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

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Jul 1999

  Jul 1:

   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Velez [61]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Sean Jones [19]
   Re: BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded - Nick Balaskas [24]
   UK UFO Network Ezine 102 Part 1 - Sean Jones [505]
   UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 2 - Sean Jones [701]
   UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 3 - Sean Jones [538]
   Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs - Nick Balaskas [63]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jsmortell@aol.com [13]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Bruce Maccabee [8]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Teri Edgar [14]
   Metropolitan Area Of London As 'Area 51' - Stig Agermose [30]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Dennis Stacy [32]
   Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News June 27 - Bruce Maccabee [5]

  Jul 2:

   Re: Doug & Dave? - Lesley Cluff [27]
   The Temporal Doorway Is Moving! - Mark Cashman [26]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Rimmer [12]
   Re: Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs - Larry Hatch [17]
   Re: Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Jim Mortellaro [26]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jim Mortellaro [31]
   Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News - July 1, - Paul Anderson - TMP
   / CPR-Canada [101]
   Filer's Files #26 - 1999 - George A. Filer [409]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Henny van der Pluijm [22]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Roy Hale [13]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Roger Evans [23]
   Crop Circles in Canada - Research Assistance 1999 - Paul Anderson -
   TMP/CPR-Canada [50]

  Jul 3:

   Re: Doug & Dave? - Larry Hatch [8]
   Re: Doug & Dave & beer - Larry Hatch [14]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Rimmer [10]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - John Rimmer [14]
   Any Subscribers On-line @ MUFON Conf.? - UFO UpDates - Toronto [3]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jim Deardorff [21]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Ron Decker [53]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Velez [75]

  Jul 4:

   UFOMSN World Wide Watch: Database Now Available - Diana Botsford [71]
   Re: Altavista And Good Beer! - Larry Hatch [27]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Larry Hatch [3]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Jim Mortellaro [12]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Henny van der Pluijm [19]
   RHubble Delivers Most Detailed Pictures Of Mars - Stig Agermose [44]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Henny van der Pluijm [10]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Dennis Stacy [41]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - GT McCoy [33]
   Billy Meier's Buddhist Teacher Is Dead - Stig Agermose [33]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Rimmer [97]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Alfred Lehmberg [6]
   Re: Doug & Dave - Jim Mortellaro [61]
   Re: Altavista And Good Beer! - Alfred Lehmberg [21]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Dennis Stacy [5]

  Jul 5:

   Re: Satanic Abuse - Tim D. Brigham [52]
   Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium - Steven W. Kaeser [17]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Velez [139]
   The Declaration of Individual Autonomy - Tim D. Brigham [96]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - David Clarke [89]
   Re: Doug and Dave - Jenny Randles [161]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Rebecca Jackson [8]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Max Burns [4]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - Max Burns [63]

  Jul 6:

   Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium - Jim Mortellaro [57]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Sue Strickland [48]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - David Clarke [85]
   Max Burns' Mail Bouncing - UFO UpDates - Toronto [68]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland [86]
   The Millennium Project News - July 5, 1999 - Paul Anderson -
   TMP/CPR-Canada [85]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Velez [21]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Leanne Martin [13]
   Re: Max Burns - Jenny Randles [24]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Jenny Randles [79]
   Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed - David Clarke [76]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Jim Mortellaro [52]
   Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News - Bobbie Felder [40]
   Re: Glowing Clouds - Brian Straight [23]
   MUFON 99 - Jenny Randles - Comfort Zones - Jenny Randles [112]
   Re: Speakers For Scouts? - Olav Phillips [26]
   SETI@home's Website Hacked - Stig Agermose [52]
   Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 6 - James Easton [396]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com [28]

  Jul 7:

   The Temporal Doorway UFO Database - Mark Cashman [44]
   Meteor Over NZ - William Sawers [16]
   Meteor Explodes Today Over NZ - William Sawers [16]

  Jul 13:

   Back On-Line - UFO UpDates - Toronto [5]
   Blather: Epiphany Weather - daev Walsh - Blather [279]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Andy Roberts [32]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - John Velez [64]
   Art Bell Makes 'The Times' - Steven J. Dunn [32]
   Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation - Francisco Lopez [12]
   Re: Meteor Over NZ - Larry Hatch [5]
   UFO in the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil - Thiago Ticchetti [34]
   Re: Santanic Abuse - Sue Strickland [131]
   UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Stig Agermose [40]
   Firmage Interviewed By ZDnet - Stig Agermose [278]
   UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal - Stig Agermose [101]
   Re: Doug & Dave? - Robert Irving [5]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Roy Hale [4]
   At Least 100 Members Of UFO Cult Missing In - Stig Agermose [61]
   Hominid Ancestors Saw Nearby Supernova As Second - Stig Agermose [47]
   U.S. Astronaut Charles Conrad Dies - Steven L. Wilson Sr [46]
   Taken by UFOs? - Maurizio Baiata [10]
   [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 7-9-99 - Jocelyn Savage [255]
   Filer's Files #27 - 99 - George A. Filer [393]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Max Burns [482]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Max Burns [334]
   UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil - Thiago Ticchetti [20]
   Contrails On The Increase - Nick Balaskas [29]
   Literature on Satanic Ritual & Alien Abduction - Arnout Ponsioen [54]
   CE-VI: Close Encounters of the Possession Kind - Stig Agermose [181]
   Maritime UFO Files - Donald . Ledger [18]
   College Joins Thousands In Search For Life In Space - Stig Agermose
   [91]
   7/11: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN - Diana Botsford [54]
   Re: Satanic Abuse - Leanne Martin [12]
   New Mars Cydonia Pictures - Including 'The Face' - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [39]
   The Millennium Project News - July 12, 1999 - Paul Anderson -
   TMP/CPR-Canada [76]
   Re: Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation - Larry Hatch [12]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Larry Hatch [12]
   Greece 1946? - Jan-H. Raabe [11]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #307 - Lehmberg@snowhill.com [71]
   Abduction And Sleep Paralysis - Brian Straight [10]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Brian Straight [4]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Andy Roberts [8]
   Hugh F. Cochrane 1923 - 1999 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [11]
   IHEDN Report - Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI [23]

  Jul 14:

   Satellite Question - Scott C. Carr [14]
   BBC: First Degree In Science Fiction - Steven J. Dunn [47]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Andy Roberts [125]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Andy Roberts [126]
   (Skyopen) 'The UFO Coverup', Larry King Live from - Jim Hickman [46]
   The Plot Behind The Book - Jenny Randles [36]
   Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - David Clarke [33]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Mark Cashman [50]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Mark Cashman [46]
   Open letter to Fred Lehmberg... An Ode To An Ode - Jim Mortellaro [87]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Allen Loper [18]
   Re: UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal - Rick Goldsmith [78]
   Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK - Ian Darlington - CUFORG [30]
   Nick Redfern on IRC - Sean Jones [24]
   Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil - Larry Hatch [11]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Henny van der Pluijm [3]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Michael Christol [51]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - GT McCoy [3]
   Re: Satellite Question - Larry Hatch [13]
   Re: Satellite Question - John Velez [42]
   New UK Peak District Aircrash Mystery - David Clarke [85]
   Re: Satellite Question - Brian Cuthbertson [8]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Bruce Maccabee [61]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Bobbie Felder [15]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Tony Spurrier [4]
   Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed - Jenny Randles [54]
   ID2 - UK UFO Magazine - Anthony Chippendale [34]
   Faulty Numbers - Sean Jones [65]

  Jul 15:

   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Steven Kaeser [39]
   Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil - Thiago Ticchetti [12]
   36th National UFO Conference - San Antonio, Texas - Dennis Stacy [35]
   Re: Satellite Question - Bob Young [37]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Bob Young [10]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Henny van der Pluijm [19]
   Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour] - Jim Mortellaro [12]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Jim Mortellaro [26]
   ewarrior: Mark Cashman - Face On The Fringe - Kurt Jonach [11]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Thierry Wathelet [34]
   Re: Faulty Numbers - Jenny Randles [127]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Steven Kaeser [7]
   Re: Finnish UFO Hoax - Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland [109]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Jenny Randles [100]
   Re: Satellite Question - Paul Wittry [11]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Jim Mortellaro [61]
   The First UFO Sighting? - John Hayes [31]
   Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour] - Sean Jones [11]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Sean Jones [9]
   Re: Faulty Numbers - Bob Young [37]

  Jul 16:

   PRG Programming Announcement - 7/15/99 - Stephen Bassett [12]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Bruce Maccabee [11]
   Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99 - Kurt Jonach - eWarrior [15]
   Filer's Files #28 - 99 - George A. Filer [407]
   Re: Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK - Larry Hatch [11]
   Re: Finnish UFO Hoax - Larry Hatch [6]
   Re: Satellite Question - Michel M. Deschamps [7]
   Re: Satellite Question - David Rudiak [70]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Allen Loper [13]
   What's New At Magonia - Mark Pilkington [17]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Gildas Bourdais [26]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Dennis Stacy [6]

  Jul 17:

   [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 7-16-99 - jocelyn@dewittec.net
   [339]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Brad Sparks [73]
   Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA - Michael Christol [11]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Thierry Wathelet [16]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Larry Hatch [7]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #308 - Alfred Lehmberg [79]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - David Rudiak [61]
   Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [90]
   Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [197]
   Gore UFO? - Stephen MILES Lewis [22]

  Jul 18:

   Kenneth Arnold's Claims - James Easton [275]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Bob Young [8]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Tim D. Brigham [9]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [26]
   Re: Clark McClelland's Web Site - Francisco Lopez [18]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - David Clarke [65]
   Re: Gore UFO? - John Hayes [29]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [89]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Nathan Ranger [8]
   Re: UMMO Case? - Richard D. Nolane [9]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Donald . Ledger [16]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Sue Strickland [40]

  Jul 19:

   Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W - Keith Basterfield
   Network [50]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Stephen MILES Lewis [13]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Gildas Bourdais [20]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Roy Hale [13]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Tim D. Brigham [16]

  Jul 20:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Martin Phillips [5]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [51]
   Re: Gore UFO? - David Rudiak [8]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Henny van der Pluijm [23]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Diana Botsford [60]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Sue Strickland [66]
   Ontario, Canada Reports - June/July '99 - Michel M. Deschamps [83]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Larry Hatch [13]
   Re: Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W - Larry Hatch [11]
   UFO Over Rome, Italy? - Werner Walter [6]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jerome Clark [45]
   Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans - Serge Salvaille [9]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Loy Pressley [16]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Bruce Maccabee [13]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [35]
   Early 20th Century Reports Sought - Steven Kaeser [18]
   UFO Videos Back Online And Available For Download - Dave Ledger [45]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [191]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Deardorff [18]
   Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy? - Thierry Wathelet [14]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Gildas Bourdais [16]
   Re: IHEDN Report - Gildas Bourdais [33]

  Jul 21:

   Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy? - GT McCoy [16]
   Lou Dobbs' space.com - Henny van der Pluijm [9]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Donald Ledger [26]
   Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy? - Edoardo Russo [20]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Roy Hale [30]
   Re: - Jenny Randles [128]
   French COMETA Report - Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI [103]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - John Rimmer [51]
   Re: Gore UFO? - Loy Pressley [78]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [70]

  Jul 22:

   Re: Gore UFO? - Donald Ledger [63]
   IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?] - Jim Deardorff [121]
   IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?] - Jim Deardorff [30]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Serge Salvaille [48]
   Re: COMETA Report - Perry Petrakis- SOS OVNI [16]
   UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey - Fred R. Saluga [56]
   'Alienable Rights' Vancouver! Magazine - Moderator UFO UpDates -
   Toronto [54]
   Re: IFOs - Jenny Randles [221]
   Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - James Easton [433]
   Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum - James Easton [18]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Andy Roberts [34]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [80]
   Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey - Jenny Randles [80]
   X-PPAC Press Release - 7/21/99 - Stephen Bassett [46]
   Re: French COMETA Report - Gildas Bourdais [201]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [59]

  Jul 23:

   PRG: Important Programming Notice 7/20/99 - ParadigmRG@aol.com [16]

  Jul 24:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - dave bowden [49]
   7/22: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN - Diana Botsford [88]
   Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey - Jim Mortellaro [131]
   Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil - Thiago Ticchetti [16]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Donald Ledger [25]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum - Donald Ledger [30]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Bruce Maccabee [232]
   Re: French COMETA Report - Jenny Randles [70]
   UFO Organizations - John Hayes [33]
   Filer's Files #29 --1999 - George A. Filer [427]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [25]
   Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?] - John Rimmer [23]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - John Rimmer [13]
   Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon" - Kenny Young [81]

  Jul 25:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Larry Hatch [62]

  Jul 24:

   Whats On In Brisbane, Qld, Australia - Diane Harrison [68]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Larry Hatch [53]

  Jul 25:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [118]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Martin Phillips [39]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #309 - Alfred Lehmberg [84]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - GT McCoy [50]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Brian Cuthbertson [54]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Roger Evans [74]
   Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil - Michael Christol [42]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Bruce Maccabee [21]
   Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?] - Jim Deardorff [30]
   PRG Programming Announcement - 7/24/99 - Stephen G. Bassett [18]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [28]
   Re: Green/Blue Fireball - Arthur Rudd [10]
   Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage - Dan Geib [35]
   Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage - Alfred Lehmberg [41]
   Re: UFO Organizations - Scott Caput [33]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Ed Stewart [118]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tony Spurrier [37]
   'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stephen G. - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [21]

  Jul 26:

   UK.UFO.NW - IRC Guest - Jenny Randles - United Kingdom UFO Network [39]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [27]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [15]
   Re: BWW Media Alert 19990725 - Bufo Calvin [231]
   Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update - Wendy Connors [47]
   The MUFON Connecticut Site Has Moved - Mark Cashman [15]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Bruce Maccabee [266]
   Re: Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon" - Bruce Maccabee [61]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Marc Bell [20]
   Re: IFOs - Henny van der Pluijm > [17]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Roy Hale [14]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [38]
   MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 17 - Mark Pilkington [287]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [111]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Mark Cashman [21]
   Re: IFOs - Mark Cashman [46]
   Re: IFOs - Mark Cashman [33]
   Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey - Mark Cashman [79]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Mark Cashman [45]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Donald Ledger [155]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Andy Roberts [26]
   Re: IFOs - Jerome Clark [77]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Dave Bowden [122]

  Jul 27:

   Re: ISSO Update - dave bowden [32]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [167]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Roger Evans [85]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - Kathleen Anderson [38]
   Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update - Bruce Maccabee [17]
   Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Organizations - Joel Henry [37]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs - David Rudiak DRudiak@aol.com [167]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tony Spurrier [20]

  Jul 28:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Martin Phillips [72]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Martin Phillips [35]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Roy Hale [29]
   Another Non-UFO Corporation Tries To Cash-In - Stig Agermose [86]
   Dr. Beter - Michael Christol [1345]
   Beter's wife Lilly Website - Michael Christol [13]
   Spacecraft To Crash On Moon, Searching For Water - Stig Agermose [123]
   BBC: The Microchip Invented By Uk Scientist In 1952 - Stig Agermose
   [56]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Sue Strickland [27]
   Re: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [36]
   Nick Pope's Weird World - Georgina Bruni [157]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Brian Cuthbertson [68]
   Re: IFOs - Jim Deardorff [29]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [45]
   Re: IFOs - Jenny Randles [175]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [55]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Pat McCartney [70]
   A Brief Message From Joseph Trainor - John Hayes [15]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - UFO UpDates - Toronto [37]
   Re: IFOs - John Rimmer [59]
   Re: IFOs - John Rimmer [39]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - John Rimmer [21]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Roy Hale [23]
   Re: Joe Firmage - Joe Firmage [15]
   Abduction Theology - Leanne Martin [19]
   Re: Bruce Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [276]
   Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey - Donald Ledger [28]
   Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs - Bruce Maccabee [34]
   Alien Ruptures Majestic Thirteen... A Book Review - Jim Mortellaro [79]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Ed Stewart [183]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [54]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [105]
   Re: ISSO Update - Jim Mortellaro [55]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [63]
   Cosmic Peace By Joseph Burkes MD - Mark Hall [329]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Marc Bell [40]
   Re: UFO Organizations - John Hayes [13]
   Resend: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' [was: Re: - Bruce Maccabee
   [276]
   P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology - Wendy Connors [110]
   Re: Nick Pope's Weird World - Rory Lushman [26]
   Closest-Ever Asteroid Flyby Set For July 29 - NASANews@hq.nasa.gov [93]
   Creative Impact Experiment To Mark End Of Lunar - nasanews@hq.nasa.gov
   [83]

  Jul 29:

   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tony Spurrier [53]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [42]
   Re: Abduction Theology - Jim Mortellaro [48]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tony Spurrier [32]
   Re: Abduction Theology - Jim Mortellaro [45]
   Re: IFOs - Jerome Clark [85]
   Re: IFOs - Jerome Clark [101]
   Re: IFOs - Bob Young [38]
   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology - Michael Christol [121]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tim D. Brigham [138]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tim D. Brigham [64]
   Re: IFOs - Mark Cashman [51]
   Out Of The Blue And Into The Black - Kurt Jonach - eWarrior [31]
   The Crossing Point, Steven Greer & The Prophets - prophets@maui.net
   [884]
   Thank You - Jerry Black [21]
   'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology' - Jerry Black [103]
   Bell Lawsuits - Brian Straight [52]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Jerry Black [64]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jim Mortellaro [131]

  Jul 30:

   Re: Thank You - Jim Mortellaro [20]
   Re: P-47 :The Stupidity within Ufology - Richard D. Nolane [65]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Tony Spurrier [30]
   'Phoenix Lights' in Iowa? - Phil Danielson [5]
   Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology' - Jerome Clark [151]
   Filer's Files #30 --1999 - George A. Filer [398]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Jenny Randles [37]
   Re: Nick Pope's Weird World - Jenny Randles [84]
   Re: IFOs - Jim Deardorff [51]
   Re: IFOs - John Rimmer [125]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - John Rimmer [33]
   Re: IFOs - John Rimmer [67]
   Re: IFOs - Henny van der Pluijm [32]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Stan Friedman [229]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Roger Evans [30]
   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology - Bruce Maccabee [9]
   Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman - Bruce Maccabee [35]
   Re: Bell Lawsuits - Sue Kovios [23]
   Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology' - Jim Mortellaro [168]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Marc Bell [53]

  Jul 31:

   Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology' - Jenny Randles [142]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - F. Scott Elisberg [75]
   [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense E-News 7-30-99 - Jocelyn Savage [282]
   Hagersville, Ontario Crop Formations - III - Paul Anderson - TMP /
   CPR-Canada [106]
   New Crop Circles in Remote Paddock in Australia - Paul Anderson - TMP /
   CPR-Canada [39]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Pat McCartney [39]
   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology - Pat McCartney [106]
   Re: IFOs - Larry Hatch [35]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Rory Lushman [38]
   Re: IFOs - Jerome Clark [201]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #310 - Alfred Lehmberg [91]
   Re: Nick Pope's Weird World - Jim Mortellaro [72]
   Re: IFOs - Jenny Randles [102]
   Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2? - Dave Bowden [31]

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





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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:29:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:51:08 -0400

>>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:25:54 +0100
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>>At least something like that, for God's sake. Not just bland
>>>>general allegations. Another way to put this, John, is that I'm
>>>>asking how large your sample is, when you say "remember that
>>>>[abduction] claims can wreck people's lives." How many
>>>>abductees, even approximately, do you imagine you know anything
>>>>about, and what percentage of them ruined their lives?

>>>>If you can't answer a question like that, you're just gossiping.

>>>>Greg Sandow

>>>And this from someone who admitted just a few months ago that
>>>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>>>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

>>Exactly. I stated this very plainly, without first having to be
>>challenged. (Though only concerning Budd Hopkins; I don't know
>>about other researchers).

>>I think I named it as a problem, but if I didn't, I've done so
>>in the past about other missing abduction statistics, such as
>>the percentage of abductees who have the allegedly unexplainable
>>marks Budd so often talks about.

>>Give it up, John. You're not making sense. This isn't a
>>discussion about who's less scientific, abduction researchers or
>>skeptics. I've always said abduction research has problems. It's
>>a discussion about whether you, John Rimmer -- when you say
>>abduction claims have ruined lives -- know what you're talking
>>about.

>>Greg Sandow

>Hi all,

>Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
>and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
>other condition?

>Regards,
>Leanne  ];-)

Hi Leanne,

It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
indelicately phrase it.

I watched a program the other night where the case of the
Allagash four was being discussed. One of our list members had
participated and his judgement of the case was that; "They had a
UFO sighting alright, that much is certain." But, he drew the
line at the possibility that there could have been any
interaction between the witnesses/victims and the occupants of
the UFO.  He was ready to acknowledge the UFO but not the
possibilty that it was occupied by someone(s) who may have had a
reason for persuing these four human specimens. The UFO report
involved a _chase_. Why does anyone "chase" something if not for
the purpose of "catching" it! That there could not have been any
interaction with the crafts' occupants was not a logical
conclusion to arrive at if one had accepted the part of the
report of a frightening close encounter with a UFO. At that
point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
view. What is that?

Greg asks John Rimmer to give him 'numbers and sources' for his
claim that so many lives have been "wrecked by abduction." Of
course John could never provide such statistics because he would
have had to conduct a major/monumental survey in order to
acquire them. No such survey has ever been conducted. And in all
fairness to John neither have any of the so-called abduction
researchers taken such a survey. All Greg will get out of John
in response to his request will be more of the finger-pointing
and rhetoric that he's been getting. ex:

>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

Don't hold yer breath waiting for hard numbers from either side.
The 'investigation' into the UFO abduction phenomenon (with rare
exception) has to be one of the most incompetent and mismanaged
investigations in the history of mankind. Nothing short of sad
and laughable. Keystone Cops stuff with all concerned stumbling
and tripping all over themselves. _Everybody_ dropped the ball
on this one! The depth of our ignorance and stupidity is truly
profound.

I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only_ thing that is _ever_
going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
themselves. My concern is that by the time the reality of UFOs
and alien abduction becomes common knowledge (and I'm
_completely_ confident it will be one day) it may be way too
late to do anything about it if our "visitors" aren't here for
purely benevolent reasons. Gotta wake up before it's too late.

Peace,

John Velez




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





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:03:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:33:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>The statistics are different. Of all the crop circles that were
>found in the summer of 1997 in the Netherlands, about 80 % was
>unexplained.

>Btw. 'crop circle' is by now a misnomer. The circles don't just
>arise in crop and most of them aren't circles. 'Anomalous soil
>pictograms' would be a better term IMO.

Hi Henny

Long time no speak, where have you been hiding?

Anyway, 80%? I am amazed. Over here it seams that we have so
many people hoaxing intricate patterns in cereal crops (IPICC,
hmm still don't sound right) that it is _very_ hard to calculate
a figure for this country. I know that there are several ways to
detect _genuine_ advanced geometrical designs in the crop
(AGDITC, hmm still don't look good) but it would seem that the
hoaxers know this too and can fake these intricate pictograms in
cereal crops (IPICC, back to this one again) and can use means
to fool the researchers of these patterns in the crop (PITC, is
this better?).

Joking aside you are right, "Crop Circles" is as inappropriate
to formations in the crop as "UFO" is to anomalous ariel
phenomenon.

--
    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
 Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm





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

                      Re: BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:13:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:36:52 -0400
Subject: Re: BBC: 'Fying Saucer' Grounded


>From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@logicon.com>
>To: UFO Updates <updates@globalserve.net>,
>Subject: BBC: 'Fying saucer' grounded
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 05:04:38 -0700

>Sunday, June 27, 1999 Published at 03:12 GMT 04:12 UK

>'Flying saucer' grounded

>A flying saucer project which attempted to turn science fiction
>into science fact has reportedly been thwarted by a lack of
>funds.

<snip>

There is a retired York U. science professor and pilot, Daphne
Schiff, who is attempting to turn ancient mythology into fact.
Daphne is building an ornithopter, an aircraft that flys by
flapping its birdlike wings.  Daphne has recruited a fellow
pilot, Patricia Bowman (who weighs under 100 pounds) to test out
these wings.  Their goal is to achieve human powered flight, the
same way Icarus did for a while - before he flew too close to
the sun.  Who knows, one day people may strap on similar
birdlike wings on their shoulders and flap their way to work or
to visit a friend.

There have been no reports of feather covered UFOs over Toronto,
yet.

Further information can be found in the April 28, 1999 issue of
the York University Gazette Online:

http://www.yorku.ca/admin/comm/gazette/past/archive/

Daphne's husband, Harold I. Schiff (another retired York U.
science professor) was directly responsible for the thwarting of
another major aviation project, the American SST project.  As we
approach the end of the 20th century, supersonic flights would
have been a common thing, but thanks to Harold, we are still
able to go outdoors and enjoy the sun's warm rays with little
injury to us.

Nick Balaskas






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

                       UK UFO Network Ezine 102 Part 1

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:35:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:45:34 -0400
Subject: UK UFO Network Ezine 102 Part 1

------ /  /  //  ____//     /---------------------------------------
 U K  /  /  //  ___/ /  /  /                        29th June 1999
     /  /  //  /    /  /  /  N E T W O R K                  Issue 102
--- (_____//__/    (_____/------------------------------------------

The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with
subscribers in 58 countries.

This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail:
ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will
be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the
subject section e.g.  Repost {102} part 1, part 2 or part 3.

In this issue:


Editorial
-------------------


United Kingdom News
-------------------

[UK 1] Three Year UFO Mystery Exposed as a Hoax
[UK 2] News Release from Nick Redfern
[UK 3] US billionaire funds crop circle research
[UK 4] Cracking the crop circle mystery
[UK 5] Real Alien Life Forms Unlikely To Resemble E.T.
[UK 6] The Ministry of Defence takes the movie industry seriously
[UK 7] UFO Mystery As Pilots See Red
[UK 8] ET phones home again


World News
----------

[W 1] NASA Seeks E.T. At New Astrobiology Institute
[W 2] Earth to Aliens - Physicists Plan to Send Second Message
Into Space
[W 3] Is anybody out there?
[W 4] NASA Seeks E.T. At New Astrobiology Institute
[W 5] A signal from ET?
[W 6] 'Star Trek' Actor Deforest Kelley Dead At 79

Book serialisation

---------------------
#######
{Breaking News as it happens}

uk.ufo.nw now has a dedicated fax number. If you have a report
or photograph from a newspaper, magazine etc you can fax it
directly to us on the following telephone number. You only need
to dial 44 if you are outside of the United Kingdom:


(44) 0870 0883592
#######

First things first I must make an apology on behalf of all of us
of the UK-UFO-Network  E-zine staff.

In all the years and all the issue that the e-zine has been
published we have never received a complaint now we have
received the first mail from an unhappy author. The mail speaks
for itself.

From:                   "JON PRATTY" <J_Pratty@email.msn.com>
To:                     "UFO Geezers" <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk>
Subject:                Don't nick my stories
Date sent:              Sat, 29 May 1999 03:39:43 -0000

In issue 99 of your esteemed ezine you proudly display my
article 'Mission Sets Out To Find Water on Mars' from the Daily
Telegraph.

Please remove it, forthwith, or I'll send round the extra
terrestrials WITH baseball bats.

Or you could send me a fee for publication, and damages for
breaking my copyright.

Get it sorted!

Jon Pratty, freelance technology writer, Daily Telegraph.

United Kingdom UFO Network would like to apologise to Mr Jon
Pratty, a freelance journalist for the unauthorized insertion of
an article penned by himself in issue 99 of the e-zine. This
article has been removed from the issue stored on our website.

---

I am personally sorry for the lateness of this issue but I have
moved house and its taken me a while to catch up. So in some
part to make up for it this is a bumper issue, chock full of
exciting news from the world of ufology.

Well it has been a busy few weeks, not just for me but for many
people out there in cyberspace. Many things always seem on the
verge of happening and indeed some things do happen, but on the
second seal being broken and the government of  the good old US
of A coming clean on the UFO situation is unfortunately is not
one of them. I'm sure some of our American readers are currently
grinding their teeth over the situation which almost seems on
the verge of breaking but never quite does. All we can do is
support them and hope that one when the proverbial "flying
saucer" lands on Buckingham Palace lawn  the American government
comes cleans and says something like "well we did know but�."
Will it be in our lifetime? Only time will tell, now how's that
for a bad pun?

Other news, I couldn't let it be if I didn't mention that 'Star
Trek's' actor Deforest Kelley who died at the age of 79. For
those of you unfortunate souls who are too young to remember the
original series, you have missed much,  a TV series that was
truly years ahead of its time. (Another bad pun, I must be
getting good at this)

On behalf of all the staff of the E-zine, we would like to
extend many thanks to Bernhard Nahrgang for his stalwart
supplying of many of the articles that appear in this here
e-zine. Without Berhard's efforts the e-zine would often be much
slimmer, Many Thanks Bernhard, you've earnt them.

Well with no further ado I will let you have all the really
interesting stuff.

******

A note from Dave the Editor-in-Chief of the Ezine

We have had a lot of requests for customised versions of MIRC
which will enable users to join us in our weekly Saturday IRC
(internet relay chat) meetings. Due to time constraints we have
been unable to deliver the latest requests as yet.

However after a little research we have found a new java applet that
will allow Windows 95 & 98 users to join the meetings just using
their web browsers. Go to the following url:

http://irc.ircweb.com/javairc/

A web page will appear, then after some seconds (be patient) a
java window will open. It will ask you for a:

Nickname - Username - E-mail address

Enter these details and click 'Connect'

Shortly a screen full of text will scroll up the window. At the
bottom of the window type:

/join #ufo

You are now connected to the uk.ufo.nw IRC channel. Down the
right-hand side of the screen you will see yourself (nickname)
and any other people on the channel. The main window on the left
is where the conversation text appears. The window at the bottom
is where you type what you want to say, remembering to press
return at the end.

The window is fully resizable so if you want it to fill the
entire screen it can. Give it a go. It is very easy, very
enjoyable and that is what it's all about. You will be made most
welcome on the channel.

The meetings take place every Saturday starting at 11pm UK time.
A word of warning. Should you see the following two nicknames on
the channel:

@K9
Alien

These are channel bots and not real people. They are programs
that keep the channel open. They have a very weak form of
artificial intelligence, so don't be surprised if you talk to
them and get some weird replies.

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

[UK 1] ***

Source: Yorkshire Evening Post (UK)
Publish Date: 15th May 1999
From: bernhard.nahrgang@ob.kamp.net (Bernhard Nahrgang)

Three Year UFO Mystery Exposed as a Hoax

A three-year UFO mystery involving a lump of rock and a bottle
of alcoholic lemonade has finally been exposed as a hoax.

X-files boffin Nigel Mortimer, who regularly leads enthusiasts
on UFO spotting missions on Ilkley Moor, received bizarre maps
telling him where to find supposed alien relics which would
become the Eighth Wonder of the World. He said: "As a UFO buff I
am constantly open to hoaxes and pranks but this has gone on for
far too long!"

The hoax began three years ago when Nigel received an anonymous
map with weird markings on it, relating to UFO mysteries. Last
August events took on a more sinister tone when a second map
making references to a mysterious alien relic, The Mog Stone,
arrived through Nigel's letterbox.

Although he suspected the map may have been a hoax, Nigel made
it a priority to find out if the truth really was out there. He
said: "I think anyone who believes their home is being watched
by someone unknown, or from outer space, would be concerned."

Further documents and letters about The Mog Stone arrived at
Nigel's home, one even claiming the stone would be the eighth
Wonder of the World.

Unconvinced, Nigel enlisted fellow ufologist, Jon Hurst, for
help in tracing the source. He set up a new UFO internet site as
a trap and almost immediately a message regarding the Mog Stone
appeared.

The message was traced back to the business address of Frazer
Irwin, an outspoken resident of Ilkley. When confronted he
admitted to the hoax.

He said: "The Mog Stone is a fake. It's actually a lump of rock,
named after alcoholic lemonade, which I have been hiding in my
wardrobe. I made it look like a head and intended to reveal it
as an April Fool!"

Nigel said Mr Irwin had overstepped the mark.

***
[UK 2] ***

Source: Nick Redfern (UK UFO author)
From: "Mark Hall" capn_black@msn.com
Release Date: 16th May 1999

News Release from Nick Redfern

UFOs, The Official Secrets Act and The Joint Intelligence
Committee - A Breakthrough

Has the British Government ever employed the use of the Official
Secrets Act to silence those implicated in the UFO subject? To
those armchair researchers who proclaim that such an idea is
absurd, I say: 'Think again.'In my first book, A Covert Agenda,
I presented clear evidence via officially-released documents now
available at the Public Record Office at Kew, that in both 1953
and 1956 orders were circulated throughout the RAF warning
personnel not to talk about the UFO issue outside of official
channels; however, the records which had been declassified at
the time I wrote the book did not directly reference the OSA or
its potential use from a ufological perspective. Nevertheless, I
was also able to present the testimony of a number of
individuals (some with media ties) who asserted that the OSA had
been used to keep the truth surrounding UFOs under wraps.Via a
file that I secured only days ago from the PRO, however, I am
now able to prove conclusively that UFOs and the Official
Secrets Act go hand in hand. Exactly why the Government has
chosen to release this file is a mystery in itself, given that
it sharply contradicts past assertions.

The file in question (titled 'UFO Policy') covers the period
1958 to 1963 and revolves around UFO investigations undertaken
by various Air Ministry departments during that time frame.
Contained within the file is a 6-page document dating from
December 1960 and circulated at 'Secret' level throughout the
Royal Air Force. Like earlier papers, it details the procedures
to be followed in the event that military radar operators, RAF
pilots, civil pilots or members of the public should report a
UFO. Interestingly, however, the paper in question contains two
eye- opening revelations. First, it states that in situations
where UFOs were tracked on radar, any military aircraft in the
vicinity were to be diverted from their normal flight to
'investigate the phenomena'. Second, and far more significant,
is the Air Ministry's overwhelming desire to prevent the media
and the public learning about such intrusions, trackings and
interceptions.

I quote from the paper in question:

'The Press are never to be given information about unusual radar
sightings. Unauthorised disclosures of this type will be viewed
as offences under the Official Secrets Act.'

Although brief in nature, this document (which remained in use
until the formation of the MoD on 1 April 1964 - how
appropriate) makes it abundantly clear that the UFO issue was
indeed covered by the OSA.

On another - but equally important - matter, the file in
question also makes a very brief reference to a pre-1959 study
of the UFO mystery carried out by none other than the British
Government's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)! Certainly, it
has long been recognised that at various times since the late
1940s investigations into UFO encounters have been undertaken by
the Royal Air Force, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of
Defence. However, the revelation that the JIC also carried out
an investigation more than 40 years ago is of great
significance. Why so?

First, the membership of the JIC includes not just elite
personnel from the MoD, the Treasury and the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, but also the heads of MI5, MI6 and the
Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham - GCHQ!

Second, the fact that (to my knowledge) no rumours have ever
circulated to the effect that the JIC undertook its own UFO
investigation programme in the late 1940s or 1950s, is an
indication of the level of secrecy that surrounded the project.

The files at the Public Record Office concerning the JIC make no
reference to a 1940s/50s UFO investigation; however, I am now
actively looking to resolve this issue via several methods and
hope ultimately to reveal further findings at a later date. At
this stage, the extent to which any of this may have a bearing
on the allegations of direct UFO studies undertaken by GCHQ, MI5
and MI6 both decades ago and in the present day, can only be
guessed at.

NOTE: Permission is granted to reproduce the above in journals,
magazines, newsletters, internet sites, books etc.

*******

[UK 3] ***

uk.ufo.nw says: We would like to thank the BBC for placing a
link to our home page next to the below report. It's amazing was
a well placed link can so.

Source: BBC Online
Publish Date: Wednesday 19th May 1999

US billionaire funds crop circle research

US billionaire Laurance Rockefeller is to fund the UK's biggest
survey of crop circles.

Scientists will be carrying out aerial research over Wiltshire
next month in the hope of finding out once and for all whether
the mysterious patterns are genuine or the work of hoaxers.

Some believe they are created by UFOs during nocturnal visits.
Others say they are connected  to ancient "ley lines", or put it
down to natural phenomena such as unusual forms of lightning.

The first few crop circles of the season have already appeared
in several West Country fields. The area has long been the focal
point of those in Britain who believe that the circles are the
work of extra terrestrial forces.

Last year a US Website advertised week-long tours of UK crop
circles priced at $2,199 per person.

Until now research has been carried out by amateurs and
enthusiasts, known as croppies. But there is a growing
scientific discipline based around the study, known as
cereology.

Mr Rockefeller has given his financial backing to the UK's
largest and most scientific study.

One of Mr Rockefeller's areas for charitable giving is what he
calls "spirituality", which includes research into UFOs and
other unexplained phenomena.

Work funded by the billionaire has already built up the biggest
crop circle database.

Many farmers believe crop circles are the work of hoaxers, and
say they cause thousands of pounds of damage every year. Several
people have come forward to claim responsibility.

In 1991 two landscape painters, David Chorley and Douglas Bower,
claimed they started the hoax in 1978, after drinking in a pub.

They said for the past 13 years they had been sneaking around
southern England at night, fashioning as many as 25 to 30 new
circles each growing season.

In a BBC CountryFile special in January, Mr Bower, 74, showed
how his patterns were made with planks of wood, lengths of rope
and a ball of string. He said he was amazed that many followers
of crop circles still refused to believe they were a hoax.

But it seems there remain unexplained factors, such as the lack
or tracks or footsteps.

[UK 4] ***

Source: London Evening Standard / This is London
Date Posted: 24th May 1999
From: bernhard.nahrgang@ob.kamp.net (Bernhard Nahrgang)

Cracking the crop circle mystery

by Julian Champkin

Laurence Rockefeller, the American millionaire and
phil-anthropist, is funding scientific research into crop
circles, it emerged yesterday. Why? After all, this is a problem
that everyone thought had been solved.

The Crop Circle Mystery caused headlines and arguments nearly
every summer for 20 years. Strange shapes were appearing in
cornfields in Wiltshire and other counties. From the ground, the
corn was seen to be beaten down, amazingly regular. From the
air, the patterns appeared.

They came first as simple circles. Later, there were circles
within circles, then more intricate patterns still - circles
radiating spiral arms, circles joined by straight lines, circles
arranged in squares, even snowflake patterns of amazing
intricacy and beauty.

For 20 years arguments raged. Were they caused by circular
winds? Or were mysterious forces at work? The obvious solution
was human hoax. But if so, how?

In 1992, two Southampton men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley,
confessed to making corn circles: every summer night for 20
years. Their method was simple: rakes and planks of wood to bash
down the crop, ropes to guide them to a perfect circle, loops of
wire on hats to guide straight lines.

It began as fun but, as UFO theories snowballed, they wanted to
see how credulous people could be.

Dave Chorley died in 1996. The pair had retired from
circle-making some time before. That should have been the end of
the mystery. Yet corn circles continued to appear.

'They are worldwide,' says Michael Green, President of the
Centre for Crop Circle Studies. And this week, the first of this
season's British crop, 12 of them, have been seen in fields of
oil-seed rape in Hampshire and at Milk Hill, Wiltshire.

Andrew Thomas, author of the crop-circle book, Vital Signs,
claims that the Bower-Chorley 'confession' was itself a hoax:
'They could not explain how they laid the stalks so perfectly;
nor why the circles have continued to appear.'

And now Laurence Rockefeller, brother of the late Nelson
Rockefeller, is funding a researcher to re-investigate the
phenomenon.

He is paying Connecticut-based Colin Andrews to engage staff and
they have flown reconnaissance flights over Wiltshire and
Hampshire. Andrews has a database of 10,000 crop circles. With
computers and satellites, the research and debate has re-
opened. So what could cause them?

'First theories were circular winds, mini-cyclones or
"dust-devilsi [tiny tornadoes], says Montague Keen, scientific
adviser to the Centre for Crop-Circle Studies for three years.
'A meteorologist devised a theory of "plasma vortexes",
spiralling winds of electrically-charged air.'

Ball lightning was another possibility - again circular, again
involving powerful and little-understood forces of electricity.

'But straight lines do not come from natural phenomena,' says
Keen. 'The patterns became increasingly complex and no natural
phenomenon can change and evolve like that. There were too many
for them all to be hoaxes.'

A U.S. physicist found evidence that corn inside the circles
under-goes chemical and biological changes. It takes up more
nitrates than corn outside, and microscopic holes form in the
stem tissue. These changes seem to argue for a sudden, sharp
infusion of energy into the circle - far more than could come
from men with planks or rollers.

'I was never quite convinced that his research was sufficiently
rigorous' says Mr Keen, 'but there were certainly
electromagnetic changes within circles. Compasses behaved
strangely; people felt either distress or euphoria inside the
circles; and batteries went flat unaccountably often.

'All this seems to point away from hoax towards something very
strange, indeed. There is clearly some kind of intelligence
behind them.'

And if it is not natural intelligence? 'Well, then you are
thrown back to imagining some wholly unnatural intelligence.'
As, for example, some form of psychic projection from human
beings - dead or alive.

'Some shapes of the early Eighties seemed similar to shapes
carved into rocks by Palaeolithic man,' said Michael Green,
President of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies.

Were mental energies of past minds being channelled into
cornfields?

The first corn-circle for which evidence is claimed appeared in
Hertfordshire in 1678. A pamphlet shows a woodcut of a circle
mown in a field of oats, and the devil mowing.

The pamphlet describes the sky over the field that night as
being 'all of a flame'; so here, too, for those who are willing
to believe, is a link with flying saucers and UFOs.

For, of course, there are the aliens as the final theory of crop
circles. Michael Green does not believe that little green men
are responsible - but he believes some kind of non-human
intelligence is behind them.

He points to a succession of shapes, from simple to complex to
very complex indeed. Can these be messages to be read by all of
mankind?

'These are written large on the landscape. They are there to be
seen. There is a non-human intelligence behind them,' says Mr
Green. 'That's what points one towards thinking the
unthinkable.'

