years."

Squadron Leader P. Rooney at Bentwaters had the last word: "I
have no records on this subject and the file to which you refer
has long been destroyed."

WHAT AIRMEN FOUND IN THE WOODS

A GRAPHIC description of the "unusual lights" that were
suspected of being a UFO is described in the Rendlesham file.

The lights were spotted by two USAF security police patrolmen,
according to a report dated January 1981 headed "unexplained
lights," written by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt, deputy base
commander at RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk.

He states: "Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been
forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gates
and investigate.

"The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the
forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance
and triangular in shape, approximately two to three metres
across the base and approximately two metres high. It
illuminated the entire forest with a white light.

"The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank of
blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. The
object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the
object, it manoeuvred through the trees and disappeared. At this
time, the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The
object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the
back gate."

The report goes on to describe the depressions found in the
ground and in a tree the next day. "Later in the night, a red
sun-light light was seen through the trees. It moved about and
pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles
and then broke into five separate white objects and then
disappeared.

"Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in
the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of
which were about ten degrees off the horizon."

The MoD made further inquiries. No unidentified flying object
had been seen on radar at the times in question nor was there
any evidence of anything having intruded into British airspace.

One theory, it concluded, was that what was seen was the beam of
Orford Ness lighthouse, with distortions caused by its being
seen through trees. But "in the absence of any hard evidence"
the MoD remains open-minded about these sightings.

PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW EXTENDED

DETAILS about UFO sightings, clinical trials, accident
investigations and Whitehall meetings will be released to the
public under plans to open up government.

Public access to information from government bodies is to be
extended by the scrapping and amending of up to 100 pieces of
legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department announced
yesterday.

The changes are being made under the Freedom of Information Act
which is being phased in over the next three years.

 >From Sunday the first tranche of hitherto secret information is
released when government departments publish their own schemes
of legislation which they plan to release to the public. The
material will be made available immediately on departmental
websites or through application by post.

The Ministry of Defence achives will include information on
UFOs, including the Rendlesham File about a UFO report in
Suffolk in 1980. The Lord Chancellor's Department is to publish
the guidance given to lawyers applying to be Queen's Counsel or
judges.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                   Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:38:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:28:56 -0500
Subject: Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate


 >From: Karl Rotstan <karl.rotstan@verizon.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:39:39 -0500
 >Subject: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate Contrails

 >Source: CNN

 >http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Central/11/28/contrail.scramble/index.html

<snip>


Karl and List,

Conventional contrails would be created by conventional aircraft
and therefore should have been picked up by the conventional
radar in the NORAD radar web. It's a little unusual that these
were visually spotted, but not electronically in the NORAD
defence sector. Even a bolide, for instance, should be visible
to radar.

The CNN report quoted a NORAD official: "I don't know that
anybody was predisposed to think it might be some thing or the
other," he said. "We don't even know that it was a thing. It was
just simply reports of contrails. We don't even know that it was
the same one. We had reports from different places and NORAD did
its job and tried to find out."

Really? Billions of dollars worth of equipment and that's the
best he could come up with?

Conventional or not, under the present circumstances - this is
lame. But it is a typical response to unknown aerial phenomena.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                 [canufo] UFO Near Alice Springs, Australia

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:39:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:39:44 -0500
Subject: [canufo] UFO Near Alice Springs, Australia




From: Conway Costigan <c_costigan@canada.com>
To: canufo@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [canufo] UFO Near Alice Springs, Australia


Hi List,

I received this one by phone today...

Yesterday near Alice Springs, Australia, a witness relates that
he and two other individuals observed four silver oval craft
high in the daytime sky that emerged from a cloudbank. They were
traveling in a diamond formation. While they were viewing this
they heard a 'snap' noise and a white triangular object with
rounded corners and dark ovoid highlights on the top surface
seemed to appear from nowhere. This craft was suspended under a
large parachute. It drifted out of sight of the witnesses. The
four silver craft appeared to trail it for a few seconds and
faded from sight.

The witness who is in the aeronautics industry estimates the
white triangular craft is roughly the size of a 747 jumbo jet in
length.

This was a one-shot and I can't phone this guy back. I did
verify that the call did indeed originate from Australia,
although I don't know how they got my number. They said that
they were familiar with my attempts to analyze sightings (oh my
god, I have fans?) and in particular characteristics of crafts.

Who'd a thunk it?

Regards,

CC


- Chance Favors the Prepared 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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                            Magonia Supplement 43

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:43:34 -0500
Subject: Magonia Supplement 43


Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
Here is John Harney's Editorial:


EDITORIAL

Issue No. 41 of this publication was devoted to discussing the
ETH and the lack of evidence to support it. This provoked the
usual knee-jerk reactions from members of the UFO UpDates
mailing list, including some who had obviously not even bothered
to read it before mailing their comments.

One of the points I made, and not for the first time, was about
the impossibility of the evidence for ET spacecraft being kept
secret. The ETH, at least as it is interpreted by many
ufologists, depends on persuading people to believe that it is
possible to keep the saucers secret. Stanton Friedman commented:

"The naivety shown by the notion that we would have access to
radar and spy satellite info, re space and airborne uncorrelated
targets produced by the Aerospace Defense Command and NRO
satellites and collected by NSA while listening to their foreign
equivalents is monumental.

"Just note that more than 95% of the 156 UFO documents released
by the NSA are whited out. No way that is all sources and
methods data." I replied, pointing out that he hadn't told us
how UFO information gathered from radar or satellites, by
governments and private organisations, amateur or professional,
everywhere in the world is kept secret. I also wondered how he
knew what was in the whited out parts of the UFO documents, as
he implies that this hidden information concerns evidence for
alien spacecraft. If the sceptics indulge in "research by
proclamation" as Friedman constantly tells us, then surely he is
indulging in research by showmanship in waving whited-out
documents at UFO conferences.

Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
long time.

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

The rest of the Supplement includes:

What Colour are the Greys? by Martin S. Kottmeyer

Notes and News from Nigel Watson

Literary Criticism - Reviews by Martin S. Kottmeyer

The complete Supplement is available on the Magonia Website at:

http:// www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/ms43.htm



--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

              Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:15:10 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:46:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:59:37 -0500
 >Subject: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone?

<snip>

 >Do family members, or anyone else staying at the homes of
 >abductees ever discover they are missing? Or is it always a case
 >of abductions happening when all in a given household are
 >asleep?

 >Probably very rare, but have there been cases where a family
 >member,roommate, or house guest actually saw the abduction
 >and/or return take place?

<snip>

Hi Eleanor! Hi everyone!

Just a few days ago I shared with some friends what could be an
example of such an witnessed abduction involving my sister Nancy
and her first born son Marc-Andre in Ottawa.

Although we all have had past weird experiences (one involved the
same sister and I which had us chasing two truncated vertical
beams of light in my car along the Ottawa River east of the city
- but that is another story), Nancy told me about how she saw her
husband return their son back to his crib in their bedroom except
it wasn't her husband since he was sleeping next to her! Later
that year when Marc-Andre was getting dressed to go out "trick or
treating" on Halloween for the first time he became distressed
and started to cry in fear when he saw someone wearing a mask of
what resembled the alien on Whitley Strieber's bookcover
'Communion'. He did not react this way to any of the the more
scarier or gory looking masks worn by others which he found to be
rather amusing. Was my nephew Marc-Andre recalling the experience
he had recently with such an abductor?

Victor Viggiani, a past public school principal and executive
member of MUFON Ontario, has shared similar stories with me
involving his students. A few of these abduction-like
experiences which were described to him by his students and/or
parents were supported by physical evidence which confirmed that
the child had indeed left his bedroom sometime during the night.

Being interested in UFOs and sharing such material with those
where I work that want to learn more about this subject, I have
been told of abduction-like experiences which have involved two
or more friends or family members. In most of these cases, the
persons try to understand what happened to them in terms of what
they already know or believe in and not always terms of an
encounter with E.T. aliens or UFOs. Many more such experiences
have been brought to my attention by those who's avocation is
religion (priests, monks, etc.) or who teach courses in
religion, mythology and psychology here.

One such alien abduction-like experience involving a boy and his
grandmother which has stuck in my mind for years has reinforced
my belief that we are dealing with something more disturbing
than visiting E.T. aliens who are curious about us. A brief
quote from the URL below which mentions this specific abduction
certainly does not describe what I would expect to be the
behaviour of some E.T. visitor to Earth.


<quote>

Then the grandmother was removed from the table and the little
boy was victimized himself by the repilian, forced to have anal
and oral sex. The grandmother protested violently, pushing the
repilian away from her grandson and interposing her body between
them. "By Jesus," she shouted, "you will not touch this boy!"

That must have been the wrong thing to say, because the
reptilian became very angry and threatened her. "You will die
for that!" he told her, and the two people were returned to the
bedroom from which they'd been taken. The next morning, the
grandmother told the little boy that the devil had been there
the night before, and that was when she insisted upon being
taken home. And, as it turned out, she did die immediately
thereafter."

<unquote>


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/4946/abduct4.html

I have a copy of 'scifi special edition' magazine which goes
into much detail (includes a mini-CD) about the families in
Steven Spielberg's coming TV series about abductions, 'Taken'.
If these stories are closely based on actual cases, then you
will have further examples that some abductions have been
witnessed by others.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                    Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:53:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:50:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Friedman


 >From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:18:06 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

<snip>

 >There have been so many instances in this field where people
 >have flaunted false credentials and hard copies of those
 >credentials don't materialize (i.e.: the person(s) won't supply
 >the documents, the documents were lost, et al), the big bag
 >gov't has come along and rounded them all up erasing them in the
 >process, and/or the credentials are bogus. I've ran into all of
 >the above as I'm sure many of you out there have.

 >Let's not forget the past of some other folks using bogus
 >documents or alleging to have doctorate degrees or other
 >educational credentials:

<snip>

Let me add Guy Kirkwood (aka Mel Noel and Noel Bryce Cornwall)
who was never a jet jockey for the USAF, who never flew DC-8s
for United Airlines, who did not graduate from Cheshire Academy,
who was not threatened by Don Dornan, etc ad nauseum.

How about Dan Fry and Frank Stranges whose PhD's are phony as 3
dollar bills?

How about Michael Wolf Kruvant who had none of the 6 degrees he
claimed and whose 75 Plus employee research Institute was in his
head?

How about Bob Lazar with no degrees from MIT or CIT?

 >We all know there are far many more than just those listed here.
 >I think the lesson to be learned in the case of Kaufmann is for
 >investigators to demand copies of such documents if any such
 >claims are made or the documents are presented. Until then, all
 >information is suspect until it can be verified and should not
 >be disclosed. If the person turns out to be a fraud, then they
 >should be widely exposed.

 >Kevin appeared to be in a hard spot with this alleged witness at
 >the time as the witness appeared to not be co-operating with
 >supplying documents. The Kaufmann incident was a hard lesson
 >learned by all. If anyone is hesitant in providing you proof
 >they claim to have, then 99.99998% of the time they're full of
 >it.

 >No matter how good something looks, demand proof...

Frank was indeed very cagey about providing copies of documents
or time to review them. However, back in 1994 I checked with the
Historian of the Air Defense Command. Brigadier General Scanlon
had been based in Roswell in the early 1940's when it was a
training base. However, his last position with ADC was at
Mitchell Field until early 1948 as Director of Public Affairs.

Furthermore there were no ADC radar stations in New Mexico in
1947.

The claim that he dashed back over the mountains to Roswell,
woke up Blanchard and Marcel and they all dashed cross country
in the middle of the night without knowing what was there made
no sense.

He further stated that a flat bed truck made it out to the site
that night and everything was gone by dawn. This is ridiculous
because of the difficulty of the terrain, that Blanchard would
not have abandoned his post without knowing more, and there would
have been a requirement for observing the crash site in situ
before removing anything.

Obviously if Blanchard had known one of his B-29s was down with
a nuclear weapon on board, that might have been different.

Frankly I wound up liking Frank, but having no idea why he
played the games he did.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                        Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:34:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:53:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman? - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:49:04 EST
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 ><snip>

 >>Frank had admitted on December 13, 1999, at his home with 4
 >>witnesses present that he had told lies about his involvement
 >>during an earlier interview with me, with Kevin Randle and Don
 >>Schmitt also present. I had noted other problems with Frank's
 >>story earlier to Kevin, Don, Kent Jeffrey, Bob Wood.

 >Stan, List, All -

 >I am confused by this paragraph because it seems to suggest that
 >on December 13, 1999, I was present when Frank admited to
 >telling lies. While I have little doubt about the veracity of
 >this statement, I was not present and hadn't seen Frank since
 >September 1998.

 >It certainly is clear now that Frank Kaufmann's testimony is
 >unreliable and he joins the ranks of so many others such as
 >Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and even Glenn Dennis


Mea culpa. My statement is indeed confusing.

Frank confessed to me in 1999, with other witnesses present ,
that his earlier tale told to me with you and Don Schmitt
present on July 2, 1995, was not true.

Sorry about that.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                      Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:37:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:59:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Hall


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
 >Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

 >Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
 >Here is John Harney's Editorial:

 >EDITORIAL

 >Issue No. 41 of this publication was devoted to discussing the
 >ETH and the lack of evidence to support it. This provoked the
 >usual knee-jerk reactions from members of the UFO UpDates
 >mailing list, including some who had obviously not even bothered
 >to read it before mailing their comments.

 >One of the points I made, and not for the first time, was about
 >the impossibility of the evidence for ET spacecraft being kept
 >secret. The ETH, at least as it is interpreted by many
 >ufologists, depends on persuading people to believe that it is
 >possible to keep the saucers secret. Stanton Friedman commented:

 >"The naivety shown by the notion that we would have access to
 >radar and spy satellite info, re space and airborne uncorrelated
 >targets produced by the Aerospace Defense Command and NRO
 >satellites and collected by NSA while listening to their foreign
 >equivalents is monumental.

 >"Just note that more than 95% of the 156 UFO documents released
 >by the NSA are whited out. No way that is all sources and
 >methods data." I replied, pointing out that he hadn't told us
 >how UFO information gathered from radar or satellites, by
 >governments and private organisations, amateur or professional,
 >everywhere in the world is kept secret. I also wondered how he
 >knew what was in the whited out parts of the UFO documents, as
 >he implies that this hidden information concerns evidence for
 >alien spacecraft. If the sceptics indulge in "research by
 >proclamation" as Friedman constantly tells us, then surely he is
 >indulging in research by showmanship in waving whited-out
 >documents at UFO conferences.

 >Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
 >every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
 >of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
 >long time.

John,

Here's another "knee-jerk" reaction for you (after all, I'm a
knee-jerk, tree-hugging liberal).

Why must I read the issue in order to respond to the arguments
stated in your editorial? You made certain (rather ludicrous, in
my opinion) generalizations to which I responded.

Okay. Turnabout is fairplay:

You have no right to apply insulting labels to me unless you
read The UFO Evidence, Volume II, which contains my full
arguments and supporting data.

But what do Stan Friedman and I know? We have only been
investigating real-life cases and conducting research for 40-50
years while, so far as I am aware, your arse has warmed an
armchair (if, indeed, you have even been alive thoughout those
years).

So please, cease your condescending editorializing and stop
asking the wrong questions.

Your last paragraph is, again, a ludicrous mis-statement of the
issues.

  - Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                      Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:06:02 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:01:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Young


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
 >Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

 >Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
 >Here is John Harney's Editorial:

 >EDITORIAL

<snip>

 >Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
 >every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
 >of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
 >long time.

John(s):

That explanation, of course, would in and of itself disprove the
hypothesis.

Press on.


Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                        UFO Documents on MOD Website

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:06:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:03:43 -0500
Subject: UFO Documents on MOD Website


Dear All,

Various UFO documents are now available on the Ministry of
Defence website. These comprise a brief policy statement on the
issue, a 1951 report from the so-called Flying Saucer Working
Party, and papers from the file on the Rendlesham Forest
incident (a.k.a. the Bentwaters incident).