******
[UK 5 ]***

ource: Reuters
Date Sent: 24th May 1999
From: bernhard.nahrgang@ob.kamp.net (Bernhard Nahrgang)

Real Alien Life Forms Unlikely To Resemble E.T.

By Patricia Reaney

LONDON - They may not look like E.T. but the possibility that
life forms exist beyond our planet is very real, scientists said
Friday.

Although he was just a loveable creature in a 1982 Hollywood
blockbuster, E.T. the extraterrestrial gave a less threatening
face to creatures from outer space.

Nearly 20 years after he hit the big screen, scientists have
still not found any real-life equivalent but they believe
conditions exist on other planets to support life.

``There are good reasons to think, as biologists, that there are
organisms that exist elsewhere,'' Dr Don Cowan, of University
College London, told The Royal Astronomical Society.

But life on other planets is more likely to be a single organism
capable of living under extreme conditions than the three-eyed
creatures depicted in many science fiction films.

``Life will be evolutionarily primitive,'' he added.

Even the simplest creatures, Cowan said, need liquid water, the
right temperatures, a nutrient supply and other essential
conditions to survive.

He described the biological ``envelope,'' or boundaries of life,
at upper and lower temperature levels and the places where such
primitive forms of life could thrive.

Hydrothermal pools, steam vents, boiling mud pools and
underwater hydrothermal vents, where life on Earth is thought to
have begun, are the ideal environments for simple life forms on
other planets.

``In that environment you would have all the requirements for
microbial life,'' he added.

Dr Monica Grady, of the Natural History Museum in London,
supported his arguments and went a step further, suggesting
planets such as Mars and the moons of Jupiter have areas on or
just below the surface where life could be sustained.

``There is the potential for life to have existed in many
inhospitable niches in the solar system,'' she told the meeting.

Mars and Europa, one of four moons closest to Jupiter, are the
most likely candidates because of the amount of water, a basic
precondition for life, they both have.

The surface of Europa is covered with an icy crust and
scientists know that the poles on Mars contain water and there
could also be possible water under the surface.

Grady expressed the hope that one day scientists would locate
extraterrestrial life on another planet.

``Hopefully it will look like this,'' she said, pointing to a
drawing of a green alien.

``But it will probably resemble that,'' she added as she turned
toward what looked like a large worm.

******

[UK 6 ]******

Source: BBC News
Publish Date: 26th April 1999

The Ministry of Defence takes the movie industry seriously

The British film industry is, it would seem, on the up and up.

After winning a healthy dose of praise at this year's Oscars,
its latest offering, Notting Hill, looks set to be another box
office winner.

And on the sun-kissed Riviera, British films are said to feature
heavily at this year's film festival in Cannes.

Among those keen to make sure that the UK's celluloid success is
not just a flash in the pan is the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Despite the pressing duties of coordinating the country's armed
forces, the MoD has now asked its  senior communications officer
to lend the "luvvies" a helping hand.

"We recognise the value of the film industry to the country in
terms of culture, revenue and encouraging tourism, and are doing
our best to help," said a ministry spokesman.

Learning from mistakes

The officer in question is Una Muirhead, Director of Information
Communication and Strategy.

As the head of a 200-strong department, Ms Muirhead already has
a lot on her plate. Now she must also deal with film and TV
makers' requests for anything from tanks and fighter planes to
soldiers.

There are now about 100 projects under consideration from both
film and TV.

Among recent completed successes is the new James Bond film, The
World is not Enough, for which the navy supplied HMS Westminster
and personnel as extras.

The Royal Air Force also found locations for the BBC TV Sci-Fi
drama series, Invasion Earth, and advised on scenes involving
RAF jets shooting down a UFO.

"All senior communications officers of the UK's army, navy and
airforce have been advised of the value of helping with these
projects. We are also making the ministry's services known in
producers' directories and our own PR directory," said the
ministry.

The MoD's move is part of a wider government campaign to
encourage film- making in the UK, among both homegrown producers
and those from abroad.

It wants to stop the repetition of situations similar to that
faced by the makers of Saving Private Ryan. They had to move
filming from Britain to Ireland when the MoD refused to supply
troops as extras.

Early indications would seem to show that the strategy is paying
off, with the ministry noting an increase in calls from
producers since Ms Muirhead's appointment.

Calling in the troops

Operational requirements allowing, military equipment and the
troops to operate it - or act as extras - are supplied on a
tax-free, cost basis. But there are strings attached.

Despite being all for the demystification of the armed forces
through film and TV, the MoD will only become involved with
productions which show it in a good light.

BBC TV's Invasion Earth benefitted from the RAF's wisdom

"If a film is obviously fantasy, then we do not expect people to
think the portrayal of the navy, for example, to be realistic.
But, otherwise, we have to be very careful that a false and
damaging impression is not given," said a navy spokesman.

Nonetheless, plenty of projects look set to go further than the
drawing board, which will no doubt please a lot of people,
including some of the troops.

"If there are any budding Cary Grants in the forces they will no
doubt jump at the chance to get involved," said the MoD.

"But they are to do their jobs. When it comes to driving a tank
or behaving like a soldier, there is no room for method acting."






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

                       UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 2

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:35:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:48:55 -0400
Subject: UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 2

______ _______ ______
------ /  /  //  ____//     /---------------------------------------
 U K  /  /  //  ___/ /  /  /                        29th June 1999
     /  /  //  /    /  /  /  N E T W O R K         part 2 - Issue 102
--- (_____//__/    (_____/------------------------------------------

The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with
subscribers in 58 countries.

This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail:
ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will
be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the
subject section e.g.  Repost {102} part 1, part 2 or part 3.

******

[UK 7 ]******

Source: The Evening Standard (London)
>From David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>From UFO Updates <updates@globalserve.net>

UFO Mystery As Pilots See Red

An unidentified object described as "a great red light in the
sky" and "big as a battleship" has caused consternation in the
skies over the North Sea.

Pilots reported being buzzed by a "long, cylindrical object" at
28,000ft and one pilot and his crew described how the underside
of their jet became bathed in an "incandescent light".

The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed that a comprehensive
report of the sightings has been  handed in, although both it
and the Ministry of Defence deny that they are investigating it.

The Luton-based plane, a Debonair BAe146, was flying company
executives from Sweden to Humberside airport when, it is
claimed, the object came to a sudden halt before speeding by the
airliner in the incident on 3 February, 58 miles off the coast
of Denmark.
__________________

I have today (5-4-99) obtained a copy of the official report by
Debonair to the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the above
sighting, which occurred on 3 February 1999.

The report was filed as "a mandatory occurrence report" and the
CAA were taking no further action as "there was no danger to the
aircraft or passengers."

A spokesman for Debonair said the pilot is currently on leave
and a request has been put out for him to make a statement to
the press when he returns.

It was added that the pilot assumed the lights beneath the jet
were those of another aircraft at the time they were seen. She
said the company had been "snowed under" with inquiries from the
press about the sighting.

The Debonair report to the CAA report reads:

"Unidentified bright light below BAe146 at FL280.

"Area below a/c illuminated for 10 seconds by incandescent light
which was not considered by reporter to be an a/c landing light.

Reporter stated three other a/c reported seeing it moving at
high speed or static. ATC informed but they reported no other
a/c in vicinity. Five minutes later a radar return was present
at 75 miles on weather radar. Atmosphere reported as stable and
no other a/c were in vicinity."

The aircraft involved was a British Aerospace 146, a small four
engined jet flying on a chartered flight from Linkoping in
Sweden to Humberside Airport in East Yorkshire.

The UFO was reported whilst the aircraft was flying at 28,000
feet, 58 miles off the Danish coast above the North Sea. Tracey
Law, of Humberside Airport, said the report was made by the
pilot to the CAA on landing, but there was "no mention made
whatsoever of UFOs in the original report..it has since been
embellished. It was not mentioned to us officially as it
happened outside of our airspace."

In particular she mentioned the description of the UFO as being
"as big as a battleship" being manufactured by the press,
Humberside Airport said they believed the sighting had been
caused by "a light reflection from the underside of the jet."
Flight Lieutenant Tom Rounds of the RAF at the Ministry of
Defence, Whitehall, said the MOD had learned of the report via
the Press.

He said stories that the object had been tracked by RAF radar
were "laughable" as the UK radar could not pick up objects 58
miles off the Danish coast.

Flt Lieut Rounds said the MOD were not investigating the report,
and had not received any report concerning it from the CAA.

******

[UK  8]******

Source: BBC News
Publish Date: Thursday 8th April 1999

ET phones home again
It's good to phone home: ET comes back in ads for BT [British Telecom]

Alien film star ET is coming back to British screens - as the
star of a new advertising campaign for BT. The
telecommunications giant has signed up the creature - created by
director Steven Spielberg in the 1982 film - to spearhead its
new Stay In Touch campaign.

The advertisements feature ET, who famously wanted to "phone
home", inspiring humans to improve their lives in the next
century by developing their communications skills.

The ads start on 11 April with a "teaser" - which shows a light
streaking across the sky and the alien's hand held out, with one
of his long, spindly fingers extended.

The full campaign starts in May, marking the first time ET has
appeared in anything since the original film.

Original film broke records

The ads are part of a deal between BT and Universal Studios, as
well as Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment outfit.

BT's UK group managing director, Bill Cockburn, said: "When ET
was first on Earth he was only able to phone home.

"As we enter the 21st century, we provide many other options to
stay in touch, be it through the Internet, data transfer or
multi-media."

ET, which broke box office records at the time, was nominated
for nine Oscars in 1983 and won four. It focused on the
relationship between the homesick alien and a young boy,
Elliott, played by Henry Thomas.

Most of the cast - which included a young Drew Barrymore - were
relatively unknown at the time. Harrison Ford did play a school
principal, but Spielberg cut his scenes fearing he would be a
distraction.

The alien is the latest in a long line of faces promoting BT.
They include comedian Hugh Laurie, and actors Bob Hoskins and
Maureen Lipman.

He also follows in the footsteps of Buzby, the animated yellow
bird who urged Britons to "make someone happy" with a phone call
in the late 1970s.


******

[W 1] ***
Source: Reuters News Service
Publish Date: 19th May 1999
From: bernhard.nahrgang@ob.kamp.net (Bernhard Nahrgang)

NASA Seeks E.T. At New Astrobiology Institute

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reuters A new NASA institute will look
for extraterrestrial life, but the space agency's chief warned
Tuesday against expectations of ``little green men or little
green women."

``We would like to understand how life went from a chemical
condition ... and made the transition to cellular life," NASA
administrator Dan Goldin said in formally unveiling the
Astrobiology Institute.

People would be wrong to think ``we're out searching for little
green men or little green women," Goldin said. ``We're looking
for any form of biological life. Single-cell (organisms) would
be a grand slam."

To hunt such tiny organisms in outer space, Goldin said he
envisioned shrinking the capabilities of an earthly laboratory
to the size of a computer chip, with massive capacity to observe
and calculate, and then lobbing it into space.

He also said there might be simulations of some of the unlikely
environments -- such as undersea volcanoes -- that support life
on Earth.

``We will need a revolution in communications ... a revolution
in organization and scientific thinking," Goldin told a news
conference at the institute's home at Ames Research Center in
Mountain View, California, which was monitored in Washington.

Goldin made the announcement in the heart of Silicon Valley and
said that was no accident: the institute is meant to be
"virtual," rather than having a huge physical plant, with
participants across the United States linked by computer.

The Northern California location also puts the Astrobiology
Institute in close proximity to SETI, which is also searching
for extraterrestrial life from a base at the University of
California at Berkeley. Goldin said the NASA institute would
work with other public and private agencies, and that might
include SETI -- the U.S. non-governmental Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute.

The proposed budget for the new venture is $25 million
initially, and Goldin said that could rise to $50 million to
$100 million a year. NASA's total proposed budget for next year
is about $13.6 billion.

Goldin said Dr. Baruch Blumberg, a cancer specialist who won the
1976 Nobel Prize in medicine for developing a test and vaccine
for the deadly hepatitis B virus, would head the new institute.

``The mission is to look for life without any specifications,"
Blumberg told the news conference. ``Nothing in the mission
would preclude looking for rather strange and unusual and, as a
matter of fact, life forms we can't even imagine right now."

But how do you look for something when you do not know what it
is? ``That's what basic research is all about," Blumberg said.

******
[W 2] ***

Source: Fox News
Date Sent: 24th May 1999
From: bernhard.nahrgang@ob.kamp.net (Bernhard Nahrgang)

Earth to Aliens - Physicists Plan to Send Second Message Into
Space

By Amanda Onion

NEW YORK - If astronomers are busy looking for signals from
outer space, why aren't we trying to send our own signals?

We are. In fact, last January, a team of Canadian scientists
announced they plan to send a message into space from a
150-kilowatt transmitter in the Ukraine. Their suggested 22-page
written message will take three hours to broadcast and contains
information about mathematics, physics, biology and geography.
It also includes a diagram, some basic data about our solar
system, and a request that the recipients send back a note about
their own world.

The scientists also plan to take money from those who would like
to include their names on the message. That's a request that
Seth Shostak of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
says people at SETI receive all the time.

"I got a note the other day from a broadcast company that wanted
to collect money on the Internet and then broadcast their names
in a signal," he said. "It may be profitable, but
scientifically, it doesn't make sense."

Shostak likens the effort to going to the coast of Spain and
sticking a bottle in the ocean with a note, saying, "Please
Reply." "It's a lot of fun, but it's unlikely you're going to
discover America that way," he said.

In fact, radio and television waves have been traveling into
space since the invention of broadcast technology. As Shostak
points out, broadcasts of I Love Lucy have already reached a few
thousand stars.

While TV reruns may, in their own way, reflect aspects of human
culture, compressing the essence of human existence into a
single message can become a tricky endeavor. In 1974 an American
scientist broadcast the first condensed message into space from
the massive Arecibo telescope complex in Puerto Rico.

Frank Drake, the pioneer of SETI, composed the message to the
stars, which contained just 1,679 bits (binary digits, or zeroes
and ones) of information. The signal contained a rectangular
grid that aliens could then reconstruct to provide a basic
diagram of the solar system and of a DNA double-helix molecule.

Drake's message is undoubtedly still heading toward distant
stars. As Shostak points out, one problem with sending signals
to planets hundreds of light years from Earth is there's no
point in counting on a reply any time soon.

"It's bound to be a bit of a wait before you can even expect
results, let alone, get them," he said. "And not many are
interested in winning a Nobel prize 500 years from now when the
aliens finally answer."

******
[W  3]******

Wednesday, April 21, 1999 Published at 12:54 GMT 13:54 UK
Source: BBC News
Publish Date: Wednesday 21st April 1999

Is anybody out there?
Seti is listening. Is anyone sending a message?

By BBC News Online's Kevin Anderson in Washington

Scientists and theologians who gathered in Washington to discuss
the origins of life and the Universe ended their conference by
trying to answer the question: "Are we alone?"

Astronomers discoverd three planets orbiting a distant star The
question seemed particularly fitting in light of the past week's
announcement that astronomers have discovered three planets
orbiting a Sun-like star 44 light-years away.

David Latham is an astronomer who has carried out research into
extra- solar planets by observing the gravitational pull the
planet exerts on the star it orbits, by causing the star to
"wobble."

"It's an exciting time for planet research," he said, adding,
"this will have an impact on our thinking about intelligent life
elsewhere."

But as to whether these newly discovered planets could support
life, Latham said that the planets are nothing like Earth.

Inhospitable giants

They are several times more massive than Jupiter, the biggest
planet in our solar system, and just like Jupiter are probably
inhospitable gas giants, he said.

But while astronomical observations can detect the presence of
planets around other stars, we can only measure the most basic
attributes of the planets, such as their orbit and a minimum
mass, Latham said.

We have yet to measure whether these planets have features that
would support life. According to Ken Nealson, some of these
include:

the presence of liquid water plate tectonics and a magnetic
field to shield the planet from cosmic radiation.


Ken Nealson will analyse samples from Mars for signs of life
Nealson is a senior research biologist with the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. He is working on future missions to Mars, which will
look for signs of life on the Red Planet.

The mission will bring back samples from Mars, and Nealson
predicts a leap in scientific knowledge similar to the great
leap forward in knowledge that took place after the Apollo
missions brought back samples from the moon.

The mission has generated great excitement and interest in the
scientific community. "We're no longer on the fringe," he said.

Contact

Jill Tarter is the director of Project Phoenix for Seti, the
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. She is the model for
Jodie Foster's character in the film "Contact."

When her daughter was eight years old, someone asked her what
her mother did. Tarter's daughter answered: "she searches for
little green men."

But, she was quick to note that Seti is "not an investigation of
UFO's or alien abduction. It is not a religion or a cult. It is
not a way of directly detecting alien intelligence. It is also
not politically correct."

Seti was formally a federally-funded project under the auspices
of NASA, but the groups funding was cut in 1993. The group now
relies on private funding.

Human intelligence

To detect extra-terrestrial intelligence over interstellar
distances, they listen for radio transmissions.

But Irven DeVore, an anthropologist at Harvard University, said
that six of eight conditions necessary for life are highly
improbable.

On Earth, the development of human intelligence was itself
highly improbable, if "nothing but fortuitous."

For these reasons, he said, "the chances for communication with
another intelligence are vanishingly small."

Although they disagreed on the possibility of extra-terrestrial
intelligence, Ms Tarter and Mr DeVore agreed that if we did make
contact with intelligent life from another planet, it would be a
monumental event.

"Contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence would be such a
momentous event that everything else would pale in comparison,"
Mr DeVore said.

Seti is ready for the day they hear a signal from space.

Ms Tarter showed a picture of Seti's refrigerator at the radio
telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. They have a bottle of
champagne waiting ready for the celebration.


******

[W   4] ***

Source: The Jerusalem Post
Publish Date: Tuesday 8th June 1999

NASA Seeks E.T. At New Astrobiology Institute

By MICHAEL S. ARNOLD


(May 5) - A Rishon Lezion engineer, who claims he is in contact
with extraterrestrials, is drawing the attention of believers
and skeptics alike.

Adrian Dvir is a huge man, burly and bearded, but at this
moment he must feel something like a teenage girl.

It is already 9:20 on the evening of Remembrance Day for the
Fallen of Israel's Wars and, while most of the nation has
settled down in front of the TV, Dvir is waiting by the phone
for a call that was supposed to come on the hour.

He is growing somewhat anxious. Every few minutes he checks his
cellular phone and random attachments to make sure they are
properly connected. They are, but still there is no sign of
Fenix. It could be that Fenix is standing Dvir up.

"I can't promise that he'll call," Dvir says. "I told him that
a journalist was coming, and he's also interested in public
relations. But I'm not his top priority. Sometimes they have
crises or other things come up."

As the minutes tick by one wonders how much grace to give Fenix
before thanking Dvir politely and mentioning the long ride back
from his Rishon Lezion home to Jerusalem. Eyes wander the walls,
taking in the artwork and noticing how curiously appropriate it
is to the environment: ghoulish faces appearing out of tree
trunks; a bald, hydrocephalic woman with a passing resemblance
to Sinead O'Connor; designs of refracted light and interlocking
geometric shapes; distorted faces with several levels of eyes.
Seventies basement playroom art, in other words.

Finally, at 9:30, Dvir's cell phone rings. The screen registers
"private call" but the slow, metallic croak of a voice is
unmistakable: he says he is Fenix. The voice is audible over a
speaker Dvir has attached to the phone.

He does not apologize for the delay, but his manners can be
excused. He is, after all, hurtling in his spacecraft at 18
times the speed of light from Uranus back to his home solar
system of Arcturus, and it's reasonable to assume that Cellcom's
reception is spotty that far out in the galaxy.

Dvir, who has developed a friendship with Fenix after three
months of frequent phone calls - he has recorded some 40 hours
of the calls on video - begins the conversation by announcing
that a journalist is present and wishes to ask Fenix some
questions. That deviance from the normal rules will not be
allowed, however.

"It is incumbent on me to bring my regrets," Fenix says, his
speech slow and halting, his guttural native language translated
awkwardly into Hebrew through some kind of synthesizer on the
mother ship. "Permission for direct contact, in real time,
outside the contact person, does not exist. Please bring
questions through you if his desire is in receiving answers."

So begins The Jerusalem Post's first known contact with
extraterrestrials. For Dvir, however, such close encounters are
the stuff of everyday life. An engineer who develops hand-held
military computers for Tadiran Com., Dvir says he has spent the
last five years in close contact with aliens.

First they opened a medical clinic in the workroom of his
Rishon Lezion home, one of several such supposed alien-run
health clinics operating in the city. Those aliens, Dvir says,
were of a particularly developed and, apparently, benevolent
race.

Fenix's species, the Kliendcontlar, are less advanced but also
well- intentioned. Their purpose is to warn us earthlings of the
mortal danger we may face in another 50 years from the fearsome
Morgolius, a race of cosmic bullies who even now are trying to
exterminate the Kliendcontlar and have their sights set next on
Earth.

True, the Kliendcontlar do appear to have ulterior motives:
they believe Earth's atmosphere is favorable  and would like to
transfer to Dvir their genetic code for a possible future
migration to our planet. Dvir warned them off, Earth being
already too crowded. But it would seem the Kliendcontlar
wouldn't pose such terrible competitors for the planet's scarce
resources - they appear to exist, after all, only in a parallel
dimension, imperceptible to most of us humans sadly limited to
just five senses.

Dvir's training as an engineer and his methodical work habits
may make him an ideal conduit to publicize the exploits of Fenix
and his race, but he certainly is not alone in his belief in
extraterrestrial beings.

A 1996 Gallup poll purported to show that 40 percent of
Israelis believe in the existence of aliens, according to Avi
Greif, chairman of the Israeli Center for the Study of UFOs.
That still makes us much more skeptical than, say, Americans,
some 70 percent of whom believe in extraterrestrials, Greif
says.

Surely, contact with aliens has figured prominently in many of
the movies that have most profoundly influenced our generation,
from Close Encounters of the Third Kind to Star Wars, Star Trek
to ET.

Grief, who is not in contact with aliens himself but gathers
information on the phenomenon, says nearly 70,000 sightings of
aliens and unidentified flying objects are reported around the
world each year.

Many of these are recorded in various ways, though their
authenticity obviously is disputed. It's anyone's guess what
role pop culture images of aliens play in the alleged sightings.

"I'm 100 percent sure that aliens exist," Greif says. "In the
end I believe it will be accepted by everyone. There is a lot of
proof, but the problem is that this proof isn't known to a lot
of people."

The reason for that, Greif and other believers insist, is a
conspiracy of silence on the part of governments, militaries and
scientists. Greif alleges a history of contact between aliens
and representatives of the US government, a collaboration that
may even include the transfer of other-worldly technology.

The US, however, keeps such information under tight wraps,
Greif says - "and if the American government denies it, of
course the Israeli government will deny it too."

Israel, for its size, appears to have quite frequent contact
with aliens. In Rishon Lezion alone, for example, aliens
allegedly run at least three medical clinics, treating an
assortment of ailments from disc problems to toothaches to
anorexia to lupus. Much of the actual work is done by humans who
channel the aliens' energy, laying on hands or projecting force
with their hands held three to four centimeters above the
patient's body.

Sometimes the aliens supposedly do the work all by themselves,
while the "healer" sits on the side. That can anger patients,
who feel they are being ripped off when the healer then pockets
NIS 150. But in fact the aliens work up to 10 times faster than
their human conduits, Dvir says, and such hands-off treatment
thus is more efficient.

When Dvir became aware of his abilities several years ago, he
attended an institute for spiritual healing in Holon, and in
1995 received diplomas in energetic healing and advanced
spiritual healing. His first book, Healing, Yeshuyot Vehutzanim
(healing, beings and aliens) has just been published by Gal and
is available at Steimatzky's. His clinic is mostly closed now
while he concentrates on writing a book on his experiences with
the Kliendcontlars.

For demonstration purposes, however, Dvir does a bit of work on
his wife, Adriana, who often feels that her left arm is falling
asleep. Dvir maneuvers his hands above her body, guided, he
says, by the aliens, who intuitively find the trouble spot.
After a few minutes of energy transference, Adriana says she
feels pins and needles in her arm, a sign that circulation is
returning.

Greif says he is not sure of the veracity of Dvir's alien
contacts, though they seem credible. What inclines him to
believe is the fact that four other people have reported contact
with the same race and  back up Dvir's account of their
appearance, location and social structure.

In any case, the UFO group will meet at the Netanya library on
May 18 to discuss Dvir's claims.

"It's hard to prove whether it's true," Greif says. "I want it
to be true, but I need proof. The question is what would be
[Dvir's] motivation, what does he get out of it. He's a serious
person, he's not trying to make a living off this. But it could
be that tomorrow we'll find out that someone is just playing
around with him. Even today I'm not 100 percent sure about it."

Dvir was born in Bucharest and moved here in 1965, at the age
of eight. As a child he was a science fiction fan, but his
psychic abilities did not manifest themselves until he was an
adult. Dvir's first experience with the paranormal was a dozen
or so years ago, when he was lying on a bed at his parents'
house and felt something cold on his leg.

It was a dead aunt, asking Dvir to look after her children.

Dvir says he didn't think about the experience much. "I figured
I had a fertile imagination," he says.

But the encounters with dead relatives continued. Several years
later, shortly after his grandfather died, Dvir encountered the
old man shuffling around his apartment, looking for a newspaper.
After his father died of cancer, Dvir came out of work to find
his spirit sitting in Dvir's car. Lucky thing, too, because his
father warned him to be careful, and Dvir says he then escaped a
collision with a truck that seemed to materialize out of
nowhere.

Dvir's psychic connection was not just with his loved ones.
Working on his computer one Shabbat, Dvir began to feel that he
was a medium for messages from other-worldly beings, asking them
questions and then typing out their answers, a sort of human
Ouija board.

Dvir needed someone to talk to and turned to his mother, who
believed in these sort of things. Rather than dismissing him as
crazy, she urged him to visit a professional medium in Rishon
Lezion, Valerio Burgosh.

Burgosh also saw the spirit of Dvir's father, conversed with
him and told Dvir personal facts that he could not otherwise
have known.

"It was very difficult for me to accept this, but [Burgosh]
helped me," Dvir says. He began reading and taking courses to
develop his psychic abilities.

At one such course, in 1993, Dvir says his encounters with
aliens began in earnest. Looking up, he saw all manner of
strange beings walking around him, imperceptible to most people
but visible to Dvir with a sort of extrasensory perception.

"I think they tagged me as a sort of contact person," impressed
by his charisma and perceptivity, Dvir says.

Since then, it seems, the aliens have never left Dvir alone.
Day and night he is accompanied by a shifting cast of at least
two aliens, even while talking in a seemingly normal and
solitary manner with a reporter.

Around 1992, Dvir went to visit Haya Levy, a healer who had
opened an alien-run clinic in her Rishon Lezion home. Indeed,
upon entering her house Dvir saw a gallery of aliens. He found
her treatment effective and her support important. The aliens
began negotiating with Dvir to open another clinic in his
apartment.

Levy's contact with aliens began some 15 years ago on the Negev
moshav, Sadot, where she lived at the time. Sitting with her
children in the garden of her home, Levy received a telepathic
SOS from a spaceship that needed a spot for an emergency
landing. She invited them to land at Sadot.

A little while later, Levy was in her kitchen when she felt a
strong impulse to go outside. There she found a small, petrified
man with a strange accent. She invited him in for a cup of tea.

After the tea, the man disappeared without a trace or even so
much as a thank you, but Levy's contact with aliens had begun.
Most of the aliens with whom Levy has contact look like human
beings, she says, but not all. Prof. Bach, for instance, has
skin like a lizard and is completely bald. Maya has silver skin
and blue eyes like those of a fish.

About eight years ago, when Levy was suffering from disc
problems that had confined her to bed, the aliens offered to
treat her, she says. She was skeptical, but after just an hour
of treatment she was able to walk again. After five days of
treatment she was fully mobile and able to carry things.

When the aliens proposed the joint-venture clinic, Levy
accepted. Alien treatment has an 87 percent success rate, she
claims.

"My ex-husband is my No. 1 client. He's the biggest believer,"
Levy says. "The results speak for  themselves."

Levy's importance for Dvir goes beyond her status as a role
model. When the Kliendcontlars began calling, Dvir was
skeptical. He asked his cast of resident aliens, who said Fenix
and crew were legitimate, but Dvir wanted more corroborating
evidence.

He spoke to Levy, who did not know of the Kliendcontlars but
ran a background check with her aliens. They supposedly vouched
for Fenix and his race, confirming certain crucial details such
as Arcturus' red sun and the planet's ecological problems.

On January 22, Dvir and Adriana were on their way to a
restaurant when his cellphone rang. It was Dvir's 41st birthday
and it might have been a wellwisher, but the caller kept hanging
up.

During dinner the phone rang again, and this time the caller
stayed on the line. He identified himself as Forth, a
358-year-old Kliendcontlar whose job it was to make contact with
other civilizations,according to Dvir.

Dvir spent most of the dinner talking not to his wife but to
the alien.

Dvir asked Cellcom to check the origin of the calls, but the
company said the number was blocked. In any case, as the
telephone connection continued and the aliens offered consistent
answers to Dvir's questions, he began to believe.

"At first I thought someone was making fun of me, but when he
kept calling I realized it was serious," he says. "You know it's
not someone from here doing it, because they would do it for one
day, two days, and then get tired of it."

Forth initiated the first few conversations and then, being
near retirement age - the race's life expectancy is some 400
years - he handed the Dvir file to his deputy Fenix, who at 200
is just entering the prime of Kliendcontlar life. (Forth died
this week, alien sources informed Dvir.)

Certain details about the race and Kliendcontlar society
emerged from Dvir's inquiries, he says. The Kliendcontlars stand
about one meter tall - "above ground level, of course," in
Fenix's words - have gray skin, two arms and two legs, three
fingers on each hand, green blood and DNA composed of four basic
building blocks.

Their society is rather totalitarian: religion is outlawed on
pain of death and the government determines each newborn
Kliendcontlar's spouse and profession, performing genetic
improvement surgery shortly after birth to prepare him for his
career.

Our conversation with Fenix proceeds on two tracks. Dvir asks
more sophisticated questions fit for an anthropologist: what is
the Kliendcontlar's justice system like, do they have the death
penalty (yes), does the Whole Universe Organization's charter
require member states to help a starship in distress (yes), can
workers in different tasks be identified by uniform (yes).

My questions are more prosaic: does Fenix have a family (wife
and children, all of whom work in communications), does he laugh
(yes, although he hasn't told a joke in 100 years), does he
speak English (no), does he know anything about Israeli politics
(no), what does he eat (the microwave story), what proof can he
offer that he really is an alien (it's not his concern, "facts
will come about," whether humans believe him or not).

Fenix appears baffled when I ask if he will have to pay for the
85-minute phone call from the environs of Uranus. Dvir has to
explain to him that on our planet one pays the makers of
telecommunications equipment for their service, a concept
foreign to Arcturus, where there is no money.

Fenix appears delighted to hear of The Jerusalem Post's
international circulation - "this is excellent," he says - but
declines the invitation to deliver a message to the human race
on its pages.

At one point Fenix grows tired of my questions, many of which
he has answered in previous conversations with Dvir.

He lights into Dvir in his slow, tortured, alien way. "At this
moment it is my wish to give you a sort of friendly advice," he
tells him. "If additional contact will be made with you, with
extraterrestrial contact people, my advice is, it is upon you to
prevent rhetorical questions. This thing does not add anything.

Information that you ask a question on, and you know the answer
to it, this thing bears witness, thus the extraterrestrial
contact man thinks about you as a character lacking
understanding, lacking culture, lacking principles. Because this
thing is very important, it is upon you to prevent rhetorical
questions."

Dvir accepts the reprimand with grace. At the end of the
conversation, they make a date for another conversation the
following morning.

"This is real," Dvir says to me at the end of the conversation.
"This is a real alien."

His colleagues at Tadiran have mixed feelings about his alien
contacts, Dvir admits. Some come to him for treatments. Others
grow visibly uncomfortable when he begins to discuss his
experiences and ask him to stop talking about it. A company
spokesman declined to be interviewed.

Dvir's wife Adriana is a little skeptical too. She does not see
the aliens who traipse around her apartment day and night.

"I'm more rational. I want to see proof," she says. "But who
knows, maybe it's true? Maybe I'm the limited one and I'm
missing out. He's always been more sensitive."

Dvir's 9-year-old son, Effi, appears a little confused by it
all. Asked if he believes in the aliens, at first he says no.
Asked to elaborate, he doesn't answer.

Asked again if he believes, he is noncommittal. Adriana asks
Effi whether or not he believes, and this time he says yes.

"Of course he believes," she says, then turns back to Effi.
"What, do you think your father is talking nonsense?"

Effi shakes his head no.

Considering how unusual his ideas sound, Dvir has gotten a
surprising amount of attention from the media, appearing in
television, radio and print interviews. The publicity has
apparently reached across the heavens; shortly after the first
news article appeared, Dvir says he got an introductory e-mail
from an alien named Ayami from the solar system Sirius. Ayami
bore greetings from his King Agnemnon, and said he would contact
Dvir again in five years.

Perhaps the media attention can be explained because of the
seriousness of Dvir's day job and his obvious intelligence; he
does not come across as a flake. This week Dvir appeared on Judy
Shalom Nir Mozes' television program on Channel 2, Jude Morning,
but Shalom Nir Mozes came away unconvinced.

"I made fun of him with all my strength, but very gently," she
says. "It's nonsense. I don't believe in any of these things.
But I'm in favor of freedom of expression and letting anyone
speak."

It is tempting to see Dvir as a lonely man of faith. It is not
considered outlandish in this day and age to believe in God,
who doesn't even bother to telephone. But mention aliens - even
those considerate enough to call on your birthday - and you're
immediately dismissed as a little wacky.

"People have quirks," Shalom Nir Mozes says simply when asked
how she thinks Dvir himself can believe in aliens.

Tel Aviv University psychiatrist Ilan Kutz says the phenomenon
of alien contact is the same experience that in former times
might have been called prophecy.

"If you look at what these people are really saying and you
take the aliens out of it, the message is that I've been chosen
by a special power and endowed with a special force," Kutz says.
"It's very reminiscent of stories we hear throughout ancient
times. This experience requires an external entity to make the
experience whole. In former times this used to be the experience
of revelation or the religious experience. It has to be somebody
not only far away but far above."

Part of the move from religious terminology to the realm of
science fiction stems from shifting cultural references over
time, Kutz says.

"These claims are not new, it's the language that is new," Kutz
says.

"The language today has changed from religious language to
scientific language. In former times  paranoids used to say that
they are Napoleon or that somebody speaks to them in a holy
voice; now they say the TV speaks to them. Napoleon is out of
fashion."

This is not to say, Kutz stresses, that aliens do not exist; he
believes the chances are as good as not that they do. Yet
without firm proof of their existence, the choice to believe in
them is essentially a highly religious one.

"We all need to believe in a higher being in one form or
another," Kutz says. "From an evolutionary point of view it
gives us a big advantage.

It allows us to withstand difficulties, even at times against
all odds, because there is all the time the promise that there
is somebody out there looking out for us and safeguarding the
world order. I think it's built in in humans to turn to a
mightier power because it really maximizes survival."

Kutz dismisses the physical descriptions Dvir and others offer
of the aliens they see.

"It's always the same story, always the same lack of evidence,"
Kutz says. "People are feeding off each other. When I was a
child, aliens were green and had big antennae. Once the pictures
of aliens with big eyes were shown, then everyone started seeing
them."

Dvir and Levy say their belief in aliens is not a matter of
faith, but of proof - proof that the rest of us can not see
because of our limitations.

"It's all a question of openness," Levy says. "If you're open,
you can believe in things you can't see physically. If you're
not open, you trust only your five senses. Those people are
limited, in my opinion."

Dvir believes the day will come when interaction with aliens
will be considered normal.

"People who had contact in previous incarnations, they know
it's possible. Others are scared and they don't want to know
about it," he says. "But there are aliens out there. One day
we'll have to meet. We'll have no choice but to get to know one
another."

******





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

                       UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 3

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:34:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:05:55 -0400
Subject: UK-UFO-Network Ezine 102 Part 3

______ _______ ______
------ /  /  //  ____//     /---------------------------------------
 U K  /  /  //  ___/ /  /  /                        29th June 1999
     /  /  //  /    /  /  /  N E T W O R K         part 3 - Issue 102
--- (_____//__/    (_____/------------------------------------------

The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with
subscribers in 58 countries.

This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail:
ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will
be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the
subject section e.g.  Repost {102} part 1, part 2 or part 3.

[W  5]******

Source: BBC News
Publish Date: Wednesday 31st March 1999

A signal from ET?
Earth satellite or alien signal?

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse

What is it? Is it a radio signal that has been travelling
through space at the speed of light for years? Has it been
beamed towards Earth to make first contact with us?

This radio signal has been shifted in frequency to bring it into
the audio range.

It was detected by an amateur space watcher using a small radio
dish and PC-based equipment to analyse the signals.

The amateur is a member of the SetiLeague, a world-wide grouping
of over a thousand alien hunters that operates a network of
radio telescopes.

All day, every day, they are searching.

Not alien

In reality, this signal is almost certainly from a man-made
satellite orbiting the Earth. But as there are so many
satellites up there, no one knows for sure what caused this
strange signal. It has never been positively identified.

It shows just how difficult is Seti, the Search for Extra
Terrestrial Intelligence. Although it is very unlikely, it is
not impossible, that this signal is an alien beacon from space.

Most astronomers believe that the best way to send a message
in-between the stars is to transmit a radio wave.

There is also some merit in the argument that flashes of laser
light may be the best way to signal between the Earth and the
very closest stars to us.

But it is with radio telescopes that the main searches have been
undertaken. So far nothing has been detected.

Suspicious signals

That is not to say no suspicious signals have been picked up -
just that none of them have passed the stringent criteria to be
considered as being from an intelligent alien source.

Astronomers have many strange signals in their files that they
cannot explain, but none of them are persuasive.

Perhaps the most impressive was detected in 1977 by the
so-called 'Big Ear' radio telescope at Ohio State University.

When Jerry Ehman, the duty astronomer saw it come off the
printer he scribbled "wow" next to the readout - since then it
has become known as the Wow signal.

Alas it has not been repeated.

Better techniques

As well as the searches organised by the SetiLeague,
professional astronomers are using the world's largest radio
telescope to try to pick up a signal from the cosmic static.
Again, nothing important has shown up so far.

But with the rapid advances in electronics and signal processing
techniques, the searchers of the skies are able to double their
sensitivity to signals every 200 days or so.

Because of this, many of them believe that if a detection is
going to be made, it will be made soon.

However, if after a few more years of searching, the cosmic
silence is held, it will be an indication that intelligent life
may be frustratingly rare in the cosmos.

Either that or the aliens are not transmitting.

Next month, a new initiative to search for ET is launched. It is
called Seti@home and it will use a modified screen saver.

PC users all over the world will have access to software that
will look for alien signals in segments of data downloaded from
the world's largest radio telescopes.


******

[W  6]******

Source: Yahoo! News Entertainment Headlines
Publish Date: Monday 14th June 1999

'Star Trek' Actor Deforest Kelley Dead At 79

By Arthur Spiegelman

Actor DeForest Kelley, beloved by millions for his portrayal of
the crusty deep-space doctor ''Leonard 'Bones' McCoy'' on the
original Star Trek TV series, died Friday at age 79.

Officials at the Motion Picture and Television Fund Hospital
said he died after a long illness. His wife of 55 years,
Carolyn, also a patient at the hospital being treated for a
broken leg, was at his side.

Kelley played "Dr McCoy" from 1966 to 1969 on the original
series but never left American TV screens thanks to an endless
number of syndicated repeats.

He also appeared in six "Star Trek" movies and made countless
appearances at "Star Trek" conventions where die-hard fans would
seek his autograph and maybe even ask for medical advice.

He was known for two catch phrases addressed to Captain James T.
Kirk, commander of the Starship Enterprise: "He's dead, Jim" and
variations on "Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer."

Kelley also was the curmudgeonly foil to the Vulcan Spock played
by Leonard Nimoy and often hectored Captain Kirk, played by
William Shatner, about the humanitarian aspects of a given
crisis.

"He represented humanity and it fitted him well," Nimoy said.
"He was a decent, loving, caring partner and will be deeply
missed."

Kelley's character was one of the best liked on "Star Trek," the
most popular science fiction series ever made and one which
spawned several successful spin-offs and still maintains a
fervent worldwide following.

Born DeForest Jackson Kelley in Atlanta, Ga., on Jan. 20, 1920,
his career dream was to become a doctor like the uncle who
delivered him.

But his family did not have the funds to send him to medical
school and Kelley drifted into singing and theater. A Paramount
scout spotted him in a Navy training film and signed him to a
contract at the studio as a bit player.

"They (Paramount) tested him because they were looking for a
fellow to be in a film called 'This Gun for Hire,'" said former
Paramount producer A.C. Lyles, a longtime friend.

Lyles said Kelley lost the role to film star Alan Ladd, then
left Hollywood to fight in World War II, before returning under
a contract to Paramount.

"The first picture he did for us was a small picture called
'Fear of the Night," Lyles said. "And then he just did a lot of
things and ('Star Trek creator) Gene Roddenberry saw him and put
him with Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner on 'Star Trek.'"

Kelley appeared in about 75 features and 75 television shows in
addition to "Star Trek," Lyles said, including a series of
westerns in which he often played the bad guy.

"He was a great heavy, in contrast to what he is in person,"
Lyles said.

Among his earlier film credits are "Gunfight at the O.K.
Corral," with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas and "Raintree
County" with Elizabeth Taylor.