The material can be found at the following links:

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufos.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufowpr7.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart1.pdf

Alternatively, go to the MOD website at:

http://www.mod.uk/

and click on "Freedom of Information Act 2000". Then click on
"Search for Information", and enter the phrase "UFO".

The release of this material has been a big story in the UK
today. Georgina Bruni, whose work with former Chief of the
Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton led to the release of much of
this material, has spent much of the day recording television
and radio interviews.

Researchers such as Georgina have acquired this material by
using the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
So the material has been seen before, and indeed many of the key
documents were published in Graham Birdsall's UFO Magazine some
time ago. But now the material has been posted on the MOD's
website, anyone may see these documents.


Best wishes,

Nick Pope








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:05:53 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:06:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:43:13 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >The question is: "Which science trained
 >professionals with some sky observation training
 >amongst us have made this mistake in a "live" visual
 >sighting beside Carter. It's a meaningful question.

Jerry:

Actually, it probably isn't. Twenty-five years ago, Allen Hynek
published an extremely interesting examination of cases in the
U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book files.

"Table 11.7 - Witness Reliability as a Function of Occupation"
(The Hynek UFO Report, p. 271.) presented the following
percentages of misidentifications (IFOs) for single witnesses/
multiple witnesses:

Military pilot - 88/76 percent; Commercial pilot - 89/79 percent;
Radar technician (multiple wintesses only) - 78 percent;
Technical person - 65/50 percent; Other (multiple witnesses
only) - 83 percent.

While he pointed out that "scientists and engineers", his group
of "technical" people, had the lowest number of IFOs, a close
examination of his data showed that about two-thirds of their
sightings turned out to be misidentifications of prosaic events.

In the highly charged, emotional events that we call UFO
sightings, there don't seem to be any "expert" witnesses.

This 33-year old, "second rate" (to use Don Ledger's phrase)
nocturnal light report is only still being kicked around because
the sighter is a famous person. If this is used as a criteria
for valuable UFO cases, then nailing down proof of anything
extraordinary is going to be even further away than it is now.

Imagine what will happen when Hollywood finds out about this.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:23:13 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:20:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:17:39 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:23 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>>From: Fred Clark <Ufoufo51@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:00 EST
 >>>>Subject: Frank Kaufman?

<snip>

 >>Frank had admitted on December 13, 1999, at his home with 4
 >>witnesses present that he had told lies about his involvement
 >>during an earlier interview with me, with Kevin Randle and Don
 >>Schmitt also present. I had noted other problems with Frank's
 >>story earlier to Kevin, Don, Kent Jeffrey, Bob Wood.

Good Morning, Stan, List, All -

 >>I am confused by this paragraph because it seems to suggest
 >>that on December 13, 1999, I was present when Frank admitted
 >>to telling lies. While I have little doubt about the veracity of this
 >>statement, I was not present and hadn't seen Frank since
 >>September 1998.

First let me apologize for my rather inelegant statement above.
My excuse was having to get to the store very early because they
were selling DVD players for $30. American (what is that in
Canada now, about a thousand bucks?). Anyway, what I meant was
that while I have little doubt that Frank Kaufmann has invented
his tales, I wasn't present and I seriously doubt he made any
sort of admission to Friedman, Schmitt or Howe.

Now that I've had a chance to go back and look at Stan's notes
in the MUFON Symposium book for 2000, I can point out that,
according to him, he visited Frank with Don Schmitt (not exactly
the epitome of credibility) and Linda Howe. My name is
conspicuously absent from that list. In the world of Ufology,
this is now a false claim. (Remember, in Ufology, there are no
honest mistakes, merely false claims that we use to bludgeon
each other.)

There is nothing in that part of Stan's MUFON speech that
suggests that Frank Kaufmann told him, Schmitt or Howe that he
told lies about his involvement. If true, however, the question
is, why would he sit on all this information for almost three
years?. Why didn't he publish this admission, along with the
audiotapes that surely one of them would have made? If he had an
admission that Kaufmann was making it up, why not tell the world
then? Why come forward now and say that he told me...

Instead, Stan seems to rely on the suggestion that Scanlon had
not been the commander of ADC, that other, higher ranking
generals were in fact the commanders. This is, I suppose,
somehow to lead us to the conclusion that Frank had invented his
tales. Why not just tell us simply that Frank had admitted that
he wasn't involved? This smacks of the recent statement that Don
Schmitt had never lied to Stan.

Scanlon, it seems, enjoys the same sort of intelligence
background that Donald Menzel enjoys. If those intelligence
connections make a case of MJ-12, then why aren't Scanlon's
intelligence credentials of equal importance? He was a guy
tapped by Hap Arnold to help development Air Force intelligence
during the war. Wouldn't Arnold have thought of him immediately
if he needed a reliable man to fly into Roswell? And if Scanlon
knew Kaufmann, wouldn't he be likely to call on him to assist?
And if this is not logical, then why should we accept the idea
that Menzel's wartime service somehow qualified him for
membership on MJ-12?

And wouldn't this suggestion that Scanlon was not the commander
of ADC, which I never heard Frank claim, be a false assumption?
If Frank didn't make the claim, then what relevance does the
fact have? And more importantly, where did it come from?
Kaufmann? Schmitt?

The point here is that Stan didn't publish anything suggesting
that Kaufmann had admitted to lying. All we are told is that
Kaufmann met with Stan, Howe and Schmitt. And we know that Stan
doesn't like the Kaufmann tales because he has told us that
repeatedly, but Stan never supplied a good reason for rejecting
them, even when Kaufmann had apparently handed him that reason.

Now, please, understand, I am not suggesting that Frank Kaufmann
can be rehabilitated. As far as I'm concerned, he should become
a footnote to the Roswell case, just as Gerald Anderson and
Glenn Dennis should be footnotes. Both men were caught in a
changing and shifting story that as we investigated moved
farther from the truth. Or, Stan, do you now have the "real"
name of the nurse? And now that Anderson appears on the Navy
SEALs Wall of Shame, are you finally convinced that he can't be
trusted?


KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                   Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Shurinov

From: Boris Shurinov <shurinov@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 01:36:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:25:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'? - Shurinov


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:56:46 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:32:10 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Russian 'Crash Footage'?

 ><snip>

 >>You did miss something... just get yourself a copy of "The
 >>Secret KGB UFO Files" on DVD or VHS, hosted by Roger Moore. It
 >>discusses the incident and contains the footage that you saw
 >>photos of... among other UFO-related items of interest.

 >Thanks to Michel and other List members who have taken the time
 >to "clue me in." Not being a TV viewer, I tend to miss things
 >like this.

 >If the Russian crash-retrieval is real (a big "if," obviously),
 >I don't think the prospect of a post-Cold War KGB selling such
 >footage is all that implausible.

 >Re. the photos of the crash site: what angle did this saucer
 >supposedly arrive at, anyway? Some broken tree-branches suggest
 >it collided at the perimeter of the forest, yet this appears
 >inconsistent with the angle of the disk sticking out of the
 >ground.

 >Fake or real, I find the photos quite impressive. And the fact
 >that no effort was taken to disguise or hide the faces of those
 >on film at least suggests that isn't a hoax.


To Mac, Michel and other List members,

It is high time to put an end to this Russian 'Crash Footage'.

It will be enough to go to:

http://borshurinov.narod.ru/uftnt/tnt2.htm
http://borshurinov.narod.ru/uftnt3-4/tnt3-4.htm


Boris Shurinov
shurinov@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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy

From: Tim Printy <Tprinty2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:38 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:27:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Printy


 >From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:48:08 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

I see no reason to quibble back and forth on whether Carter was
a highly skilled observer or not since we can not determine this
with any degree of certainty. IFO histories have shown that many
technically qualified observers make misidentifications/
misperceptions. Kevin Randle's recent paper on Mantell describes
an apparent Venus misperception event made by what you might
describe as skilled observers.

 >A couple of questions: Did anyone ask the officer "how" it
 >veered away? Did it veer away before he got out of the car or
 >did he witness it veer away just as, or immediately after, he
 >got out of the car. Two different animals indeed.

Yes it is. Since we weren't there, it is hard to determine what
actually happened. We are left with the interpretations made by
those investigating the case. Considering the fact that these
witnesses then reported the characteristics of this UFO as
behaving like Venus, I would think this statement was a simple
misperception/misrepresentation by the officer of what happened
(just like his description of the UFO being above his vehicle
that was clarified by a follow-up question).

 >A second question: Have you ever seen the light from Venus
 >strong enough to do what that policeman said? You'll probably
 >say to me, "Maybe it was the moon shining in the window" or
 >"Maybe it was a streetlight shining in" Maybe something else lit
 >up the car. Could you be right? Perhaps.

Considering the moon was a waning gibbous moon (89% illuminated
on the date in question), I wouldn't find it hard to understand
that the inside of a vehicle was lit up. Under the light of this
type of moon phase, it is easy to read the hands of a wrist
watch. The officer apparently attributed this effect to the UFO.

Tim Printy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                    Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:24:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Friedman


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
 >Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

 >Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
 >Here is John Harney's Editorial:

 >EDITORIAL

 >Issue No. 41 of this publication was devoted to discussing the
 >ETH and the lack of evidence to support it. This provoked the
 >usual knee-jerk reactions from members of the UFO UpDates
 >mailing list, including some who had obviously not even bothered
 >to read it before mailing their comments.

 >One of the points I made, and not for the first time, was about
 >the impossibility of the evidence for ET spacecraft being kept
 >secret. The ETH, at least as it is interpreted by many
 >ufologists, depends on persuading people to believe that it is
 >possible to keep the saucers secret. Stanton Friedman commented:

 >"The naivety shown by the notion that we would have access to
 >radar and spy satellite info, re space and airborne uncorrelated
 >targets produced by the Aerospace Defense Command and NRO
 >satellites and collected by NSA while listening to their foreign
 >equivalents is monumental.

 >"Just note that more than 95% of the 156 UFO documents released
 >by the NSA are whited out. No way that is all sources and
 >methods data."

Harney seems to feel that indeed all the above data hasn't been
kept secret. This from a country that just got a FOI system
going. Why was it needed if everything was available?

Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for
absence.

I gather you and Roberts and Clark believe there are no black
budget programs in the UK or anywhere else.

The DCI admitted 6 years ago because of a court case that his
black budget that year was 26.6 $Billion.

Have you read Tim Weiner's excellent book "Blank Check"?

The stealth fighter was developed and 50+ built over 10 years
for about 10 Billlion$ in secret. The NRL Corona Elint satellite
was launched in 1960 after a dozen failures. Its existence was
not admitted until 1995 when they wanted to brag about their
accomplishments and of course the technology had been greatly
improved.

12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public
admission for more than 20 years.

And secrets can't be kept?

Neither the Aerospace Defense Command nor the NRO, nor the NSA
publish their findings. They literally spend billions a year and
secrets can't be kept??

 >I replied, pointing out that he hadn't told us
 >how UFO information gathered from radar or satellites, by
 >governments and private organisations, amateur or professional,
 >everywhere in the world is kept secret.

I have seen no such reply. But the answer is obvious:

Through the standard procedures involving secrity clearances,
need to know, well protected communication systems, etc.

There is no comparison between the government capabilities and
private ones. Who competes with the NRO or ADC?

Who has private or amateur fleets of very sophisiticated
aircraft and satellites to monitor air and space intruding
vehicles?

 >I also wondered how he
 >knew what was in the whited out parts of the UFO documents, as
 >he implies that this hidden information concerns evidence for
 >alien spacecraft.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I pointed out that information about UFOs is clearly being
witheld unless one is foolish enough to believe that the only
info about UFOs in these documents is what is not whited out and
the rest is Sources and Methods. Why was it filed under UFOs?

Please note that the 1996 version of the NSA Affidavit to Judge
Gesell is only about 20% blacked out compared with 80% in the
early version. But the UFO documents can only be 2-4% open? But
nothing about UFOs is being covered up.? Not every observation
of an auto involves a license plate. But the make and model and
colour can be very useful.

 >If the sceptics indulge in "research by
 >proclamation" as Friedman constantly tells us, then surely he is
 >indulging in research by showmanship in waving whited-out
 >documents at UFO conferences.

I show the documents to demonstrate that UFO information is
being witheld despite claims by the US government and sceptics
to the contrary . That I am effective in my presentations does
not detract from the fact that UFO information is being
withheld. Remember that I also show the blacked out CIA UFO
documents on which one can read 8 useless words. The CIA IS
withholding UFO information like it or not. Effective
showmanship or not.

The purpose of a presentation is to communicate. Perhaps that is
why my Leeds talk was rated 10/10. I communicated facts and
data... apparently with showmanship.

 >Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
 >every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
 >of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
 >long time.

More absurdity. As explained above there are standard procedures
for dealing with classified information on a need-to-know basis
by people with appropriate clearances. Have you ever held a
clearance?

What is this nonsense about every government in the world? I
certainly never said that. The number of governments with
sophisticated ADCs, spy satellites, sophisticated monitoring
aircraft, etc is a small number. I doubt if Bolivia or Paraquay
or a whole slew of African nations have such systems.

Have you forgotten that during the cold war both Russia and the
US witheld information from the public that each knew the other
government was aware of... overflights of U-2 aircraft?.
Reconnaissance aircraft of the other side were shot down when
getting too close. No public discussion.

Remember that FOI has many restrictions including National
Security. I provide a whole page in my Final Report on Operation
Majestic 12.

Surely it is not possible that you believe that the government
of the UK will not withhold any classified information?


Stan Friedman
in awe of the naivite








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:36:34 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:26:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young


 >From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:10:49 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:39:37 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

 >Excuse me, but it was you who introduced the topic of the
 >miraculous, it was you who suggested that a non-IFO would imply
 >miraculously improbable physics,

Martin:

Hm. Can't find "miraculously improbably physics" anywhere in my
posts. Can you help?

I think I did mention, "one miracle and one violation of the
laws of physics", or some such thing.

The miracle being an infallible witness; take your pick on the
laws of physics.

 >Thanks for your condescension

You're welcome.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                 Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - Anthony

From: Gary Anthony <mithrand@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:16:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:29:20 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - Anthony


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:06:40 -0000
 >Subject: UFO Documents on MOD Website

<snip>

 >The release of this material has been a big story in the UK
 >today. Georgina Bruni, whose work with former Chief of the
 >Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton led to the release of much of
 >this material, has spent much of the day recording television
 >and radio interviews.

Hi List, Nick,

Twaddle Nick, if there is any kudos here it goes to 'two
enterprising members of the public' aka Dr. David Clarke and
Andy Roberts.

It's time you removed your head from the clouds and started
peddling something more credible, instead of engaging in
exercises to save face!


Gary Anthony

As a famous Native American once said:

"Never trust a man who cannot admit his own mistakes and
limitations or state the truth of a simple thing, least of all a
representative of the government."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

              Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:45:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:33:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Maccabee


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:23:01 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:43:23 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >Hello Bob,

 >Thanks for your reply, especially since I realized after I'd sent
 >my last email that I hadn't actually said everything I wanted on
 >the subject.

<snip>

 >>But then, this case is one of the classics, and is a microcosm
 >>of the flying saucer conundrum. More than 50 years of
 >>sightings, claims and investigations and not still not one
 >>single unequivacly proven alien visit.

 >Actually, I agree with you on this, at least up to a point.
 > What conclusions one can draw from it are another matter, but
 >all of the theories I've seen so far involve extravagant,
 >unprovable hypotheses - whether extraterrestrials with near-
 >magical technologies, geophysical explanations that never
 >actually predict anything but mysteriously manage to explain
 >everything after the fact, or exotic psycho-social mechanisms
 >with no discernible scientific basis.

Theories involving unprovable hypotheses...

instead of studying theories about what UFOs are, study
"theories" that are used to explain individual reports.

Each proposed explanation is a "candidate explanatory
hypothesis" which, like any theory, has to be proved in some
way.

For example, it might be proposed that a particular sighting was
Venus. Well, then, prove it by showing complete consistency with
the available and credible data.