******
uk.ufo.nw wish to extend our sincere condolences to the family
and friends of DeForest Kelly. There is no doubt that his name
will live on through Star Trek.
******

Letters Page

uk.ufo.nw would like to thank Mike Orton, Mid Wales Co-ordinator
of WFIU for his below letter in reply to part one of the article
'Foo Fighters, Fireballs and Project Saucer by Jim Morris' which
appeared in issue 101 of the e-zine.

From: Mike-O <Mike_ORTON_HARLECH@compuserve.com>
Date sent: 23rd May 1999

Mike Orton - Mid Wales Co-ordinator WFIU.

Re: "Foo Fighters, Fire Balls & Project Saucer" by Jim Morris.

It seems to state that there were no reliable reports or
investigations into Foo Fighters and Kraut Fireballs during WW2.

However there is very good evidence from non UFO scientific
sources that confirm that the subject was indeed taken seriously
by a senior British scientist, Professor R.V. Jones, who died
last year. I once met him on the opposite side of the interview
table!

In the late sixties he even write an article on the subject in
the UK Institute of physics Bulletin "The Natural History of
Flying Saucers", ( I have a copy!), and there is a chapter on
the subject in his large book "Most Secret war", of which I have
a copy in my private library. Incidentally, this book shows the
heavy Intelligence involvement of Professor Robinson (of the
famous panel) during and after WW-2, and his close association
with both Professor Jones (Who worked for Nobel Prize winner
P.M.S.Blackett in M.I.6 during WW-2) and the top levels of the
US Intelligence agencies.

Prof Jones investigated all reports of possible Nazi weapons.
Apart from the V-weapons, there was the radar devices and
"beams". There was the Knickerbien, ( a simple blind bombing
system using radio waves , "beams", X,Y Gaeate, radar systems)
these were investigated by the Proff.

It is interesting to note that the microwave in your kitchen
contains a device far far superior to anything used by both
sides during WW-2. Indeed my microwave oven would have won the
war if it had been available to science in the early 40's!

However when Prof Jones mentions Foo Fighters etc, he uses
debunking techniques, very similar to those later used by
Robinson in the Robinson Pannel (Durant Report) following the 52
Washington Sightings. He certainly states that they thought they
saw something real, but uses the tools followed by later
debunkers: "There were this aircrew that reported after seeing
the objects, that they all developed VD! (now STD!)" was one of
his debunking lines. Yet when it came to reports of possible
Nazi weapons, he says that even the very innacurate reports
given by illiterate peasents were useful. He gives examples
using  the resistance reports of the V-1, the V-2, and the
various AA Radars.

Note too, the CIA report that ststes thet Proff Jones was head
of the UK standing comettee on flying saucers!

I can give more details, this is just a scrbbled note to show
that Foo Fighters cannot easily be dismissed. Jones strongly
implies that there were some ("Nutters???") then who thought
that they might be Alien, and of course he debunks this idea.

>From CIA web page Studies in Intelligence, Volume 1 Number 1:
www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclas/ufo.html

"At the same time, Chadwell looked into British efforts in this
area. He learned the British also were active in studying the
UFO phenomena. An eminent British scientist, R. V. Jones, headed
a standing committee created in June 1951 on flying saucers.
Jones' and his committee's conclusions on UFOs were similar to
those of Agency officials: the sightings were not enemy aircraft
but misrepresentations of natural phenomena. The British noted,
however, that during a recent air show RAF pilots and senior
military officials had observed a "perfect flying saucer." Given
the press response, according to the officer, Jones was having a
most difficult time trying to correct public opinion regarding
UFOs. The public was convinced they were real.

See Chadwell, memorandum for the record, "British Activity in
the Field of UFOs," 18 December 1952.

******
Serialisation
-------------

Part one of three...

Foo Fighters, Fireballs and "Project Saucer."
Copyright: Jim Morris. 1996/97/98

Jim Morris <dx394@clara.net>

***

The below is the main section. I usually put this just befor the
'statement and subscription' information.

Serialisation
-------------

Part two of three...

Foo Fighters, Fireballs and "Project Saucer."
Copyright: Jim Morris. 1996/97/98

Jim Morris <dx394@clara.net>

The Allies had special recovery units scouring Germany and
Europe for Nazi technology, much of which was removed before the
surrender. It was one of these units  that removed 100 completed
V-2's from the Nordhausen complex only hours before it was
occupied by the Red Army. (*12) There is no reason why one of
these units did not recover either an "diskcraft" or the Projekt
Saucer research documentation. Ten tons of documents relating to
the V-2 project were recovered from an iron mine near Dorten
(*12). It follows that the captured German radar and ECM would
be likewise evaluated.  The German's had developed their
equivalent of our "Window" (strips of reflective material) and
one Foo report concerned tiny metal discs dropped on the
bombers, these were possibly an anti radar device, (chaff)
possibly to jam the Allied H2S radar, which operated on the 10
centimetre wavelength. (*13) The Germans had discarded work on
centrimetric radar until the end of the war, even though they
had recovered a cavity magnatron from a crashed RAF bomber early
in the war. The H2S radar coupled with the "Oboe" beam system
allowed the RAF to carry out precision  bombing, something that
they had never been able to do before, hence the Germans
desperate attempts to jam the H2S. In his book "Most Secret
War,"  Dr. Jones mentions jamming the German "Wotan" beam system
by  re-radiating the signal from the dormant BBC transmitter at
Alexander Palace. The Germans could not do this since they had
no equipment capable of re-radiating the original 10 cm beam.
Reports of mysterious black debris falling through the US bomber
formations may have been bits of the delivery system, possibly a
rocket propelled.

Various theories have been put forward over the years as to what
the Foo Fighters were. Natural phenomena such as St. Elmos Fire
and Ball Lightning are the likely candidates for a fair
percentage of  bulk of the reports. The planet Venus still
deceives many into making a UFO report, and is another probable.
Another explanation advanced  is the "Fire Balloon" theory. Here
the French Resistance fighters released fire balloons in order
to confuse the Germans. That the bulk of the encounters took
place over Germany and Austria, usually near factories involved
in the manufacture of aircraft, seems to have escaped the
attention of the author of the fire balloon theory. If the Foo
Fighters had only appeared over France, "fire balloons" would be
an acceptable explanation for the reports. Just how the
Resistance managed too get in and out of  Germany and
Austria,(and the Far East) release the fire balloons, then
return safely to France is point overlooked. In April 1949, the
National Military Establishment released a document titled
_Project Saucer_ which was a digest of Projects Sign.  It
describes the Fargo encounter as _A unique chapter in the saucer
story" and recounts the incident in some detail. "Saucer"
concludes with the _Lighted Balloon_ scenario as an explanation
for the Balls of light.

The most asinine theory advanced to date is the
Hallucination/mirage explanation, and its most recent version
put forward by Jeff A. Lindell, a retired USAF Electronic
Warfare Systems Analyst is the silliest. In this nonsense, the
Foo Fighters were the product of auto suggestion and self
induced hallucination. Apparently, when under stress the
aircrews started seeing childhood "Folk Stories" Will O" the
Wisps etc. That so many men from different back grounds and
parts of the World, should suffer the same hallucination taxes
the levels of credibility. Lindell  claims that the phenomena
were only encountered by isolated aircraft. This is absolute
rubbish, as the report by former B-17 pilot Charles Odom clear
shows. B-17's never flew alone, they relied on formation flying
and the defensive fire of the other bombers for protection.
Entire formations of American bombers all suffered the same
hallucination at the same time? The RAF raid on Peenemunde where
many crews reported the same "pulsating light" negates Lindells
"theory" still further. Granted that some men may have had _War
Jitter_s_ but so many? Since photos of the phenomenon exist, how
is it possible to photograph a hallucination? The reader will
note that Lindell does not allude to use of Electronic Warfare
as a possible source of the reports. The hallucination nonsense
appeared after the War, when the CIA began to manufacture the
"Extraterrestrial Hypothesis,"  and is purely an invention of
these Crafty Fellows. Lindell's  explanation is not new,
appearing in Project Sign and again in the CIA's Robertson
Panel.

In Project Sign (22-1-48) page 24 of the report the author, Dr.
G. E. Valley, notes that _The observed objects may be
hallucinatory or psychological in origin. It is of prime
importance to study this possibility because we can learn from
it something of the character of the population: its response
under attack; and also something about the reliability of visual
observation. One would like to assume that the positions held by
many of the reported observers guarantee their observations.
Unfortunately, there were many reports of curious phenomenon by
pilots during the war--the incident of the fireball fighters
comes to mind._ Dr. Valley_s last sentence is puzzling. The use
of  _unfortunately_ seems to imply that a conclusion had been
reached regarding the origin of the Foo Fighters, yet it had
been stated that the wartime investigation of the phenomenon
failed to do so.

Dr. Valley based his analysis on the reports released to him. If
these reports were ones that could be easily explained as
hallucinatory in nature, there could be only one conclusion to
his analysis. We know that the Robertson Panel were given
selected reports for their analysis. It is unlikely that Valley
was allowed access to film or photos of  the objects as such
evidence would have guaranteed a different conclusion to his
analysis. On page 2 of Valley_s report, under the heading
Considerations Affecting Analysis and Evaluation the author
states.."Inasmuch as there is a distinct possibility that a
number of the reported incidents represent domestic projects of
a security-classified nature, the list of incidents has been
submitted to higher echelons for review. In connection with the
psychological studies being performed, extensive investigations,
concerning the character and reliability of the reporting
witnesses have been made. A certain portion of the incidents
appear to be real aircraft, though of unconventional
configuration." From this information, it is quite clear that
experimental aircraft and other military equipment were
responsible for a fair percentage of the early reports. The
Robertson panel would make reference to the psychological
studies being made regarding the phenomenon. They would make no
reference to the possibility of US weapons, or anyone else's for
that matter, being responsible for the sightings.

The least likely explanation for the Foo Fighters is that of
light reflections from battle damaged aircraft, as the Fargo and
subsequent incidents attest. As the German aircraft production
centres and research facilities fell into Allied hands, the Foo
Fighters disappeared.  Allied air attacks continued almost until
the Nazi surrender, the Foo's did not return until after the
war, this time over a different continent.

It has been claimed that the Foo Fighters could not have been of
German origin, as they were encountered by German and Japanese
pilots also. This is an erroneous assumption.  The Germans did
share some of their formidable technology with their Japanese
Allies, who were beginning to buckle under the devastating
effects of the USAAF's B-29 air raids.  Although still on the
drawing board at the end of the war, the Kawanishi Baika was a
projected suicide aircraft, powered by the Japanese version of
the German "Argus tube" pulse jet.  The design of this aircraft
has an obvious similarity with the piloted version of the V-1,
from which the Baika was inspired. (*15) If they were anti-radar
or psychological weapons as has been suggested, as much
information could be gained by intercepting one of your own
aircraft as that of an enemy.

Other documents released through the United States Freedom of
Information Act, show that the CIA had been monitoring UFO
reports around the World. (*2) The Intelligence Agencies have
always been suspected of active involvement in promoting the UFO
phenomenon, particularly in the nonsensical rambling's of the
"Contactee's". The FBI and the CIA monitored the activities of
George Adamski as revealed through the FOI documents. (*13)
They  took an active interest in UFO's from 1953 onward, while
denying any interest or involvement in the phenomenon.  This
behaviour resulted in the claim that a conspiracy existed,  not
to keep knowledge of E.t's from the public, but to hide the fact
that it was the Intelligence agencies who created the whole E.t
myth. Why these agencies would create such a deception  is a
matter of debate.

One document, Foreign Document or Radio Broadcast memo
00-w-2745, quotes the Greek newspaper I Vradyni of the 13 May
1953; It is interesting to note that the document refers to the
objects reported as Subject:- Military-Unconventional aircraft.
_Flying Saucers have been known to be an actuality since the
possibility of their constriction was proven in plans drawn up
by German engineers toward the end of World War II. George Klein
a German engineer, stated recently that although many people
believe the flying saucers to be a post war development, they
were actually in the planning stage in German aircraft factories
as early as 1941._ (*2) Klein added that the allies had been
searching for one of the scientists involved in the project,
Habermohl, who was last reported in Bremen. Klein also claimed
he witnessed the first piloted test flight of one of these
machines 14 February 1945, and that Albert Speer, the Minister
for Armaments was also present. (*2) If so, I can find no
reference to any such event, or indeed Projekt Saucer in Speer's
book   Inside the Third Reich. If Speer was aware of the
project, he chose to remain silent about it. He does refer to
other projects, the Me 262 jet fighter, the Me 163 "Komet"
rocket fighter and various missile projects, but none regarding
disk craft. Either the project did not exist, or knowledge of
the project was kept from him. This would be possible If the
such a project were under the auspices of the SS Himmler and
Speer were enemies, Speer claimed that Himmler plotted against
him on two occasions. (*3)

The same newspaper also claimed that the Soviets had captured
German engineers and the plans for the flying saucers, and
refers to a number of Canadian engineers being engaged in the
construction of a flying saucer, in great secrecy, at the AVRO
facilities. (*2) This information was correct. In 1954, the
Canadian Government admitted that they had tried to build such
an aircraft immediately after the war but lacked the technology
to do so, and turned the project over to the United States.
(*14) Which is not entirely true. The AVRO Company were working
on what became known as the AVRO-CAR, an omega shaped craft for
the U. S Army and Air Force. Canadian involvement in UFO's, was
first noted by Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe in his talks with Wilbert
B. Smith, the engineer in charge of Project Magnet. It is clear
that research on flying disks had been ongoing in Canada since
the end of the war. Smith gave Keyhoe the clear impression that
the UFO's were Interplanetary craft, which would have added
credence to Keyhoe's belief in an extra-terrestrial origin for
the phenomenon. Smith may have been trying to divert Keyhoe's
attention from the work that was going on at AVRO, and Project
Magnet could have been a cover for the work that was going on
there. (*4)

Then there is the Spitzbergen Incident, first brought to light
by a German newspaper in 1952. (*5), and the account of a former
Luftwaffe Officer Andreas Epp, designer of a small circular
aircraft he called the "Flying Target. (*6) On  28 June, 1952,
the West German newspaper, Saarbrucken Zeitung reported the
discovery by  Norwegian jets fighters patrolling the Himlopen
Straights, of  a crashed flying disk on the remote Norwegian
Island group of Spitzbergen. The disk was purportedly 125 feet
in diameter, blue in colour with 46 jets mounted in the rim of
the craft. It also had a plexiglass dome at its centre, although
the disk was equipped with remote control equipment said to have
Russian markings on them. The craft was dismantled and taken to
Narvik for examination. The story was embellished by the
Berliner Volksblatt on 29 July, 1952, the craft being
constructed from unknown metals. The final account of the
incident  is that of the Stuttgarter Tageblatt of 5 September
1955, which declared that upon further investigation the
markings were not in Russian, and that the metals were not
manufactured on earth! (Where have you heard this drivel
before?) At the time of this report UFOs were becoming a world
wide craze, in fact the Blue Book report shows that 1952 was the
peak for _Flying Saucers_ sightings. As has been noted somewhat
cynically, UFO Flap_s tend to appear when there is a dearth of
worthwhile news items or topical subjects for the media.
However, there might be more to this report than may seem.

The appearance of _Ghost Rockets_  in 1946, would have brought
about the involvement of the various intelligence agencies in
the West. These would have employ whatever means of covert
intelligence gathering that was at their disposal, this would
include Remotely Piloted Vehicles. That the story first appeared
in a German newspaper is strange, and asks more questions than
are answered. Why not an American, British or more to the point,
Norwegian newspaper? 1952 was the peak year for UFO reports, and
the American press was full of such reports, particularly during
after the Washington Flap of that year. If  there was an
aircraft of some kind recovered could it have been German of
origin, and if so, did the Norwegian Defence Ministry contact
their German counterparts regarding the find? Did someone at the
German end leak the information to the press? Is there any
credence in the story at all? Perhaps there is.

The account of a former Luftwaffe Officer Andreas Epp, designer
of a small circular aircraft he called the Flying Target, has
more than a ring of truth to it and would certainly explain the
Spitzbergen Disk. (*6) Epp was stationed in Norway, and before
returning to Germany, passed his design to Ernest Udet, minister
for air armaments until his death in 194. Epp learned that work
was already underway on flying disks, and that his device was
being evaluated at Peenemunde, and that work on _flying
Disks_was already underway in Prague. Later, while in Prague
convalescing from wounds, Epp went to the hills outside the city
to try and locate the secret base said to be there. Taking his
Leica A camera with him, he took two pictures of what can only
be described as a classic _saucer,_ the resemblance with the
Trent and Rouen pictures is remarkable.  According to Epp,
Bellonzo built the second prototype at Breslau, and it was this
machine that was flown to Spitzbergen under remote control from
the experimental station at Rechlin. Due to a bad landing the
craft was unable to make the return flight. (*6) Presumably,
this was the machine that was recovered in 1952, if such a
flight and recovery took place that is. British Military
Intelligence were monitoring the "Enigma" transmissions
regarding the V-1 flight test on the Baltic coast, and from 1943
the Photographic Interpretation Unit at Medmenham were
instructed to be on the look out for rocket or jet aircraft at
Rechlin. (*7) In regard to Epp's device, Project Sign refers to
intelligence reports of German scientist's working in the USSR
on small saucer like disks.

In 1959, Maj. Rudolph Lusar published a book dealing with
various weapons used by the Germans in WWII. Lusar refers to a
_Flying Disk_ project that had been under development at various
locations in Germany and occupied Europe. He claimed that Dr.
Richard Meithe built two different types of craft, one being of
a plate design, the other resembled a discus and remarkable
claims were made regarding its performance. Other scientists
involved in the project were Schreiver, Habermohl and Bellonzo.
The various Disk craft were supposedly destroyed along with
their research data before the Red Army entered Prague and
Breslau. Lusar_s disclosures revealed  little that had not
already been speculated on. His book appeared six years after
the Greek newspaper article, and seven years after the
Spitzbergen report.


------===============******************===============-----

UNITED KINGDOM UFO NETWORK

STATEMENT
UK-UFO-NW statement: The articles or text appearing within these
pages are not necessarily the views or opinions of United
Kingdom UFO Network.

REPORTS
Please forward all reports to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk

WWW
Visit us on the World Wide Web at
www.holodeck.demon.co.uk

BACK ISSUES & FILES
For information on receiving back issues and other files send
mail with REQUEST INFO in the subject area to:
ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk

IRC - (INTERNET RELAY CHAT)
The meetings take place at 11pm (2300hrs) each and every
Saturday night. Times will vary depending on your location in
the world. If you would like to know the time in your part of
the world send a mail to:

ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk

In the subject section put: IRC TIME INFO

In the message of your mail please put:

a) Your Country
b) Your location
c) Nearest major City

Connecting to our weekly UFO meetings on the IRC (internet relay
chat) is now easier than ever.


SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
The UK.UFO.NW free fortnightly e-zine covering UFO reports and
information from the UK and around the world is now available by
subscribing to our new List Server.

Send mail to:

listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu

In the main body of the mail put:

subscribe ufo fn ln

note: in place of fn put your first name.
      in place of ln put your last name.

For example:

subscribe ufo John Smith

A confirm mail will then be sent to you which you need to reply
to within 48 hours to be put on the e-zine mailing list.

If you have problems you may also subscribe by sending mail to:

ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk

In the subject section of your mail type: SUBSCRIBE

That's it - see you next time!






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

                         Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:09:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:39:47 -0400
Subject: Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs


Hi everyone.

Dr. Michael DeRobertis is a York University professor of Physics
and Astronomy and the editor of Ontario Skeptics Electronics
News, a weekly publication which is sent out by e-mail to
subscribers.  Below is an article in the latest issue which some
UFO UpDates list members, and Dr. Kevin Randle in particular,
would be interested in since it involves Noctilucent Clouds
(Ambiguous Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli) and the
suggestion that these clouds may be identified as UFOs
(Influence of Pre-existing Belief in UFOs).  In this case, I
would think everyone could readily tell the difference between
even rare very high altitude clouds and UFOs.  Witnesses to the
famous case of a large UFO obscured in the clouds hovering above
a landmark downtown Montreal hotel for a long time didn't
confuse the two.

Because of their great height, noctilucent clouds would seem to
be stationary and would glow bright in the dark sky from the
reflected light of the sun even well after sunset.  Has anyone
who has seen such clouds have any doubts that they were seeing
something other than just clouds?

Nick Balaskas

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

Ontario Skeptics    Electronic News #11    June 28/29 1999

<snip>

Noctilucent Ice Clouds Spotted Over Colorado for First Time -
there is speculation that these are responsible for some UFO
reports

June 24, 1999

Silvery-blue ice clouds known as noctilucent clouds that appear
each year in the far northern and southern latitudes in the
middle atmosphere were spotted over Colorado for the first time
on June 22.

Some scientists believe the clouds form from increases in
gaseous methane rising unimpeded through a natural "cold trap"
located about eight miles above Earth's surface, said Gary
Thomas, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder's
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.  The rising
methane may react with sunlight to form large quantities of
water vapor that eventually freeze and circulate to the top of
the atmosphere, facilitating noctilucent cloud formation.

Thomas, one of the world's leading experts on noctilucent
clouds, predicted in 1994 that the clouds would brighten by five
to ten times and be visible over the continental United States
by the 21st century.  "This is a big event," he said.  "While
they are a beautiful phenomenon, these clouds may be a message
from Mother Nature that we are upsetting the equilibrium of the
atmosphere."

The clouds, which bask in the late sunlight some 50 miles over
Earth's surface, were observed on June 22 at about 9:30 p.m. by
CU-Boulder meteorology Instructor Richard Keen while driving up
Coal Creek Canyon southwest of Boulder.  They also were spotted
that evening by Utah State University physics Professor Mike
Taylor from his home in Logan, Utah.

"I saw silvery clouds to the northwest that were distinctly
brighter and higher than the other clouds," said Keen.  The
previous record for the southernmost sighting of these clouds in
the continental United States was in North Dakota, some 500
miles to the north, said Keen.

Noctilucent cloud formation is likely hastened by increasing
amounts of rising carbon dioxide from Earth.  While CO2 is
thought to contribute to global warming in the lower atmosphere,
it ironically cools the middle and upper atmospheres, helping to
facilitate noctilucent cloud formation.

<snip>






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jsmortell@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:46:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:42:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500

>>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:05 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:20:30 -0700
>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Dear Mr Gilbert:

>>>Somehow, I have difficulty seeing two fellows, late from some
>>>pub, sucessfully oiling a pair of roller skates -- let alone
>>>hoaxing a decent crop circle.

>>Granted, you couldn't do it on Coors or Bud Lite or whatever you
>>guys drink over there, but these boyos would probably have been
>>drinking Wadworths 6X or Gale's HSB. After a few pints of those,
>>crop-circles would be no problem - Mandelbrot figures, the lot.

>Alright, I'd like to think I have a thick hide and can seperate
>personal feelings from rational discussion, but Mr. Rimmer's
>anti- American propaganda has reached a new height. Merely
>because we can take in our alcoholic beverages without having to
>use a _spoon_ does not mean that they are inferior to the Queen's
>(or Jack or whatever's) ....fine products. I respect you
>foreigners luv of that thick goo, but also understand that many
>of us prefer whatever goes down the easiest and don't always feel
>that less is more. Means to an end, afterall.

>Too bad I could never con Jim Moseley into getting email, cause
>we'd have a definite (drunken) catfight on our hands with this
>one. Then again, I thought at the very least Dennis Stacy would
>back me up on this and have already set you 'blokes' straight
>. *sigh*

>Brigham

At the risk of being yet again, accused of Brit-Bashing.... I
must opine further on this subject. In a private mail, I
obtained the names of some real Brit beers.... and I though
Gripple Dripple was amusing.

Anyway, over the teeth and through the gums, look out ego, here
it comes....

Any people who drink their brew WARM should be removed from not
only the UN, but NATO as well.  If it were not for what we
taught you guys about dirty fighting, we'd 'ave had it out long
ago, and just over this issue.  Warm beer indeed.  Bah!  Humbug!

Are there no prisons?  And the workhouses, I assume they are
still in operation?






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:50:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:51:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

<snip>

>Btw. 'crop circle' is by now a misnomer. The circles don't just
>arise in crop and most of them aren't circles. 'Anomalous soil
>pictograms' would be a better term IMO.


The very complicated and artistic constructions would be more
properly characterized as "agriglyphs", a term I published in
the MUFON Journal in 1991.

'glyph'..... a picture

'agri'.....  relating to plants/crops, etc.

'agriglyph' - picture in plants or agricultural crops.

Compare to 'petroglyph'..... pictures on rocks.






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:28:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:55:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500



>Alright, I'd like to think I have a thick hide and can seperate
>personal feelings from rational discussion, but Mr. Rimmer's
>anti-American propaganda has reached a new height. Merely
>because we can take in our alcoholic beverages without having to
>use a _spoon_ does not mean that they are inferior to the Queen's
>(or Jack or whatever's) ....fine products. I respect you
>foreigners luv of that thick goo, but also understand that many
>of us prefer whatever goes down the easiest and don't always feel
>that less is more. Means to an end, afterall.

>Too bad I could never con Jim Moseley into getting email, cause
>we'd have a definite (drunken) catfight on our hands with this
>one. Then again, I thought at the very least Dennis Stacy would
>back me up on this and have already set you 'blokes' straight
>..... *sigh*


Okay! Okay!

Let's put this message aright. It should be about 'FOs or ETs or
some wee discussion of the universe. Thus, we should pose the
question: "Which brew does/would ET prefer?" and go from there.

I was born in St. Louis, Missouri and remember my small body
thrilling to the heavy trot of the stately Clydesdales as they
rumbled past with the Budweiser wagon in tow. I grew up on
Falstaff and Pabst and all the good old Amercian brews.

But, the truth of the matter is, mates, there's nothing like a
good British brew. It's like returning to the source! Give me
and the ETs a Guinness or a Watley or a Bass, any day--even July
4th.

Cheers,
Teri





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

                  Metropolitan Area Of London As 'Area 51'

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 03:41:01 GMT
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 02:03:00 -0400
Subject: Metropolitan Area Of London As 'Area 51'


Source: "alt.conspiracy.area51".

Stig

***

From: presscom@callnetuk.com (FS)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Significance of '51'
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions
Start Here
Lines: 24
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:07:13 -0800

Regarding the number '51'.

It may be of interest to know that the Metropolitan area of
London was designated Area 51 in c.1952 by the British state for
the purposes of the ROTOR early warning system. A large map with
the subdivisions clearly marked (51a, 51b, 51c, etc) can be seen
at the "secret" nuclear bunker built in 1952 near Ongar, Essex.

This bunker complex was part of a set of bunkers built
throughout Britain to house the Cold War warning system control,
and the development of a site for the London/SE area was
overseen initially by the Air Ministry and the "Marconi Wireless
Telegraph Company was one of two companies who were asked to
work on the project."

Philosophically speaking (or perhaps even religiously) research
suggests that the number '51' has a somewhat ontological
meaning, that of 'mostness' or 'extremes' or 'extremities' of
whatever it occurs at. I can well imagine this being applied to
a 'very secret' site, with the 'longest' runway, examining
extremes of life-forms, etc.

-****

Posted from RemarQ,

http://www.remarq.com/?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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 1

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:40:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:32:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:42:32 -0500
>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:42:53 +0100
>>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Bruce,

>>Yes it was "done" under ambiant night conditions, ie darkness<g>,
>>the BBC team used "nightvision" on the video camera to make the
>>recording, and as Sean confirmed in an earlier post the circle
>>researchers had got wind of the hoaxing attempt and were in the
>>general area trying to track D+D+Co down, so use of any form of
>>"lighting" out in the landscape would have been a dead givaway.

>>It proved it could be done, thats all.
>>It didn't/couldn't prove they were ALL hoaxes.

>Neil,

>With all due respect, this is the sort of thing those schooled
>in the Amazing Randi branch of knowledge will use to confirm
>that it -does- prove that the balance of crop circles are
>hoaxes.

>Their logic goes something like this: 'If I can reproduce it
>through slight of hand, etc., then the (choose your paranormal
>or otherwise unexplainable event) must be hoaxed by evil-minded,
>avaricious charlatans bent on taking your money.'

Yes, but what you forget is that cerealogists pre-D&D were
asserting to anyone willing to listen (and buy their books) that
crop circles could not be done by humans period. Remarkably,
none of the prominent cerealogists of the time, ie., Meaden,
Andrews, Delgado, Taylor, Wingfield, etc., tried (as far as I'm
aware) to create their own circles to see if they _could_ be
done. They were too busy publishing books remarking on the crop
circles' alleged miraculous properties.

Rather than cashing in on the phenomenon, D&D were routinely
vilified and ridiculed by the English crop circle community. You
forget, too, that the Centre for Crop Cirlce Studies sponsored
its own hoax context, the results of which stunned many within
cerealogy. Of those who originally brought the phenomenon to
worldwide attention, you might ask, "Where are they now?" Why do
you think Meaden has let the phenomenon lapse into well deserved
obscurity? Why do you think Pat Delgado has disappeared from the
picture entirely, as Colin Andrews seems to be in the process of
doing? You don't hear too much about the phenomenal circles from
Busty Taylor and George Wingfield these days, either. I wonder
why? Because they know what you don't.

And before you accuse me of speaking from an armchair on the
circles, guess again. I was even there when Steven Greer was
waving his ridiculous flashlights around, the night before he
got hoaxed by Irving and Schnabel.

>I ran into this sort of medieval thinking with my brother-
>in-law, an avowed atheist.  He saw the PBS (?) program on Doug
>and Dave and concluded that _all_ crop circles are manmade (by
>D&D no less). It made no difference to him that D&D are not
>continent-hopping circle hoaxers; they are responsible for crop
>circles. Case closed. Mystery solved.

>How many others out there in TV Land have come to the same
>conclusion?

>Best regards,
>Ron.

As for your brother-in-law, you have my condolences. Is it too
late to get another one? One, perhaps, who isn't an atheist, and
who believes that an alien intelligence, by flattening patterns
in wheat and other crops, is trying to tell us something really,
really profound? One, in other words, who believes anything? I
certainly hope there aren't any of those out there in TV (or
Radio) Land. Nah, I thought not.

Dennis





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

                 Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News June 27

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:07:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:35:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News June 27


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:07:27
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News June 27


>[List only]

>Source: MSNBC,

>http://www.msnbc.com/news/283948.asp

>Links are preceded by an asterisk.

>Stig

***

>Do you believe in UFOs?

**

>A Silicon Alley entrepreneur gave up his job to search for aliens

>'Let me tell you. Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial
>beings and probably has been for millennia.'
>  JOE FIRMAGE


I thank Stig for putting this interview transcription on the
email list.

Unfortunately, not presented in te transcription is the "proper
level" of smirk on the face of the interviewer....





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Lesley Cluff <manitou@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:12:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:00:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?



While we are on the subject of crop circles, I would like to
check out two interesting items I recently learned or should I
say heard, from a noted researcher in such things mostly in
Britain, but who is actually an American (and no, this is not an
anti-American slam!;-)  )

First, on the subject of why so few are in the US,  and not not
because D & D haven't the travel budget, but is it true that
when a circle is discovered, in an American grain field, it is
ordered burned immediately.  Preferably before anyone outside of
the farmer or the first one to notice it, can hear about it,
take pics or go for a spiritual walk inside of it.  Thus the
number of publicized and documented pictograms is kept low.

Second, is it true (Brits should know about this one) that
either Dave or Doug, I forget which, suffers so badly from
arthritis that  he could not possibly do the necessary difficult
and heavy walking, dragging whatever behind him long enough or
well enough to actually create a circle.  Or maybe he just does
the designing?

I guess like so many others here, I have come to the conclusion,
that since such items have been found recorded historically, and
because they seem to happen in many countries around the world
(heck even in my own province! one some ten years ago or so was
not far from me, but never heard about it in time to see it)
that not all can be hoaxed. There is something going on here.
What I haven't a clue.

Lesley

-- Lesley Cluff, Ontario, Canada    manitou@fox.nstn.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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 2

                       The Temporal Doorway Is Moving!

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:25:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:05:15 -0400
Subject: The Temporal Doorway Is Moving!

Thanks to a new policy by Geocities (now a part of Yahoo) which
claims that their act of hosting web pages gives them an
automatic and irrevocable license to reproduce all hosted
material whenever, however, and in whatever context they choose,
without compensation, I have finally decided to move The
Temporal Doorway.

This process is currently underway and should be completed
within the next few days at the most. In the interim, I will be
keeping the website content at the geocities host. However, once
the transfer is complete, the material at Geocities will be
collapsed down to redirection pages to the new site. Therefore I
urge you, if you have any links or bookmarks to pages in

        http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/5623

or

        http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman

to please change those links or bookmarks to be relative to

        http://www.temporaldoorway.com

The new site will offer more room and greater capabilities,
including database hosting, which will hopefully start to be
visible in the new few months.

In the meantime, if you have any problems accessing the site by
the domain name, please be patient. If you still have problems
after July 2, please let me know by e-mail.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and more -
----






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:50:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:07:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:28:51 -0700

>>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500

>But, the truth of the matter is, mates, there's nothing like a
>good British brew. It's like returning to the source! Give me
>and the ETs a Guinness or a Watley or a Bass, any day--even July
>4th.


And any visitors to London wishing to drink at the source, and
discuss UFOs, crop circles, ritual satanic abuse or any of the
other topics discussed on this list are very welcome to come
along to the Railway pub, Putney High Street, London SW14 (just
across from Putney rail station) this coming 4th July for the
monthly Magonia Readers' Group meeting - I think they've even
got American beers in specially for the day, so we can compare
at first hand and slay the myth of English beer being "warm".

Cheers, slainte, l'chaim, al'a'lum, prost, sante
--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk





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

                       Re: Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 02:42:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:11:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:09:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Noctilucent Clouds and UFOs

>Hi everyone.

>Dr. Michael DeRobertis is a York University professor of Physics
>and Astronomy and the editor of Ontario Skeptics Electronics
>News, a weekly publication which is sent out by e-mail to
>subscribers.  Below is an article in the latest issue which some
>UFO UpDates list members, and Dr. Kevin Randle in particular,
>would be interested in since it involves Noctilucent Clouds
>(Ambiguous Astronomical and Meteorological Stimuli) and the
>suggestion that these clouds may be identified as UFOs
>(Influence of Pre-existing Belief in UFOs).  In this case, I
>would think everyone could readily tell the difference between
>even rare very high altitude clouds and UFOs.  Witnesses to the
>famous case of a large UFO obscured in the clouds hovering above
>a landmark downtown Montreal hotel for a long time didn't
>confuse the two.

>Because of their great height, noctilucent clouds would seem to
>be stationary and would glow bright in the dark sky from the
>reflected light of the sun even well after sunset.  Has anyone
>who has seen such clouds have any doubts that they were seeing
>something other than just clouds?


Dear Nick:

I'm sure some wishful thinkers, and other "dim bulbs" have
confused such clouds for UFOs and other things.

My point ( and yours too I suppose ) is that a discriminating,
reasonably informed person blessed with normal intelligence and
eyesight, would be highly unlikely to do so.

I saw a picture of a perfect lenticular cloud once.    Others
less perfectly saucer shaped were in the background.    One
could imagine a classic saucer trying to disguise itself in a
mist.

Then,  in about 1986, I saw the real thing, right over the
height of the Colorado Rockies!

I watched it carefully, for several minutes. It was splendid ..
it was also just a goddam cloud.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

[ article snipped for brevity only  -LH ]






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

             Re: Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:51:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase


>From: Mitch Battros <earthcng@earthlink.net>
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:10:57 -0700
>Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:32:44 -0400
>Subject: Earth Changes TV/Breaking News - Did NASA Erase

>Did NASA Erase It's Tracks Over Solar Explosion?...06/10/99
>by Mitch Battros (ECTV)

>This could be one of the largest cover ups from NASA we have
>seen in a long time, or, it could be nothing at all.

Dear List:

Please note the following article told the complete story -

Devastating Explosion Occurred On The Sun, Last Tuesday (June
1st) By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr. David Whitehouse

A tremendous explosion took place on the surface of the Sun last
Tuesday (June 1st) and for a few very nervous hours astronomers
did not know whether it was heading for Earth.

The blast threw a jet of superheated plasma carrying magnetic
energy into space at speeds of 1,000 kilometres per second (600
miles per second). However, using the speed of the Internet,
astronomers around the world rapidly compared images and decided
that a worldwide alert was unnecessary.

<snip>

So, it wasn't a coverup after all and NASA didn't do it.  Events
like this can't be covered up, this is real science and the
world is always watching.

Clear skies,
Bob Young





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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:47:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:18:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Hi Leanne,

>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>indelicately phrase it.

>I watched a program the other night where the case of the
>Allagash four was being discussed. One of our list members had
>participated and his judgement of the case was that; "They had a
>UFO sighting alright, that much is certain." But, he drew the
>line at the possibility that there could have been any
>interaction between the witnesses/victims and the occupants of
>the UFO.  He was ready to acknowledge the UFO but not the
>possibilty that it was occupied by someone(s) who may have had a
>reason for persuing these four human specimens. The UFO report
>involved a _chase_. Why does anyone "chase" something if not for
>the purpose of "catching" it! That there could not have been any
>interaction with the crafts' occupants was not a logical
>conclusion to arrive at if one had accepted the part of the
>report of a frightening close encounter with a UFO. At that
>point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
>denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
>selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
>going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
>believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
>view. What is that?

>Greg asks John Rimmer to give him 'numbers and sources' for his
>claim that so many lives have been "wrecked by abduction." Of
>course John could never provide such statistics because he would
>have had to conduct a major/monumental survey in order to
>acquire them. No such survey has ever been conducted. And in all
>fairness to John neither have any of the so-called abduction
>researchers taken such a survey. All Greg will get out of John
>in response to his request will be more of the finger-pointing
>and rhetoric that he's been getting. ex:

>>abduction researchers don't even have statistics on what
>>proportion of their subjects are Black, White or Hispanic.

>Don't hold yer breath waiting for hard numbers from either side.
>The 'investigation' into the UFO abduction phenomenon (with rare
>exception) has to be one of the most incompetent and mismanaged
>investigations in the history of mankind. Nothing short of sad
>and laughable. Keystone Cops stuff with all concerned stumbling
>and tripping all over themselves. _Everybody_ dropped the ball
>on this one! The depth of our ignorance and stupidity is truly
>profound.

>I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only_ thing that is _ever_
>going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
>themselves. My concern is that by the time the reality of UFOs
>and alien abduction becomes common knowledge (and I'm
>_completely_ confident it will be one day) it may be way too
>late to do anything about it if our "visitors" aren't here for
>purely benevolent reasons. Gotta wake up before it's too late.


Hi John,

As usual, wise words from a wise man.  I often accuse folks on
this list of being culpable in their judgment, of ignorance born
of that same culpability, of being mean and low down. I like to
malign what I often consider hypertrophy of the ego, a not so
benign condition, equivalent to some precancerous mass of the
brain, mouth and other essential organs used primarily for
thinking, evaluating and even communicating.

And maybe that's not fair.  Maybe it is.  But the key phrase, in
my view at least, that explains the whole nine yards, that
simple sentence which, when applied to the UFO abduction
condition, adds to the sum total of human understanding, is the
one John Velez used above.  I've tried to say the same thing
myself.  Most likely I've failed to deposit my opine under the
correct conditions or the in right place.  So let me repeat
John's sentence yet again.  Because it bears repeating.  And
because it's truth.

>I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only_ thing that is _ever_
>going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
>themselves.

However, I would not wish that, even on my brother in law, the
postal worker from hell.  Well, maybe him.  But I draw the line
right there!

If I didn't know Velez was nearly as old a fart as I am, I would
have said, "Out of the mouths of babes."  (Oh God, here it comes
again) "Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that
now!" What would a post be -  from me - without a plea - from
Dr. D?






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:43:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:20:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:28:51 -0700

>>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500

>>Alright, I'd like to think I have a thick hide and can seperate
>>personal feelings from rational discussion, but Mr. Rimmer's
>>anti-American propaganda has reached a new height. Merely
>>because we can take in our alcoholic beverages without having to
>>use a _spoon_ does not mean that they are inferior to the Queen's
>>(or Jack or whatever's) ....fine products. I respect you
>>foreigners luv of that thick goo, but also understand that many
>>of us prefer whatever goes down the easiest and don't always feel
>>that less is more. Means to an end, afterall.

>>Too bad I could never con Jim Moseley into getting email, cause
>>we'd have a definite (drunken) catfight on our hands with this
>>one. Then again, I thought at the very least Dennis Stacy would
>>back me up on this and have already set you 'blokes' straight
>>..... *sigh*

>Okay! Okay!

>Let's put this message aright. It should be about 'FOs or ETs or
>some wee discussion of the universe. Thus, we should pose the
>question: "Which brew does/would ET prefer?" and go from there.

>I was born in St. Louis, Missouri and remember my small body
>thrilling to the heavy trot of the stately Clydesdales as they
>rumbled past with the Budweiser wagon in tow. I grew up on
>Falstaff and Pabst and all the good old Amercian brews.

<snip>

Sire, Sir, or whatever you may be...

In keeping with the topic of this list, Sir.... UFO's and their
pilots prefer Gripple 99 to 1!  How the hell do you think I made
all my money?  By selling this poisen to HUMANS?  Even fourth
world humans, who lap this slop up like it was illegal (which it
is, but that's got nothing to do with this post), wouldn't touch
it if they knew what went into it.

But Sir, your coup de grassy, your day-noo-a-mount, your piece
of resistance, was when you stated so emphatically:

>But, the truth of the matter is, mates, there's nothing like a
>good British brew. It's like returning to the source! Give me
>and the ETs a Guinness or a Watley or a Bass, any day--even
>July 4th.

Pervert!

The source, Sir, is Bavaria, not the Hyde Park Warm Beer
Society. And in mentioning the _FOURTH OF JULY_ in the same
fowl, warm beer breath as Watley, well, this is the limit of my
ability to tolerate. Uh, this is the limit of toleration of my
ability.... whatever.  Because, sir, the American beer is the
beer of beers outside of Bayern Bilge Pils!