By taking this approach, studying theories of explanation, you
can not learn what UFOs are... but you can learn what they are
not. And, if one or more turn out to be unexplainable (in terms
of known phenomena) _then_ you have justification for theorizing
about what actuall caused the sighting(s).... i.e., theories of
the UFOs themselves.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 01:50:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:36:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:05:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 ><snip>

 >This 33-year old, "second rate" (to use Don Ledger's phrase)
 >nocturnal light report is only still being kicked around because
 >the sighter is a famous person. If this is used as a criteria
 >for valuable UFO cases, then nailing down proof of anything
 >extraordinary is going to be even further away than it is now.

 >Imagine what will happen when Hollywood finds out about this.


Hi Bob,

I don't think Carter is getting the treatment because he's
famous, but because he has credibility; certainly he does now
and probably then.

My use of second rate is not meant to take away from the
strangeness of the event in Carter's case but to rate it on my
own scale. I like them in your face.

CAVU

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

              Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 01:48:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:37:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone? -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:59:37 -0500
 >Subject: Do Abductee's Families Discover Them Gone?

 >Do family members, or anyone else staying at the homes of
 >abductees ever discover they are missing? Or is it always a case
 >of abductions happening when all in a given household are
 >asleep?

 >Probably very rare, but have there been cases where a family
 >member,roommate, or house guest actually saw the abduction
 >and/or return take place?


Hi Eleanor,

Not as 'rare' as you'd think/imagine. Budd has several cases
where calls have been (reportedly) made to local police when a
child or other family member has 'gone missing.' I have
collected about a dozen or so of these reports myself.

This type of report can be considered a 'multiple witness' case
under certain circumstances. I find it strengthens the
'abduction' component of the report if the people who are
looking for a 'missing person' also have a UFO sighting. Reports
which contain both details are the 'rare' ones. Such reports do
exist though and they _beg_ for further investigation.

Regards,

John Velez, Webmaster, Abduction Information Center
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/aic/default.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                 Re: British FOIA Rendlesham File Released -

From: Bill Stockstill <size14d@bigfoot.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:41:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:41:58 -0500
Subject: Re: British FOIA Rendlesham File Released -


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:36:55 -0000
 >Subject: British FOIA Rendlesham File Released

 >PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW EXTENDED

 >DETAILS about UFO sightings, clinical trials, accident
 >investigations and Whitehall meetings will be released to the
 >public under plans to open up government.

 >Public access to information from government bodies is to be
 >extended by the scrapping and amending of up to 100 pieces of
 >legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department announced
 >yesterday.

 >The changes are being made under the Freedom of Information Act
 >which is being phased in over the next three years.

 >>From Sunday the first tranche of hitherto secret information is
 >released when government departments publish their own schemes
 >of legislation which they plan to release to the public. The
 >material will be made available immediately on departmental
 >websites or through application by post.

 >The Ministry of Defence achives will include information on
 >UFOs, including the Rendlesham File about a UFO report in
 >Suffolk in 1980. The Lord Chancellor's Department is to publish
 >the guidance given to lawyers applying to be Queen's Counsel or
 >judges.

Is this considered "Disclosure"? That magical word has been
touted in the UFO community as the Holy Grail of Ufology during
the past few years. To me, no. This seems to be what has
occurred in the U.S., public access to once restricted files. No
announcement that UFOs are real or hint of access to concrete
evidence that leaves no doubt they are alien.

In any case, hearty congratulations to all those that bugged
the MoD enough to get them to open up their files.

I am looking forward to Nick Pope commenting on cases he was
personally involved in that he thought were alien in nature.

I am also curious to see the files on the large number of black
triangle sightings during the 80s and 90s.

I also wonder if there will be any files released on the
harassment of UFO investigators such as Derek Sheffield (UFO: A
Deadly Concealment) who had his mail tampered with.

While not Disclosure, this should give the UFO community some
valuable information on what the British Government was doing to
research UFOs and what conclusions were made.

Of course, one has to wonder if there is another level of
documents that will never be released, those that would truly
would be Disclosure.

Bill








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:51:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:56:42 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Documents on MOD Website - McGonagle


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:06:40 -0000
 >Subject: UFO Documents on MOD Website

<snip>

 >Researchers such as Georgina have acquired this material by
 >using the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
 >So the material has been seen before, and indeed many of the key
 >documents were published in Graham Birdsall's UFO Magazine some
 >time ago. But now the material has been posted on the MOD's
 >website, anyone may see these documents.

Nick, firstly thankyou for posting the links. Some of them were
already available on-line at www.flyingsaucery.com, as I am sure
you were aware.

What I find hilarious is your patent inability to find the
characters on your keyboard that spell the names of Andy Roberts
and Dave Clarke.

In the paragraph above, you go to great length to mention
Georgina, who did have some effect on the release of some
documents, but you fail to specifically mention Dave and Andy's
sterling work in tracking down and engineering the disclosure of
the Flying Saucer Working Party documents.

Is this because you doubt that they were in any way responsible
for the discovery of these documents, or are you suggesting that
the documents are not in themselves important?

In a previous article, you have gone to extremes to avoid
mentioning them directly, calling them "two enterprising members
of the public". Are some keys missing from your keyboard that
could explain this absolute avoidance, or is it some
superstitious habit intended to avoid "invoking the devil"?


Regards,

Joe







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:31:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:53:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Ledger


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:23:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:17:39 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

<snip>

 >>>Frank had admitted on December 13, 1999, at his home with 4
 >>>witnesses present that he had told lies about his involvement
 >>>during an earlier interview with me, with Kevin Randle and Don
 >>>Schmitt also present. I had noted other problems with Frank's
 >>>story earlier to Kevin, Don, Kent Jeffrey, Bob Wood.

 >Good Morning, Stan, List, All -

 >>>I am confused by this paragraph because it seems to suggest
 >>>that on December 13, 1999, I was present when Frank admitted
 >>>to telling lies. While I have little doubt about the veracity of this
 >>>statement, I was not present and hadn't seen Frank since
 >>>September 1998.

 >First let me apologize for my rather inelegant statement above.
 >My excuse was having to get to the store very early because they
 >were selling DVD players for $30. American (what is that in
 >Canada now, about a thousand bucks?).

<snip>

About $45 Kevin. Geez it ain't that bad. Your prices are very
high. particularly your food and lumber.

BTW - What store was that? Walmart?


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 10:47:43 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:54:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Tim Printy <Tprinty2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:48:08 -0500
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >>A second question: Have you ever seen the light from Venus
 >>strong enough to do what that policeman said? You'll probably
 >>say to me, "Maybe it was the moon shining in the window" or
 >>"Maybe it was a streetlight shining in" Maybe something else lit
 >>up the car. Could you be right? Perhaps.

Jerry, Tim:

I once investigated an incident in which a prison guard thought a
UFO emitted a strange light, illuminating the inside and outside
of his car, changing its color from red to dullish. He described
the UFO as "Bluish white...so white" and like an airplane light
landing at the airport, about eight miles away, but motionless.
Then, after he got out of his car it appeared to zig-zag around,
which he thought made it unusual, even though this
contradicted his previous thought.

We used a transit to determine that the UFO was in the exact
position of -5 magnitude Venus, which he did not report seeing.
The zig zags were probably autokinetic motion of his eye
muscles.

The UFOs light? He had gone through a traffic light, stopping his
car so as to block two lanes of a highway. He then noticed
another car facing him, just off the road, on the berm, with its
lights on and a "shaken" driver, with "tears in his eyes".

The dull car paint and interior? Dull paint color could have
been due to the bright orange high pressure sodium streetlights
directly over the car (see Figure 2b).

This is another case where a witness assumed that incident
light came from the UFO.

Incidentally, in reviewing my notes on this one I came upon
somthing that Dr. Richard F. Haines had published which might
shed some light on how Carter could have thought that Venus was
larger than it is. Haines is a retired NASA scientist whose area
of research included physiological factors of space flight.

He wrote that, due to irradiation, light scatter within the eye
near the edge of a source, bright objects appear larger than
actual size. Small very bright sources can appear 75% larger.
(Richard F. Haines, "Changes in perceived size of high luminance
targets." Aerospace Medicine 4:754-758, 1965. Cited in Richard
F. Haines, Observing UFOs - An investigative handbook. Chicago:
Nelson- Hall, 1969. Page 243.


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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:52:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:56:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Ledger

 >From: Tim Printy <Tprinty2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@optonline.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:48:08 -0500
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >I see no reason to quibble back and forth on whether Carter was
 >a highly skilled observer or not since we can not determine this
 >with any degree of certainty. IFO histories have shown that many
 >technically qualified observers make misidentifications/
 >misperceptions. Kevin Randle's recent paper on Mantell describes
 >an apparent Venus misperception event made by what you might
 >describe as skilled observers.

Whoa,

Tim. Where did you read that? That old saw was pretty much
discarded. Even Hynek who proposed it off the cuff realized his
mistake later. Navy balloon probably. Venus no.

Read it again.

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Clarke

From: David  Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:25:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:57:46 -0500
Subject: Re:  Magonia Supplement 43 - Clarke


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
 >>Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

 >I gather you and Roberts and Clark believe there are no black
 >budget programs in the UK or anywhere else.


Stan --

Please cite chapter and verse where 'Roberts and Clark' [sic]
have said they believe there are no black budget programs in the
UK or anywhere else.

You will have a job because we have never said any such thing,
in fact rather the opposite.

To quote your own words, please don't put words in *my* mouth!

And yes, UK Government can and does with-hold documents and
information on UFOs. Our book has proved there was a cover-up in
this country - see Jenny Randles' review in the latest IUR. The
question is, a cover-up of what?

Best,

Dave Clark*e*








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                    Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:54:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:59:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - McGonagle


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

Apologies for the frequent snips, but I am homing in on some
aspects of the original thread which were interspersed with
material about which I have no comment to offer:

<snip>

 >Harney seems to feel that indeed all the above data hasn't been
 >kept secret. This from a country that just got a FOI system
 >going. Why was it needed if everything was available?
 >
 >Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for
 >absence.
 >

<snip>

By the same token, I hope that you would agree that absence of
evidence is not proof of anything?

 >12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public
 >admission for more than 20 years.

 >And secrets can't be kept?

<snip>

In the case of Bletchley park, there were easily understood
reasons for the requirement of secrecy. The reasoning behind any
witholding of information offering conclusive proof of the ETH
would not, in my opinion, convince people like David Shayler for
instance to keep quiet?

 >I pointed out that information about UFOs is clearly being
 >witheld unless one is foolish enough to believe that the only
 >info about UFOs in these documents is what is not whited out and
 >the rest is Sources and Methods. Why was it filed under UFOs?

 >Please note that the 1996 version of the NSA Affidavit to Judge
 >Gesell is only about 20% blacked out compared with 80% in the
 >early version. But the UFO documents can only be 2-4% open? But
 >nothing about UFOs is being covered up.? Not every observation
 >of an auto involves a license plate. But the make and model and
 >colour can be very useful.

<snip>

Just because information is withheld, it does not mean that such
information amounts to conclusive proof of the ETH, which seems
to me to be the inference which you are making- do you find it
difficult to accept that there could be other information which
the authorities would prefer to withhold, for instance, the
participation of the U.K. in certain enquiries/operations?

 >I show the documents to demonstrate that UFO information is
 >being witheld despite claims by the US government and sceptics
 >to the contrary . That I am effective in my presentations does
 >not detract from the fact that UFO information is being
 >withheld. Remember that I also show the blacked out CIA UFO
 >documents on which one can read 8 useless words. The CIA IS
 >withholding UFO information like it or not. Effective
 >showmanship or not.

<snip>

 >Have you forgotten that during the cold war both Russia and the
 >US witheld information from the public that each knew the other
 >government was aware of... overflights of U-2 aircraft?.
 >Reconnaissance aircraft of the other side were shot down when
 >getting too close. No public discussion.

 >Remember that FOI has many restrictions including National
 >Security. I provide a whole page in my Final Report on Operation
 >Majestic 12.

 >Surely it is not possible that you believe that the government
 >of the UK will not withhold any classified information?

 >Stan Friedman
 >in awe of the naivite

I have in my possession (probably in contravention of the
Official Secrets Act) a copy of a pamphlet which I was issued
with during military training. It is classified "Restricted".
You may think that this contains something like infantry
tactics, or other low-grade classified information, but it is
actually about electrical safety!

The UK military are absolutely paranoid about security
classifications, yet I struggle to see the need for information
about how to wire a domestic mains plug or how far apart earth
rods should be placed to be classified at all.

I have visited the PRO several times, and read/copied
declassified Secret and Top Secret documents. Also, during my
army career, I was frequently exposed to similarly classified
material. In many cases, there is an obvious reason for the
classification, but in others, such as the Flying Saucer Working
Party document, there is apparently no rhyme or reason for the
classification.

What I am getting at is that I accept the various Governments
are withholding information about UFOs, but much of that
information is bound to be of a trivial nature. Of the material
that is withheld but is not trivial, it most likely relates to
operational systems or processes which they may have good reason
to keep classified. There is no reason to think that they are
withholding absolute proof of the ETH.

Furthermore, if people like Shayler can blow the whistle on
assassination plots against Ghadaffi (qs) by MI6 because of
"moral issues", I think it even more likely that someone would
reveal secrets relating to UFOs for those same "moral issues".


Joe McGonagle

Overwhelmed by the paranoid state (of people's minds _and_
nations)!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:57:34 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:08:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs - Young


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 01:50:34 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:05:53 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

<snip>

 >>This 33-year old, "second rate" (to use Don Ledger's phrase)

 >nocturnal light report is only still being kicked around because
 >My use of second rate is not meant to take away from the
 >strangeness of the event in Carter's case but to rate it on my
 >own scale. I like them in your face

Hi, Don:

I knew that.

Cordially,

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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:55:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:12:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Rimmer


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

<snip>

 >Harney seems to feel that indeed all the above data hasn't been
 >kept secret. This from a country that just got a FOI system
 >going. Why was it needed if everything was available?

 >Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for
 >absence.

 >I gather you and Roberts and Clark believe there are no black
 >budget programs in the UK or anywhere else.

 >The DCI admitted 6 years ago because of a court case that his
 >black budget that year was 26.6 $Billion.

 >Have you read Tim Weiner's excellent book "Blank Check"?

 >The stealth fighter was developed and 50+ built over 10 years
 >for about 10 Billlion$ in secret. The NRL Corona Elint satellite
 >was launched in 1960 after a dozen failures. Its existence was
 >not admitted until 1995 when they wanted to brag about their
 >accomplishments and of course the technology had been greatly
 >improved.

 >12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public
 >admission for more than 20 years.

 >And secrets can't be kept?

Secrets can certainly be kept where the government has total
control over a project as in the cases above. Unless Mr Friedman
has some startling new evidence, the US government does not
control UFOs


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.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 > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

              Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt.

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:59:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:16:11 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Path of the Skinwalker' Knapp On NIDS - Pt.


 >Source: The Las Vegas Mercury

 >http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Nov-28-Thu-2002/20138162.html

 >Thursday, November 28, 2002
 >Copyright =A9 Las Vegas Mercury

 >Close encounters, part two

 >Las Vegas businessman sets up shop at Utah ranch to study
 >paranormal activities

 >By George Knapp

 >This is the second of two reports about persistent stories of
 >anomalous phenomena in a section of northeastern Utah. The
 >activity, as reported by hundreds of witnesses over several
 >decades, includes UFOs, unusual balls of light, animal
 >mutilations and disappearances, poltergeist events, sightings of
 >Bigfoot-like creatures and other unidentified animals, physical
 >effects on plants, soil, animals and humans, and a vast array of
 >other unexplained incidents.