And the American beer is, none other than Papst Blue Ribbon.
Wanna know why, cause Mel Allan got got himself blitzed on this
stuff right on the air... in those days, you were allowed to go
on the radio when in your cups (or steins, or cans, or bottles,
as the case may have been).  These days, if the likes of Rinse &
Kanappy went on the air in that state ... uh ... hey, what an
idea!

Anyway.  The point of this rant is simple.  Our sales of Gripple
and Gripple by-products are almost 90% to insectoids, grays,
greys, nordics and little hairy gremlins.  And those grays and
them greys really lap this stuff up.  So don't go mistaking
paradise, for that brew across the pond.

Harumpf!






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

              Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News - July 1,

From: Paul Anderson - TMP / CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:39:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:26:35 -0400
Subject: Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News - July 1,


Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News
News and Updates from Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310
(frames)

July 1, 1999

_____________________________


BRIEFING FROM THE FIELD

Still waiting for first circle reports of this year here in
Canada, although it is a bit early yet (most are reported late
July,  August or September around harvest time).

Meanwhile, the season is blazing along in England, with around
sixty or so formations reported to date, as well as several
recent new ones from Germany and Holland along with the Czech
Republic. Some beautiful and intricate new formations in
England, including the 1,020' pictogram (not 700' as initially
reported) and 500' "serpent" companion in East Field, Wiltshire;
the 138 circle fractal design beside the Chilbolton telescope in
Hampshire; the five-armed mini-julia set / star pattern at
Avebury Trusloe, Wiltshire; the 3-D Escher cube at Allington,
Wiltshire; the beautiful nine ponted star with surrounding
circles and ringlets at Liddington Castle, Wiltshire; the
molecule with interconnecting 116 circles and ten hexagons at
West Overton, Wiltshire; the three-armed mini-DNA strand at
Allington, Wiltshire and many more.

The 112 circles in a square formation at Escrick Park Estate in
Yorkshire is interesting as it has been noted that the larger of
the circles in the square make the pattern of the number '80'.
If viewed as such, the two isolated circles outside the square
itself could be read as being a colon, placed just before the
'80' itself, which is reminiscent of the infamous '4:20'
formation found at Cando, Saskatchewan, Canada last year (see
report at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/1998.html). Note
also that 4 x 20 = 80...  just something to think about, if
nothing else.

There is an excellent report from Nancy Talbott of BLT in the
USA of crop circles being witnessed forming in Holland, which
happened twice in June. A must read, courtesy of Linda Howe's
excellent new web site. Additional reports can be found in the
International Reports section of the Crop Circle Connector web
site. Also in this update, links to some very good new articles
by Paul Vigay on the current crop circle situation.

There is also an unconfirmed report courtesy Paul Vigay of a
formation in Italy (the first?) which is rumoured to be over a
kilometre long (if accurate, about 0.75 miles). Any leads as to
additional info on this would be much appreciated!

Again a reminder for all Canadian subscribers to this update -
your assistance is welcome and needed - ANY reports of possible
circles this year, please do let us know as soon as possible!
See Reporting Guidelines on the web site for more infomation.

See below for complete listing of all the latest news and
updates.


Paul Anderson
Director
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/news.html

* Latest Crop Circle Updates from England and Around
   the Globe
* Kilometre-Long Formation in Italy?
* Two Crop Circles Reported Witnessed Being Made by
   Hovering Light in Holland
* Crop Circles: What's it All Coming to?
* BBC Country File: Scam or Conspiracy?


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/srp.html

Radar Anomalies:

* New - Sample Image Archive
   (Link to The Millennium Project web site)


RESEARCH ASSISTANCE

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/assist.html

* Research Assistance 1999



_____________________________


Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News is the e-mail
update service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada,
an affiliate of Circles Phenomenon Research International,
initiated in 1995 by future studies researcher Paul Anderson,
also founder and director of The Millennium Project. CPR
International was founded in 1983 by noted crop circle
researcher Colin Andrews.

Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News is published
periodically, with the latest news and reports, information on
upcoming events and web site updates and is available free
by subscription; to be added to or removed from the mailing
list, send your request, including either "subscribe
CPR-Canada News" or "unsubscribe CPR-Canada News"
and e-mail address to

CPR-Canada welcomes your reports and submissions, by
the tel / fax / e-mail hotlines or mail. Forward all
correspondence to:

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

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

� Circles Phenomenon Research Canada, 1999






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

                          Filer's Files #26 - 1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:14:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:27:10 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #26 - 1999


Filer's Files #26 -- 1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,   Mutual UFO Network Eastern Director,
July 1, 1999,   Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

METEORITE STORM � NASA warns that the earth may be headed into
two meteoroid swarms that could produce shooting stars for the
next week.  The meteors might be difficult to see visually (some
are expected during the daytime) but HAM radio operators will be
able to monitor these showers using radio reflection techniques.
Some operators also claim they are picking up unknowns.  Besides
sightings we try to provide controversial view points to our
readers concerning UFOs.  Recent sky watches have been
successful and we encourage the reader to go out and look for
UFOs in our skies.  The best results occur where you have vistas
that over look bodies of water, valleys, or large fields.  The
UFOs are often very low in the sky.

 NEW YORK

MANHATTAN -- My name is Katherine.  I was at my friend's house
and I swear, this is not a joke, we saw a cigar shaped
unidentified flying object tumbling in the sky.  Following it
was an Air Force chopper.  This has happened numerous amount of
times.  We live in New York, on the island in Midtown Manhattan.
Thanks to Katherine. Dunc919@aol.com(katherine).

NEW JERSEY METEORITE

WILLIAMSTOWN -- On June 23, 1999, as my husband and I were
leaving the VFW building we noticed a meteorite streaking low
across the sky at 9:30 PM.  My spouse was talking to a friend of
ours and did not see it.  By the time I told them to look, it
had burned out.  This meteorite was just above the telephone
poles moving horizontally in front of distant buildings.  I was
amazed that it was so low in the sky.  It was bright green with
a light green tail.  I observed for about 3 seconds before it
burned out.  I was amazed by the green color.  The previous ones
I've seen were white.  Thanks to  Evelyn Galson
evelyngalson@yahoo.com

VIRGINIA

KRUMSVILLE -- Steve Tzikas MUFON VA writes: "The activities
undertaken on June 25 and 26 had several accomplishments."  1)
We observed a UFO at the Mt. Carmel home of Dr. Greco.  The
object was approximately 200 feet over a hilltop and traveling
200 miles per hour.  It appeared to be a small propeller driven
plane with white, red, and green lights until the object
reversed itself 180 degrees.  Dr. Greco has had asserted
consistent frequent weekly and monthly sightings of low
altitude, slow flying (30 miles per hour) objects.  They fly
over the mountain/hill tops in this area at approximately 1/2 to
3/4 mile distance.  His front yard has a panoramic view of the
mountains.  Schuylkill and Berks counties have a long history of
alleged UFO sightings.  Those alleged at Dr. Greco�s home seem
consistent in frequency of appearance and an excellent
opportunity for further study.  Dr. Greco is a longtime
well-known UFO investigator and his sightings were confirmed
this weekend by investigator Steve Tzikas and the
well-experienced eyewitness Bob Tarantino.  Dr. Greco has been
active in MUFON and had investigated the Williamsport, PA
sightings.  Steve has been doing a great deal of historical and
background work on this case.  July 23 (Friday) and 24
(Saturday) are tentative dates for further sky watches. Thanks
to Thanks,  Steve Tzikas MUFON VA

GEORGIA

ATLANTA - On June 19, 1999, at about 4:32 AM a female resident
of NE Atlanta was driving home.  Her home is located in one of
the older established neighborhoods just west of the
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport.  As she approached her house, she
noticed a greenish-blue glow coming from the trees behind the
homes opposite.  She indicated these trees may be 40 to 50 feet
high.  As she looked more closely, the glow then streaked away
from the trees, moving to her front left, creating a glowing
arch that was about as long as the width of two of the homes.
She indicated that it was about 1/2 the thickness of a rainbow
you would see after a rainfall.  It happened in about 6 seconds
and then disappeared.  At first she thought some kids may have
been shooting some sort of fireworks, but she got out and
listened but no one was out in her neighborhood.  She agreed to
meet with MUFONGA investigators.  PLEASE NOTE: Peter Davenport
of NUFORC is reporting several other bizarre sightings during
this same time period.  One involved an incredibly bright object
as witnessed up close by a family and a retired USAF C-141 pilot
in Utah.  Thanks to Tom Sheets State Director MUFONGA.

TENNESSEE

Kenny Young reports that Billy Grave's wife, eleven year old
son, mother and Bill saw something in the sky Saturday at 7:15
PM, that appeared to be a hang glider but it was all black
against a white overcast evening sky.  We could only see it for
a few seconds because of the trees.  We were curious to see if
anyone else reported any sightings of this nature. Thanks to
Kenny Young http://home.fuse.net/ufo/ and Billy Graves
BTG53@aol.com wrote

RUMANIA

BUCHAREST -- International French TV channel 5, gave the news on
Tuesday, June 29, 1999, of a UFO sighting over Bucharest,
Rumania.  Clear footage was aired of the UFO and I was able to
record some of it.  The comments were that the local authorities
confirmed that it was a flying object of unknown origin, and
that a similar object has been observed two years ago at the
same spot.  TV 5's own news service didn't mention it anymore,
other news programs from TV 5 (Belgian TV, Swiss TV, French A2,
French FR3, French-Canadian TV) CNN,  Australian TV, Hong Kong
TV, Portuguese RTPi didn't mention it.  Nothing on it from the
APTN and Reuters feeds.  Why didn't the other media use it or
want it?  This kind of story attracts people, for sure!  I work
in TV with pressures and censure every day, but I cannot
understand this?  Don't tell me there is an MIB in every news
room of the World.  Thanks to Jean-Michel Mariojouls China
Skywatch Director jmexit@macau.ctm.net

BELGIUM TRIANGLE UFOs?

Excellent investigator Bob Durant writes concerning Filer's
Files #25 that quotes NATO pilots who claim the Belgium case was
caused by a secret aircraft.  Bob says, "I have spent a great
deal of time studying the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-90, and wrote
two articles on the topic that were published in the MUFON
Journal.  The case remains one of the best documented and
puzzling in the UFO literature.  The reason ufologists "believe"
the Belgian government is precisely because of the quick and
extremely thorough briefing they gave the public after the
events.  This included the technical radar data from the ground
stations as well as the critically important tapes of the
cockpit weapons control radar and flight data on the two
interceptors.  Add to that the tapes of the radio transmissions
from and between the interceptors and ground stations.  There is
a vast amount of data available.  Unfortunately, your
correspondents seem ignorant of it.  Of course the possibility
of a secret aircraft was given the greatest consideration.  This
was before the interceptors were launched as well as during the
months that followed.  The sightings began six months before the
interception attempt, and continued for several months after.
Nobody suggested a European craft, simply because all involved
knew very well that no craft with the performance parameters of
the UFO was being produced in Europe.  Speculation about secret
craft focused on American airplanes, particularly the Stealth
fighters.  That's because investigators -- unlike your
correspondents -- knew what they were talking about.  Ten years
have elapsed since the events in question.  That's a very long
time in aviation technology.  So where is this fantastic
European craft that ten years ago vastly outperformed the F-16?
If only your correspondents would read the details of the
intercept, they would appreciate the absurdity of the "secret
aircraft" explanation.  The intercept was carried out at low
altitudes over very densely populated areas.  This is not a test
over the uninhabited Nevada desert.  Terrible risk was taken,
and taken only after repeated consultation with NATO members.
General DeBrower and the Belgian Minister of Defense continue to
answer inquiries by saying that to this day they have no idea
what the UFO was.  I find particularly offensive George Filer's
editorial comment, "We gain little by pushing reports that may
not be true.  Certainly, UFOs could have been involved, but
within NATO military circles this version of the report is
considered true."  Really?  Exactly which military circles,
George?  A couple of pilots who were still in high school when
the events took place?  And who tell an impossible story?  I
prefer the mountain of technical data, and the "circles" of the
likes of General DeBrower and the Minister of Defense.  The UFO
enigma continues to suffer from credulity.  It seems that no
story is too crazy to be believed -- and published without a
second thought.  This "explanation" of the Belgian event(s) is
an example, but with a twist.  Here the rush to accept an
explanation for a UFO case that is at odds with the facts and
common sense is coming from within the "research community."
Historically, this sort of bunk emanated from Project Bluebook.
You people almost make me nostalgic for the old days of "weather
balloon" and "Planet Venus."  Thanks to Bob Durant MUFON.
Editor's Note: I wish to point out that I heard similar stories
from NATO pilots indicating the Belgian triangles were our
secret aircraft with special radars.  It is certainly possible
that the Belgian government was kept out of the loop at the time
and NATO pilots were given false info.  It certainly could be
UFOs?

ALIEN IMPLANT PRESENTATION  BY DERRIL SIMMS

BORDENTOWN, NJ -- George Pronesti writes I have been interested
in UFOs since I was a kid.  I have read every book, report,
alleged government document, briefing's, etc., that I could.  I
have watched numerous UFO videos and listened to just as many
audio tapes concerning this great mystery.  I have built up what
I consider to be a better than average knowledge of ufology.  I
attended Pat Marcatillio's UFO conference and had the pleasure
of meeting Mr. Derrel Simms, a leading UFO researcher and
investigator, whose work deals with alien abduction and alien
implants.  His presentation was fascinating.  Mr. Simms is a
person that takes his work seriously, and it shows in his work.
He fills you in on his background as an investigator and with an
occasional joke or bit of humor, he gets "in to it."  The
lecture itself deals mostly with the removal of "alleged alien
implants."  Simms always refers to the implants as alleged,
because as he states quite honestly it is still not known what
they really are.  He does not try to impress upon you that they
are the "smoking gun" we have all been waiting for.  What he
does do is clearly show us that these things, whatever they may
be, are being found in the bodies of human beings.  In parts of
the body, that would make it hard for these things to get into
by accident.  One example is that of a woman that had two deeply
embedded behind muscle tissue in her toe.  Another gentleman had
one removed from the top of his hand near the wrist area.  All
of this and more is presented to the audience on slides, clear
crisp and professional work, not the blurry unfocused shots we
are often shown.  Simms also devotes time to a question and
answer session, never dodges any question asked, and his
knowledge is evident in his answers.  He also recounts in detail
how he was able to come about some of the evidence he has in his
possession.  For example the tiny egg shaped device that fell
from a woman's eye, when she bent over in work.  The small piece
of machined "metal" a supposed piece of the Roswell debris,
the "surprise" of the evening is when Simms allows us to see all
these little mysteries, that he has encased in glass.  The
presentation was informative, intriguing, and unique.  I left
that evening feeling as though, I was just let in on a little
secret, a secret that millions don't yet know about, and may
never know.  Although, I still don't have the answers to the UFO
mystery, I feel now like I know a great deal more about it,
thanks to Derrel. continue with your excellent work.  Thanks to
George l.  Pronesti.  Simms will be speaking for 5 nights in
Manhattan the last week of July.

RELATIVISTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL

Phillip S. Duke, Ph.D., regarding Filer's Files #25.  Mr. Filer
has done ufology an important service by writing about the work
of Dr. Paul R. Hill in his excellent book "Unconventional Flying
Objects."  Dr. Hill acknowledges that his treatment of
Interstellar Space Flight is based on the Lorentz equations of
Relativity "incorporated by Einstein as a cornerstone of his
Special Theory of Relativity" (pg. 264) published in 1906 and
confirmed during the total Solar Eclipse of 1918.  Ufologists
who discuss Interstellar Space flight must do their homework
first.  Relativistic concepts definitely apply here.  The work
of Dr. Hill is generally excellent, however he does not consider
that as acceleration decreases apparent on board time, it also
increases on board apparent mass.  Therefore the energy
requirement to accelerate the increasing mass also increases.
Even with atomic energy the calculated energy requirements to
obtain very close to light speeds become prohibitive.  Due to
this consideration, practical travel to stars beyond roughly
hundreds of light years away appears unlikely.  The bottom line
on this is, that even if lengthy social time considerations (on
the planet of origin) are ignored, Relativistic energy
considerations evidently prohibit practical travel to the more
distant stars and other galaxies.  It may be of interest that
the Betty Hill Star Map pinpointed her alien abductor's home
planet to be only 25 light years away, a practically close
distance according to Relativistic considerations.  The
theoretical situation with respect to "Black Holes" in space, is
different.  The enormously strong gravity of such holes has a
number of effects, including the very marked slowing of elapsed
"on board" time.  So that in theory a wormhole in space
originating at one end as a Black hole and terminating at the
other in a distant Galaxy, might allow travel to extremely
distant locations in very little on board time.  Of course the
immense gravity should crush anything living into a layer one
molecule thick, but at least in theory such travel is possible
via Black Holes.  It is not difficult to calculate that at a
constant comfortable one g acceleration to midpoint, with a
constant one g deceleration to destination, travel to any planet
in the solar system from within the solar system is brief and
does not involve Relativistic considerations.  As I recall such
a trip from Earth to Mars takes less than a week.  Travel within
the solar system is much easier than to the stars.  Persons
interested in further reading are referred to Einstein's
Universe by Nigel Caldwell Wings Books, and Dr. Hill's book
recently republished by Hampton Roads.  Thanks to Phil Duke,
Ph.D. (PHILLIP S DUKE) who wrote the "The AIDS-ET Connection"
that's available for $19.95 write 2503 S. 47th St. Omaha NE USA.

JOE FIRMAGE TO SPEAK AT MUFON CONFERENCE

Joe Firmage the Internet millionaire has been causing a
sensation in UFO circles, but until Sunday, June 27, he was an
unknown quantity to the public. NBC's popular Dateline NBC
program featured Firmage, who made it clear that he is in a
mission to prepare the planet for what he considers inevitable
contact with extraterrestrials.  According to Firmage, not only
is there a vast amount of data proving the reality of UFOs, but
it may also be that many of the events underlying the world's
major religions were ET contacts misunderstood by the observers.
He cited conversations with high-ranking military officers as
one of the reasons for his intense interest and belief in ET
presence.  He came across as forceful, extremely intelligent,
and in complete command of the situation.  It seemed nearly
impossible that he is only 28 years old.  Skeptic Frank Drake,
the person who began SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence was also on the program.  Unfortunately, Drake
knows nothing about UFOs, and has made it clear over the years
that the topic is beneath his dignity to study.  Yet there he
was, saying UFOs are all bunk, etc.  The contrast between the
young, energetic Firmage and the aging, intellectually arthritic
Drake left a vivid impression on the viewers.  Drake's "search"
of course is strictly limited to trying to detect radio signals
from ETs.  It began in 1959, and during the 40 years it has been
in operation, not a single piece of data has been received.  Yet
SETI continues to spend 8 million dollars a year, much of it
taxpayer's money.  In most fields, 40 years of abject failure on
the public's money would be considered fraud.  Critics of Drake
point to this abysmal track record, and think the "search" is
like searching for telegraph poles and lines on Mars.  Radio is
probably a very temporary means of communication for
technological societies in the galaxy.  Perhaps the emergence of
Joe Firmage on the national scene will bring sanity to this
mess.  Firmage will be the featured speaker at the MUFON
Symposium on July 2-4.  Thanks to Joe Stefula.

ARE THE UFO VISITORS TIME TRAVELERS?  JENNY WILL ALSO SPEAK.
Jenny Randles the well-known British author writes concerning
the strange Nordic hair found on a contactee's body in
Australia.  The blonde hair was analyzed and found to contain a
very rare type DNA hair found only in black haired Asiatic
women.  Is the hair from an extraterrestrial and are they
visiting us in large numbers?  Jenny states, "The $64, billion
trillion dollar question (which is probably what it would cost
to send one spaceship to earth which doubtless means the Greys
are the alien equivalent of mega rich yuppies)."  My answer
would be simple.  There is no overpowering evidence to support
this belief (in ET).  Thus, on balance, one has to say no.  Why?
Because most UFOs are not alien spacecraft and provably a lot of
other things (from secret aircraft to UP) and the possibility
that all are explicable is not a remote one.  Although I still
think there are residual cases of craft like devices that leave
the ET door open a crack.  Why?  Because alien contacts are
still a puzzle but we know some things about them with
assurance.  They happen during altered states of consciousness.
They involve images/hallucinations/fantasies that are
abstractions of ourselves rather than true alien visitors.  They
occur to psychically gifted people not any old person.  And when
people are observed during an abduction (barring rare and rather
dubious cases like the Manhattan transfer) they are clearly seen
by others to physically go nowhere, but to remain put in an
altered state.  There are some signs of magical technology at
work in the UFO mystery.  Frankly, it is as likely (more likely
in my opinion) that any such visitors are human -- perhaps time
travelers from our future -- than that they are alien space
voyagers.  Indeed, the recent DNA testing of an alien hair in
Australia - discovering it to be an extremely rare but earth
originated cross match of Nordic and Asiatic -- fits better the
idea that it comes from a future earth where such a race is
common than from an alien race that chances to have this same
DNA pool.  That we have any visitors coming here is not a given.
I'd put the likelihood at maybe 50/50.  It is at least as
probable that we will find ways to resolve all UFO phenomena in
earth based ways that require no visitors at all.  But if we do
have visitors I am more convinced daily that they are not
extraterrestrial but human.  An open mind is still necessary.
New facts can emerge to redirect our thinking.  But 50 years of
UFO research have, in my view, driven us further than ever from
the simplistic concept of aliens from alpha flying here in
fleets of starships.

I've been discussing the issue with Bill Chalker.  We both
recalled a UK case that I was involved with in which the female
witness encountered an entity that was a female Nordic with
blonde hair that was virtually white.  Not my only case of this
type but one Bill and I had discussed before.  I cannot be more
specific to allow me to add the following (which requires
witness confidentiality).  The woman concerned told me, very
sheepishly, that soon after her abduction she became pregnant.
This was impossible, she stated, as she had no boyfriend.  The
pregnancy ended after a few weeks without explanation.  She was
deeply ashamed and had never told her parents, hence my need for
secrecy on the identity of this case.  This story emerged before
Budd's first book -- so was not influenced by hybrid baby
stories post l983.  It is by no means the only such UK case of
the same type.  But it is interesting to me that in three of the
four of this kind I have personally come across there is
reference to a white haired Nordic entity.  That stretches
credibility, although the numbers are statistically small.  That
these very specific and unusual entities coincide with cases of
both DNA sampling and evident phantom pregnancy storylines seems
worth noting.  As I stated before, the now human DNA
characteristics suggested by Bill's Australian case might well
fit the pattern of time travel.  Another UK case of this type,
that I can identify, is the Cynthia Appleton affair.  This truly
astounding case occurred between l957 and l959.  It involved
numerous visits (in flashes of light -- not UFOs) of a Nordic
type entity dressed in MIB type clothing and in one instance
arriving by car.  Much information about the future of science
was conveyed, including a forewarning -- documented a year
before it occurred -- of the invention of the laser.  The entity
told Cynthia of DNA experiments and how she would have a child
that they had helped to engineer.  It all hangs together very
intriguingly as a possible time travel scenario and works this
way far better than an alien contact.  Best wishes, Jenny
Randles nufon@currantbun.com (Jenny Randles)  Editor's Note:
Jenny may be  right about time travelers.  I have been trying to
get people to look for DNA type evidence and this is a major
break through.  Several people I'm in contact with claim our
visitors are time travelers who are here to repair genes and DNA
for future generations.  This also explains why there are no
provisions aboard the craft for long journeys. Jenny will also
be speaking at the MUFON Conference.

CONFERENCE: July 2-4, 30th Annual MUFON 1999 International UFO
Symposium at Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington
Virginia.  E-mail mufonhq@aol.com

TAPE OF EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE UFO ENCOUNTER

Lunar Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the
UFO chase occurred.  The 6th person to walk on the moon said,
"The night it happened I investigated it myself and this was a
real event."  Sam Sherman's audio documentary tape called THE
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE ENCOUNTER on the night of October 7,
1965, uses the actual voice recordings provided by the Air
Force.  During this event 12 high tech luminous UFOs invade
secure air space and came down low over the runways at Edwards
AFB.  Tower operator Sgt. Chuck Sorrels spotted them and
notified the Air Defense Command.  Sgt. Sorrels speaks both the
original tapes and in a new segment where he verifies the event
on the archival recordings.  The UFOs are described and a
decision is made to launch F-106 fighter interceptors.  You are
there in an important part of UFO history.  Hear it for
yourself, it is the best UFO tape ever made and its record of a
real event.  The cost of the tape is $14.95 each plus $2.00 for
shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send either a personal check
or money order to: Independent International Films, Box 565,
Dept.  GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:23 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:31:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:03:06 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>The statistics are different. Of all the crop circles that were
>>found in the summer of 1997 in the Netherlands, about 80 % was
>>unexplained.

>>Btw. 'crop circle' is by now a misnomer. The circles don't just
>>arise in crop and most of them aren't circles. 'Anomalous soil
>>pictograms' would be a better term IMO.

>Hi Henny


Hi Sean,

>Long time no speak, where have you been hiding?

I was out there... :)

>Anyway, 80%? I am amazed. Over here it seams that we have so
>many people hoaxing intricate patterns in cereal crops (IPICC,
>hmm still don't sound right) that it is _very_ hard to calculate
>a figure for this country. I know that there are several ways to
>detect _genuine_ advanced geometrical designs in the crop
>(AGDITC, hmm still don't look good) but it would seem that the
>hoaxers know this too and can fake these intricate pictograms in
>cereal crops (IPICC, back to this one again) and can use means
>to fool the researchers of these patterns in the crop (PITC, is
>this better?).


Trying to discriminate real anomalous pictograms from hoaxes by
comparing their structure seems to me not the right approach.
The researchers looked at certain specific physical properties
of the crop or cereal in which the pictograms were painted. Such
as electromagnetic orientation of the ears and the growth rates
of the crop or cereal as a function of the distance to the
center of the circle.

Btw. it strikes me that hardly any documentary about this
phenomenon that I have seen or heard about focuses on these
anomalous properties. Instead the focus has been on whether the
pictograms could be faked. Of course, given enough time any
pictogram can be faked. Therefore the structure of a pictogram
is hardly indicative of its genuineness.




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

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





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

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:32:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:34:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100

>Another interesting fact is how all of Max's witnesses changed
>their stories after you and Andy R. got to them. You then made
>big claims about how you could show that Max Burns had lied
>about their witness testimonies and that the witnesses were
>claiming their words had been twisted.

>However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
>Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
>was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
>and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.

>After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
>having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
>Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
>use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
>seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
>mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
>case and go onto aircraft causing sonic booms being your latest
>evidence to damn Max's research with.
> http://globalserve.net/~updates/mufon/index.htm


I think this is an interesting point Matthew raises here.

Everyone at the Max Burns Lecture clearly heard Mr Dagenhart
express to Max his position and the clarity of his statement.

If Clarke & Roberts are stating that Mr Dagenhart did not say
the things he did, then How do they explain the taped phone call
between Max and Mr Dagenhart?

Concerning the interview which was given to Mr Dagenhart, by
Clarke & Roberts were these interviews taped so we can hear
their method of questioning? Only this would be interesting to
many researchers simply because they are stating that the
witness withdrew / denied what Max played (Audio Tape) at the
lecture.

Roy..









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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:45:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:29:30 -0400
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT

Previously, Leanne offered this reasonable idea:

>>Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
>>and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
>>other condition?

John replied:

>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>indelicately phrase it.

<snip>

>At that
>point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
>denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
>selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
>going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
>believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
>view. What is that?

Hi, John.

"What is that?"

Well, to be quite frank, it's exactly what _you_ do. It's also
what I do. It's what anyone does with no facts or evidence or
proof regarding a given situation.

I believe in the possibility of UFOs as well as the possibility
of abductions. However, I do so because of my own internal
beliefs and convictions; neither you nor anyone else has offered
a shred of proof to MAKE me believe. So unless you have
undeniable proof hidden away that has never been shared with
this list, then you are also "being (subjectively) selective
about what parts of any given testimony you give credence to."
After all, what other choice do any of us really have? All of
us, including you, are just guessing. However, we do so using
our own individual belief system based on what's important to
each of us. Leanne simply guesses in a way that "doesn't fit
into your personal world view," as you put it.

Chill out, dude. These are just tiny little words on a CRT.

Later,






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

              Crop Circles in Canada - Research Assistance 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP/CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:50:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:39:57 -0400
Subject: Crop Circles in Canada - Research Assistance 1999


CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH CANADA
Circles Phenomenon Research International

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310



RESEARCH ASSISTANCE
1999


Circles Phenomenon Research Canada, the Canadian affiliate
office of Circles Phenomenon Research International, is seeking
the continued assistance of farmers, media, police / RCMP,
pilots, scientists, the general public and other researchers in
its investigative efforts.

Reports of possible crop circle (or other) formations may be
submitted to the main office (BC) or provincial coordinator
offices (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario; contact information on
the web site), by phone, fax or e-mail. It is urgently requested
that reports be forwarded as soon after discovery as possible so
that a proper investigation may be initiated. In Canada, most
crop circle formations are reported between July and September,
often around harvest. Fourteen formations were reported across
the country in 1998, in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and
PEI. Full reports are in the 1998 report archive on the web site
and in the 1998 Summary Report.

Additional supporting materials, including photos, video, etc.
can also be sent to the main office or provincial coordinator
offices. Report forms are available on request or a copy can be
downloaded from the web site. Please include as much detail as
possible. Information on sampling protocols for lab analysis by
the BLT Research Team in the USA is also available.

All applicable laws are strictly adhered to, and under no
circumstance is a farmer's field or other property entered
without expressed permission. Names and locations are kept
confidential and will not be released publicly without
permission. The purpose of such investigations is to gather
plant and soil samples, take still photo and video records of
formation(s), conduct other testing and compile the data for the
report archives. Thank you for your cooperation.

For those interested in becoming involved directly with
CPR-Canada, additional volunteer office, coordinator and field
research assistance is needed and welcomed.

Free periodic e-mail updates are also available for those
wanting to keep up to date on the latest news and developments.

Extensive resources are available to all interested persons or
groups. For further information, to become involved in research
projects or to submit reports, please contact:


CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH CANADA

Main Office

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, BC V6J 1J4 Canada
Tel / Fax: 604.731.8522
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310



_______________







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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:25:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:21:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:12:53 -0400
>From: Lesley Cluff <manitou@fox.nstn.ca>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>While we are on the subject of crop circles, I would like to
>check out two interesting items I recently learned or should I
>say heard, from a noted researcher in such things mostly in
>Britain, but who is actually an American (and no, this is not an
>anti-American slam!;-)  )

>First, on the subject of why so few are in the US,  and not not
>because D & D haven't the travel budget, but is it true that
>when a circle is discovered, in an American grain field, it is
>ordered burned immediately.  Preferably before anyone outside of
>the farmer or the first one to notice it, can hear about it,
>take pics or go for a spiritual walk inside of it.  Thus the
>number of publicized and documented pictograms is kept low.

<snip>

Wow! That's a new one. American crop circles are " ordered
burned immediately"!! By whom, one might ask...  the FBI? ...
some secret government agency devoted to keeping crop circles
from the public eye in a sinister or conspiratorial way?

I'm sure we would all like the particulars on this one.

RSVP

- Larry Hatch

-  -  -  -





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

                           Re: Doug & Dave & beer

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:16:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:17:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave & beer


>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:50:42 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:28:51 -0700

>>>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0500

>>But, the truth of the matter is, mates, there's nothing like a
>>good British brew. It's like returning to the source! Give me
>>and the ETs a Guinness or a Watley or a Bass, any day--even July
>>4th.

>And any visitors to London wishing to drink at the source, and
>discuss UFOs, crop circles, ritual satanic abuse or any of the
>other topics discussed on this list are very welcome to come
>along to the Railway pub, Putney High Street, London SW14 (just
>across from Putney rail station) this coming 4th July for the
>monthly Magonia Readers' Group meeting - I think they've even
>got American beers in specially for the day, so we can compare
>at first hand and slay the myth of English beer being "warm".

>Cheers, slainte, l'chaim, al'a'lum, prost, sante
>--
>John Rimmer
>www.magonia.demon.co.uk
>Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse

Dear John:

"Warm" is a relative term of course. When we yanks call British
beers warm, what we are saying is that they are not ice cold, as
we would usually prefer.

"Cellar temperature" might be a better term. One pint of
something-or-other I had long ago was sucked up out of the
cellar at that temperature, and had an "aroma" to match.

I had a difficult time with that pint, but my tastes have
matured since the 1960s.

Australians also like their lagers, good and cold as well.  It
must have to do with the temperatures and humidity levels of
various countries.


Best!

- Larry Hatch





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:12:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:22:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:23 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>Trying to discriminate real anomalous pictograms from hoaxes by
>comparing their structure seems to me not the right approach.
>The researchers looked at certain specific physical properties
>of the crop or cereal in which the pictograms were painted. Such
>as electromagnetic orientation of the ears and the growth rates
>of the crop or cereal as a function of the distance to the
>center of the circle.

If the claim is that there is some difference in the growth rate
of crops in a field dependent on their distance from the centre
of a crop circle - the only way I can interpret the above
paragraph - it must imply that crops grow at different rates
*before* a crop circle comes along, as the construction of a
crop circle, whether by natural or supernatural processes, seems
to take only a hour or so at most.

So it seems that we have precognitive, psychic, crops which know
in advance when a crop circle is coming and speed up their





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:21:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:35:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


I don't know how far off topic the blessed ebk will let this
thread go, but as I seem to have started the US v. UK beer
argument, may I also bring it to a close by saying that, English
ale lover that I am, and I will defend it to my dying slurp, I
must say that the San Francisco Brewery's Emperor Norton Stout
is as fine a beer as I have sampled on either side of the
Atlantic.

Peace?

[Stout comes in Peaces? The Gordon Biersch Brewing Co. of
 'Frisco and Honolulu - visited both - make some of the
 finest dark, chewing brew on the planet --ebk]

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Official Sponsors of the 1999 Solar Eclipse





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

                   Any Subscribers On-line @ MUFON Conf.?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:55:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:55:10 -0400
Subject: Any Subscribers On-line @ MUFON Conf.?




Is anyone at the MUFON Conference in Washington, DC reading
this? If so, please e-mail me A.S.A.P.






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 11:27:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:23 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>Trying to discriminate real anomalous pictograms from hoaxes by
>comparing their structure seems to me not the right approach.
>The researchers looked at certain specific physical properties
>of the crop or cereal in which the pictograms were painted. Such
>as electromagnetic orientation of the ears and the growth rates
>of the crop or cereal as a function of the distance to the
>center of the circle.

>Btw. it strikes me that hardly any documentary about this
>phenomenon that I have seen or heard about focuses on these
>anomalous properties. Instead the focus has been on whether the
>pictograms could be faked. Of course, given enough time any
>pictogram can be faked. Therefore the structure of a pictogram
>is hardly indicative of its genuineness.

Hello Henny,

That's certainly right, the outline or shape of the agriglyph
isn't as important as the existence of braided stems and the
anomalous physical properties of the bent-over stems.

But regarding your statement that any pictogram can be faked
given enough time, the time involved needs to be less than that
of a summer night. Would you still stand by your statement under
that qualification?

I'm still waiting to hear back from Tony regarding how, if he
were to fake a certain crop circle, he would go about it, and
this is that two-layer crop circle of 1 Aug 1986 at Headbourne
Worthy, examined carefully by both Meaden and Andrews. How does
one proceed to first bend every other stem in a circle of 57'
diameter in a counterclockwise swirl, and then bend over the
other thousands of remaining standing stems in a swirl at right
angles to the direction of the lower swirl, two form a two-layer
system? It really does boggle the mind that any technology or
intelligence could do this, within a few hours time. I suspect
that this is the reason we have not seen anything like this
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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 3

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:13:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:54:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:40:44 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:42:32 -0500
>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:42:53 +0100
>>>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Yes it was "done" under ambiant night conditions, ie darkness<g>,
>>>the BBC team used "nightvision" on the video camera to make the
>>>recording, and as Sean confirmed in an earlier post the circle
>>>researchers had got wind of the hoaxing attempt and were in the
>>>general area trying to track D+D+Co down, so use of any form of
>>>"lighting" out in the landscape would have been a dead givaway.
>
>>>It proved it could be done, thats all.
>>>It didn't/couldn't prove they were ALL hoaxes.
>
>>Neil,
>
>>With all due respect, this is the sort of thing those schooled
>>in the Amazing Randi branch of knowledge will use to confirm
>>that it -does- prove that the balance of crop circles are
>>hoaxes.
>
>>Their logic goes something like this: 'If I can reproduce it
>>through slight of hand, etc., then the (choose your paranormal
>>or otherwise unexplainable event) must be hoaxed by evil-minded,
>>avaricious charlatans bent on taking your money.'
>
>Yes, but what you forget is that cerealogists pre-D&D were
>asserting to anyone willing to listen (and buy their books) that
>crop circles could not be done by humans period. Remarkably,
>none of the prominent cerealogists of the time, ie., Meaden,
>Andrews, Delgado, Taylor, Wingfield, etc., tried (as far as I'm
>aware) to create their own circles to see if they _could_ be
>done. They were too busy publishing books remarking on the crop
>circles' alleged miraculous properties.

Dennis,

Let's see if I'm interpreting you correctly.  The cerealogists
you note _were/are_ evil-minded, avaricious charlatans bent on
taking the public's money?  Bastards!

If I'm not mistaken, the comment to which I replied dealt with
_all_ crop circles not being proved hoaxes by the activities of
D&D.

And I do recall seeing reports of people trying to duplicate
crop circles.

It usually went something like this:

Man creates crude circle in wheat with feet.  Camera zooms in
and voice-over notes that the properties of the just bent wheat
do not demonstrate the same properties of bent wheat in 'real'
crop circles (intertwining, etc., whatever).  So please don't
tell me that no one was attempting to make these things if for
no other reason than to demonstrate that the ones they made were
entirely different from those discovered in farmer's fields.

>Rather than cashing in on the phenomenon, D&D were routinely
>vilified and ridiculed by the English crop circle community. You
>forget, too, that the Centre for Crop Cirlce Studies sponsored
>its own hoax context, the results of which stunned many within
>cerealogy. Of those who originally brought the phenomenon to
>worldwide attention, you might ask, "Where are they now?" Why do
>you think Meaden has let the phenomenon lapse into well deserved
>obscurity? Why do you think Pat Delgado has disappeared from the
>picture entirely, as Colin Andrews seems to be in the process of
>doing? You don't hear too much about the phenomenal circles from
>Busty Taylor and George Wingfield these days, either. I wonder
>why? Because they know what you don't.

How noble of D&D (martyrs) not to cash in when they could.  I
guess that makes anyone who's made a buck off this and any other
anomalous phenomenon a snake oil salesman.

If these cerealogists were making such foolish statements to the
effect that the phenomena could not be the result of human
effort then they deserve to have their chairs pulled from
underneath them. In that regard D&D have done the subject a real
service.

But the fact that D&D faked a circle (and others as well) does
not mean that all crop circles are fakes.

>And before you accuse me of speaking from an armchair on the
>circles, guess again. I was even there when Steven Greer was
>waving his ridiculous flashlights around, the night before he
>got hoaxed by Irving and Schnabel.

I would never accuse you (nor did I) of being an armchair
anything.  Where did that come from?  Do you need credentials to
discuss whether one set of hoaxes makes the entire subject the
result of hoaxes?  I don't think so.  How about the UFO field?
Does one hoaxed UFO sighting negate the rest?

>>I ran into this sort of medieval thinking with my brother-
>>in-law, an avowed atheist.  He saw the PBS (?) program on Doug
>>and Dave and concluded that _all_ crop circles are manmade (by
>>D&D no less). It made no difference to him that D&D are not
>>cotinent-hopping circle hoaxers; they are responsible for crop
>>circles. Case closed. Mystery solved.

>>How many others out there in TV Land have come to the same
>>conclusion?

>As for your brother-in-law, you have my condolences. Is it too
>late to get another one? One, perhaps, who isn't an atheist, and
>who believes that an alien intelligence, by flattening patterns
>in wheat and other crops, is trying to tell us something really,
>really profound? One, in other words, who believes anything? I
>certainly hope there aren't any of those out there in TV (or
>Radio) Land. Nah, I thought not.

I'm afraid it _is_ too late to get another one.  He and my
sister love each other very much.  Personally I would have
preferred a non-atheist but you know how these things go; we
usually don't have much say in who our siblings marry.

You have, by the way, described my brother-in-law.  Just
substitute 'Origin of Species' for the Bible, Carl Sagan/Randi/
et al for Moses or Jesus and there he is.  He's the flip side of
the coin you're deriding.  Like most true believers he'll buy
anything if it's from the right source.

Unfortunately there are plenty of 'them' out there in TV Land.

What we don't often discuss are the ones like my brother-in-law.
If it's on Nova then, by God, it's the Gospel; Randi duplicates
some 'psychic' phenomenon, and the rest of it's got to be faked.
On and on.  How utterly ridiculous.  The professed adherence of
an individual to science doesn't necessarily make him a rational
creature.

Obviously you prefer my brother-in-law type of true believer to
the UFO/Bigfoot/Psychokinesis-believing true believer.  Whatever
makes you happy.  That's why God made chocolate and vanilla.

Very best regards,
Ron.





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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:59:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>>Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:29:30 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT

>Previously, Leanne offered this reasonable idea:

>>>Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
>>>and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
>>>other condition?

>John replied:

>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>indelicately phrase it.

><snip>

>>At that
>>point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
>>denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
>>selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
>>going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
>>believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
>>view. What is that?

Roger wrote:

>Hi, John.

>"What is that?"