<snip>

 >A confidential report prepared for NIDS board members and
 >obtained by this reporter documents dozens of encounters
i>nvolving NIDS staffers, the Gormans and other witnesses. After
 >several months of round-the-clock surveillance, a mind-boggling
 >pattern began to emerge. The phenomena, whatever they represent,
 >seemed capable of anticipating the moves of the scientists. If
 >they placed extra cameras and personnel in the southern field,
 >the activity would pop up in the northern pasture. If they
 >concentrated their observations in the center homestead, the
 >activity might move to the ridge overlooking the ranch.

<snip>

I recall, "from afar", this telephone pole/camera event....

I recall John Alexander calling me to to get my opinion on how
to instrument the ranch with TV cameras. This was probably in
1997. Don't recall any date.

Then, sometime after the July 19, 1998 event he called to ask if
I could analyze a video that had been obtained. That was over 4
years ago and I don't recall what he said. Of course, at the
time he called I was already aware of the strange UFO events
that had been reported over the years in the Unitah basin. These
were first reported in book form by Dr. Framk Salisberry in The
Utah UFO Display published in the early 1970s. Many of the
stories in this book had been collected by Junior Hicks. (I seem
to recall that Salisberry got out of the UFO field because of a
conflict with the Mormon church.) However, the UFO connection
between sightings and what John reported had happened but did
not seem to appear on the video seem tenuous at best.

Anyway, John did send me a copy of the video to look at. As I
recall it showed a very dim scene, with some cows moving in the
distance... and nothing really interesting. He told me about the
cameras on another pole that was within the view of the camera
that made the video I was looking at. However, he didn't tell me
all he knew about the history of the ranch, so, I must admit, I
did not treat the situation very seriously, especially after I
looked at the video and couldn't see anything unusual. However,
the event as portrayed in Knapp's article above indicates that
something strange did happen even though the video didn't show
anything.

So, what is going on? Do we have the manifestation of a science
fiction "portal" here? Are the speculations about "vortices" and
"interdimensional windows" in some way factual? Or is something
going on that is too bizarre for us to think of?

I don't think it's all a hoax or misidentification... something
is really going on.


Perhaps "they" are giving us the message that "they' can do any
damn thing they please... and there's nothing we can do about
it! (what else would you think of invisible entities(?) that can
mutilate a cow in daylight a few hundred feet from a potential
witness?).  And there are reports of balls of light... orange
and other colors.... from all over the world. This includes the
Oregon Red Ball that was photographed over a year ago and which
is described at my web site (http://brumac.8k.com).

Balls of light which can be seen visibly as "simple" balls of
light but which create much more complex images on film were
documented by Dr. Harley Rutlegde during his "Project
Identification" in 1973 (book by that title published in 1979 or
1980).






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:31:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:18:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:37:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

 >John,

 >Here's another "knee-jerk" reaction for you (after all, I'm a
 >knee-jerk, tree-hugging liberal).

 >Why must I read the issue in order to respond to the arguments
 >stated in your editorial? You made certain (rather ludicrous, in
 >my opinion) generalizations to which I responded.

 >Okay. Turnabout is fairplay:

 >You have no right to apply insulting labels to me unless you
 >read The UFO Evidence, Volume II, which contains my full
 >arguments and supporting data.

What "insulting labels"? I can't find any mention of you in the
editorials or any other items in the Magonia Supplements.

As for The UFO Evidence - perhaps if you could consider
producing an affordable edition then I would be delighted to
obtain a copy and read it.

Or perhaps you could put it on a web site.

 >But what do Stan Friedman and I know? We have only been
 >investigating real-life cases and conducting research for 40-50
 >years while, so far as I am aware, your arse has warmed an
 >armchair (if, indeed, you have even been alive thoughout those
 >years).

Yes, I know that you and Stan Friedman are amongst the most
experienced and knowledgeable of UFO researchers. Where have I
suggested otherwise? Or do you like to read between the lines
like so many of our readers? And no, I don't have an armchair -
  I don't have enough room for one in my tiny 3rd-floor (4th-
floor), town centre (downtown) flat (apartment).

 >So please, cease your condescending editorializing and stop
 >asking the wrong questions.

 >Your last paragraph is, again, a ludicrous mis-statement of the
 >issues.

No it isn't.

John Harney







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:28:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:23:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43 - Harney


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:45:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 43

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:26 +0000
 >>Subject: Magonia Supplement 43

 >>Magonia Supplement 43 is now available on the Magonia website.
 >>Here is John Harney's Editorial:
 >>One of the points I made, and not for the first time, was about
 >>the impossibility of the evidence for ET spacecraft being kept
 >>secret. The ETH, at least as it is interpreted by many
 >>ufologists, depends on persuading people to believe that it is
 >>possible to keep the saucers secret. Stanton Friedman commented:

 >>"The naivety shown by the notion that we would have access to
 >>radar and spy satellite info, re space and airborne uncorrelated
 >>targets produced by the Aerospace Defense Command and NRO
 >>satellites and collected by NSA while listening to their foreign
 >>equivalents is monumental.

 >>"Just note that more than 95% of the 156 UFO documents released
 >>by the NSA are whited out. No way that is all sources and
 >>methods data."

 >Harney seems to feel that indeed all the above data hasn't been
 >kept secret. This from a country that just got a FOI system
 >going. Why was it needed if everything was available?

Where did I say that everything was available?

 >Yes, I had forgotten absence of evidence is evidence for
 >absence.

Stan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sounds
great, especially if you can say it without getting the giggles,
as you no doubt can, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

 >I gather you and Roberts and Clark believe there are no black
 >budget programs in the UK or anywhere else.

 >The DCI admitted 6 years ago because of a court case that his
 >black budget that year was 26.6 $Billion.

 >Have you read Tim Weiner's excellent book "Blank Check"?

 >The stealth fighter was developed and 50+ built over 10 years
 >for about 10 Billlion$ in secret. The NRL Corona Elint satellite
 >was launched in 1960 after a dozen failures. Its existence was
 >not admitted until 1995 when they wanted to brag about their
 >accomplishments and of course the technology had been greatly
 >improved.

 >12,000 people worked in Secret at Bletchley Park with no public
 >admission for more than 20 years.

 >And secrets can't be kept?

 >Neither the Aerospace Defense Command nor the NRO, nor the NSA
 >publish their findings. They literally spend billions a year and
 >secrets can't be kept??

Perhaps I have not made myself clear, so I'll try again. Yes, I
know governments have Black Budgets and keep military projects
secret for many years, but I wasn't referring to them. I was
writing about UFOs.

With UFOs we have to make a distinction between the UFOs
themselves and investigations of them. Governments can conduct
secret UFO investigations, but so can anybody. If you
investigate a UFO report you can keep this secret or publish
your findings, as you wish, but you can't keep the UFO itself
secret, because other people may have witnessed it or conducted
investigations. The point is that governments can keep military
projects secret because thay have _control_ of the situation.
They have no control over UFOs, which can appear anywhere, at
any time; they thus have no chance of keeping them secret.
Convincing evidence could fall into the hands of any government,
organisation, or individual, but this is less likely to happen
with a tightly controlled military project.

 >>I replied, pointing out that he hadn't told us
 >>how UFO information gathered from radar or satellites, by
 >>governments and private organisations, amateur or professional,
 >>everywhere in the world is kept secret.

 >I have seen no such reply. But the answer is obvious:

 >Through the standard procedures involving secrity clearances,
 >need to know, well protected communication systems, etc.

 >There is no comparison between the government capabilities and
 >private ones. Who competes with the NRO or ADC?

 >Who has private or amateur fleets of very sophisiticated
 >aircraft and satellites to monitor air and space intruding
 >vehicles?

Ah, so the UFOs are specially designed to be detectable only by
highly sophisticated equipment carried on high-performance
aircraft available only to those organisations which can
guarantee to keep the evidence which they obtain secret?

 >>I also wondered how he
 >>knew what was in the whited out parts of the UFO documents, as
 >>he implies that this hidden information concerns evidence for
 >>alien spacecraft.

 >Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't; I wrote "implies" not "states" - see above.

 >I pointed out that information about UFOs is clearly being
 >witheld unless one is foolish enough to believe that the only
 >info about UFOs in these documents is what is not whited out and
 >the rest is Sources and Methods. Why was it filed under UFOs?

Information about UFOs, or information about UFO
_investigations_?

 >Please note that the 1996 version of the NSA Affidavit to Judge
 >Gesell is only about 20% blacked out compared with 80% in the
 >early version. But the UFO documents can only be 2-4% open? But
 >nothing about UFOs is being covered up.? Not every observation
 >of an auto involves a license plate. But the make and model and
 >colour can be very useful.

 >>If the sceptics indulge in "research by
 >>proclamation" as Friedman constantly tells us, then surely he is
 >>indulging in research by showmanship in waving whited-out
 >>documents at UFO conferences.

 >I show the documents to demonstrate that UFO information is
 >being witheld despite claims by the US government and sceptics
 >to the contrary . That I am effective in my presentations does
 >not detract from the fact that UFO information is being
 >withheld. Remember that I also show the blacked out CIA UFO
 >documents on which one can read 8 useless words. The CIA IS
 >withholding UFO information like it or not. Effective
 >showmanship or not.

 >The purpose of a presentation is to communicate. Perhaps that is
 >why my Leeds talk was rated 10/10. I communicated facts and
 >data... apparently with showmanship.

 >>Anyway, I intend to press for a plausible explanation as to how
 >>every government in the world has managed to preserve the Secret
 >>of the Saucers for over 50 years. I will probably have to wait a
 >>long time.

 >More absurdity. As explained above there are standard procedures
 >for dealing with classified information on a need-to-know basis
 >by people with appropriate clearances. Have you ever held a
 >clearance?

Yes, but you can't classify information unless you _control_ it.
You can keep your UFO _investigations_ secret, but anyone can do
that. But you don't know what the UFOs are going to do tomorrow,
so you can't keep them secret.

 >What is this nonsense about every government in the world? I
 >certainly never said that. The number of governments with
 >sophisticated ADCs, spy satellites, sophisticated monitoring
 >aircraft, etc is a small number. I doubt if Bolivia or Paraquay
 >or a whole slew of African nations have such systems.

So every government in the world falls neatly into one of two
categories with regard to obtaining and disclosing UFO evidence.
These are (a) countries with sophisticated surveillance systems,
satellites, aircraft, radar, etc., all of which are guaranteed
to obey the USA in its policy of keeping the saucers secret, and
(b) those countries which are unable or unwilling to keep such
secrets, but lack the amazingly sophisticated equipment
apparently necessary to obtain vital UFO evidence. Thus the
secret of the saucers is safe. How convenient.

 >Have you forgotten that during the cold war both Russia and the
 >US witheld information from the public that each knew the other
 >government was aware of... overflights of U-2 aircraft?.
 >Reconnaissance aircraft of the other side were shot down when
 >getting too close. No public discussion.

Yes, if the Russians knew and the US knew they knew and both
sides mutually decided to keep this information from the public
then what's the problem? They had joint _control_ of the
situation. They were not dealing with something unknown and
unpredictable.

 >Remember that FOI has many restrictions including National
 >Security. I provide a whole page in my Final Report on Operation
 >Majestic 12.

 >Surely it is not possible that you believe that the government
 >of the UK will not withhold any classified information?

Of course they withhold classified information, but there is no
good reason to believe that they have any startling evidence
about UFOs.

 >Stan Friedman
 >in awe of the naivite

  John Harney








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                       Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:49:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:25:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology - Hall


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:58:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 8:57:44 -0500

 >>Greg, here is the problem right here. You snipped out everything else
 >>I said and aimed at this one item.

 >Jan, I'm happy to address all your points. The first was by far
 >the strongest, in my view, and so I used it to represent
 >everything you said, especially since my answers to all of them
 >are somewhat the same.I should have said this, though, to
 >explain why I only answered your first point. You're entirely
 >justified in asking for a fuller response.

 >So here goes:

<snip>

 >Plus, as Dick Hall pointed out, many therapists have worked with
 >abductees. Really a large number. Some abduction researchers,
 >moreover, _are_ therapists. And so are some abductees. I
 >personally know one abductee who's a therapist, and three non-
 >abductee therapists who've worked with abductees. One of these
 >three is a recently minted MSW, though a very smart, grounded
 >guy; the other two are senior professionals. It's worth noting,
 >too, that there's a therapist in Washington, DC - Dick, help me
 >here - who works with abductees. He's not an abduction
 >researcher, and I don't know what he believes about the
 >abduction phenomenon. What he does, as I've read, is help
 >abductees in a non-judgmental way with whatever anxiety their
 >abduction memories may cause.

Greg,

I suspect you are referring to David Ruxer, PhD psychologist in
Fairfax, Virginia. He is one of those who encountered abductees
in his practice and was puzzled about the phenomenon. Several
years ago (I haven't been in contact with him recently) David
asked me to address his psychology group, and I had the
undivided attention of about 10 practicing psychologists. David
also attended one of our support groups as an observer, and
afterwards offered some excellent advice on how to proceed. From
time to time I have talked with local area abductees who have
sought psychotherapy from David (and/or a couple of other
members of his group) and they unanimously praised him for (a)
his practical help, and (b) his nonjudgmental approach.

 >If a large number of abductees had mental problems, you'd think
 >these many therapists would - during more than 30 years of
 >abduction research - have detected them. So, Jan, when you say

 >>Quite
 >>honestly, I don't know how many people are like this woman,  but my
 >>limited  experience indicate that there are significant numbers like
 >>that not the majority, not a huge minority but still significant.

 >your experience really _is_ limited. You're joining a discussion
 >that's been going on for quite a while. If you think the
 >published studies aren't adequate, I'd be interested to know
 >why. Likewise, if you think the therapists who've work with
 >abductees aren't qualified, or have done a bad job, I'd be happy
 >to know your reasons.

Out of all the abductees I have worked with (something like 150;
I've lost count), two were psychological basket cases, and even
there it was not clear whether their condition was the cause or
effect of an "abduction." More to the point, a very high
percentage clearly were entirely sane and grounded individuals,
deeply upset and perplexed by their experiences.


  - Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2002 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                   Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:58:11 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:38:53 -0400
 >Subject: Re: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate 'Contrails'

 >>From: Karl Rotstan <karl.rotstan@verizon.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:39:39 -0500
 >>Subject: NORAD Scrambles Jets To Investigate Contrails

 >>Source: CNN

 >>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Central/11/28/contrail.scramble/index.html

 ><snip>

 >Conventional contrails would be created by conventional aircraft
 >and therefore should have been picked up by the conventional
 >radar in the NORAD radar web. It's a little unusual that these
 >were visually spotted, but not electronically in the NORAD
 >defence sector. Even a bolide, for instance, should be visible
 >to radar.

 >The CNN report quoted a NORAD official: "I don't know that
 >anybody was predisposed to think it might be some thing or the
 >other," he said. "We don't even know that it was a thing. It was
 >just simply reports of contrails. We don't even know that it was
 >the same one. We had reports from different places and NORAD did
 >its job and tried to find out."

 >Really? Billions of dollars worth of equipment and that's the
 >best he could come up with?

<snip>

Hi Don! Hi everyone!

Dr. Wayne Evans, atmospheric scientist and adjunct professor at
York University, presented a poster about these contrails at a
conference recently. Dr. Evans, an expert on atmospheric energy
dynamics who uses advanced atmospheric sensing technologies,
came to the conclusion that these mysterious contrails were
formed by still secret high performance aircraft, or even
spacecraft.

Since Dr. Evans is Canadian and his research funding comes from
Canada, if his conclusion is correct, this may explain why after
"NORAD did its job" its answer to the mystery contrails could
not be as specific as Dr. Evans' was. As for why the objects
that produced the contrails were not picked up on radar, well,
we now know about stealth technology and how it can make
aircraft difficult to detect with radar.

Sometimes objects are picked up on radar which do not show up on
satellite pictures. For example, a meteorologist friend of mine
once noted a broad weather radar band over an area where
pictures showed to be totally free of clouds. He later learned
of an exercise involving military aircraft flying over this same
area where large quantities of radar chaff (such as strips of
aluminum foil) were dropped to cloak their activities.


Nick Balaskas