>Well, to be quite frank, it's exactly what _you_ do. It's also
>what I do. It's what anyone does with no facts or evidence or
>proof regarding a given situation.

There _is_ a difference Roger. I understand what you are saying
in regard to folks who are 'studying' the phenomenon, but my
"beliefs and convictions" are based on very personal experience.
I have seen these things at _uncomfortably_ close range. I'm not
talking about anything 'nebulous' either. I'm talking about an
undeniable experience, (in broad daylight and in the company
other witnesses) one that quite literally robs you of any
possibility for entertaining a 'alternate explanations.' Life
experiences such as what I have described have a way of
effecting you deeply and leaving you with a sense of genuine
urgency and strong opinions in regard to existing investigation
efforts. Especially when those investigative efforts seem
directed at just about anything and everything with the rather
odd _exception_ of what is actually being reported.

So it's not a matter of "show me" or "where's the proof" for me.
It's about an uphill fight to be taken seriously and at one's
word. And not just for myself either. I imagine that in 1999
values like that sounds about as "strange" as reports UFOs or
alien abductions, but _that_ is where I am coming from/
responding from. (Regardless of how others may be interpreting
my words or intentions.)

>So unless you have undeniable proof hidden away that has
>never been shared with this list, then you are also "being
>(subjectively) selective about what parts of any given testimony
>you give credence to."

I already have (my) "undeniable proof" Roger. I have no idea
what may constitute "undeniable proof" for you or anyone else.
That's why I wrote the following in my original:

>>I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only thing_ that is _ever_
>>going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
>>themselves.

I cannot "arrange" for such an experience or "undeniable proof"
for anyone. Sorry. It just seems that we live in time when a
mans' word means less than nothing, (crying shame) and that it
is ok and proper to investigate or entertain just about any
explanation as long as it isn't the one that is actually being
reported.

>After all, what other choice do any of us really have? All of
>us, including you, are just guessing.

Not so for "all of us" Roger. Reread the above.  :)

>However, we do so using
>our own individual belief system based on what's important to
>each of us.

You're wrong fella. I don't base any of my "beliefs" re: UFOs
and alien abduction solely on "what's important to me." It is
based on _direct_ life experience. Seems like today many have
become convinced that their own senses cannot be trusted. I am
not among those. I know what I have seen and experienced in the
full light of day (and consciousness) and among others who could
corroborate it.

No one should base their opinions or beliefs solely on "what is
important to them" as you say. Beliefs -should always have- much
stronger underpinnings than that. I question everything Roger. I
did't come by any of my convictions easily or casually.

>Leanne simply guesses in a way that "doesn't fit
>into your personal world view," as you put it.

Leanne is entitled to any "guesses" she may care to take. I was
responding to her use of the term "condition" (implying
something other than an _actual_experience_) when referring to
reports of UFO abduction. Like I said, it would be nice to see
some folks investigating what is being reported _first_ before
creating explanations that they are comfortable with.  I don't
recall seeing any reports of abduction or UFO sightings that
were prefaced by; "because of my 'condition' I saw or
experienced the following." Reports, especially contact reports
from reputable, honest people should be checked out like cops
do, _as they are reported_ before allowing ones own personal
speculations to enter the picture.

>Chill out, dude. These are just tiny little words on a CRT.

Words are so powerful Roger. Whole civilisations have been
formed and turned on mere words. There are few things in life
with as much power as "tiny little words."

I'm not 'excited' or 'upset' Roger. Don't need to "chill." But,
I do hope it is ok with you if like Leanne, I too express my
"beliefs and convictions."  :)

This has wandered far from the theme of the original thread
which was not my intention. Just wanted to add a comment or two
is all. It shouldn't be interpreted or taken as my trying to
impose my beliefs or convictions on anyone. Like everyone else
on the list, I am simply expressing myself and my thoughts.
Nothing personal intended or taken.

Peace,

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





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

               UFOMSN World Wide Watch: Database Now Available

From: Diana Botsford <Diana_Botsford@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:58:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:21:17 -0400
Subject: UFOMSN World Wide Watch: Database Now Available


=============================
Visit http://communities.msn.com/ufo to download a zip file
containing the raw data and excel and access versions of the
database. You can also view the results of top relevant data via
the web and the final map images that display the results.
=============================

World Wide Watch Closure
By Diana Botsford
Publisher/Community Manager
UFO Community on MSN


Life is never as it seems, goes the saying. And that would
certainly apply to the startling results of an event for which
we had little expectations. People 'into' UFOs were in factions
- one not wanting to deal with the other. Of course, our
original hope was to get some of the larger organizations
working together. But in increasing surprise, the World Wide
Watch took on a life of itself during the weeks leading up to
the event. It in itself became a conduit for community. And no,
I don't mean this website. I mean the entire world wide
community of people who are interested in the UFO phenomenon.

At a time when the field of Ufology is riddled with hoaxes,
anger and even lawsuits, thousands of individuals from 51
different countries teamed up in recognition that they were not
alone. The fact that others shared their interest and were ready
to throw down the differences and share their knowledge is
perhaps the most vital key to understanding why, on June 26th,
the sightings submission page saw over 950,000 hits. And 39% of
those 'hits' were from outside the United States.



True, the results were less than dazzling - from a strictly
scientific point of view. La Nina was busy with a vengence on
June 26th, 1999. Australia, the kick-off point for this
expedition, was 90% covered by clouds. Great Britain was
essentially rained out and clouds banked most of the sky
throughout Europe. The mid-west portions of the United States
saw muggy, cloudy humidty as well.

And of course, there is certainly a share of the reports that
are seemingly bogus. One participant claimed that Howard Stern
was a fellow witness!

But forget the science for a moment and consider this. We
received over 6,000 emails and newsgroup postings in addition to
the responses that organizations such as Skywatch International
(who played a key role in organizing this event) committing to
the event. What exactly does this mean? Does it simply mean the
interest continues? Or something more?

Call me an optimist, but I do see something more in all this.
The people involved with this event dropped their differences
and committed to an event that is simply about seeking
information. Nothing more, nothing less. They downloaded the
star maps provided. They shared cell phone numbers. And they
made contact with each. They recognized that there is in fact
something more important than ego. And that's seeking the truth.
In whatever form it may take.

Perhaps we are finally growing up. If we can finally see past
our isolated selves and work together, no matter our
differences, the answers to the puzzle of UFOs are just moments
away.

Diana Botsford



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

THANK YOU: A large event like this is never the result of one
person's ideas. An ever ending thanks goes to the entire MSN UFO
Staff, the tremendous efforts of Jim Hickman of Skywatch
International, Tom Sheets of MUFON Georgia, Diane Harrison of
AUFORN and Mark Hall of CSETI UK as well as the incredible
talents of the media - who supported and encouraged our efforts.

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


To find out more about the event and who was behind it, visit
the main page for the World Wide Watch at
http://communities.msn.com/ufo/wwwmain.asp

You can still fill in our report form or take a look at the
results to date. A database will soon be released to the public
showing the results in both a raw data fashion as well a series
of patterns.

 Join our newsgroup to discuss your results at
news://msnnews.msn.com/msn.forums.ufo.wwwatch.



Those with questions can email the MSN UFO team at watchfire_FM@msn.com.







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

                        Re: Altavista And Good Beer!

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 09:39:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:51:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Altavista And Good Beer!


>Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 19:55:18 -0600
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@IX.NETCOM.COM>
>Subject: Re: Boycott Yahoo Home Page

>Steven wrote:

>>This may well be a problem, but it also may be a rather large
>>misunderstanding.  According to one report, they were merely
>>trying to warn users that their material may be copied to
>>other servers around their network to speed up access, and was
>>not intended to indicate appropriation of copyrighted material
>>placed on their system.

>That was my initial take on it, but I must admit the language
>seems to suggest very clearly otherwise.

>Either that, or their lawyers must be morons. :-)

>>For security reasons this may also be an issue, if you value
>>your material, but it apparently isn't the theft of material.

>>The report also acknowledged that the legal language of the
>>posting left the wrong impression and they were quickly trying
>>to backtrack and re-word what they had thought was a simple
>>informational message.

>I bet they are. Of course, why it didn't occur to them to say:

>"You grant us the right to duplicate, cache and otherwise
>distribute your material to improve performance, but your rights
>to your material are in no way impaired by this grant" is beyond
>me.

>I'm sure that even the old language wouldn't have withstood
>court challenge.

>------
>Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
>http://www.temporaldoorway.com
>- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

>UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
>http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
>------


Dear Mark and Steven:

I am absolutely convinced that the original Yahoo language would
never have stood up in court.

Imagine if you will, an analogy.

You and I and somebody else make an artistic presentation
involving paintings music and food or beer.  Why not.

We find a place to host this demonstration, lets say the Museum
of Modern Art.

All are thrilled at this wonderful "endorsement" and apparent
acceptance until it is learnt that:

a)   The MOMA now owns all present and future
rights to your most precious song..

b)   The lifelike little animation you always dreamed of belongs
["in perpetuity" no less!] to somebody you never met.

c)   Your own image, taken by a photograph, does not belong to
you, but to "them".

I have never been so pissed off at an American company in my
life. Is this some kind of joke?:

What legal wizard wrote article 8?

Was this some disinfo, or did Yahoo get so big that it burped
.. in public?

Until I learn better, and the bumbling inept statements from
Yahoo argue convincingly against that, I must cease all use of
Yahoo and its derivatives.

You go do what you want.

I know what I'm (not) gonna do.


-  Larry Hatch





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 09:53:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:53:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:25:50 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:12:53 -0400
>>From: Lesley Cluff <manitou@fox.nstn.ca>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>While we are on the subject of crop circles, I would like to
>>check out two interesting items I recently learned or should I
>>say heard, from a noted researcher in such things mostly in
>>Britain, but who is actually an American (and no, this is not an
>>anti-American slam!;-)  )

>>First, on the subject of why so few are in the US,  and not not
>>because D & D haven't the travel budget, but is it true that
>>when a circle is discovered, in an American grain field, it is
>>ordered burned immediately.  Preferably before anyone outside of
>>the farmer or the first one to notice it, can hear about it,
>>take pics or go for a spiritual walk inside of it.  Thus the
>>number of publicized and documented pictograms is kept low.

><snip>

>Wow! That's a new one. American crop circles are " ordered
>burned immediately"!! By whom, one might ask...  the FBI? ...
>some secret government agency devoted to keeping crop circles
>from the public eye in a sinister or conspiratorial way?

>I'm sure we would all like the particulars on this one.

>RSVP

>- Larry Hatch

Maybe it wasn't the "Americans" after all.

Perhaps it was the Mounties!

- LH






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:29:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:57:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:25:50 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:12:53 -0400
>>From: Lesley Cluff <manitou@fox.nstn.ca>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>While we are on the subject of crop circles, I would like to
>>check out two interesting items I recently learned or should I
>>say heard, from a noted researcher in such things mostly in
>>Britain, but who is actually an American (and no, this is not an
>>anti-American slam!;-)  )

>>First, on the subject of why so few are in the US,  and not not
>>because D & D haven't the travel budget, but is it true that
>>when a circle is discovered, in an American grain field, it is
>>ordered burned immediately.  Preferably before anyone outside of
>>the farmer or the first one to notice it, can hear about it,
>>take pics or go for a spiritual walk inside of it.  Thus the
>>number of publicized and documented pictograms is kept low.

><snip>

>Wow! That's a new one. American crop circles are " ordered
>burned immediately"!! By whom, one might ask...  the FBI? ...
>some secret government agency devoted to keeping crop circles
>from the public eye in a sinister or conspiratorial way?

>I'm sure we would all like the particulars on this one.

>RSVP

>- Larry Hatch

Dear Mr. Latch, Hatch, uh and the other guy, too;

The United States Government DOES order the immediate burning of
all crap circles.  Always.  They have crap circle spy
satellites, sattelites, whatever, looking continuously at the
amber weaves of green.  The reason for this malevolent activity?
This disgusting, mischievous theft of freedom, this, this, uh,
this insult to the constitution, formed by a perfect union of
Senators and Congressman?

I have no idea!

But it's a cornspiracy all right!  Get it?  CORNspiracy!  Heh, heh.
Ooof!  Sure is warm in here, aint it?






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:20:11 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 10:06:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:50:59 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

><snip>

>>Btw. 'crop circle' is by now a misnomer. The circles don't just
>>arise in crop and most of them aren't circles. 'Anomalous soil
>>pictograms' would be a better term IMO.

>The very complicated and artistic constructions would be more
>properly characterized as "agriglyphs", a term I published in
>the MUFON Journal in 1991.

>'glyph'..... a picture

>'agri'.....  relating to plants/crops, etc.

>'agriglyph' - picture in plants or agricultural crops.

>Compare to 'petroglyph'..... pictures on rocks.


Hi Bruce,

Interesting alternatives. But I wonder if 'pictogram' would be
indicative of simple constructions only. Why not use the word
for more complicated structures as well?

In any case, I prefer a single term for the phenomenon. Because
the structures in crop, cereal, stone or ice seem to be one and
the same thing. Your terminology has the disadvantage that we
need to use different words for all types of soil in which the
pictures are formed. (picture on ice: glacyglyph?)

Nonetheless, I don't think Anomalous Soil Pictogram will stick
either. It's still too complicated. Anyone for an alternative?
Unexplained Soil Pictures? Terraglyphs?


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

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





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

               RHubble Delivers Most Detailed Pictures Of Mars

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 07:19:24
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 09:56:20 -0400
Subject: RHubble Delivers Most Detailed Pictures Of Mars


Source: News release by the Space Telescope Science Institute,

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/27/index.html

Stig

***

A Closer Encounter With Mars

**

Taking advantage of Mars's closest approach to Earth in eight
years, astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have
taken the space-based observatory's sharpest views yet of the
Red Planet. NASA is releasing these images to commemorate the
second anniversary of the Mars Pathfinder landing.

The telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 snapped these
images between April 27 and May 6, when Mars was 54 million
miles (87 million kilometers) from Earth. From this distance the
telescope could see Martian features as small as 12 miles (19
kilometers) wide. The telescope obtained four images, which,
together, show the entire planet. Each view depicts the planet
as it completes one quarter of its daily rotation.

These Hubble telescope snapshots reveal that substantial changes
in the bright and dark markings on Mars have occurred in the 20
years since the NASA Viking spacecraft missions first mapped the
planet. These images show that the Martian surface is dynamic
and ever changing. Some regions that were dark 20 years ago are
now bright red; some areas that were bright red are now dark.
Winds move sand and dust from region to region, often in
spectacular dust storms. Over long timescales many of the larger
bright and dark markings remain stable, but smaller details come
and go as they are covered and then uncovered by sand and dust.

See the full caption for more information.

Photo credits: Steve Lee (University of Colorado), Jim Bell
(Cornell University), Mike Wolff (Space Science Institute), and
NASA

Other researchers involved in the collection and analysis of
these Hubble telescope data are R. Todd Clancy (Space Science
Institute), Philip James (University of Toledo), and Michael
Ravine (Malin Space Science Systems, Inc.).

**

The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.
(AURA), for NASA, under contract with the Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD. The Hubble Space Telescope is a project
of international cooperation between NASA and the European Space
Agency (ESA).


*Office of Public Outreach

outreach@stsci.edu


Copyright� 1990-1999 The Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc. All Rights Reserved.








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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:20:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 10:24:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:12:18 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:23 +0200 (MET DST)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Trying to discriminate real anomalous pictograms from hoaxes by
>>comparing their structure seems to me not the right approach.
>>The researchers looked at certain specific physical properties
>>of the crop or cereal in which the pictograms were painted. Such
>>as electromagnetic orientation of the ears and the growth rates
>>of the crop or cereal as a function of the distance to the
>>center of the circle.

>If the claim is that there is some difference in the growth rate
>of crops in a field dependent on their distance from the centre
>of a crop circle - the only way I can interpret the above
>paragraph - it must imply that crops grow at different rates
>*before* a crop circle comes along, as the construction of a
>crop circle, whether by natural or supernatural processes, seems
>to take only a hour or so at most.


I don't understand how someone can interpret what I wrote in
such a fashion. Obviously the variance in growth rates starts
after the formation of the pictogram.


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

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





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 16:56:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 10:39:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:13:55 -0500
>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:40:44 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Yes, but what you forget is that cerealogists pre-D&D were
>>asserting to anyone willing to listen (and buy their books) that
>>crop circles could not be done by humans period. Remarkably,
>>none of the prominent cerealogists of the time, ie., Meaden,
>>Andrews, Delgado, Taylor, Wingfield, etc., tried (as far as I'm
>>aware) to create their own circles to see if they _could_ be
>>done. They were too busy publishing books remarking on the crop
>>circles' alleged miraculous properties.

>Dennis,

>Let's see if I'm interpreting you correctly.  The cerealogists
>you note _were/are_ evil-minded, avaricious charlatans bent on
>taking the public's money?  Bastards!

Ron,

I think maybe you ought to ask them, and then reread what I
said. And then refresh your history of the crop circle
phenomenon. When the Americans began arriving on the scene in
the early 1990s, the English were basically measuring the
circles, photographing them, and little else. Oh, yes, there
were a couple of dowsers afoot in the fields as well. My point
was: the people who originally popularized the phenomenon have
quietly withdrawn from same. Aren't you curious as to why? Why
don't you ask them?

>If I'm not mistaken, the comment to which I replied dealt with
>_all_ crop circles not being proved hoaxes by the activities of
>D&D.

>And I do recall seeing reports of people trying to duplicate
>crop circles.

>It usually went something like this:

>Man creates crude circle in wheat with feet.  Camera zooms in
>and voice-over notes that the properties of the just bent wheat
>do not demonstrate the same properties of bent wheat in 'real'
>crop circles (intertwining, etc., whatever).  So please don't
>tell me that no one was attempting to make these things if for
>no other reason than to demonstrate that the ones they made were
>entirely different from those discovered in farmer's fields.

I've told you nothing of the sort. I said that the original
proponents themselves didn't try to demonstrate whether complex
circles could be formed by human hands. That only occurred after
D&D went public and the Centre for Crop Circle Studies sponsored
its own (quite impressive) hoax contest. Read your history
again.

<snip>

>How noble of D&D (martyrs) not to cash in when they could.  I
>guess that makes anyone who's made a buck off this and any other
>anomalous phenomenon a snake oil salesman.

Your words again, not mine.

>If these cerealogists were making such foolish statements to the
>effect that the phenomena could not be the result of human
>effort then they deserve to have their chairs pulled from
>underneath them. In that regard D&D have done the subject a real
>service.

A lot of people would probably agree with you.

>But the fact that D&D faked a circle (and others as well) does
>not mean that all crop circles are fakes.

I don't think anyone ever said it did. What is known is that
'miraculous' properties have been assigned to perfectly normal,
ie, manmade, circles. There is no reliable litmus test by which
the real thing can be separated from the chaff, despite
Levengood's protestations to the contrary.

>>And before you accuse me of speaking from an armchair on the
>>circles, guess again. I was even there when Steven Greer was
>>waving his ridiculous flashlights around, the night before he
>>got hoaxed by Irving and Schnabel.

>I would never accuse you (nor did I) of being an armchair
>anything.  Where did that come from?  Do you need credentials to
>discuss whether one set of hoaxes makes the entire subject the
>result of hoaxes?  I don't think so.  How about the UFO field?
>Does one hoaxed UFO sighting negate the rest?

Where did your own above statements come from that intimated
that I referred to all cerealogists as money-grubbing charlatans
and bastards? I raised the armchair issue simply because it's
the first claim that's usually levelled whenever someone
criticizes someone else's pet theory. I wanted you to know that
I wasn't talking from book smarts, that I'd been there and done
that. In fact, I was a part of Michael Chorost's Project Argus,
the first systematic collection, as far as I'm aware, of crop
and soil samples associated with the circles. Now, try reading
your Levengood et al to see if they even remotely credit us with
same.

<snip>

>I'm afraid it _is_ too late to get another one.  He and my
>sister love each other very much.  Personally I would have
>preferred a non-atheist but you know how these things go; we
>usually don't have much say in who our siblings marry.

Again, my condolences on your brother-in-law.

<snip>

>Obviously you prefer my brother-in-law type of true believer to
>the UFO/Bigfoot/Psychokinesis-believing true believer.  Whatever
>makes you happy.  That's why God made chocolate and vanilla.

>Very best regards,
>Ron.


Whatever.

And best regards to you, too.






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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:02:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:37:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>Re: Satanic Abuse

Hello list,

>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>>>Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:29:30 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT

>>Previously, Leanne offered this reasonable idea:

>>>>Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
>>>>and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
>>>>other condition?

Not every one's life is wrecked but it cetrainly says that
someone or, ah, something is messing with our minds - if not
bodies. No I haven't met any aliens, nor have I been abducted.

>>John replied:

>>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>>indelicately phrase it.

I agree, I can show in my logbook that I flew DC-6's & 7's, back
it up with certificates and paystubs, but I defy you to prove
that I actually flew a Corben 'Baby Ace'!

The Ace was a 1930's vintage Homebilt aircraft. I never logged
the time. I can tell you I did, but anyone who didn't witness the
event(s)  would say I was a liar - first of all what is a Corben
Ace, anyway and why do I claim such an irrational event? (If
you knew how badly the 'Ace' flew maybe irrational isn't out of
the question.)


<snipped with respect>

>It's about an uphill fight to be taken seriously and at one's
>word. And not just for myself either. I imagine that in 1999
>values like that sounds about as "strange" as reports UFOs or
>alien abductions, but _that_ is where I am coming from/
>responding from. (Regardless of how others may be interpreting
>my words or intentions.)

Not to me they don't

>>So unless you have undeniable proof hidden away that has
>>never been shared with this list, then you are also "being
>>(subjectively) selective about what parts of any given testimony
>>you give credence to."

>I already have (my) "undeniable proof" Roger. I have no idea
>what may constitute "undeniable proof" for you or anyone else.
>That's why I wrote the following in my original:

>>>I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only thing_ that is _ever_
>>>going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
>>>themselves.

You know this is very like the theory of Shrodnger's
Cat-Observation's the thing if you don't observe it - it doesn't
happen-right?

>I cannot "arrange" for such an experience or "undeniable proof"
>for anyone. Sorry. It just seems that we live in time when a
>mans' word means less than nothing, (crying shame) and that it
>is ok and proper to investigate or entertain just about any
>explanation as long as it isn't the one that is actually being
>reported.

Yes, even if one could arrange such an event, I'm now so
cynical that a Trafalmadorian scout ship on the White House Lawn
wouldn't even get the front page: "Police ticket unruly
Trafalmadorians of illegal parking." Then: "Trafalmadorians
deported, vow to return." (With battle fleet or course, but we
don't know it - or care,'don't worry be happy'.)


>>After all, what other choice do any of us really have? All of
>>us, including you, are just guessing.

>Not so for "all of us" Roger. Reread the above.  :)

>>However, we do so using
>>our own individual belief system based on what's important to
>>each of us.

>You're wrong fella. I don't base any of my "beliefs" re: UFOs
>and alien abduction solely on "what's important to me." It is
>based on _direct_ life experience. Seems like today many have
>become convinced that their own senses cannot be trusted. I am
>not among those. I know what I have seen and experienced in the
>full light of day (and consciousness) and among others who could
>corroborate it.

Hey, all I've had was a "In the sheet metal" experience, (and a
couple of other experiences that were not quite that ah, vivid)
but what I saw was _real_ not swamp gas of a helicopter sling
loading earthlights, but somthing _real_ - sorry.

>This has wandered far from the theme of the original thread
>which was not my intention. Just wanted to add a comment or two
>is all. It shouldn't be interpreted or taken as my trying to
>impose my beliefs or convictions on anyone. Like everyone else
>on the list, I am simply expressing myself and my thoughts.
>Nothing personal intended or taken.


You have spoken well John, unless it happens to you personally,
no one will ever undestand, and all the muddled thinking and
opinions won't change what experiencers have see/done or
(shudder) have had done to them.

-GT McCoy





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

                   Billy Meier's Buddhist Teacher Is Dead

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 09:13:41
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:38:26 -0400
Subject: Billy Meier's Buddhist Teacher Is Dead


[List only]

Source: The Los Angeles Times,

http://www.latimes.com:80/excite/990703/t000059644.html

During his stay in Samdach Bhante's Indian ashram, Meier claims
to have had UFO sightings and a close encounter with a female
from the Dal universe, all witnessed by several people.

Stig

***

Saturday, July 3, 1999

Obituaries

Samdach Bhante; Monk Advised Sihanouk, Nehru

**

Samdach Vira Bhante, 110, a Cambodian monk who advised leaders
of Cambodia and India. The Most Venerable Dharmawara Mahathera,
known simply as Bhante to his family and friends, served as
spiritual advisor to Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk and kept
watch at the deathbed of India's first prime minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru. The son of an upper-class family in Phnom
Penh, Bhante was a lawyer, judge and provincial governor in
Cambodia with a wife and young daughter when, at the age of 40,
he walked into the forest to follow the teachings of Buddha.
Educated in French schools and fluent in several languages,
Bhante lived in huts and subsisted on raw fruits and vegetables
and handouts from peasant farmers before moving to India, where
he spent 45 years teaching and building a monastery. He gave up
his possessions, cigarettes and alcohol, saying, "You are what
you think. You are what you eat and drink." Bhante came to
California for what he thought would be a quiet life of
meditation with his relatives, refugees from the Cambodian war.
But he was soon asked to build a temple for Stockton's
approximately 16,000 Cambodians, and served as head abbot for
many years. His ashes will be divided between shrines in
Cambodia and India. On June 26 in Stockton.

<snipped>

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved





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

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:42:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>>indelicately phrase it.

>><snip>

>>>At that
>>>point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
>>>denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
>>>selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
>>>going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
>>>believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
>>>view. What is that?

>Roger wrote:

>>Hi, John.

>>"What is that?"

>>Well, to be quite frank, it's exactly what _you_ do. It's also
>>what I do. It's what anyone does with no facts or evidence or
>>proof regarding a given situation.

>There _is_ a difference Roger. I understand what you are saying
>in regard to folks who are 'studying' the phenomenon, but my
>"beliefs and convictions" are based on very personal experience.
>I have seen these things at _uncomfortably_ close range. I'm not
>talking about anything 'nebulous' either. I'm talking about an
>undeniable experience, (in broad daylight and in the company
>other witnesses) one that quite literally robs you of any
>possibility for entertaining a 'alternate explanations.' Life
>experiences such as what I have described have a way of
>effecting you deeply and leaving you with a sense of genuine
>urgency and strong opinions in regard to existing investigation
>efforts. Especially when those investigative efforts seem
>directed at just about anything and everything with the rather
>odd _exception_ of what is actually being reported.

John Velez's insistence that his beliefs about UFO abductions
are validated by his own personal experience, and that we should
also accept them on that basis, as with many other abductees and
UFO experiencers, is a form of religious revelation.

If we take the experience of people like Velez literally me must
accept that just about everything we know about the universe and
the way it works is wrong. Pardon me if I require rather more
than someones reported personal experience before I do that. For
the experiencer, however, evidence contradicting the absolute
reality of their testaments can be dismissed, as it is not
viewed through the eye of faith. It is clear from the above
paragraph that John Velez is really only prepared to coutenance
investigative efforts which start off by accepting the validity
of his personal revelation. > >So it's not a matter of "show me"
or "where's the proof" for me.

It is for the rest of us, however.

>It's about an uphill fight to be taken seriously and at one's
>word. And not just for myself either. I imagine that in 1999
>values like that sounds about as "strange" as reports UFOs or
>alien abductions, but _that_ is where I am coming from/
>responding from. (Regardless of how others may be interpreting
>my words or intentions.)

>>So unless you have undeniable proof hidden away that has
>>never been shared with this list, then you are also "being
>>(subjectively) selective about what parts of any given testimony
>>you give credence to."

>I already have (my) "undeniable proof" Roger. I have no idea
>what may constitute "undeniable proof" for you or anyone else.
>That's why I wrote the following in my original:

>>>I'm pretty much of a mind that the _only thing_ that is _ever_
>>>going to convince anyone is if they experience it/see it all for
>>>themselves.

>I cannot "arrange" for such an experience or "undeniable proof"
>for anyone. Sorry. It just seems that we live in time when a
>mans' word means less than nothing, (crying shame) and that it
>is ok and proper to investigate or entertain just about any
>explanation as long as it isn't the one that is actually being
>reported.

It seems that John Velez is getting close to telling us we
should just accept whatever anyone reports to us, without
attempting to investigate or interpret it.

>>However, we do so using
>>our own individual belief system based on what's important to
>>each of us.

>You're wrong fella. I don't base any of my "beliefs" re: UFOs
>and alien abduction solely on "what's important to me." It is
>based on _direct_ life experience. Seems like today many have
>become convinced that their own senses cannot be trusted. I am
>not among those. I know what I have seen and experienced in the
>full light of day (and consciousness) and among others who could
>corroborate it.

It is very clear that in many circumstances our senses *cannot*
be trusted, and the human brain is capable of extreme radical
misperception of a wide range of stimuli. Velez seems to think
he has some special immunity from such things.

It is also clear that the human brain can create "virtual
experiences" which are absolutely indistinguishable in all
respects from concensus reality. In Magonia magazine we have
published a couple of reports from people who have had such
virtual experiences "in the full light of day and
consciousness". Ironically, it was only because these experinces
were so trivial that the experiencers came to recognise that
they did not represent reality. A more remarkable experience,
remote from everyday banality, would be much more difficult to
"disprove" - leaving the experiencer more convinced of its
reality.

Let me give an example, suggested by my colleague Peter
Rogerson, which may appeal to the musically inclined members of
this list. Many people report memories of past lives. The
arguments about the reality of such experiences closely mirror
arguments about UFO abductions - the experiences are totally
real to the individual concerned, and although often recalled as
a result of hypnotic regression, they can be spontaneous. Let us
imagine that a person recalled a previous existence in the
Vienna of 1820. They give vivid accounts of the social and
artistic life of the time, including being at the premiers of
many of Beethoven's great works. One they recall is Beethoven's
Saxophone Concerto, the manuscript of which was subsequently
lost. Now anyone familiar with music will see the problem here -
the saxophone was not invented until decades after Beethoven's
death, it is impossible he could have written such a concerto.
This "howler" is the equivalent of the many scientific howlers
in abduction accounts.

Of course, abductionologists get round these problems in a way
that is not possible for the past life regressionist who has
come up against the "Beethoven Anomaly" - they simply say it's
magic! Well actually they say "we don't know what the aliens are
capable of, maybe they can float us through brick walls", but
basically that is an appeal to magic. (I suppose Beethoven could
have been a time-traveller who had regular meetings with Adolph
Sax in the late nineteenth century, but I doubt if even the most
gullible past life researcher would fall for that one.)

>No one should base their opinions or beliefs solely on "what is
>important to them" as you say. Beliefs -should always have- much
>stronger underpinnings than that. I question everything Roger. I
>did't come by any of my convictions easily or casually.

But surely that is just what *you* are doing. You are basing
your opinion on what is important to you -- your own experience,
virtual or otherwise. This is not necessarily important to
others.

>>Leanne simply guesses in a way that "doesn't fit
>>into your personal world view," as you put it.

>Leanne is entitled to any "guesses" she may care to take. I was
>responding to her use of the term "condition" (implying
>something other than an _actual_experience_) when referring to
>reports of UFO abduction. Like I said, it would be nice to see
>some folks investigating what is being reported _first_ before
>creating explanations that they are comfortable with.  I don't
>recall seeing any reports of abduction or UFO sightings that
>were prefaced by; "because of my 'condition' I saw or
>experienced the following."

But by implication that phrase does precede all abduction
reports. It can never be emphasised enough that we are *not*
studying abductions - any responsible aliens have long since
departed - we are studying the witness, and the witnesses verbal
account, along with any (usually ambiguous) physical evidence
the aliens were careless enough to leave behind. The "condition"
of the witness is vital to such investigation.

>Reports, especially contact reports
>from reputable, honest people should be checked out like cops
>do, _as they are reported_ before allowing ones own personal
>speculations to enter the picture.

Yes, I agree. Contact and abduction reports *should* be checked
out like cops do. One of the problems with this however, is that
the experiencers and their investigator/minders seldom allow
this to happen. If cops are investigating a serious crime and
have a suspect they will not only interrogate them, but will
subject their family and close friends to a grilling, they will
speak to employers, workmates, neighbours; in a serious case
they may organise stake-outs, arrange phone-taps, etc. Is this
really what John Velez wants investigators to do in abduction
cases? We cannot combine "protect the witness" with "check out
like cops".

I am often puzzled by the total absence of apparently vital
people in many abduction reports. We know practically nothing,
for example, of what Linda Napolitano's husband and family think
of her experiences, yet I'm sure that if this case was being
investigated by cops they would all be interrogated at length.
There are many other cases in which spouses, parents and close
relatives flit around in the background to the story, but never
seem to be questioned by investigators. It may in fact be that
this has happened but that the investigators have for some
reason decided not to publish the results of this questioning.
In the immortal words of someone or other: "I think we should be
told".

>Peace,

>John Velez, Witness/Experiencer

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





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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 11:05:31 +500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:47:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

Honored List --

Simply -- a curse on Doug and Dave. A curse for muddying the
water, a curse for providing for an expanded distraction, and
finally, a curse for taking such delighted glee while they were
doing it.






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

                               Re: Doug & Dave

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:23:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:50:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave


Hi Henny, Bruce and all;

As some of you may know, I occasionally wax serious on this
frequency, but not too frequently.  It makes me sober up and I
just can't do that for long.  Mostly because I must taste test
all of my bright ideas and also because I detest sobriety.

Anyway, I have a name for Crop Circles.  But before proffering
the moniker, I must define some terms.  Let us begin with
"American Princess."  It originally began with Henny Youngman
(RIP, say, you aren't related are you, Henny?) it began with
Henny Youngman when he invented the term, "Jewish American
Princess," or as we refer to them here Bas Gaia, the beer belly
of the world, J.A.P. But this term is deemed PI, and as a
result, we use the shortened version, AP.

The reason for this explanation is that most American women are
AP's.  Now you are saying, I can hear you, "You have alienated
and insulted just about every other culture on the freaking
planet, but you went and did it, you went and ticked off "THEM!"

Well, no matter really. I've ticked "THEM" off before. In fact,
"THEY" are perpetually ticked off at me. Just read some
responses I get on this channel!

I digress, I am sorry. I define AP because the alien races are
matriarchal societies! Did you know that? The women on other
planets rule!

Come to think on it, not much difference here, except there,
they got the titles and they got the nukes.  Here, they got
bazoomies.  Same thing, just no portfolio here.  Not only are
they matriarchal on these other planets, but they are royalty as
well.  Now hold on, we are coming to the name, I just gotta set
it up.

OK, so far we've determined that OT, "Over There," on other
planets, women got the Motts and they are Queens and Princesses
etc.  Men suffer from PE (premature ejaculation) so they are
anathema and are sent away to explore the galaxy and usually get
a little by abducting "us."  Since they (alien men) are AC/DC,
they abduct both sexes and have their way with us. If this is
the first time you are reading some of these theories, see my
monograph on "The Theory of Fagella-ism in Alien Matriarchal
Societies and Why Their Men Rape Both Sexes Over Here."  You'll
love it.

Having said all that, here is the Crop Circle Theory name.

Grippgif!  It satisfies Henny's need for one word and literally
defines the phenom.

Crop Circles are made while aliens are under the influence of
Gripple. Not only do alien pilots fly without wobble or wig wag,
not only do they fly straight, but they also become extremely
artistic, on Gripple.  And when they are in their cups (in their
case, their wine gasses), they get a little horny, a little
depressed and lonely, a little creative and artistic.  Sometimes
they even sing a Dylan tune or two, by telepathy of course.
That's why some of us who are tuned in to "THEM" keep on hearing
Dylan lines all the time.  Bringing it all back home... since
these entities don't smoke, they can't smoke after, uh, you
know!  So they Gripple. That's when they get creative and head
straight for the best damned matriarchal, royal society on the
earth, and express their wistful moods by sowing artistic
expression in Brit wheat fields.

Thus the name.

Cogito, ergo, "GRIPPGIF!"

Love,
Gesundt, a little horny, a little lonely and very mellow.





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

                        Re: Altavista And Good Beer!

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:21:25 +500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:53:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Altavista And Good Beer!


>Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 09:39:45 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Altavista And Good Beer!

>>Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 19:55:18 -0600
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@IX.NETCOM.COM>
>>Subject: Re: Boycott Yahoo Home Page


<respectfully snipped the oft repeated>

>Until I learn better, and the bumbling inept statements from
>Yahoo argue convincingly against that, I must cease all use of
>Yahoo and its derivatives.

>You go do what you want.

>I know what I'm (not) gonna do.

>-  Larry Hatch


Yea and verily, dude!

Sorry to wade in with a me too, BUT <g> let me put more velocity
on yer very valid spin.

You might as well treat them as they _all_ are... and i say this
knowing that it's good to be rich, and we're honed in the drive
to it, but we've made folks pay dear, man, so we'll find that we
blew it.

Cobble and funt your old stuff, man -- boycott them all! That's
the only thing to do bring the system back on line. Presently
it's a mass of easy graft, conspiracy, and corruption where
*you* do fine until *you* get some righteous traction -- then
the hawks move in and steal everything *you* have (as legal as
hell), smirking all the while. Boycott Yahoo? Boycott MORE than
Yahoo! Remember -- it's not YOU being unethical; when _you_ do
it you go to jail. _They_ just pay their lawyers.

Finally, it's behavior ta' keep the saucers away <g>! Good, bad,
or indifferent we have to grapple with extraterrestrials (or
_not_) so we'll KNOW! We're not acting (in the aggregate) like
we want to know. It'll be the death of us.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com






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

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 14:34:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 16:29:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:20:11 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

<snip>

>Nonetheless, I don't think Anomalous Soil Pictogram will stick
>either. It's still too complicated. Anyone for an alternative?
>Unexplained Soil Pictures? Terraglyphs?

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


We could always call them what they appear to be -- Landscape Art, an
already well established genre.

Dennis





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:14:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 07:55:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

<snip>

As I think John Rimmer has requested, in plain old American
(along with about half a dozen others on this list, including
myself), on numerous occasions- give us a case which is an

>>"undeniable experience, (in broad daylight and in the company
>>other witnesses) one that quite literally robs you of any
>>possibility for entertaining a 'alternate explanations.'

Arguments that anyone is attempting to deny the literal reality
of abduction events may have some reasonable basis in some
instances, but other than second, third and foruthhand accounts
tossed out offhandedly, there have been no such verifiable
"undeniable" experiences as the one described above. For many of
us that sit on the fence, thats all we need. we're not asking
for too much, or are we? I'd luv to hear a verifiable story of
such an "undeniable" case witnessed by other parties (and
please, no Linda Napolitiano)- a case which is in no way
nebulous and has no alternative explanation, and involves other
witnesses who can be contacted.

But I won't get my hopes up.

Because I have yet to hear one of these. One that doesn't come
off like a scam of some sort (and I don't think that's asking
for too much). One in which witnesses are not in disagreement on
a huge number of important details. One which anyone could look
at, without bias either way, and find to be an accurate
narrative of an objectively real event.

I don't think this has happened yet, and personally, I don't
think, because of the nature of this phenomenon, that it ever
will.

We've gone back and forth, on this list and in other formats,
about there being no hard investigation/science done to verify
these claims. Without pointing any fingers, as the archive
speaks for itself, it has never accomplished anything other than
turning into a name calling insult bout, fueled by egos, in
which people seek to hold their own belief system above logical
examination or slam others' beliefs, and discuss why such a
thing can't or shouldn't be done. Apparently there is _no_
viable way, according to the attitude of the literalists, for us
to measure the objective nature of this phenomenon, so we should
just get over it I guess.

Until something comes along which causes me to reconsider the
'literal' explanation of abductions (read above), I really don't
care to waste much time going on about it (yes, I said
REconsider, as in, I did not start into this with the idea that
such a theory was necessarily wrong). I for one, plan to spend
more energy trying to objectively measure other possible
explanations. Call it denial of reality or whatever you like. I
call it changing the theory to fit the facts, and IMO, that's
the only way we will prevent this phenomenon from simply
becoming another chapter in a dusty, antique 'history of
mythology' book, which is where it seems to be headed.

Tim


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

               Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium

From: Steven W. Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 22:37:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 07:56:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium


I think it was a politician who indicated that it didn't matter
what the press said about him, as long as they spelled his name
right.  In that spirit I'm pleased that the Washington Post was
able to send a reporter to the press conference on Friday.

I've just returned from that event, and it will probably take me
a day to recover from the two full days of activities.
Attendance was good, and probably peaked at about 500 on
Saturday evening, when Bud Hopkins and Joe Firmage ended a day
that had begun that morning at 9:00am.  Bud's review of
abduction research, where it has come from and where it appears
to be headed, was well received by those who attended.  However,
it was Joe Firmage's presentation that brought many in the crowd
to their feet when his overview of "The Truth" was completed.

I'm sure that others will provide greater detail regarding the
presentations, but there were no major revelations.  All in all,
I think the event was a success.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 02:12:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 08:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>>>indelicately phrase it.

Hello John hi All,

I've done some 'healthy' snipping here for brevity. If you've
been following the thread you don't need it all repeated anyhow.
:)

Mr Rimmer writes:

>John Velez's insistence that his beliefs about UFO abductions
>are validated by his own personal experience, and that we should
>also accept them on that basis, as with many other abductees and
>UFO experiencers, is a form of religious revelation.

"Religious revelation?" I'm not going to touch that stretch in
semantics with a ten foot cattle prod. I'm not much into "word
games" John. That is what you are indulging in when you take my
rather straight forward statements and add labels like
"religious" to them. I'm sure that you are among a very small
minority that interprets what I have written as an expression of
"religious revelation" on my part. Like a monochromatic artist
(when it comes to me) you always seem to reach for the 'same
brush' and somehow you never capture the true to life color of
the original. Only your own severely limited interpretation of
it.

BTW, I have _never_ asked anyone to "accept" anything I say on
"any basis." I don't stipulate how someone should 'take' what I
say or how they should think about it either. Unless of course
the reading of it is as far 'off base' and colored by personal
prejudice as yours is.

>If we take the experience of people like Velez literally me must
>accept that just about everything we know about the universe and
>the way it works is wrong.

Hey, you seem to be making progress John. Yes, that is _exactly_
correct! I don't know how the percentages break down but, I'd
say that the larger percentage of the two (what we know as
opposed to what we don't know) would represent; - what we don't
know.-

It is _arrogant_ to think that we "know so much" (that we can be
truly sure of) about the Universe that we live out our short
lives in. I have been an avid amateur astronomer for 28 years
John so I'm not unfamiliar with the sciences and some of the
current theories/cosmoconceptions. Truth be told, we know paltry
little. It's safer to operate under the assumption that what we
"think we know" may be wrong, and very probably is.

That is, if past history is anything to go by!  :)

> It is clear from the above paragraph that John Velez is really
>only prepared to coutenance investigative efforts which start
>off by accepting the validity of his personal revelation.

Never said any such thing. You need to take off those glasses
that seem to color everything you read and read what is actually
written and not what (you think) I am saying. (Or, what you want
to hear!)

>It seems that John Velez is getting close to telling us we
>should just accept whatever anyone reports to us, without
>attempting to investigate or interpret it.

Again, you put your words in my mouth and your interpretation/
'spin' on my "intentions." Never, anywhere, in any post I have
ever written have I intimated such a thing. In fact the exact
opposite is true. And, unlike a great many I have paid it more
than mere 'lipservice.'  See *** response below.

>It is very clear that in many circumstances our senses *cannot*
>be trusted, and the human brain is capable of extreme radical
>misperception of a wide range of stimuli. Velez seems to think
>he has some special immunity from such things.

You're amazing John. I have never had so many completely
innaccurate words and intentions attributed to me by one person
in my 50 years of life. What really gets me is, you don't even
know me from Adam. Yet your interpretations of what I "mean" or
"intend" are spoken with such authority. As if you actually knew
what you were talking about! I find it most amusing really. It
seems that the one who speaks with "religious fervor" is not me,
but the guy you see in the mirror each morning. You claim to
know more about me and where I'm coming from than my own momma
does! <lol>

I wrote:

>>Reports, especially contact reports
>>from reputable, honest people should be checked out like cops
>>do, _as they are reported_ before allowing ones own personal
>>speculations to enter the picture.

John responds:

>Yes, I agree. Contact and abduction reports *should* be checked
>out like cops do. One of the problems with this however, is that
>the experiencers and their investigator/minders seldom allow
>this to happen.

*** First:

"Minders" John? Why don't you just say "keepers!" As if we were
all somehow less than human or of less than human intelligence.
Your use of a term such as "minders" when relating to those
reporting UFO abduction experiences reveals the depth of your
feelings of condescension towards those reporting  abduction
experiences. It never ceases to surprize me when some folks
'look down their noses' at people they are _standing at eye
level with._ Remeber the song; "Come down, come down, from your
Ivory tower, . . ."   :)

You're nowhere near as 'smart' or 'astute' as you think you are
Johnno! The day you realize how very little you really know,
will be the day you have truly learned something of genuine
value. It will be better than mere knowledge, it will be a piece
of profound wisdom you will have acquired.

As for:

>One of the problems with this however, is that
>the experiencers and their investigator/minders seldom allow
>this to happen.

Unadulterated cowflop!

I must appologize to those who may be sick and tired of hearing
this, but for John's benefit I will repeat the story -one mo'
time.-

When Budd and I consented to do the NOVA segment (which was the
very first 'public' anything I had ever done,) we were _hoping_
for a scientific treatment of the material and ourselves. As
everyone knows, that never happened.

I had requested of the producers (not the other way around) that
I be given the following tests as a condition of my
participation. They managed to jerk me around and never
performed a one of them.

1. A complete psychiatric evaluation conducted by a
professional(s) of their own choosing.

2. A polygraph examination. (Not that I believed that a
polygraph would prove that my experiences actually happened, but
it _would show_ with some level of reliability whether I was
intentionally fabricating my report or not!)

3. A complete medical examination including exposure to x-ray
radiation or MRI or CAT scan (anything short of a surgical
proceedure) to determine if there were indeed any 'foreign' or
'unusual' objects in my body.

4. (After consulting with my family members) I gave them
permission to interview/question any of my family members. I
also provided some names they could use to as character
references to check me out.

5. I gave them permission to enter my home and conduct any kind
of physical testing they may have wanted to perfom, (short of
tearing down walls and such)

As for Budd; who is one of those "investigator/minders" who you
claim that, "seldom allows this to happen." Budd gave them
-complete access to his files, (which they _never even looked at
once!_ And he invited them to record how he investigates a
report. (I won't get into the highly selective 'editing job'
that the folks from NOVA did with that.) But he made himself,
his records, and his methods completely available and open to
them. More recently it was mentioned on this list how Budd has
submitted the "writing samples" he has accumulated over the
years to Stewart Appelle at Cornell for analysis. He has lab
reports on ground trace evidence and scads of material that
could be/should be checked out by medical professionals which
just sits there awaiting perusal by independant experts. Where
are -they?-

I'm afraid the truth is, that 'the shoe is on the other foot'
John. Myself, and Budd have made ourselves as "available" as
anyone can possibly make themselves. Just haven't been any
'takers' is all.

Your comment is nothing short of pure fabrication based on an
existing and apparently deep seated prejudice/bias on this
subject. Rather than spending so much of your time 'searching
-my- soul, it is your own which bears closer scruitiny.

>If cops are investigating a serious crime and
>have a suspect they will not only interrogate them, but will
>subject their family and close friends to a grilling, they will
>speak to employers, workmates, neighbours; in a serious case
>they may organise stake-outs, arrange phone-taps, etc. Is this
>really what John Velez wants investigators to do in abduction
>cases? We cannot combine "protect the witness" with "check out
>like cops".

Once again you 'twist' one of my statements to fit your own
interpretations. When I say, "check it out like a cop" I mean,
check out the credibility of the individual, go to the scene of
the alleged crime to look for evidence, interview potential
witnesses, look for medical evidence, ground traces etc, etc.
You are quite correct in that there are some sensitive privacy
and witness protection issues. But it is nothing that an
intelligent, experienced, and thoughful investigator cannot
navigate safely.

>It may in fact be that this has happened but that the
>investigators have for some reason decided not to publish
>the results of this questioning. In the immortal words of someone
>or other: "I think we should be told".

Aha! I knew we could agree on 'something' and this is it!

Peace,

John Velez, -Nobody's Fool!
________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                   The Declaration of Individual Autonomy

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 02:09:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 08:30:42 -0400
Subject: The Declaration of Individual Autonomy


[Here's to a Happy 4th and hoping that ebk doesn't get annoyed by
my off subject post. Then again, perhaps it's not too far off if
you read it closely? ;) I try not to do this too often, so it's
worth a shot....]

THE DECLARATION
OF
INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
with others, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which they may choose to aspire, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We
hold that no truths are self-evident, but must have their
usefulness demonstrated. That all people are created with equal
freedom from tyranny, but frequently accept domination or
obedience to a legal code, to a greater or lesser degree from
person to person. That people are endowed with only what rights
they have chosen to be endowed with, through wisdom or common
folly, for wealth or ilth. That people can secure for
themselves, with understanding of their own unique situations,
those rights which best allow them to live in fruitful harmony
with other people. That whenever any person, Government, or
other entity, not fully recognizing the unique situation of each
individual, becomes in any way oppressive or destructive, people
may choose to ignore, alter or abolish such an institution, and
to live in whatever manner they decide, with understanding of
the situation, will allow them whatever conflict or harmony they
so require for their happiness and survival. That man can choose
to resolve any conflict through intelligence, with, adequate
communication and a full understanding of each and every point
of view involved, by each and every person involved. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after
calm consideration of the True Will and mutual goals of all
those individuals involved. All experience has shown that people
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism or
Dogma not chosen by the individual concerned, it is their right,
it can be their choice, to throw off such a Government and to
accept responsibility, each for their own future security.

The most apparent difficulty herein lies in the general
inability of people to understand the specific direction of
their unique organism, or, understanding it, to make the firm
resolve necessary to shake free the shackles of cultural
conditioning and Dogma accepted through poorly considered
indoctrination. Therefore, those of us who now declare their
individual autonomy (and this document speaks only for those who
freely choose to do so) are faced with a potentially arduous
task of self-examination, compounded by the resistance
encountered from those who do not comprehend the changes
engendered by this individual declaration. But the rewards of
this liberation are enormous, being the very fulfillment of each
individual's own nature, and therefore the nature of the human
race as a whole. Those of us who choose to accept this self-
responsibility do so, we believe, for the advantage of all.

The crimes against individuals by those who blindly group
together under the flags of Governments, religions, and other
institutions are too numerous to fully discuss, but can be
categorized in the following way: Actual legislation which
limits the freedom of individuals in speech, worship, thought,
and any actions which do not, themselves, infringe upon the
freedoms of others; Cultural norms, taboos, peer pressures,
moral codes and any other influences which likewise limit the
freedoms of individuals.

It should be strongly emphasized that we recognize that various
dogmas, models and systems are necessary for the harmonious
growth of humanity, but, in all things, these can be the choice
of the individual. If one person and another believe that it is
their will to band together for a specific purpose, under
delineated restrictions, then they are free to do so, given that
their purpose still respects and allows the differing beliefs
and actions of those who stay apart from their group. If one
person believes that it is his will to stand apart from all
others, then he is free to do so, given that he does not
interfere with the free behavior of any other. In the same
manner, the dogma or meta-dogma of this Declaration is intended
to apply only to those who freely choose to accept it as being
beneficial or useful in the attainment of their own True Will.

We, therefore, the people of the planet Earth who choose to
accept responsibility for our own lives, do publish and declare
that we can be FREE AND INDEPENDENT PEOPLE, that we are absolved
from all allegiance to any dogma, system or code that we have
not chosen for ourselves, that we as individuals have full power
to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce and to do all other Acts and Things which individual
People may of right do.

(copyright 1987 Philip H. Farber - This document may be
reproduced freely in its entirely, as long as it is kept
complete, including these lines.)


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 06:08:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 08:42:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Matthew Williams wrote:

>You seem incapable of keeping it "un-personal"
>which is why behind the scenes I have now joined in the little
>'war' going on. Not to defend the Sheffield case, not even to
>defend Max Burns, but instead to defend anyone who should come
>under the massive attacks you and Andy Roberts make against
>them. If somebody disagrees with you, god help them, thats all I
>can say. And this _has_ been noticed... by many people, not just
>myself.

I am honoured that Matthew feels he needs to join the "war" to
defend the shambling edifice of the "Sheffield Incident."

Please Matthew, keep defending Max's position, that is precisely
what I want you to do.

As for "people" noting what a nasty man I am, yet again I'm
honoured. Soon I will be competing with Matthew himself for the
coveted title of The Most Hated Man in British UFOlogy.

>You have made a bad name for yourself in British Ufology by
>attacking people and not facts. When you resorted to attempts to
>get people arrested (partially successful) by virtue of your
>_fabricated_ and exaggerated version of how somebody had failed
>to pay a minor tax bill - you scraped as low as almost any could
>get.

Max made this case "personal" as you put it the day he walked into
my place of work in the summer of 1997 and started abusing me
in front of my colleagues for daring to take a different point of view
to his lunatic theories. This was long before Matthew Williams, Roy Hale
or any of the other hangers-on  who have since crawled out of the
woodwork had ever heard of Max Burns or the" Sheffield Incident."

It is amusing to watch now as Williams and co struggle to be
"part of the action", re-writing history as they go, ignoring
the bits they find not to their liking.

Readers of UFO UpDates who have followed this tiring farago can
read what I have said about this case on this list.

I have stuck to the facts throughout - and will continue to do
so. Every time Max has made outrageous and untrue claims about
this case, I have countered with the facts, and I will continue
to do so.

The case is solved, there was no UFO or Tornado crash. If others
think there was, it is up to them to provide proof. If no proof
is forthcoming, then we have to accept there is none.

People out there can read both sides of the case, and make up
their own minds. Those who are remotely interested have already
done so and expressed their views on this list and elsewhere.

As for Max being (partially) arrested, you are wrong again. He
was properly arrested. And deservedly so.

>Seeing as you claim that Max and myself have a problem with the
>facts... lets ignore the Sheffield case and look at the
>fabricated facts you put forward to get Max arrested.

That's precisely what you want me to do - ignore the facts of
the non-case and get distracted by side-issues so you can
obfusicate the facts of the case. Well think again boyo.

>This was  nothing to do with UFO investigation - this was pure
>bitterness

>You have egg on your face and I am quite happy
>to keep telling people what an untrustworthy character you are
>and to never trust you or Andy Roberts with any personal
>information. You are leakier than a lake!

Please be my guest and go ahead with your unrecommendations. It
can't do my reputation anything but good to know that a
freelance nutcase called Matthew Williams is going around the
country slagging me off to all and sundry.

I must be a really scary ogre to have such a horrid beast on my
tail - more likely these tactics are necessary because I have
revealed a few home truths and rocked a few sacred cows.

"Matthew who?" people have already asked me. "You mean that
Welsh guy who believes the world is run by the Illuminati,
spends his weekends breaking into RAF bases and openly
encourages people to break the law on his website?"

Quite!

I'm sure my reputation is going to come crumbling down overnight
in the face of someone whose views are taken seriously by so
many people. No doubt I will reduced to begging on the streets
before long. And finally we come to Matthew's "challenge" for me
to attend a public debate on the "Sheffield Incident".

Well really! If I did want to damage my professional reputation
what better way to do it than to engage in a public slanging
match with a room full of lunatics?

Who else in the "general public" would be even the slightest bit
interested in the minutiae of this case?

I am prepared to discuss and debate any UFO case provided those
taking part in the discussion share the same basic rules of
evidence and scientific methodology. Where one side does not
share those rules, no debate is possible.

How is possible to hold a rational debate with people who claim
they are being followed by secret agents, their phones are
bugged, there is a massive conspiracy underway, they have
implants in their heads and knees,  aliens are everywhere, etc
etc?

So no Matthew, I have no problems declining your invitation
because I cannot see what there is to gain other than an
opportunity to have the whole group of you sectioned under the
Mental Health Act in one swoop.

And as a timely aside, Matthew fails to mention that I also
challenged him to travel to  Sheffield and meet the Mountain
Rescue Teams and eyewitnesses who give a completely different
version of events to those which Max would like to foster on us.

I don't suppose you will be surprised to find Matthew declined
my challenge - methinks the "Truthseeker" might have found a few
real truths which he would find unpalatable.

Max and Matthew's output surely prove, if proof was necessary,
why sane and rational people give the subject of ufology a wide
berth. I wish the promoters of "the Sheffield Incident" the best
of luck, but I can't resist making, yet again, another and more
relevant challenge; one which I've been making for two years
without a satisfactorily answer:

1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was killed
as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March 24, 1997.

2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all trace
of its existence hidden from the public.

3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak District.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                              Re: Doug and Dave

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:07:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:54:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug and Dave


Hi,

Whilst I have been away doing ufology in Washington (no - it
wasn't a holiday - I got about five hours free to see DC thats
all) I note how the debate on Doug and Dave and crop circles has
hotted up. Rather like Washington did last weekend, both with
sweltering weather and some of the hot air emerging at the MUFON
conference (although there was some very good stuff too which
filled quite a few pages of my notebook).

Anyway, I wanted to give my take on this as someone who was
involved in circles from around l981 (before any of the names
referred to in one of last weeks e mails bar Meaden). The point
was made that cerealogists were not faking circles in the l990's
but were just insisting they could not be done by humans whilst
trying to flog books.

First point is that we at BUFORA rapidly made clear to all our
investigators that faking circles was a sackable offence. It was
against our code of practice governing how we intereact with the
public and one clause regarding damage to property. Whatever the
intention hoaxing a circle is a criminal act and we were very
clear at BUFORA not to either condone nor encourage that. So
this was not something merely 'never done'.

It is also not quite true that circle researchers were claiming
humans could not do it. Ian Mrzyglod, Paul Fuller and I (who
between us in the early/mid/late 80's - beginning even before
anyone had heard of Andrews and Delgado) were exposing hoaxers
across the UK and writing about it. Ian found the first big one
in l983. In l986 Paul and I co-edited the first ever publication
on the topic for BUFORA ('Mystery of the Circles') - later
expanded to 'Controversy of the Circles' and our mass market
(well - book - mass market is certainly pushing it as few have
ever heard of it!)  - 'Crop Circles: A mystery solved?'  In each
of these we increasingly emphasised the role of hoaxing from a
little to a fair bit and ultimately to a lot as its extent
became obvious. We devote chapters to the subject. We cannot be
fairly accused of ignoring it. All of this predated the arrival
of Doug and Dave. Indeed, by wonderful irony the day the Doug &
Dave story broke in the UK I was in Australia flying to Cairns
to look into the l966 Tully case that these guys later stated
was their inspiration!

At a public symposium to launch our strategy in London (hosted
by Mike Wootten - who had a big hand in this early work too)
BUFORA brought together for the only time ever all the key
people - Meaden, Andrews, Delgado, and, of course, our BUFORA
team. We also invited the serious media and got good stories in
the likes of the Telegraph, as I recall. We then staged a full
debate and had an audience vote. The audience supported the
stance that Paul and I put forward for BUFORA based on our work.
Circles were the result of two things - a natural atmospheric -
weather based - force and hoaxing, the extent of which was
likely to be greater than suspected. That such an open vote on
hoaxing was taken 13 years ago is something few of you seem to
have any recall about.

This remarkable event - a triumph for serious ufology - was
three years before the media discovered circles in a big way,
'Circular Evidence' appeared and the furore began. It has been
utterly ignored by 'scholars' of crop circles and rarely even
gets a mention anywhere and figures in few supposedly well
researched history books. Of course, our objective approach was
seen as anathema. I suggest you check what Creighton said in
Flying Saucer Review around that time where he abused, ridiculed
and frankly libelled Paul and I to high heaven as he apparently
could not perceive our research in the terms that it was
conducted. That hurt me as I had been very closely involved with
FSR for a decade when Charles Bowen was editor. I attended board
meetings, dealt with admin work and was working to build a
bridge that linked BUFORA's NIC with FSR to provide objective
UFO reporting in their pages. All that went out of the window
when Creighton reacted with horror at our position on circles.

So I take exception to the suggestion that this kind of rational
work did not happen. It did and for not the only time BUFORA
stood tall, did a good job and got dumped on from a great height
for doing so. Now all those brave efforts are being expunged
from memory as if it is too awful to think they really happened!
Sorry but they did. Maybe we should get ufology to a regression
hypnosis expert to trawl through the screen memories implanted
over the truth?

I met Ian Mrzyglod in February for the first time in several
years. He was driven out of ufology by  the stupid, callous way
his hard work was treated by others. He feels nothing much has
changed since . I worry that ufology is in danger of losing
another great asset - Paul Fuller - for similar reasons as he
must have better things to do than this.

As for Doug & Dave. I was personally satisfied by them that they
created a few circles, but probably nothing like the hundreds
the media alleged. They themselves never suggested they made
even more than a small fraction of them all. the media - as ever
- hyped their role to make it into a story. It always was a
cummulative effort involving dozens of people from the cynical
trickster to the 'lets have a spot of fun' brigade that became
like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gathered pace and size
the minute many people first took the hoaxes seriously and the
media began to report them.

It is possible that there are genuine, even complex, circles. I
accept that but am not convinced . The trouble is the hoaxing
madness has left the field so full of spurious data that it is
virtually worthless chasing case after case. Thats the main
reason I dropped any pretence at investigating circles about
l993. Whilst the phenomenon has the culture that it has today
then it will create far too many red herrings to make study more
than just a hopeless search through tall tales . If and when
this craziness dies away I may return.  But there are better
ways to spend your time right now.

As stated earlier, Doug & Dave claim they got the idea to make
circles from the reed bed swirl at Tully, Queensland in l966.
They admit they did not make this mark. I found strong evidence
in Australia that no human did. These circles (for there were
several more than the one D & D knew about via the press in Oz
at the time) appeared in inhospitable terrain far from prying
eyes. No hoaxer would have been mad enough to dare the deadly
taipan snakes to fake them. And there was an aboriginal
tradition of glowing lights tied in with the stories.

One of the things that Paul and I did post D & D was reason
thus. Hoaxing was clearly rife regardless of how many and of
what kind D & D made. The media farce was ensuring that there
was a huge incentive. So we decided to seek out any known
examples of circles pre both the invention of the term 'crop
circle' (and thus any publicity for it) - ie l980 - and the
first alleged crude hoaxes by D & D about five years before
that.

We scoured many sources, from scientific journals, to UFO
archives and Paul did a brilliant job of tracking down land
survey aerial photpographs of the UK from earlier this century
hunting out suspicious anomalies.

The result? Sufficient cases, both of actual circles and
eye-witnesses to their formation, to prove to our satisfactions
that a small level of circle activity has always occurred. We
found circles, by the way, in many mediums. Crop fields simply
record them semi-permanently better than most for technical
reasons. But there have been good examples in grass, sand, snow,
ice, hay, dust and even wet road surfaces.  Tully - as noted -
was matted reeds atop a waterlogged region.

However, here's the rub. All of the pre D & D circles and all of
the eye witness accounts of formation related to single, simple
circles. There were no complex patterns and certainly no
pictograms. Such was the bias that it seemed suggestive of only
one thing.

Conclusion? We decided it this way. There was a phenomenon
creating the simple circles and it always has done so. It can
generate spin off UFOs too. We show this, I believe, in the l995
updated (partly rewritten and expanded) book from Robert Hale.
The complex formations are post D & D and crop circle culture
and so - most reasonably considered hoaxes. Of course, I am open
to persuasion otherwise. But at this point in time that seems a
hypothesis to best fit the evidence.

Often a book titled 'mystery solved' is absurdly labelled (and
it was not our idea to use this emphasis here). But I genuinely
believe that the case Paul and I set out for the twin track -
hoaxing of complex patterns and a genuine atmospheric phenomenon
producing occasional simple circles - is not far from the mark.
I don't often get off that fence and come down firmly for one
view of a phenomenon, but here - unless the evidence changes - I
do. To me crop circles are right now a mystery solved and Doug
and Dave have frankly got little to do with it either way,
except as one of many self-confessed hoaxers of complex circles.
They are a distraction from the real evidence pointing to an
underlying real phenomenon that is out there if you care to look
for it. But I see no reason to even suspect there is a need for
that real phenomenon to be alien or mystical in origin. It has
perfectly consistent characteristics within atmospheric physics.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Rebecca Jackson <R.Jackson@TRENT.ITECNE.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:57:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 17:01:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:32:33 +0100

>>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100

>>Another interesting fact is how all of Max's witnesses changed
>>their stories after you and Andy R. got to them. You then made
>>big claims about how you could show that Max Burns had lied
>>about their witness testimonies and that the witnesses were
>>claiming their words had been twisted.

>>However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
>>Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
>>was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
>>and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.

>>After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
>>having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
>>Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
>>use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
>>seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
>>mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
>>case and go onto aircraft causing sonic booms being your latest
>>evidence to damn Max's research with.
>>http://globalserve.net/~updates/mufon/index.htm

>I think this is an interesting point Matthew raises here.

>Everyone at the Max Burns Lecture clearly heard Mr Dagenhart
>express to Max his position and the clarity of his statement.

>If Clarke & Roberts are stating that Mr Dagenhart did not say
>the things he did, then How do they explain the taped phone call
>between Max and Mr Dagenhart?

>Concerning the interview which was given to Mr Dagenhart, by
>Clarke & Roberts were these interviews taped so we can hear
>their method of questioning? Only this would be interesting to
>many researchers simply because they are stating that the
>witness withdrew / denied what Max played (Audio Tape) at the
>lecture.


I was with Max at the time he spoke to and recorded the Jonathon
Dagenhart interview. I know it is a true piece of evidence as I
was listening to the conversation.

I was also there when a very frightened Mr Dagenhart changed his
story after being 'pressured' I may not agreed with every
Sheffield Incident piece of 'evidence' but (although I cannot
rule out a very elaborate wind up) It was only after Dagenhart





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Max Burns <AlienHype@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:19:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 17:17:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:45:50 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>>From: Bluehare Dark Peak <bluehare24@hotmail.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:29:45 GMT


>>[Non-Subscriber? Post and 'as is' --ebk]

>>ATTENTION UFOLOGISTS
>>A MESSAGE FROM GENIUS LOKI FOLLOWS

>>We are a group of people, active in UFO hoaxing since
>the mid 80s, and going under the collective name of Genius Loki.

>If true, disgusting.

>It's not as if the noise level isn't high enough.

>No wonder this great "ufologist" doesn't want to reveal his
>name. What a coward!

>Tar and feathers, anyone?


Mark, How true as the attempted victim of this when all I am doing
is research into this case, you bring the TAR and I will bring the
Feathers..






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 5

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: Max Burns <AlienHype@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:19:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 17:21:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:27:19 +0100

>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
>>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>>Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:25 +0100
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 <snip>

>>For the benefit of the hard of hearing, I reproduce the relevant
>>section from the conclusions to my Howden Moor report which
>demonstrates once again how Max is incapable of telling the
>>truth:

No David you have posted on various occassions that the whole
night events were the culmination of a covert low flying
exercise which was on the ground by 9.30pm...

Fact

Are you now claiming that there was a double covert low flying
exercise taking place?

Something the MOD have not admitted to?

There were other aircraft present after the well advertised
covert low fly mission as promoted by yourself. However for you
to speculate that there was a double secret part of this mission
is pure speculation on your behalf. and has no foundation in
evidence.

for the reason's

1. The MOD have admitted no such thing and have stated that
there were six aircraftinvolved in the nights events, launched
from Marnham that night.

2.That they were safely on the ground by 9.30 pm that night..

3. You have no information or evidence to back up any other
claim that the aircraft encountered after that time were part of
some other aspect of the allready admitted covert low fly
exersise..

4. If your speculation is correct that there was another double
secret aspect to the night's events, that the MP Helen Jackson
has been lied to and further questions are warranted in the
houses of parliament.

Which should be directed at the defense minister Gheorge
Robinson?

5.It is not dismisable that the nights events after 9.30pm were
not part of the interception of the FT as I allege.

6. It would appear that you have succefully expalined everything
prior to 9.45pm that night, however based on your research there
are unanswered questions after that time frame that you cannot
explain...and have not got any explanation other than suposition
and speculation on your behalf..

7. So we get back to the FACT that you have not discredited my
investigation

These are _facts_ Dr Clark (Pilot or the unknown holy relic the
Daily Death Star) price 28p circulation 1500.


>>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon
>>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>>coastline.

>>It is clear that a formation of Tornado aircraft travelled
>>across the Peak District on a southeast to northwest flightpath
>>between 9.45 and 10pm, coinciding with the first of two sonic
>>booms recorded 12 minutes apart from the Sheffield area.

Jenny said

>I can only add one bit to this. Its not something I have thought
>of retrospectively. I told David about it two years ago and
>wrote about it in my first summary of the case (Northern UFO
>News 176 - June l997 issue)

>I live in a village just north of Buxton in the Peak District.
>As the aircraft flies that is very close to the sighting
>location to my north east. That night both my mother and I were
>in the garden as I was showing her the then bright comet
>Hale-Bopp with my binoculars. We went back in around 7:30 to
>watch Coronation Street on TV (couldn't miss that could we?) But
>I popped out several times later to watch the comet until around
>10 pm (my last trip outside as it was getting chilly). We both
>noted and I certainly commented on this before David found out
>about the military exercise that there was an unusual amount of
>aerial activity in the skies during the period 7 - 10 pm.

>We do get civil aircraft going into Manchester and low level
>flights of military jets (mostly in daylight) that nearly knock
>the chimney off our bungalow. But there was unquestionably an
>excess amount of activity that night. There were slow moving
>lights, probably helicopters, and faster moving aircraft. All
>were to the north and east of me. In the two years since I have
>never seen anything akin to the level of activity that night.

Jenny,

I hope you can see that the based on the evidence I have
produced above, that as well as you corrobarating the testimony
of the witness Emma Maidenhead who also stated that she saw the
FT, and Jets and light aircraft and helicopters in the area.

Quote, It was like an air show I have never seen so much air
traffic in the sky at the same time...

Even though the self aclaimed Dr Klark stated that there were no
heleocopters in the area till well after 11.00pm and then it was
the police search and rescue copter...

If you get my point Jenny do not believe all you have been fed?
After all your statement validates my witness from Dronfield and
contradicts the statements made by Dr Klark?

Never mind the fact that I can disproove the statements from Dr
Klark re Jonathan Dagenhart, in some quite startling ways ( I
have the audio) If you wish to discuss this with me in person
then you can call me on 01159 141160

So I make the offer again that Dr Klark submit to a presentaion
of both our cases to a panel to be determined as agreeable to
both parties, and to have this out Once and for all....instead
of the selective sound bite editing that has been going on..

Yours faithfully






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

               Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:18:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:13:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium


>Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 22:37:26 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven W. Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: Washington Post On MUFON's Annual Symposium

>I think it was a politician who indicated that it didn't matter
>what the press said about him, as long as they spelled his name
>right.  In that spirit I'm pleased that the Washington Post was
>able to send a reporter to the press conference on Friday.

>I've just returned from that event, and it will probably take me
>a day to recover from the two full days of activities.
>Attendance was good, and probably peaked at about 500 on
>Saturday evening, when Bud Hopkins and Joe Firmage ended a day
>that had begun that morning at 9:00am.  Bud's review of
>abduction research, where it has come from and where it appears
>to be headed, was well received by those who attended.  However,
>it was Joe Firmage's presentation that brought many in the crowd
>to their feet when his overview of "The Truth" was completed.

>I'm sure that others will provide greater detail regarding the
>presentations, but there were no major revelations.  All in all,
>I think the event was a success.


Hi Steve, and thank you for the brief.  This comment is not an
indictment of anyone, including you, Budd, that Cheese guy or
anyone else.  It's nearly an indictment though, but it's on us
all.

"Nearly," because they end the same way.  "Nothing is revealed."
Kind of a shame too.  Because the one thing I could die for, is
something new, some revelation, even if it is proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that whatever memories I and others may have
concerning presumed abductions and sightings of UFO's, etc., are
all caused by a heretofore unknown bacterium aptly named the
"cocka" bacterium; found in certain places where the sun don't
shine and it's wet a lot.  Even that would be closure for people
like me.  But it never happens does it?  And that's the problem,
for me at least.  I need answers and I need 'em NOW!

If Joe Firmage wants to impress this group of skeptics, skeptics
even among the believers, all he needs to do is prove something.
Prove it's all a crock or otherwise.  And Budd, tireless man
that he is, and all the rest who've spent their lives, in many
cases, and all their money in others, trying to find the truth.

The truth exists, of course.  But Joe doesn't have it yet.
Because he can't prove it.  Neither can Budd, or Stan, or, or
anyone you care to mention.  The only "proof" which exists
today, is that there is no proof.  Even Fil Klass aint got the
Motts.

What's the point?  Why the heck do you people always ask that
question, damn it to bloody hell?  The point is, there is no
point. Except the one right on top of my head.  The one I used
to use to open Colt 45 beer cans, them large ones, before I
discovered Gripple.

By the way, it's not Joe's fault or anyone else's fault that
"nothing is revealed."  Can't blame anybody ... the thing is
either real or it aint.  But there is someone who has come up
with lots of alternative possibilities, many more than those we,
myself included, often take at face value.  That'd be Jacques
Vallee.  I really believe that Vallee is looking a lot harder
and thinking a lot further out than most folks are these days,
and has been for many years.  It's not that he has come up with
a lot of possibilities which others have not, it's also that
those ideas represent "possibilities" worth exploring, not
merely rhetoric worth deploring.

Not saying he's right or wrong.  Just saying he's thinking and
searching. No matter where it takes him.  See, too many of us
have stopped that one important process in our search for the
truth.  The one which takes us to unexplored places.  Too many
of us, myself included, dwell on that one idea, that one thought
which may be the way to the truth, the ultimate truth.  It
becomes our cause celebre.  No one can be right except me. I
"know" I'm right.  And so I close my eyes, my ears get plugged
up and all my senses devoted to my own little pair of dimes.

That's why nothing is revealed.  And that's one of the reasons
that "legitimate" science, as if we're all bastards, cannot
accept what we say.  It don't fit the formula, the extant pair
of dimes.

Too bad.  Oh well, nothing left but to sip a Gripp.  Cheers. And
merry happy fourth of July to yous too.  Nothing like freedom,
eh?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:42:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:22:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>John Velez's insistence that his beliefs about UFO abductions
>are validated by his own personal experience, and that we should
>also accept them on that basis, as with many other abductees and
>UFO experiencers, is a form of religious revelation.

>If we take the experience of people like Velez literally me must
>accept that just about everything we know about the universe and
>the way it works is wrong. Pardon me if I require rather more
>than someones reported personal experience before I do that. For
>the experiencer, however, evidence contradicting the absolute
>reality of their testaments can be dismissed, as it is not
>viewed through the eye of faith. It is clear from the above
>paragraph that John Velez is really only prepared to coutenance
>investigative efforts which start off by accepting the validity
>of his personal revelation. So it's not a matter of "show me"
>or "where's the proof" for me.

>It is for the rest of us, however.

<snip>

Dear List Members,

I've been quiet for some time now.  Before the "debate" between
John Rimmer, John Velez and Roger Evans turns into another name
calling session on this list, I'd like to try another
track...one that I just found...one that I need to pass on to
you all.  It has energized my mind to try to find more answers.

I'm an artistically-bent person, and I learn best with pictures
and diagrams to explain abstract concepts. I've always had a
deep-seated desire to understand physics, chemistry, math,
astronomy. Unfortunately, I didn't do well in science in
college, unless it was something like biophysics, where I could
look into a microscope and see what was happening. But, I kept
looking for someone or something to break through my dense
brain. I found it! I'm only on page 91 and I can't put the book
down. It's akin to a Stephen King novel for me! Hope you like it
too. Let me know.  Drop the argument until you've educated
yourselves on what other people in the scientific community are
believing.

The book I've had my head into is titled, HYPERSPACE by Michio
Kaku, 1994, Oxford University Press, New York. Got it from the
library. It's a theoretical physics book written for laypersons,
with marvelous illustrations explaining the UFO-ET-experiential
vs. 3-dimensional arguments we all get into on this list (plus a
whole lot more).

Mr. Rimmer and Mr. Evans think Mr. Velez's experiences may be
valid for John V., but are not for the majority; and thinks that
John Velez's beliefs are _not_ based on 3-dimensional reality.
John Rimmer is correct on those 2 points.

John Velez's experiences (and mine) are quite probably based on
a 4th dimensional reality, which Charles Howard Hinton (Prof. of
Mathematics at Princeton Univ., during Einstein's lifetime)
tried to visualize. He spent his life trying to master these
concepts, and Maxwell came up with the equations to do so.
However, Maxwell's equations treated space and time as 2
separate entities, requiring 8 obtuse equations. If those 8
equations are written using Einstein's relativistic theories,
incorporating time-space as 1 concept, the mathematical equation
is boiled down to a simple one-liner.

Don't skim the book Mr. Rimmer and Mr. Evans, study it. If
you're smart, you won't skip the Chapter Notes in the back of
the book as you read it, either. The proof is there for you Mr.
Rimmer and Mr. Evans, if you really want it.

John V., I _know_ you'll enjoy it and gain a ton of insight from
the 1st 50 pages. So will all the rest of us "flatlanders,"
trying to understand what the heck is happening when we
experience UFO-EBE contacts.  Read it and write me! I gotta get
back to this book.  Hugs, Sue S., another experiencer.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 15:42:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:43:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:32:33 +0100

Poor gullible Roy Hale must be casting around desperately for a
new line of attack on the "Sheffield incident" if he has to
raise the old Jonathan Dagenhart chestnut yet again.

Roy - hard of hearing - cannot get it through his skull that
there was no Tornado crash, therefore no pilot to eject,
therefore whoever was wandering on the Snake Pass that night had
no connection with the incident except in the colourful
imaginations of a few diehard believers.

Not even the small gathering of UFO believers at the BUFORA
lecture could accept the laughable claims Max was making about
Dagenhart's testimony. At the lecture Max was repeatedly pressed
on this point by several people in the audience who clearly knew
something about how the RAF operates, and could see more holes
in this nonsense than a colander.

>Everyone at the Max Burns Lecture clearly heard Mr Dagenhart
>express to Max his position and the clarity of his statement.
>If Clarke & Roberts are stating that Mr Dagenhart did not say
>the things he did, then How do they explain the taped phone call
>between Max and Mr Dagenhart?

I have never claimed that the tape recording of Max and
Dagenhart is not genuine.

Of course it's genuine - but it is evidence of squat all. Where
in the tape recording does Mr Dagenhart say:

"Yes Max I believe I saw an RAF/NATO pilot who had ejected from
a Tornado which had just been shot down by a UFO." And how come
the tape begins with the words:

MAX: Hello there
DAGENHART: Hello
MAX: So what happened that night? You'd been to Wales....

Is this how a complete stranger would begin a phone call to
another complete stranger?

No - what is revealed here is clumsy editing to remove the
initial conversation where Max claims he is a journalist looking
into the alleged crash of a light aircraft.

Max also sent a letter to Mr Dagenhart at his parents address in
Rotherham making very similar claims - which Dagenhart still
retains.

No mention anywhere here of UFOs, and no mention that Max was
intending to use Dagenhart's name and the fact that he was an
RAF employee in a sensational story he was trying to sell to the
News of the World for �1,500 British pounds, claiming Dagenhart
had seen a co-pilot shot down by a UFO.

Despite Max's desperate attempts to suggest that Dagenhart had
said this guy was wearing a flying suit, the tape reveals
nothing of the kind. He clearly says he cannot say what he was
wearing - just dark clothing.

The witness clearly described the man as Pakistani or
Afro-Caribbean in appearance.

Ask yourself - how many Pakistani/Afro-Caribbean pilots are
there flying Tornadoes out of RAF Coningsby?

And as Nick Pope has pointed out, ejected crewmen stay with the
wreckage of their craft and activate a beacon which would bring
help rapidly from ground crews.

No ejected airman would walk for miles covered in aviation fuel
and try to hitch a ride on a minibus.

No ejected airman would even have come into contact with
aviation fuel in the first place.

But why bother trying to be rational when you're dealing with
morons who co-habit with Alice in Wonderland?

>Concerning the interview which was given to Mr Dagenhart, by
>Clarke & Roberts were these interviews taped so we can hear
>their method of questioning? Only this would be interesting to
>many researchers simply because they are stating that the
>witness withdrew / denied what Max played (Audio Tape) at the
>lecture.

So let me get this right.

What Roy, Matthew and Max are saying here is that I, a complete
stranger, phoned up a serving member of the Royal Air Force and
forced him to retract a statement?

What kind of force was used? Threats of violence? Physical
intimidation? Perhaps I used a sinister mind control machine, or
threatened his life?

(I won't ask for evidence to back up these claims, because I'm
sure as hell not going to get any).

If that were the case, why didn't Dagenhart go to the police, or
at least the MOD police?

Why has he not placed an official complaint against me with the
editor of my newspaper, or the Press Complaints Commission?

What I actually got were showers of thankyou's from both
Jonathan and his parents (who entertained me for an hour in
their home) for saving him from embarrassment and ridicule
at the hands of UFO cultists.

Hardly the reaction of someone who had been threatened and
intimidated, don't you think?

This poor guy simply did his duty and reported seeing a
suspicious character wandering on a lonely road at night to the
police. Nothing more, nothing less.

As the police and the Peak Park Authority later confirmed, this
man was found to be a failed suicide attempt.

That fact is not some outlandish claim on my part, it is
checkable by anyone who cares to do so.

If Roy Hale and the other members of the Flat Earth Society want
to believe Dagenhart saw a victim of a UFO attack then please go
forth and multiply.

If this is the very last plank of the Sheffield Incident Titanic
then hey Roy, you hang onto it very tightly.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                          Max Burns' Mail Bouncing

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:22:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:22:46 -0400
Subject: Max Burns' Mail Bouncing




From: Moderator, UFO UpDates


>From MAILER-DAEMON  Tue Jul  6 05:42:17 1999
Return-Path: <>
Received: from aolmbd04.mx.aol.com (aolmbd04.mx.aol.com [205.188.156.78])
        by mail1.globalserve.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19697
        for <updates@globalserve.net>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.101])
          by aolmbd04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-2.0.0)
          with ESMTP id FAA25879 for <updates@globalserve.net>;
          Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost)
          by rly-za05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with internal id FAA14815;
          Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com>
Message-Id: <199907060942.FAA14815@rly-za05.mx.aol.com>
To: <updates@globalserve.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
        boundary="FAA14815.931254123/rly-za05.mx.aol.com"
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)

The original message was received at Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:41:48 -0400 (EDT)
from mail5.globalserve.net [209.90.128.165]


*** ATTENTION ***

Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery.  The AOL address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".

The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".

The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could
not be delivered.  The next line contains a second error message which is a
general translation for other e-mail servers.

Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail
administrator.

--AOL Postmaster



   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<AlienHype@aol.com>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-za05.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<AlienHype@aol.com>
<<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND
550 <AlienHype@aol.com>... User unknown
Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-za05.mx.aol.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:41:48 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; AlienHype@aol.com
Action: failed
Status: 2.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; air-za05.mail.aol.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 250 OK
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from  mail5.globalserve.net (mail5.globalserve.net [209.90.128.165]) b
y rly-za05.mx.aol.com (vx) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:41:48 -0400
Received: from buddy-guy (dialin35.toronto.globalserve.net [209.90.130.35])
        by mail5.globalserve.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA01519;
        Tue, 6 Jul 1999 04:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990705165407.00b1b3d0@mail.globalserve.net>
Message-Id: <4.1.19990705165407.00b1b3d0@mail.globalserve.net>
X-Sender: updates@mail.globalserve.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:54:22 -0400
To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Doug and Dave
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
To: <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: Doug and Dave
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:07:03 +0100






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland <ufofinland@saunalahti.fi>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:22:50 +0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:13:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:20:38 PDT

I understood, that the main point of this original subject was a
question by John Rimmer, are the lives of abductees wrecked or
not, and after a while it continued by Leanne's question (feel
free to correct, if I�m wrong), where for example John Velez
replied:

Leanne asked:

>>>Has anybody given thought to the idea that the 'wrecked lives'
>>>and the 'abduction experience' may be just symptoms of some
>>>other condition?

John Velez replied:

>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>indelicately phrase it.

Seems, that either incomprehensible experinces with no
explanation, or the lack of them wrecks lifes. (= With
explanation man seems to be able to sustain much bigger things,
that without explanation). But I don�t think UFO�s can wreck
anyone`s life, it�s not even sure they have been here. More
likely the "wreckerer" is our attidutes. And most I doubt the
wrecked lifes are results of mental problems. What causes them,
is another story. That�s why I think some of the reported
"experiences" can indeed be a symptom of something, they seem
like symptoms of "wanna believe", and symptoms of big willing to
be heard, seen, noticed. Maybe they are partly symptoms of big
loneliness?

Some of the abductees or contactees have had mental problems
(Travis Walton and Whitley Strieber for examples) after their
experiences. Some persons in a group are mentally problemized,
and have had problems even before this "hobby", but the
doctrines they`ll learn , and the lack of courace (= or
knowledge it should be done) to critisise the doctrines after
joining the group might mix some of them.

The doctrines of the group seems to teach at least following:

1) the feeling of important duty; you are now a member of
something important, you have a mission.

2) exitment (= both positive and negative) of experiences. This
teaches ->

3) the need to be as good as the other experiencers, which
teaches ->

4) the eager to experience more and more, more rougher and
rougher experiences (= to some, not everyone).

5) "Wanna believe"- attidute (= also probably cause of the
exitment of experiences)

6) fanaticism (= seems, that if you don`t defend your friend�s
it looks like you�re against them)

7) fatalism (= charma)

8) the big need of conversion.

I�m not a doctor, but seen many cases from close range. I think
abductee has usually only one experience, but contactees has
"experiences" time after time. (Sometimes abductees becomes
contactees.) Contactees seem to be more often victims of
schizophrenia or paranoid thoughts, they eager more experinces,
and they need mental hospital more often. When they come out,
the doctrines of the cult mixes their head again. Even the whole
world of the UFO- (believer`s-)cult`s doctrines sounds like
symptoms of something serious problems, but still- even the way
to think may sound "sick" the majority of the group survives
from reactive psychosis - if ever gets so far, and becomes (=
continues?) mentally strong persons. Some seems to get somehow
stucked to the sickness (= schizophrenia?) and seems to need
regular medical help. Fortunately it�s minority of the group
members.

Well, what are these mental illnesses I�m implying: The biggest
and worse mental problems experiencers sometimes seems to have
might be these:

1) Reactive psychosis. It sounds the same that some of the
abductees do experience after experiences. It lasts about two
weeks and doesn`t come back. It�s mostly seen with victims of
rape, big massive accidents (= for example the survivers of
Titanic), etc.

2) Paranoid psychosis. The typical symptom is, that the person
belivs he/she is observed by someone or a group of "someones".
It includes beliefs of implants, radio transmitters, observation
devices in persons home, body etc.

3) Schizophrenia. It has same symptoms as other psychosis, but
it is diagnosed only, if patient has recressed from his/her
earlier mental health- level, the expected symptoms of
schizophrenia`s are clearly shown, and they have lasted over 6
months. The typical symptomps to schizophrenia are
hallucinations and delusions.

The person may be psychotic when her/his way to see reality is
totally blancked. The diagnosis of course should be made by a
doctor.

Leann might be right. And I think she partly is. All the
experiences aren`t symptoms, but all the experiences aren�t
worth of studying either. There`s the one thing, that makes the
understanding between "experiencers" and researchers so
difficult: to a "experiencer" is non-physical evidences enough,
but researchers mostly want hard, physical evidence. As long
there�s two camps, there will be two ways to see, and non- stop
contradictions.

Minna L.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                 The Millennium Project News - July 5, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP/CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:36:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:37:00 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - July 5, 1999


The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

July 5, 1999

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING


More photos from myself and others of our Vancouver contrail
("chemtrail") sightings have been added to the reports for May
21, 26 and 28 on the web site (in Special Research Projects).
Additional images for these and early June reports will be added
as they can be scanned. Very little if any activity the past few
weeks, with mostly overcast, rainy weather (summer??).

There is an article on the contrail controversy by yours truly
in the latest issue of the UFO*BC Quarterly magazine, Summer
1999 (http://www.ufobc.org). I will also be doing an interview /
chat session on the subject with the Tri-State Media Network
(http://www.tristatemedia.com) in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, July
6 at 6:30 pm EST.

A new "NASA insider" has come forward with claims of information
relating to UFO secrets. As with previous such claims, time will
tell. His background, if accurately portrayed, is impressive. As
to be expected, these latest pronouncements have caused a stir
in the UFO research community.

The crop circle season in England continues unabated, with new
formations being reported almost every day. As of this update,
the number is now over sixty. More circles being found in
Germany (several complex formations now), Holland and the Czech
Republic. There is also an unconfirmed report of a
kilometre-long (0.75 miles) formation in Italy. The first US
formation of the year was reported June 18, a long three-circle
pictogram in Tennessee. Details pending. Will Canada be far
behind now???

See below for complete listing of this week's news and updates.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/news.html

* Latest Crop Circle Updates from England and
   Around the Globe
* New "NASA Insider" Comes Forward with UFO
   Information
* Annual MUFON Symposium - The Washington Post
* Joe Firmage Interview with NBC News
* Filer's Files #26 - July 1, 1999
* Do Aliens Exist?
* Rogue Earth-Like Planets Possible, Says New Report
* Western Australia To Help In Alien Search
* Possible Life Sites Eyed for Mars Lander
* Uphill-Flowing Mud on Mars?
* Nanorover Bound for Asteroid
* Ancient Telescopes


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/srp.html

Mystery Contrails:

* More Photos Added to Vancouver Reports
* TMP Interview / Chat Session: Tri-State Media Network,
   Tuesday, July 6, 6:30 pm EST

_____________________________


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

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

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

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

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

� The Millennium Project, 1999







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:14:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:20:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:14:08 -0500

>>>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>
>
>>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>
><snip>
>
>As I think John Rimmer has requested, in plain old American
>(along with about half a dozen others on this list, including
>myself), on numerous occasions- give us a case which is an
>
>>>"undeniable experience, (in broad daylight and in the company
>>>other witnesses) one that quite literally robs you of any
>>>possibility for entertaining a 'alternate explanations.'
>
>Arguments that anyone is attempting to deny the literal reality
>of abduction events may have some reasonable basis in some
>instances, but other than second, third and foruthhand accounts
>tossed out offhandedly, there have been no such verifiable
>"undeniable" experiences as the one described above.

You'd have to start from scratch Tim. Secure a
competent/independant investigator (by "independant" I mean one
who has no 'preconcieved' notions or beliefs about UFOs or
abductions to begin with) and then select a few recent reports
at random. At that point you can turn the guy loose, and see
which way the investigation leads. I'm sure there would be an
interminable arguement about investigation methods but there has
to be a middle ground somewhere that folks can come together on.

>For many of
>us that sit on the fence, thats all we need. we're not asking
>for too much, or are we? I'd luv to hear a verifiable story of
>such an "undeniable" case witnessed by other parties (and
>please, no Linda Napolitiano)- a case which is in no way
>nebulous and has no alternative explanation, and involves other
>witnesses who can be contacted.

I'm not much of a UFO anything, much less a historian but, The
Hill Case, The Walton Case and the Allagash Four Case spring to
mind as good, solid cases. I'm sure there are others on the list
that know more about that than I do.

Here's hoping you get your 'proof' one day.  :)

Peace,

John

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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 20:55:57 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:41:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:47:15 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Hi Leanne,

Hi again All,

>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>indelicately phrase it.

As usual this list has shown its propensity for jumping the gun
and jumping to conclusions (sometimes its the only exercise I
get, too!). I did _not_ state, assert, insinuate, declare, or
assume that some underlying condition was the cause of these
claims. I had merely asked whether anyone had seriously looked
into the prospect that it _may_ be a cause in some individuals.

Can you honestly assert that _everyone_ who makes such claims is
fully compis mentis and has actually experienced everything they
say they did? If so then Olly North and Tricky Dicky must be
totally innocent . . .

Regards,
Leanne  ];-)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                                Re: Max Burns

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:59:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:29:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns


>From: Max Burns <AlienHype@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:19:45 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:27:19 +0100


>Jenny said

>>I can only add one bit to this. Its not something I have thought
>>of retrospectively. I told David about it two years ago and
>>wrote about it in my first summary of the case (Northern UFO
>>News 176 - June l997 issue)

>>I live in a village just north of Buxton in the Peak District.
>>As the aircraft flies that is very close to the sighting
>>location to my north east. That night both my mother and I were
>>in the garden as I was showing her the then bright comet
>>Hale-Bopp with my binoculars. We went back in around 7:30 to
>>watch Coronation Street on TV (couldn't miss that could we?) But
>>I popped out several times later to watch the comet until around
>>10 pm (my last trip outside as it was getting chilly). We both
>>noted and I certainly commented on this before David found out
>>about the military exercise that there was an unusual amount of
>>aerial activity in the skies during the period 7 - 10 pm.

>>We do get civil aircraft going into Manchester and low level
>>flights of military jets (mostly in daylight) that nearly knock
>>the chimney off our bungalow. But there was unquestionably an
>>excess amount of activity that night. There were slow moving
>>lights, probably helicopters, and faster moving aircraft. All
>>were to the north and east of me. In the two years since I have
>>never seen anything akin to the level of activity that night.

>Jenny,

>I hope you can see that the based on the evidence I have
>produced above, that as well as you corrobarating the testimony
>of the witness Emma Maidenhead who also stated that she saw the
>FT, and Jets and light aircraft and helicopters in the area.

>Quote, It was like an air show I have never seen so much air
>traffic in the sky at the same time...

>Even though the self aclaimed Dr Klark stated that there were no
>heleocopters in the area till well after 11.00pm and then it was
>the police search and rescue copter...

>If you get my point Jenny do not believe all you have been fed?
>After all your statement validates my witness from Dronfield and
>contradicts the statements made by Dr Klark?

>Never mind the fact that I can disproove the statements from Dr
>Klark re Jonathan Dagenhart, in some quite startling ways ( I
>have the audio) If you wish to discuss this with me in person
>then you can call me on 01159 141160

>So I make the offer again that Dr Klark submit to a presentaion
>of both our cases to a panel to be determined as agreeable to
>both parties, and to have this out Once and for all....instead
>of the selective sound bite editing that has been going on..


Hi,

Further to my other note regarding this case (separate posting).

Look, Max. I dont know you and have no reason to suppose you are
not sincerely trying to get to the facts about this case. I do
know Dave and am sure that is true of him. You both widely
disagree on the interpretation of evidence, all the rest of us
can do is listen to the facts that both of you present and judge
from that. Personal asides, such as have gotten in the way of
this saga, achieve nothing except to distract from that simple
truth and polarise people in favour of or against any one side
or the other (probably one they know first hand via contact or
friendship with one or other individual). As such that serves no
ufological purpose and proper evaluation of the case suffers -
but, its a fact of life.

I have honestly reported what I saw. You may be correct. I have
viewed Dave's evidence seeking to resolve this case and in my
view he successfully does so. That doesn't mean I would not
change my opinion if good reasons came to light for me to do so.
If they did, I would. But right now, sorry, but I can only
honestly report that I do believe Dave is probably right about
what happened on that night.

I trust that causes no offence as it is not intended to do so.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:49:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:26:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Rebecca Jackson <R.Jackson@TRENT.ITECNE.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:57:32 +0100

>>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:32:33 +0100

>>>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100

>>>Another interesting fact is how all of Max's witnesses changed
>>>their stories after you and Andy R. got to them. You then made
>>>big claims about how you could show that Max Burns had lied
>>>about their witness testimonies and that the witnesses were
>>>claiming their words had been twisted.

>>>However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
>>>Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
>>>was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
>>>and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.
>
>>>After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
>>>having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
>>>Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
>>>use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
>>>seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
>>>mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
>>>case and go onto aircraft causing sonic booms being your latest
>>>evidence to damn Max's research with.
>>>http://globalserve.net/~updates/mufon/index.htm

>>I think this is an interesting point Matthew raises here.

<snip>


Hi,

Whilst I have been in Washington, DC I see the arguments over
this case rage.  I don't have any axe to grind with Matthew. We
have met once, I believe.  I thought he was a decent bloke and
he is well entitled to his theories and convictions. No argument
there. But on this case I don't agree with them. That really
ought to be all there is to it.

UpDates readers have, I think, been spared the embarrassing
farce UK folk got in the past week where a Max Burns supporter
attempted to put on the net evidence that would lead to the
downfall of the credibility of Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke.
This was via a story that even if true (and that was not proven)
was of no relevance to ufology. Frankly, when a case descends to
the point that discussing facts about the event takes second
place to proffering alleged stories about the private lives of
investigators, simply suggests to me a diversionary tactic.
Diversions normally operate when the straight way through
towards the facts at hand wont be favourable. The diverter -
rather than the diverted - being the one wishing to take the
long way round. I may be wrong but that's how I read this issue.

Okay, so what are the facts? For what they are worth here are my
personal opinions.

I have read both sides of the divide on the evidence for this
case. I was outside on the night the RAF jet was supposedly shot
down watching the sky in the same general area where this
amazing event apparently took place. I saw a military exercise
afoot. I saw a clear sky with lots of planets and meteors
visible. I did not see anything to even hint at a shoot down or
retrieval exercise.

I have also followed the investigation conducted by Dave Clarke
very carefully. I needed to. Not only did this event happen
right here where I lived and if something big took place I want
to know about it. But also Dave, Andy Roberts and I have been
writing a book together. This includes a chapter by Dave on his
work into this case and, whilst it is his own work and presented
as such , I naturally needed to be assured that I was not
associating myself with any of the following:

poor investigation, hyped ideas without good facts to back them
up, deliberate name calling or personal attacks on witnesses or
researchers, government disinformation.

I am completely satisfied in those regards. Dave's study of the
case is how ufology should be done and reflects, in my view, a
correct status report on the case as the evidence presently
stands. I am not averse to the possibility that new facts will
emerge that might change this opinion. But, frankly, I don't
expect them to or see any sign of them manifesting on the
horizon over two years on. As things stand this case gets my
vote as being solved.

That said, what is not needed is some of the stupid and petty
attacks on researchers over a case (not this one in particular -
I am talking ufology in general) just because their verdict on a
case differs either from your own or from a pro ET version of
the events. We, as ufologists, need to tolerate different
perspectives. We as serious investigators need to appreciate
that 95% of UFO cases are solved and have no chance whatsoever
of being any form of alien contact. That is a simple, but
sobering reality that should be remembered. It means, put
bluntly, that the odds are stacked high against any story being
truly weird. It also means, in my view, that cases that seem
weird deserve - and demand - unusually full and proper,
sceptical investigation to weed out those that can be resolved.
Those sceptical of a perceived ET reality to a case are a vital
part of the process - provided they are not debunkers and do
their job professionally and willing to be convinced that a case
is indeed bona fide. Dave Clarke is certainly these things in my
experience, and I have known him well enough for 20 years now.
Only when this necessary (and usually thankless) task is done
are we left with a proper data base of valuable unsolved cases
that take us into that murky territory of possible alien
contact.

For me Dave has shown pretty conclusively that the Peak District
crash is not one such case. It is, virtually beyond question, a
solved case and rather than shout at him for that news we should
applaud. This is good ufology as it clears the way for us to
seek out better cases. The challenge, as ever, is not to dwell
on those that ain't but go out there and find those that are.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                         Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:19:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:33:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Max Burns <AlienHype@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:19:45 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Good to hear that AlienHype is still actively hyping.
Unfortuately he needs to return to classroom and learn how to
read, write and interpret evidence before making wild claims.

>No David you have posted on various occassions that the whole
>night events were the culmination of a covert low flying
>exercise which was on the ground by 9.30pm...
>Fact

Wrong Max, not a fact at all, and you know that is the case.
Please go back and read my report yet again - and you will
discover that our views on what was going on that night
surprisingly do not differ, other than in the interpretation of
what actually happened.

Since you are so hard of hearing, I will repeat the snip which
you snipped but obviously could not read properly:

>>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon
>>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>>coastline.

Got that?

Repeat after me: "....the evidence from both witnesses in
Derbyshire and South Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by
the BGS suggest a covert part of the operation continued until
after the booked operation..."


How much more clearer do I need to make it?

Do I need to take a hammer and chisel and carve it in stone?

I'm not claiming any "double missions" or any other such
nonsense; all I'm saying is there was obviously a low-flying
operation taking place that night which began at 7.30 and
continued for at least one hour after the official time at which
aircraft were "grounded."

Repeat after me again, an operation that lasted from 7.30 until
at least 10.30pm, involving many different aircraft from a
number of frontline bases.

Of course the RAF/MOD are not being entirely forthcoming about
what went on, but so what?  That is part and parcel of military
exercises every day, there is nothing inherently sinister in
that fact alone.

Helen Jackson MP said as much herself, and that was
precisely why I asked her to raise Questions in the Houses of
Parliament in the first place.

I would not have asked her to do so if I thought the MOD were
telling the whole truth!

The MOD simply did what they always do, they admitted the
"booked times" for the exercise, ie. 7.30 to 9.30, because they
can say they have not lied. But everyone with any knowledge of
military aviation knows that in practice operations regularly
overlap booked times, as was obviously the case on 24 march
1997.

What those aircraft were doing, I haven't got a clue and would
not claim to know, but I don't see any reason to suggest it was
anything other than low-flying training in preparation for
action in the Gulf. Maybe the RAF were flying a drone or some
form of Remotely Piloted Vehicle, maybe not.

If Max wants to believe they were chasing UFOs then that is his
right; but he has to accept it is a belief not a proven fact. We
must agree to differ, simple as that.

>6. It would appear that you have succefully expalined everything
>prior to 9.45pm that night, however based on your research there
>are unanswered questions after that time frame that you cannot
>explain...and have not got any explanation other than suposition
>and speculation on your behalf..

>7. So we get back to the FACT that you have not discredited my
>investigation.

Yes you are right, I have not explained everything, but simply
presented the most rational explanation which fits all the known
facts - the one I have just given above.

The "crashed Tornado" theory is purely a product of your
imagination, has no supportative facts whatsoever which would
stand up to scientific scrutiny, or any kind of rational
scrutiny.

If you claim a Tornado crashed it is up to you to prove it, and
so far after two years of blustering you have not produced one
single scrap of evidence.

And that's where I leave it.

You believe what you want to believe, and good luck to you.
Please accept my right NOT to share your fantasies,

>These are _facts_ Dr Clark (Pilot or the unknown holy relic the
>Daily Death Star) price 28p circulation 1500.

Your facts are wrong again Max. My newspaper has a daily
circulation of 100,000 copies, and the price is 30p By contrast
your CV lists yourself as a writer for Alien Encounters
magazine, last known circulation: 0.

>So I make the offer again that Dr Klark submit to a presentaion
>of both our cases to a panel to be determined as agreeable to
>both parties, and to have this out Once and for all....instead
>of the selective sound bite editing that has been going on..

See my earlier posting.

I have said everything I have to say about the facts of this
case, I'm not going to waste my time repeating them ad hominem
to dimwits who can't be bothered to read and make sense of plain
English.

Max, you are determined to turn this nonsense into Britain's
answer to Roswell. You stated as much very publically at the
BUFORA conference in Sheffield back in 97.

You deserve credit for your persistence, and as a creator of
fantasy and modern myth you might one day earn yourself a small





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:29:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:36:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 20:55:57 PDT

>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:47:15 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:15:46 -0400
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>Hi Leanne,

>Hi again All,

>>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>>indelicately phrase it.

>As usual this list has shown its propensity for jumping the gun
>and jumping to conclusions (sometimes its the only exercise I
>get, too!). I did _not_ state, assert, insinuate, declare, or
>assume that some underlying condition was the cause of these
>claims. I had merely asked whether anyone had seriously looked
>into the prospect that it _may_ be a cause in some individuals.

>Can you honestly assert that _everyone_ who makes such claims is
>fully compis mentis and has actually experienced everything they
>say they did? If so then Olly North and Tricky Dicky must be
>totally innocent . . .

>Regards,
>Leanne  ];-)

Hi Leanne... I'd wish you a happy Fourth of July, but you guys
did it differently than we Bas Gaians did.  Just a quickie note
to tell you that the quote below belongs to another and is not
mine.  As I tend to agree with it, this is merely an FYI to you
and the list.

And as a side bar, me to you.  I have no idea if those memories
my feeble old brain harbors are real in whole or part, the way I
remember them.  All I know is that in my mind, what's left of it
after 56 years of abuse, it is quite real.  That these memories
began at a time in my life when I'd not yet heard of any of this
"stuff"  (I love those technical terms, don't you?), which was
about three years old, that they are remarkably related in form
and content to those of others who claim similar events, that
they have indeed lead me down paths I would never have taken,
even when I did not know what these memories meant, except the
assumption that they were most realistic dreams, that they
changed my life and my personal pair of dimes (no mean feat as I
am a thickheaded sunamonbetchi - my grandma used to say that
word), that I am above average intellectually, with an IQ a lot
higher than it should be, not crazy according to a number (which
exceeds 4) of psychiatrists, that I am indeed quite sane, except
for some phobias and an addictive personality, the latter of
which appears coincident with many abductees.... that all of the
above is true and tens of dozens more which I have not related,
means that either perceived abductees share the same bacterium
in our guts or we share the same experiences.

Lights really turn off, triangles really fly over us.. my clocks
and TV sets and et al, all fail to function as ordered, and me a
'lectric engineeeer!, all points to bacterium.  Or delirium.  Or
diptherium. Or.....

Whatever my or your "or" is, the truth, the ultimate truth, is
there for all to find.  I just hope I die "after" they tell me.
It's my nature to know the answer... to all things which I do
not have them for, to, whatever.

If you read and understand the words most righteous people,
including those I consider "righteous" who are perceived
experiencers, are _all_ saying that they really don't know what
the phenom is, they just know that it is two things to them, to
me:

1) Very real
2) UFO phenom is the best fit in terms of explanation

Until all the above, with all the implications of those two
statements are proved true or false, no one, I mean _no one_ has
the truth.  Which is why I love those titles out there on this
subject.... they read like something out of the Christian Right
here in the US.... the Jerry Fallwell version of truth:

"The Real Truth,"  "The Ultimate Truth,"  "Finally, the Truth
Revealed"

Bushwa. Horsehockey. Tyrannosaurus Dung. Monkey Juice.
Bull Dingy.

Jim Mortellaro
Pass the Kaopectate please





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                     Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@plinet.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:27:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:37:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News


>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: Firmage Interviewed By NBC News

<snip>

>Scientific
>journals in general do not allow articles that include
>discussions of this sort; if you assume that highly advanced
>aliens could easily and promptly "get here from there," you had
>better describe in detail in your paper just how they do it, or
>else have your paper rejected on the grounds that you're just
>parroting sci-fi!

Hi Jim  :)

I find the above statement highly amusing.....its sort of a "big
NO-DUH", as a 10 year girl I know would say.  Think about
it....if anyone could describe in detail just exactly how to
"get here from there", there would be no need to ask the
question of how ETs "get here from there".  If we knew how it
was done, *WE* would be doing it.  I have long thought that what
many in the science field consider to be acceptable evidence
when it comes to ET-origin UFOs is totally unrealistic and
bordering on the fanciful.  But, then again, if you set
standards that are impossible to meet or totally unrealistic in
the "real world", then you don't have to worry about anyone
proving the existance of something that you are not prepared to
admit exists.


>So, with science in general still wearing blinders to the UFO
>phenomenon all around us, and with the news media fearful of
>offending spokespersons for science, and with organized
>religions dead set against the UFO-devils, we have our work cut
>out for us.

Few people are willing to address anything that might jeopardize
their comfortably numb existance, be they scientist or clergy.
One of the hardest things a human being can do is take a good,
hard, honest look at themselves. IMHO, it is a no-win situation
here.  No matter how heavy the preponderance of evidence one
presents as to the ET origin of UFOs, that evidence will not be
readily accepted if it goes against what one has been taught
their whole lives.  When it comes to the religious
implications....that being that the religions of the world have
been grossly wrong and have, knowingly or not, mislead the
people of this world for the past 2000 years......people in
general, IMHO, would rather not know.  When it comes to
incorrect religious teachings, I think people tend to prefer the
bliss of ignorance.

My opinion, for what it's worth  :)

Bobbie



Bobbie Felder
Denver, CO

jilain@plinet.com
ICQ #7524076
IRC Undernet #Devils_Tower



                  ~~~Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
                       Life is but an empty dream!
                     For the soul is dead that slumbers,
                       And things are not what they seem.~~~








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                             Re: Glowing Clouds

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:48:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:40:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Glowing Clouds


Be prepared......

Source:

                              ====================
                                SKY & TELESCOPE's
                              WEEKLY NEWS BULLETIN

                                   July 2, 1999
                              ====================

ARTIFICIAL CLOUDS TO GLOW OVER EAST COAST

UFO reports are certain to flood police stations along the U.S.
East Coast as NASA conducts a series of sounding-rocket
experiments beginning tonight and lasting through mid-July.

The suborbital rockets will blast off from the agency's Wallops
Flight Facility in Virginia and arc out over the Atlantic Ocean.

At the top of their trajectories, some 70 to 150 kilometers (40
to 95 miles) up, they'll release clouds of trimethylaluminum, a
chemical that glows with a milky white luminescence as it
disperses into the ionosphere. Scientists will be watching these
clouds to study how metallic ions in the upper atmosphere
interact with Earth's geomagnetic field and subatomic particles
from the Sun.

Observers in mid-Atlantic states may be able to see the glowing
clouds with their naked eyes.

To find out when and where to look, call the Wallops Flight
Facility launch-status line at 757-824-2050 or visit the
facility's Web site.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                  MUFON 99 - Jenny Randles - Comfort Zones

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 20:14:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:43:55 -0400
Subject: MUFON 99 - Jenny Randles - Comfort Zones


Hi,

I have just returned from the enjoyable MUFON 99 conference in
Washington, DC. Thanks to all who played a part in inviting me.
My presentation was rather different from the one included in
the procedings since I thought this gave better value to those
attending and buying the book, so to speak. But as I was on
early Saturday some who missed the paper asked me later in the
weekend to put a summary on the net. Others who heard it asked
for some help in the absence of a version in the procedings. So
here is my contribution. No revelations, as someone said. But, I
hope, salient points that are worth considering whatever your
perspective on the subject.

My paper focused on the conference theme of 'comfort zones' in
ufology. I offered 12 problem areas within our field that serve
as 'discomfort zones' and challenge the preconceptions of
ufologists, the media, skeptics and science. For each we all
should contemplate alternative scenarios and reflect on whether
we are just sitting in our own personal comfort zone standing by
a long held opinion.

It seems not many other speakers took the conference theme as
literally as I did. I thought the idea was to build a paper
around the theme. So I did!

In deference to the requests and for those not at Washington
here is a brief account of my 12 points. I will happily
elaborate if requested.

1: IFOs are not failures but success stories - How and why
solving cases is a task ufologists can do well to the benefit of
society and is an achievable goal as compared with the largely
unachievable ones such as proving that aliens are here that tend
to dominate our thinking.

2: There is not an answer to the UFO phenomenon, but answers to
the UFO phenomena The quest for 'the truth' is misleading to all
sides until we recognise there are multiple phenomena reported
under the catch all term UFO and each requires a different form
of answer. These phenomena may only be linked together by social
factors and not by any actual connections. Thus a search for the
unified field theory of ufology can actually be counter
productive.

3: We can show that UFOs are of benefit to mankind Ignoring any
hypothetical aliens, there are naturally occurring phenomena
reported as UFOs that will stretch scientific knowledge (eg
types of plasma) and may offer new energy sources, etc, for the
21st century. ufology's task is to persuade science of that.
Science must escape its ignorance of what lies beyond the
tabloid imagery of ufology.

4: UFOs are not academic they can be dangerous Certain types of
UAP, eg those involved in ongoing mid air encounters (over 40
above the UK alone post l992) are a potential threat. They are
natural in origin, not alien craft. But as modern aircraft fly
by computers the EM fields of these UAP are a clear danger. The
media need to find more honest and objective reporting. Science
needs to pay heed to UFO data. UFOlogists need to show restraint
in presenting such sober evidence without talking all the time
about aliens.

5: Close Encounters do not just happen to anyone I outlined the
clues that we have uncovered that there is a 'close encounter
prone personality' - items cited included above average early
life recall, acute visual creativity, etc. There were six key
factors here.

6: Abductions occur inside a UFO This challenges a key comfort
zone of ufology that during missing time the CE phase occurs
inside a UFO. I showed why this is an assumption imposed onto
the story by investigators and is open to some doubt. If an
abduction does not occur inside a UFO then all bets are off as
to the correct interpretation. As such this is a critical area
because if we mistakenly jump to the conclusion that an incident
occurs inside a UFO we are fundamentally misperceiving the
enigma.

7: Close Encounters occur during an altered state of
consciousness They are not real world physical events, even
though they do have a reality.   I set out why we must accept
this (to many) quite disturbing premise via case evidence.

8: The ETH must be the answer I outlined reasons why it may be -
pro ET evidence such as the 'Star Trek' effect I have uncovered
within abduction cases. But I also showed the contradictions,
via case evidence, such as that perception creates at least part
of the CE experience and how the subconscious mind at work in
the story lines is evident (eg one alien contact where the
witness was told by the aliens that their Proxima Centauri home
world translates as 'love and peace, everywhere and forever' but
in English is 'Afoni' - say it phonetically to get my point
here!!  The ETH is an assumption and part of our comfort zone.

9:  CE cases are a form of psychic experience In the brodest
definition of that term, a paranormally experienced phenomenon,
I showed why we have to conclude that it is. Rather than run
from the threads that weave abductions, NDEs etc together we
need to seek them out. I likened the result to a lucid dream -
without arguing that it was a dream, which it isnt as such.

10: We are the architects, not just the archivists of the UFO
mystery  - decisions taken by ufologists as to how to
investigate and interpret a case can push it down pathways and
to adopt a format that may not be entirely its true nature. We
hone and shape the data without realising it and can make an
experience that under other circumstances would, for instance,
be a ghost or NDE into an alien contact. We dont just record we
actually influence the mystery.

11: Sometimes you just have to say you dont know It is not a
neccesity to come up with an answer all the time. There are
puzzling cases where it is wiser and safer not to jump to a
conclusion in any direction. To do so will have a negative
effect on data gathering. We need at times to be humble enough
to admit an answer is beyond us - be we skeptics or believers.

12: The cover up may not be what it seems yes, there is a cover
up, but need there be sinister motives for it? I expressed
arguments as to why such a thing is a natural consequence of
what ufology represents and how, by pleading a massive
conspiracy to hide an alien plan on earth, we actually damage
our credibility and deepen the cover up as unpaid agents of the
very conspiracy we deplore.

Hope this helps grasp what I was trying to say in DC.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                          Re: Speakers For Scouts?

From: Olav Phillips <ophillips@imsn.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 16:36:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:08:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Speakers For Scouts?


Hi All,

My name is Olav Phillips and I run the S4 Database
(http://www.anomalies.net). I have noticed that many of the
finer researchers of the ufological community subscribe to this
list.  So, I was wondering if any of you would be interested in
speaking to my old Boy Scout Troop.

For many years, and probably due to my interest when I was a
scout, the troop has been interested in UFOs and related
information.  So if anyone would be willing to speak, and is in
the San Francisco Bay Area, please let me know.  I can promise
the kids would love it!

My goal would be to one day have a small panel to speak to the
troop parents and friends etc. about UFOs/Paranormal info.  But
any help is appriciated!

For details about the troop you can visit:

http://www.anomalies.net/~bsa226/

or email me.


Thanks for your time and I hope to hear from you soon!

Olav Phillips
Eagle Scout
Assistant Scoutmaster
Troop 226
http://www.anomalies.net/~bsa226/
    /
Founder
The S4 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                         SETI@home's Website Hacked

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 02:09:27
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:12:36 -0400
Subject: SETI@home's Website Hacked


Source: BBC News Online,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_386000/386565.stm

Stig

***

Monday, July 5, 1999

Published at 21:32 GMT 22:32 UK

Sci/Tech

**

Furry puppet turns up in ET search

Greetings to the people of planet Earth

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse

*

The SETI@home Website, a project that processes data collected
by radio telescopes in a Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence project has been hacked.

For about five hours on Sunday, the home page was replaced with
a single word - "WANTED" - and an image of ALF, an
extraterrestrial from a US TV sitcom of the same name.

Those who have not previously encountered this interstellar
ambassador may like to know that he crash-landed in a garage in
Los Angeles in 1986. He was named ALF, or Alien Life Form, by
the humans who were involved in first contact with him.

The title of the Seti Website was replaced with the words
"attention people of Earth..."

Good looks

Officials have dismissed it as an annoying prank, pointing out
that the hackers are wide of the mark when it comes to their
choice of an extraterrestrial. The problem with the hairy ALF is
that he is just too human-looking.

Experts believe that alien life, if it exists, is probably not
like us. Indeed, they believe that if evolution was re-run on
Earth, it is very unlikely that anything resembling humans - let
alone ALF - would emerge a second time.

Not that many Seti scientists would be disappointed in finding
something like ALF - they just do not expect it to happen.
Project officials said that while they are satisfied with the
security of their other servers, they are checking them to be
certain.

The SETI@home project, which opened to the public in mid-May,
harnesses the downtime computer power of subscribers to sift
through data obtained by a radio telescope to look for signals
from space.

More than 600,000 people have signed up since the project began.


Internet Links:

The ALF page

Seti@home

Another ALF Page


Relevant Stories:

17 May 99 | Sci/Tech
Screening for alien life

05 Jul 99 | Sci/Tech
Is anybody out there?

23 Mar 99 | Sci/Tech
Alien hunters back on track


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

�








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                      Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 6

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:50:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:28:09 -0400
Subject: Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 6


Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 6


When the 'UFO Research List' (UFORL) was set up earlier this
year, my intention was to provide a discussion forum which
addressed scientific evidence, including the interface between
UFOs and 'black projects'

As a number of invited subscribers have a recognised expertise in
'black projects', the list covers aviation and aerospace topics
which other 'UFO' related forums possibly wouldn't consider
appropriate. Conversely, it isn't likely you'll find debates on
'abductions', 'MJ-12', or conspiracies, etc.

I hoped that the list archives would, in part, be publicly
accessible to non subscribers, similar to the situation with the
'UFO UpDates' list. However, as some material posted is
specifically 'list only' and it was also a stated intention that
research data, etc., could be released and discussed in
confidence before being publicised, not all of the postings will
be open to non-subscriber viewing.

When material is intended for general information and may be of
interest to the 'UFO UpDates', Microsoft Network or 'Project
1947', etc. mailing lists, I would intend to duly cross-post it,
or at least highlight where it can be seen.

Details of how the public list material can be viewed, will be
confirmed in due course. In the meantime, what follows are some
relevant UFORL mailings and if any assistance can be given re the
questions raised therein, it would be appreciated.

Much of this will have originated from myself, as I can be sure
it's not confidential.


Date: 15/06/99
Re: Bentwaters and Lakenheath � 1956
UFO Research List

The following was received via e-mail during the past week and is
a further insight into one of the classic, historical cases.

Although initially discussing the December 1980 'Bentwaters'
incidents, the writer has correctly surmised that their father
was referring to a much earlier event!


Dear Sir,

I recall seeing a TV documentary with this subject matter, I
dismissed the testimonies of the contributors as a government
experiment or "somesuch" and left it to others "with too much
free time and  imagination" to conjecture upon.

However, I mentioned the programme to my father, he "corrected"
me, saying that the incident concerned occurred in the late
1950s. I dismissed his notion, telling him that, as ever, he
didn't listen to me. With the benefit of hindsight it would
Appear that we were talking about two very different stories.

He told me of a conversation with a long time acquaintance of
his, a radar engineer working for Racal, a telecommunications
Company. He told me that this man spun him a story about a
colleague who was called to R.A.F. Bentwaters to test radar
equipment, I have never bothered prying as my father would never
let-up with barracking me if he thought I saw this tale as
anything other than spooky nonsense, though his own postscript to
the story was that the tale had never varied in its detail over
the years.

In a nutshell, the engineer and his boss where called with some
urgency to test ground radar at Bentwaters, he (the engineer) was
surprised to see an American military technician from another
base (Lakenheath) already running magnetic tape spools on a
portable viewer, a C.R.T. and associated amplifiers, a radar
without the radar, if you will. He was requested to check and
test the consoles in the bases control tower. After several hours
he pronounced the equipment to be in good working order.

Both he and his boss where obviously curious because of the more
than usual lack of small talk with their clients and the brusque
attitude of the normally friendly American from Lakenheath. Some
weeks later the engineer related the morning in question to
another technician working at an R.A.F. base in East Anglia, this
fellow told the engineer he had heard from "someone who knew
someone" that the evening before his callout to Bentwaters there
was great panic at both Lakenheath and Bentwaters. The fellow
said that fighter aircraft had been scrambled after erratic but
"solid looking" radar traces where observed travelling from east
to west on first sighting. He said that the personnel on site at
Bentwaters (those on duty) all saw lights in the skies and that
Lakenheath base control tower personnel had telephoned their
concerns to Bentwaters.

As I have stated, it is a sketchy story to me at least, it
doesn't seem to have any substance, no dates or names. I have not
heard or seen of any mention concerning the alleged events but
thought it an interesting tale to mention. Perhaps I have not
looked very hard.

Best regards
[name deleted]

Although maybe nothing of new substance re what is presumably the
renowned August, 1956 'radar' case, an interesting tale
nonetheless.


James.

NOTE:
At least we now know the radar apparently wasn't faulty.

It has been pointed out that a faulty radar was one explanation
offered by Phil Klass.



Date: 29/06/99
Re: Trent Photographs
UFO Research List

There's a 'UFO' photograph which may not be well known and which
depicts an object similar to the 'flying saucer' photographed by
Paul Trent on 11 May, 1950.

If it's of interest, I've uploaded the respective images for
comparison and they can be seen at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/similar.jpg

Some notes:

- the 'new' photograph is looking down on the 'object' - a
perspective not seen in the Trent pictures - and shows a 'rim',
which would appear to be consistent with the two Trent profiles

- the object is flat on top, similar to the Trent image

- it also has a comparable 'antenna'

- the dark 'blobs' visible may be photographic artefacts - I
don't know

- for convenience, all images have been rotated to appear
horizontal.


All I can ascertain is that the more recent photograph was
apparently taken by Herr Walter Schilling, on 3 Jul 1977, in
Hamburg, Germany.

My source is a 1993 CD-ROM entitled, `UFO'.

Although the CD-ROM contains numerous hoaxed photographs, some of
the other material is interesting and maybe not so well known.

Of the Schilling photograph, it states:

"Herr Walter Schilling observed and photographed a flying disc
with a curious rotating, fluorescent periscope-like mast. The
object was very close to the ground and was tilted at an angle as
it cast a 30ft shadow on the grass to its right".

The reason why I suspect it's an obvious fake, aside from it
being the archetypal and mythical `flying saucer', will, I'm
sure, be evident on seeing the full sized photograph. There's a
copy on my web site at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/schillng.jpg

Another (inferior quality) copy, plus further material from this
CD-ROM can be found at:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~pro/033.htm

So, what became of Herr Schilling's photograph?

I may have been overly optimistic in expecting to find further
references to it. Do any of our colleagues in Germany perhaps
know more about this `Trent look-alike' case?


James.



Date: 01/07/99
Re: Flying Triangles
UFO Research List

Here's an interesting organisation which encompasses all things
`hovering':

AHS International - The Vertical Flight Society

"The professional society for the advancement of vertical flight
technology and its useful application throughout the world".

"...a professional technical society founded in 1943 to advance
vertical flight. The Society's members include more than 6,000
aerospace engineers, managers, scientists and technicians, and
most of the world's major rotorcraft manufacturers and industry
suppliers".

http://www.vtol.org/

The site contains an article entitled, "V/STOL: The First Half-
Century", which notes of the apparent delta-winged `Boeing X-32':

"As part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, the Boeing X-
32 concept demonstrator (artist's drawing above) uses a
derivative of the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine with Rolls-Royce
lift components. The X-32 concept has a chin inlet and a blended
delta wing. In short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) mode,
the engine closes the vectorable cruise nozzle and opens two lift
nozzles at the aircraft c.g. First flight is planned for 2000.
The winner of the JSF source selection in 2001 will then develop
its operational STOVL version of the concept as a supersonic
multirole aircraft to replace the Harrier. Boeing's design for
the operational aircraft has an empty weight of about 22,000 lb,
length of 45 ft and a wingspan of 30 ft; maximum take-off weight
would be about 50,000 lb. During the Concept Development Phase
that ended in November 1996, Boeing completed 11,700 hours of
developmental testing and piloted simulations, including testing
of a Pratt & Whitney YF119-powered 94% scale model in 1995".

I presume this implies that no test planforms were (`officially')
flown.

If this is a proposed replacement for the Harrier, I wonder if
any testing of a hovering, delta-shaped aircraft, might have been
carried out in the UK?


A must-see in this article is a photograph of the `SNECMA C450
Coleoptere':

"In France, the Societe Nationale d'Etude et Construction de
Moteurs d'Aviation (SNECMA) began working on a jet powered tail-
sitter in 1954. Various rigs were tested from 1955-1957 powered
by the 6,400 lb thrust Atar D jet engine, each with increasing
complexity".

I hesitate to call it an aircraft, as it looks like something out
of a low-budget, 1950s sci-fi movie!

The article's at:

http://www.vtol.org/wheel/wheel.jpg

and note also the link to a useful diagram - :

http://www.vtol.org/wheel/same.html


James.



Date: 04/07/99
Re: 'Triangular UFO' Footage?
UFO Research List

Also shown in the UK, earlier tonight on Channel 5 national TV,
was a program, 'UFOs: The Best Evidence Ever - Caught on Tape'.

I believe this has been seen before here.

One of the films shown, from 'Midway City', Florida in 1993, was
particularly interesting.

It shows what could be... I say, could be... one of them
hovering, tree-top level, lights-a-blazin' triangular-UFOs.

Is this footage likely to be authentic?

>From a brief 'web search', I haven't seen anything to the
contrary and it seems this purported videotape evidence hasn't
really been highlighted as we might expect.

What struck me on seeing it for the first time was the similarity
with many 'triangular UFO' reports in recent years.

The footage is essentially of lights, apparently hovering above
trees in a forest. The lights do momentarily disappear behind
what seem to be trees, which ostensibly argues in favour of its
authenticity.

Most prominent is a large central light, from which a focused
beam of light is directed downwards.

Surrounding this central light are other smaller lights and
noticeable is that the light at the top is blinking on and off.

It isn't possible to determine the presumed object's outline,
however, taking all of the lights as an indication, it's not far
off being triangular shaped.

Using my video recorder's freeze frame, I've stepped through the
frames and there are some where it does look as though a
'triangular outline' is more evident. It's impossible to be
certain about this - it may just be an illusion.

Assuming the footage is genuine, the only obvious candidates I
could think of would be a helicopter, or a small 'blimp'.

Although I couldn't locate any additional information about this
case, I discovered that part of the footage is available on Dave
Ledger's 'UFO Scotland' site. For those who haven't seen Dave's
site, it contains probably the largest collection of 'UFO'
footage on the 'net.

The video doesn't take long to play and can be seen at:

http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/videos3.htm

It's described thus:

"This clip was recorded simultaneously by three separate cameras
near the Gulf Breeze area of Florida USA. The footage ,taken near
Midway City on the 4th of August 1993, was filmed at three
different angles by three separate witnesses. They were lucky
enough to capture the craft on tape as it seemed to hover over
some dense forest at night. The object seemed to give off puffs
of dense smoke and at one point, it seems to shine an intense
beam of light straight at the camera lens".

The possibility of additional witnesses and film needs to be
clarified - does anyone know the full story?

If not, I'll make further enquiries.

'Gulf Breeze'... [sharp intake of breath] is somewhat contentious
as a 'UFO hotspot'. That acknowledged, it's not a 'flying saucer'
on film, or even an apparent attempt to suggest this.

It may be that this video has been regarded as simply a 'UFO'
and never previously considered as _conceivably_
depicting the same 'triangular UFOs' as others have been
reporting.

My initial conclusions would be that, if authentic, this might be
significant film. Whatever is captured on tape has key elements
of the 'triangular UFO' enigma.

It should be noted that this video was taken by someone who has
published footage of another 'UFO' (a completely different,
daylight film which 'looks OK' and depicts a 'non-standard', odd
object).

Apparently a 'UFO hunter', if he is out searching for anomalous
aerial artefacts - and his video camera looks like *serious*
equipment - then he's more likely than not to eventually film
something.

I would only contend that it's worth seeing.


James.



Date: 06/07/99
Re: NUFORC 'Triangular UFO' Reports
UFO Research List

I've received permission from Peter Davenport, director of the
National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC), to make available their
published 'triangular UFO' reports, which I've previously
mentioned and often cited extracts from.

Containing over 200 cases which feature 'triangles', 'deltas',
etc., it's a consummate source of raw data.

Coming with my disclaimer, 'sold as seen - you never bought it
'ere mate', these reports cover most, maybe all, of the elements
which encapsulate that twilight zone between UFOs/black
aircraft/contemporary mythology.

Some can be attributed to the satellite triplets previously
identified, others might be explained as commercial aircraft
appearing in an unfamiliar guise to the observer, a few could
conceivably be sightings of 'unusual' aircraft and there's the
expected, occasional 'total whacko' experience [easily spotted!].

There remains that core of cases which seem ostensibly credible -
and most of them probably are - yet are difficult to rationalise
at _face value_.

What distinguishes these and has always set the 'triangular UFO'
aspect aside, are the detailed descriptions, often of an object,
or objects, allegedly seen at close proximity. Mercifully, no
'hypnotic regression' involved either.

The case reports have been collated in one large text file which
can downloaded from my web site at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/nuforc.txt

The file is 383k in size.


Re the 'Midway city' video �

The NUFORC data includes several reports where a 'beam' is
directed downwards from the perceived object (outwith the NUFORC
material there are other such claims) and emitted from a large,
central light.

Not exactly what we would expect from advanced alien technology,
it has to be said.

Col. Halt's, documented on tape, 'laser-like' beam of light from
an unidentified, overhead object comes to mind.

I have suggested that Halt's 'UFO' could have been a helicopter
and depending on which evidence you accept, it is claimed
helicopters had been scrambled at that time, although Halt
refutes this.

I've also corresponded with one of the helicopter's maintenance
support team who assures that no helicopters were airborne then.

How consistent is that 'Midway' footage with a helicopter's
focused, searchlight beam?


James.



[Edited from the UFO Research List]
Billion Dollar Secret

On Sunday 4 July, Channel 5 TV in the UK broadcast a documentary
entitled, 'Billion Dollar Secret', in which Nick Cook, a British
aviation journalist and correspondent for 'Jane's Defence
Weekly', investigated the US 'black budget' programmes.

The documentary featured interviews with Jack Gordon, CEO of the
'Skunk-Works' and Boyd Bushman, who works with 'advanced
concepts' for LockMart.

Bushman made an intriguing reference about research into applying
charges to objects, causing them to lose weight.

Also featured were Mark Farmer and Glenn Campbell, discussing
�Area 51�.

The most interesting interview, I thought, was with Lt. Gen.
George Muellner who acknowledged that 'black projects' are kept
that way until they 'mature' - a very apt phrase.

The following discussion between Nick Cook (NC) and 'General'
Muellner (GM), transcribed from a recording of the program, was
incredible and most illuminating:

NC: General, I've just spent a couple of days in Southern
Colorado, where a lot of apparently credible witnesses are
reporting sightings of apparently unconventional aircraft, and I
mean things like huge black triangles, silent helicopters, all
kinds of extraordinary craft.

Should we be looking to the USAF for whatever is going on in this
place?

GM: Well, the only programmes that I'm aware of that we have
operating out in that environment... obviously are 117s operate
out of Holloman... they're triangular shaped, obviously they're
black and they operate at night quite frequently and so on.

All of the rest of the aeroplanes we have operating down in the
Holloman area in particular are all conventional airplanes.

So, I don't know of any other development programmes or anything
else that's going on down in that area or in southern Colorado in
general, or for that matter in the New Mexico area.

We don't have anything of significance operating there.

I can tell you as an aviator though, quite frequently it's very,
very difficult to discern what a platform is. B-2 for instance,
if you're looking near co-altitude with it, it just seems to
disappear into the background.

NC: But again, these people are describing things that literally
hover over them sometimes, seemingly unmistakable sightings of
these things.

GM: Well, I'll tell you, if they can get me the name of the
contractor and whosoever�s operating, I'd love to put them under
contract to develop some of these things.


Which is the most extraordinary confirmation of the point I've
been emphasising during recent years and specifically highlighted
in the material posted to the UFO Research List in the past
weeks.

There is no evidence that the USAF has any triangular-shaped
aircraft capable of hovering, or travelling at 'walking pace',
yet also able to suddenly accelerate at 'phenomenal' speed.

Even if USAF had developed such technology, they would not be
operating these aircraft over densely populated areas at the
frequently reported 'tree-top' level and especially, would
refrain from harassing people as reported in the numerous,
comparable, 'highway encounters', which are the essence of this
'triangular UFO' enigma.

Finally, someone was able to ask the simple question of a senior
USAF representative - should  these reports of amazingly low-
altitude, hovering, triangular-shaped 'UFOs' be attributed to
covert USAF developments [nudge, nudge, just give us a 'say no
more' nod].

The answer - if only we did have that capability.

If the USAF doesn't have it now, then presumably we can conclude
they certainly didn't have it in the 1960s/70s/80s.

There is of course possibly, if not probably, a mundane
explanation for all of the reports which come into this category.

However, there are some 'curious' repercussions from this
development.


I wonder what Lt. Gen. Muellner would have said in answer to
'UFO' sightings of 'triangular' craft, accompanied by recognised
USAF aircraft, say... over the North Sea in 1989.

Or the Belgian 'triangular UFO' reports.

Pity Nick didn't ask about this.


James.

NOTE:
Confirmed by a list subscriber -

Until July '98, Lt.Gen. Muellner was principal deputy, Office of
the Asst. Secretary of Air Force for Acquisition. In the late 70s
and early 80s he flight tested classified a/c. His duties whilst
in office included management of the USAS acquisition system.

So far as inside knowledge of �black budget� programs goes,
basically, he�s �the man�!



Anyone who supports UFORL's objectives can subscribe by sending a
blank message to:

UFORL-subscribe@listbot.com

It's a moderated forum.


(c) James Easton
July 1999

E-mail: voyager@ukonline.co.uk
Voyager On-line: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 6

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 20:33:05 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:36:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:42:59 -0600
>Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:22:20 -0400
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

Previously, Sue had written:

>I've been quiet for some time now.  Before the "debate" between
>John Rimmer, John Velez and Roger Evans turns into another name
>calling session on this list, I'd like to try another
>track...one that I just found...one that I need to pass on to
>you all.  It has energized my mind to try to find more answers.

Hi, Sue.

I take exception to your interpretation of my response to Mr.
Valez. I have enough confidence in my own logic and conclusions
that I have never resorted to name calling out of frustration. A
quick run through the archives will bear this out.

Moving on, you wrote:

>Mr. Rimmer and Mr. Evans think Mr. Velez's experiences may be
>valid for John V., but are not for the majority;

Sorry, Sue. I never said any such thing. I merely defended
Leanne's right to ask a reasonable question. I, for one, have
made no conclusions regarding UFO abductions. Mr. Valez's
opinions are just as valid as the next persons. But make no
mistake; without proof, his opinions are not MORE valid simply
because of his "experiences".

>Drop the argument until you've educated
>yourselves on what other people in the scientific community are
>believing.

Why?

>The book I've had my head into is titled, HYPERSPACE by Michio
>Kaku, 1994, Oxford University Press, New York. Got it from the
>library. It's a theoretical physics book written for laypersons,
>with marvelous illustrations explaining the UFO-ET-experiential
>vs. 3-dimensional arguments we all get into on this list (plus a
>whole lot more).

<snip>

>Don't skim the book Mr. Rimmer and Mr. Evans, study it. If
>you're smart, you won't skip the Chapter Notes in the back of
>the book as you read it, either. The proof is there for you Mr.
>Rimmer and Mr. Evans, if you really want it.

I don't mean to be unkind, Sue, because I feel that you are
making a sincere effort to offer something unique to this list.
However, considering your inaccurate portrayal of my response to
Mr. Valez, it's apparent that you "skimmed" my previous post(s)
or you would not have made the mistakes you did. I only hope you
read the aforementioned book better than you read my posts.

Regarding said book; an alternate theory isn't the same as
"proof". In fact, it's not even evidence of the most basic sort.
The irony is that an alternate theory is only possible if
someone asks reasonable (and unreasonable) questions like the
one Leanne put forth.

Take care,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                      The Temporal Doorway UFO Database

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:01:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 00:08:46 -0400
Subject: The Temporal Doorway UFO Database


An attempt to provide query-oriented access to the database of
sightings which I have accumulated failed earlier this year.
However, thanks to the availability of Active Server Pages at
the new host of The Temporal Doorway, I have finally succeeded
in this effort.

The database includes:

* The Project 1947 EM Effects catalog, which consists of
previously uncataloged EM Effects cases, a portion of the BUFORA
Vehicle Interference Catalog, and all of the Preliminary Catalog
of Australian Vehicle Interference Effects (Basterfield and
Jackson).

* Jacques Vallee's Magonia catalog.

* Other cases not related specifically to EM effects.

Eventually, all of the catalogs at the site, including all
detailed HTML case presentations, will be integrated into this
database, as will future additions to the EM Effects catalog.
Note that this database release of the Project 1947 EM Effects
catalog contains significant new content from the BUFORA Vehicle
Interference Catalog not previously available at the site.

The query facility initially presented is primitive, but more
features will be added soon. The only queries currently possible
are on combinations of words and phrases in the summary of the
case (which in some cases is a quite extensive text). Other
features which will be added include date, location, and
classification queries.

Note that large queries may time out - these are typically
queries which produce over 200k of HTML. An error message is
produced if this occurs.

The database consists of over 1600 cases, some with detailed
summaries. Currently, the query results only display the date,
location, and the complete summary. Again, more options will be
offered in the near future.

Please feel free to use this database as a reference. It can be
accessed from the main UFO page at The Temporal Doorway

        http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm

or directly at

        http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/catalog/database/query.htm

Please feel free to provide feedback to my e-mail address

        mcashman@ix.netcom.com

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                               Meteor Over NZ

From: William Sawers <wsawers@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:31:03 +1200
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 07:31:55 -0400
Subject: Meteor Over NZ


Just coming over the news that a meteor exploded over Nth West
New Zealand Coast this afternoon. Reports have been reported of
a _huge_ explosion, seen from Auckland to the West Coast of the
Sth Island.

A white cloud of smoke was shown on Television News. Interviews
told of ppl hearing the explosion and looking to the sky saw
debris falling in a "falling Leaf" pattern.

Unusually, this was seen in the daytime. Observer after
observer described the event as a _huge_ explosion with houses
and other buildings shaken as though an earthquake hit them.

It was estimated to have been 100-150 kms up when it burnt up,
but this has since been revised to 50-75kms No debris has been
recovered as yet.

This is certainly causing a big stir in this neck of the woods.

More details as I get them






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 7

                        Meteor Explodes Today Over NZ

From: William Sawers <wsawers@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:47:57 +1200
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 07:34:38 -0400
Subject: Meteor Explodes Today Over NZ


A meteor exploded at an altitude of approx 50-76kms revised from
150-200kms above Nth West Coast of New Zealand today.

Unusually it was seen during the daytime.

Talk Back radio listeners heard the explosion through the phone
lines and it has been described as a HUGE explosion, leaving a
white cloud and falling sparks and debris falling in a "falling
leaf" pattern.

The meteor was seen over a wide area, from Auckland to the West
Coast of the Sth Island. Described as like an earthquake, the
resulting explosion shook central New Zealand houses and
Business' to their foundations.

Considered _very_ unusual because it was seen so clearly during
the daylight hours and having such a loud explosion, with
resulting debris, none of which has been found or handed in.

More news as it comes to hand....

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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                                Back On-Line

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:38:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:38:21 -0400
Subject: Back On-Line




Gentle Subscribers,

The road-trip is done. Mail will flow shortly - a few hours
later than planned. There's a fair amount of traffic coming
your way.

ebk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                          Blather: Epiphany Weather

From: Dave (daev) Walsh - Blather <daev@blather.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 13:52:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:43:04 -0400
Subject: Blather: Epiphany Weather

______________________________________________________
B  L  A  T  H  E  R

p a r a n o r m a l   p r o v o c a t e u r i s m

By Dave (daev) Walsh daev@blather.net
Web: http://www.blather.net
_______________________________________________________
July 5th 01999, Dublin, Ireland   Vol 3. No. 3
_______________________________________________________

Lily O'Briens is a manufacturer of premium handmade chocolates
located in the heart of County Kildare in the Emerald Green
Island of Ireland. Surf along to their website and feast your
eyes - and order via our secure server!


http://www.lilyobriens.ie/
______________________________________________________

EPIPHANY WEATHER

It's some months now since Blather last paid any direct
attention to the curious, if somewhat tiresome, phenomenon of
Irish ufology and reported UFOs. Truth be told, the respite was
sorely needed.

Still, duty-bound we return to the fray, however grudgingly. It
is with a little pride and nagging sense of futility that we
notice that we seem to be the only voice emanating from this
island which takes a critical (yet amused) view of the actions
of Irish ufologists and their subsequent newspaper coverage.
Much of this reportage seems polluted with X-Files cliches,
pointless 'facts', often providing us with little more than mere
silly-season page-filler.

A June 20th 01999, page 3 headline in *Ireland on Sunday* reads
*ETs fail to show for big date*. We commend the author of the
article, one Dara deFaoite, for his objectivity and avoidance of
the usual sensationalist cliche and device.

The story hangs on the proceedings of the night of June 17th,
when our old friends, Eamon Ansbro of the Programme for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Research (PEIR) and Alan Sewell of
the Irish Centre for UFO Studies (ICUFOS), invited a hoard of
journalists to 'one of the country's most dramatic vantage
points, the Chieftain's Horse... to gaze skyward on the word of
a former NASA meteorologist who predicted that at least one UFO
would be sighted over Boyle that evening'. The sighting was
predicted, it seems, for 00:30 hours, i.e. Friday morning.

Now, this is curious... the next paragraph states that:

'Eamon Ansbro, Ireland's leading ufologist and founder member of
the Irish Centre for UFO Studies (ICUFOS), believes he can
calculate when alien craft will enter our atmosphere for us to
see.'

This would seem to imply that a Mr. Ansbro has worked for NASA,
*not* something we were aware of... but then, even Richard
Hoagland, purveyor of the 'Mars Face' idea, has worked for NASA.
Perhaps Mr. deFaoite could tell us more about the NASA
connection. Mr. Ansbro would presumably refrain from
elaborating. We think he doesn't like us, something of which we
are not greatly surprised. But we digress.

Mr. Ansbro was equipped, on the night in question, with a
"spacecraft-tracking camera", apparently costing some �15,000
and 'standing a mean 7ft tall and linked up to at least three TV
monitors, the specialised equipment rotated spontaneously
capturing certain areas of sky as it turned.'


According to Ansbro, this device should "able to tell what kinds
of elements are emitted by the craft by using special light
filters once it locks onto a craft".

DeFaoite makes mention, if not by name, of Roy Dutton's
*Astronautical Theory*. Ansbro tells him that "there are at
least 660 known orbital tracks which have been monitored by
scientists and ufologists since 1880. From these, we can predict
when they will appear in any one zone".

Eighteen-hundred and eighty? Surely an oversight on the part of
Mr. deFaoite or *Ireland on Sunday*? While we would happily
accept that people have been seeing weird and inexplicable
things in the heavens for a lot longer than 119 years, we
harbour a not inconsiderable arsenal of doubt on this matter.
Surely *someone* meant 1980?

DeFaoite seems to display an amused literary gasp of incredulity
at the claims of "orbital tracks", 'which apparently circle the
earth like an American Airlines' traffic control map'. Also
interviewed was ufologist Betty Myler, head of the Irish UFO
Society. We thought she was involved with the 'Western UFO
Society'. What with these two organisations, PEIR, ICUFOS and
the Irish UFO and Paranormal Research Association (IUFOPRA),
Ireland seems rather well catered for. Small wonder, however,
that this writer would be unlikely to be discovered in the Good
Books of the aforementioned organisations.

Various others are quoted too, but we shall refrain, for now,
from getting into deep nit-picking of the statements made by
Myler and others present, many of whom refrained from giving
their names due to the '"unwarranted cynicism surrounding the
area"'. Cynical... us?

We would like point out that Ms. Myler *apparently* runs the
local tourist office, and seems to see the UFO phenomenon as a
source of tourism potential. Or so we are told.

One memorable quote about the alleged visitors came from unnamed
source:

"I can't say where they come from for certain but I reckon
they're travelling through time from a parallel dimension and
interfering with our reality, unbeknownst to themselves even,"
she said.

The speaker, was apparently adopted by an alien - named Astro -
at the age of two. Or so we are told (from a source other than
*Ireland on Sunday*).

Good old Alan Sewell - a man always seems fairly non-committal,
(not that this is a bad thing) told deFaoite that  '"anyone who
openly states that they believe in extraterrestrial life is, in
effect, placing their heads on the chopping block".

Blather thinks that anyone who openly states that they believe
in the *possibility* of extraterrestrial life may happily escape
the guillotine.

Alas Sewell seems to fall at the next fence:

'"I would be very foolish to say to you" 'Yes, there are ETs out
there,' because I've never seen them but we can definitely say
there are unidentified craft circling the earth on a regular
basis".

Proof, please, Alan? *Evidence* even?

This is not to say that Blather doesn't believe in the
possibility that Sewell's assertion is correct. We just want to
poke our digits in the Messiah's wounds, that's all.


Dara deFaoite closes his article (and a decent one at that) by
telling us that other than a few satellites, nothing of interest
was seen in the heavens that night.

However, rumour has it that 'something' was seen - but not by
any members of the press. Oh no, they were looking the wrong
way, apparently.

Typical.

Blather reader James Lundon was good enough to facsimile us a
cutting from the The Limerick Leader of Saturday 8th May 01999,
*Converting to UFOs in the Limerick Sky*, by Brendan Halligan,
editor of the newspaper.

Halligan recounts how he 'didn't believe there was anything of
significance in the so-called UFO phenomena', until his apparent
conversion on April 27th. Two friends of his, one male, one
female, 'both of whom are utterly sensible, highly intelligent
and patently honest' told him of their experiences - he says he
was converted at 22:30 hours. He doesn't say if his converters
had their experience on that same night or not.


The woman was watching television when the screen 'blacked out
for several seconds. A few minutes later it happened again. And
a few minutes after that it happened yet again. The lady
happened to look out her window. She could hardly believe what
she saw. Nor might I have believed it except that her story was
corroborated by her adult son.'

We find this interesting. First Halligan tells us of how *both*
witnesses 'are utterly sensible, highly intelligent and patently
honest', yet he wouldn't have believed the woman's testimony if
were not that for the corroboration of her son. Thanks to this
corroboration, Halligan's personal beliefs have been affected...

Halligan says that what they 'saw in the western sky was a
large, red, glowing, roughly saucer-shaped object with
laser-type lights. It wasn't a conventional aircraft: it hovered
silently for some 20 minutes before disappearing in the
direction of the Clare Hills'. He reckons - but his tongue is
self-consciously in his cheek - that it might have been 'some
sort of military or meteorological experiment', or even some
sort of NATO exercise - the fact that Ireland is not officially
a member of NATO notwithstanding.

Yet what he 'knows' is that 'beyond any shadow of a doubt is
that it wasn't the figment of the imagination which up to then'
he had suspected such sightings to be.

Having perused the *Limerick Leader* piece, Robert Anton Wilson
proposes that 'this sort of story fits neatly into the Persinger
model [i.e. *Tectonic Strain Theory*]. First an obvious
electromagnetic anomaly, then a strange light... The True
Believers say "It must be a Spaceship!" The Other True Believers
say "It must be a hoax or hallucination.!" Persinger says: Maybe
a recurrent bit of Chaos in the geo-magnetic field...

'In Persinger's model, those further away may have had Jumping
Furniture and called it "spooks" or "poltergeists," and those
closer in would report  Freudian/Jungian dream material --
rapists from outer space, seductive green women from Venus,
death-rebirth experiences resembling ancient myth and modern
LSD...'


Finally, Blather received a telephone call some weeks back, from
a rather concerned young couple who had seen a UFO in the
eastern skies,

around 21:15 on Sunday April 18th, 01999, near Bracklin, which
is close to Mullingar, Co. Westmeath. Curiously, 49 weeks
beforehand, i.e. in May of 1998, they had seen a similar object,
at *the same time of night*. They reported that it made no
sound, it was about 3ft (0.91m) in diameter and '150ft (46m)
up'. We did question them on just how they determined the size
of the object, and it just seemed to be a reckoning -
unfortunately nothing even so useful as 'the size of my thumb at
arms length' was available.

On checking on what was to be seen in the night sky of April
18th, we find that, in Dublin, at 21:15, Mars was just a little
above the horizon, East-South-East. Venus was high up in the
Western skies.

This is not to say that these people mistook a planet for
anything, well... closer. At the time of our conversation with
them, we explained that  we had to consider such a 'mundane'
explanation, if only for the sake of being able to rule it out
through investigation. They seemed, understandably, a little
upset by the idea that an experience - such a *personal*
experience could have been apparently caused by mere
misidentification of a planet. We don't know whether it was or
it wasn't.

There was more than just a mere sighting of an anomalous
skyborne light source. They saw it move behind trees and *split
into two*. They even followed it in their car. Unfortunately,
the more pressing our questions, the more indignant the
witnesses became. Despite the fact that *they* had called us, we
began to feel as if we were treading in territory in which we
had no business. We asked if, while they followed it in the car,
if the light had remained in the eastern sky - we wanted to
determine whether or not it was a distant (and relatively
stationary) object, or something that really was in the
neighbourhood. The witnesses, alas, 'knew' that it was local,
and our trail of investigation dried up.

What we do know, however, is that the witnesses were profoundly
moved by their experience, and while they *did not* claim that
it the light was definitely extraterrestrial in origin, they
seemed opposed to 'mundane' explanation. They had talked to
several of the UFO groups mentioned earlier in this issue, and
even checked with aviation authorities. They wanted answers, but
seemed a little worried that they mind find them too easily.
This is again, understandable - any of us would be embarrassed
to attribute an epiphanic experience to a mere heavenly body or
low flying aircraft?


Dave (daev) Walsh
5 July 01999

______________________________________________________

Notes:
Robert Anton Wilson

http://www.rawilson.com

The Limerick Leader

http://www.limerick-leader.ie/
Blather's one run-in with Ms. Myler, plus indigence at Irish UFO
shenanigans:

http://www.blather.net/archives2/issue2no32.html

Michael Persinger's *The Tectonic Strain Theory as an Explanation for
UFO Phenomena:*

http://www.laurentian.ca/www/neurosci/tectonicedit.htm

______________________________________________________

Octocon X

The Tenth National Irish Science Fiction Convention


Guest of Honour:
Robert Rankin
Bestselling author of
The Brentford Trilogy and Apocalypso

Other Guests Include:
Eugene Byrne, Storm Constantine,
Maggie Furey, Robert Holdstock,
Graham Joyce, Tom Mathews, Ian McDonald,
Kim Newman, Geoff Ryman, Michael Scott,
Brian Stableford, Dave (Daev) Walsh and
James White

9-10 October 1999
Royal Marine Hotel
Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, Ireland




http://www.iol.ie/~jshields/octocon/

_____________________________________________________

|d|i|s|i|n|f|o|r|m|a|t|i|o|n|
the subculture search engine



http://www.disinfo.com/
Everything You Know is Wrong!
_______________________________________________________

SPONSORSHIP:
While Blather will always remain free to the subscriber, we're
always willing to talk to interested parties with regard to
sponsorship.
Contact: daev@blather.net
_______________________________________________________

For the Blather archives, please go to:



http://www.blather.net/archives/index.html
_______________________________________________________


SUBSCRIBING TO BLATHER
Send an email to:
<list@blather.net>
with the word
subscribe
in the body of the message. An automatic acknowledgement
should be returned to you by e-mail within a few minutes.

UNSUBSCRIBING
Send an email to
<list@blather.net>
with the word
unsubscribe
in the body of the message.

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
If you are having any technical problems,
please email admin@blather.net
_______________________________________________________





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:02:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:52:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:49:31 +0100

Jenny Randles wrote:

snip......

>UpDates readers have, I think, been spared the embarrassing
>farce UK folk got in the past week where a Max Burns supporter
>attempted to put on the net evidence that would lead to the
>downfall of the credibility of Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke.

Jenny's objective support in the Sheffield case is welcomed -
although the belief facists will immediately say she has been
'silenced'! But she is far too demure in hinting at what has
been going on behind the scenes.........Let's name names eh?

The 'Max Burns supporter' she refers to is none other than
Matthew Williams who privately attempted to blackmail me if I
refused to stop pointing out some of the legal facts surrounding
Max Burns and his bribing of a key witness with marijuana.

<snip>

>Frankly, when a case descends to the point that discussing
>facts about the event takes second place to proffering alleged
>stories about the private lives of investigators, simply
>suggests to me a diversionary tactic.

Precisely Jenny - the Sheffield case is littered with
diversionary tactics because Burns and co simply cannot face up
to the fact they have no evidence to back up their claims. At
the risk of boring listers further, whatever Burns and co say,
do, allege or fantasise, in the end it all comes back to the
questions posed by Dr Clarke:


"1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was
killed as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March
24, 1997.

2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all
trace of its existence hidden from the public.

3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak
District."


Entertaining though Burns and Williams may be in their inability
to realise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. Until they answer even *one* of the above questions
conclusively they are just whistling in the wind.

Happy Trails






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:28:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:03:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 20:33:05 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:42:59 -0600
>>Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:22:20 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>Previously, Sue had written:

>>I've been quiet for some time now.  Before the "debate" between
>>John Rimmer, John Velez and Roger Evans turns into another name
>>calling session on this list, I'd like to try another
>>track...one that I just found...one that I need to pass on to
>>you all.  It has energized my mind to try to find more answers.

>Hi, Sue.

>I take exception to your interpretation of my response to Mr.
>Valez. I have enough confidence in my own logic and conclusions
>that I have never resorted to name calling out of frustration. A
>quick run through the archives will bear this out.

Hi All,

I'd just like to clear a few things up. I have never taken _any_
of John's posts/comments as "namecalling." Nor do I believe that
they were intended to be. There _is_ a lot of 'nit picking'
surrounding the use of certain terms and I engage in it as much
as the next guy. But that's just semantics and not something
that anyone should take or interpret as being 'personal.'

Although it gets "heated" around here at times I don't think
that any of us intentionally set out to call anyone names.

Semantics (especially on an e-mail list) take on added
importance because we don't have the luxury of all the
additional sensory data that live dialog affords. It's tough to
read where someone is coming from or exactly 'what' they mean
sometimes because of it.

So, we will argue sometimes over the meaning and use of certain
terms. I don't take any of it personally and I don't think anyone
else should either. Heated debate is heated debate. Take from
it what you can.

>Regarding said book; an alternate theory isn't the same as
>"proof". In fact, it's not even evidence of the most basic sort.
>The irony is that an alternate theory is only possible if
>someone asks reasonable (and unreasonable) questions like the
>one Leanne put forth.

Just want to reiterate that Leanne is entitled to ask _any_
questions or put forth _any_ theories that she wishes. I was
simply taking exception to her use of terms such as "condition"
in this case re: abduction reports. Considering the fact that so
little is known about the 'nature' of abduction experience the
use of terms such as "condition" is not only premature but based
on the conclusion that it must all be psychological in nature. I
lodged my objection, expressed some thoughts and used my own
case as an example. Period.

1. I am not trying to edit or censor Leanne or anyone else. Nor
do I think that John or anyone else is trying to limit or censor
me. I sincerely hope that they feel the same about me and my two
cents.

2. I am not calling Leanne 'names' nor do I feel like anyone
else has called anyone names.

3. We're all grown-ups here and we are capable of conducting any
kind of dialog -heated or otherwise- without resorting to
personal rancor.

I think that way too much is made of "in house fighting" in
ufology or even on the UpDates list. Sure, there are 'some'
headhunters out there, but for the most part what is happening
here is simply what happens when many different people from many
different places and backgrounds get together to discuss
sensitive topics. The debate would be no less polarized or hot
if the subject was politics or the current state of the world
economy. We all happen to be passionate about this subject and
it shows in our communiques to one another.

What some percieve as "useless bickering" is a manifestation of
a self-correcting/editing mechanism that is always at work here.
It is in fact one of the most hopeful signs that the dialog is a
"healthy" one that we are conducting. Like diamonds in the
rough, we 'knock' the sharp points and corners off of each
other. The list/internet allows us to get close enough to rub up
against one another (our ideas and beliefs) and to polish each
other as we move toward consensus. It's all give and take and a
learning process that we are creating/discovering/shaping as we
go along.

I see it all as positive myself. :)

Peace,

John Velez, Listmember


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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                         Art Bell Makes 'The Times'

From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@logicon.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:41:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:07:43 -0400
Subject: Art Bell Makes 'The Times'


The Times (London) 7 June 1999

Forget shock-jock Howard Stern: America's most controversial
talk-show host is Art Bell, the right-wing crusader for the Home
of the Weird, Land of the Bizarre.

 Broadcasting coast-to-coast for up to five hours, six nights a
week, before signing on to ham radio to keep the conspiracies
flowing, Bell talks about the real taboo topics. That doesn't
mean sex or crime - everyone does those. Bell wants to hear
'Ordinary' about cattle mutilations, UFOcover-ups,
ghost-hunters, apocalypse warnings, nightmare cults, spontaneous
human combustion and black magic.

 Bell is now America's top night-time host, with a live show
broadcast on more than 400 independent stations.

 Dogged by controversy, including a family crisis which forced
him off the air for several days, and a $60 million lawsuit
against two detractors, Bell makes addictive listening.
Thousands of his audio files can be accessed at www.artbell.com.

 Everything is here - the listings, the quotes, the critics, the
wars of words, the hobby horses, the bosom buddies. It's instant
information overload from a man whose delight in the technology
of broadcasting sometimes threatens to eclipse his message.

 For a sharper focus, turn to his contributor, the environmental
activist Linda Moulton Howe, at http://earthfiles.com Regarded
by Bell as the world's top expert on bizarre animal slaughters
and the rise in natural disasters, Howe is an Emmy award-winning
TV producer of documentaries such as 'Strange Harvest', about
cattle mutilation, and 'Sun-Kissed Poison', on LA's smog.

 Her newly launched site covers the latest reports on crop
circles, UFO sightings and global warming build-up. Every
feature is backed by her audio reports from the Art Bell shows.
They load quickly and run in the background, allowing users to
listen while they click.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                  Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation

From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:21:01 -0400
Subject: Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation


Note: This is an unconfirmed report and the author is looking
for others that can confirm the event. E mail ASSAP to Bill to
coordinate research.

From:WLH1@aol.com

I have recieved a very distrubing report of a grounded UFO in
the Mojave desert here in California. The observer saw the two
crew members and reported that they looked alike. Blonde hair,
crew cut, tall, fair skinned.  Nortic Type. Almost as if they
had been cloned from the same genetic material. Have you seen
any reports like this?

Bill Howard
The New 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                             Re: Meteor Over NZ

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 13:36:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:28:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Meteor Over NZ


>From: William Sawers <wsawers@ihug.co.nz>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Meteor Over NZ
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:31:03 +1200

>Just coming over the news that a meteor exploded over Nth West
>New Zealand Coast this afternoon. Reports have been reported of
>a _huge_ explosion, seen from Auckland to the West Coast of the
>Sth Island.

>A white cloud of smoke was shown on Television News. Interviews
>told of ppl hearing the explosion and looking to the sky saw
>debris falling in a "falling Leaf" pattern.

>Unusually, this was seen in the daytime. Observer after
>observer described the event as a _huge_ explosion with houses
>and other buildings shaken as though an earthquake hit them.

>It was estimated to have been 100-150 kms up when it burnt up,
>but this has since been revised to 50-75kms No debris has been
>recovered as yet.

>This is certainly causing a big stir in this neck of the woods.

>More details as I get them


Dear William:

Can you possibly fix the day/date and time in UTC hours?
Obviously, the exact location is debatable!

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                   UFO in the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:11:09 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:32:30 -0400
Subject: UFO in the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil


The Diario de Natal Newspaper released on july 06, that a UFO
was filmed. The place was the city of Jardim das Piranhas, Rio
Grande do Norte.

Amateur film producer taped a strange object in the Jardim das
Piranhas. Ricardo Rilley Cavalcantede Oliveira, 32 years old,
resident at the Pedro Arajo Street, has his attenntion
attracted when he left his house, at 08:00 Pm, on saturday and
catched his camera to record a special scene. The young man, who
works with filming of weddings, commented with some friends and
soon the news spreaded, causing the exhibition at the public
square os the city on sunday evening.

At the same night, the phenomenon repeated stronger. "A see the
stars very small, but that object is the size of 20 stars". We
can see the colors only in the tape.

"It was just a shine, like a fluorescent light. It was blue at
that time, and then became reddish", sad the cameraman.

Ricardo Rilley said that the object was like a plate and below a
trace like a ruler.

The sighting lasted 10 minutos and the camera's battery  lower.
"When i came back wioth a new one, the object was gone".
"Yesterday, sunday, I filmed again, but it appered higher, then
the people saw me filming and they came to see. Everybody saw
it.

The object was more shine and i could taped better.

The young cameraman sad that the thing a white orb and them
became red, with a green circle around the hole, that chaneged
it's colors.

THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
http://www.ufomind.com/people/t/ticchetti/
********** I LOVE MY COUNTRY, I LOVE BRAZIL**************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                             Re: Santanic Abuse

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:37:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:35:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Santanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

Hi List Members, Hello Roger,

Thanks for responding to my little note. This is a real tome. If
you want to cut and chop, ebk, feel free. I sometimes offend
because I don't explain well...or I misinterpret someone else's
intent. My intent, as you guessed, Roger, was to share my
excitement about what logically appears to carry another piece
of this huge puzzle.  I don't have the answers. I'm just
thinking maybe Einstein, Maxwell and Hinton do!

>><snip> John Velez wrote:

>>>At that point the interpretation becomes a manifestation of individual
>>>denial and the act of someone who is being (subjectively)
>>>selective about _what_parts_ of any given testimony he or she is
>>>going to give credence to. I'll believe this part, but I won't
>>>believe that part because it doesn't fit into my personal world
>>>view. What is that?
>Roger wrote:

>>Hi, John.

>>"What is that?"

>>Well, to be quite frank, it's exactly what _you_ do. It's also
>>what I do. It's what anyone does with no facts or evidence or
>>proof regarding a given situation.

You all may be very well educated about the "mathematical
proofs" inherent in Einstein's, Maxwell's and Hinton's
theoretical equations. I sure wasn't. What the semetry of the
mathematical proofs suggests to me is an all encompassing
possibility (i.e., that the 4th dimension [time-space] is just
another plane, like the 2nd and 3rd dimensions).  It is simply
that we act and think as "flatlanders," if we were existing in
the 2nd dimension, that we have trouble visualizing another or
4th dimension. I think _maybe_ I can explain this concept via
Michio Kaku's book, HYPERSPACE, and the similes I can draw from
it with regard to our EBE and OBE experiences.

2nd Dimension:  Draw a square on a piece of paper.  A
"flatlander" living in the 2nd dimension can see and understand
everything only in the 2nd dimension.  That 4-sided square is
the "flatlander's" experiential proof that he exists and that
the square exists as he sees it.  He/she is not able to
visualize, see or draw a cube in 3 dimensions.

3rd Dimension:  In order for the "flatlander" to understand the
third dimension, he must hold something he can't see in his hand
(a cube), and then shine a light down onto the cube, so that the
shadow reflected onto the paper makes the shape of a 4-sided
square (in 2 dimensions).  He can see the square and understand
that whatever he is holding in his hand must exist (even though
he can't see it) because it casts the 4-sided shadow of a square
in 2 dimensions.  That's his experiential proof that the 3rd
dimension exists, that he is holding something solid in his
hand, even though he can't see it.

4th Dimension:  We can use mathematical proofs to determine that
the 4th dimension exists (like the shadow of the cube to form
the square on paper). We are limited by our perception, so have
trouble visualizing how to wrap up a 3-dimensional cube (as in
the form of a cross) to make 1 compact cube in the 4th
dimension.  But, we can draw the equivalent of that 4th
dimensional cube in 3 dimensions. Therefore, it is logical that
the 4th dimension exists, even if we can't see it, or feel it.

I don't know if there needs to be a dichotomy between the 3rd
and 4th dimension (space-time). _If_ there's a 4th dimension,
why not 10 dimensions? In fact, according to Michio Kaku, in his
book HYPERSPACE, that's how many some scientists think there
are!  So, the possibility of the existence of other dimensions,
in the same time frame as ours on a different plane, or other
dimensions on other time and space planes (like heaven or hell,
or all the other multitude of religious beliefs and faiths)
could fit right in. You don't have to be a "believer" or a
"debunker."  See?

As a matter of fact. My own out-of-body experience (being dead
for over 5 minutes) and coming back now indicates (to me) that I
was within the same time continuum, but on another plane or
dimension.  I remember watching everything that went on in the
emergency room, and had no trouble picking out and thanking the
emergency room tech who revived me, as well as the other nurses
and doctors, including what was said and by whom. Therefore, I
logically believe that I was experiencing proof of some other
dimension. This only happened 2-1/2 years ago.

Yes, it was "my" proof, but it also opened up the minds of some
of the nurses and doctors who witnessed the aftermath of the
event. It certainly changed my perspective on life/death. I was
convinced by my experience. I'm not afraid to die anymore. I'm
also enjoying the 3 dimensions I live in more! Was "my proof"
enough "proof" for _all_ those other doctors and nurses? I doubt
it. Like John Velez said, it's sometimes "hard to straddle the
fence line" especially when we _all_ want to see in 3
dimensions.  Even (and especially) us experiencers.

As far as being an "experiencer" vs. "abductee," a lot did
depend on what happened during the "visit."  Those visits
were/are certainly as "real" _to me_ as the OBE I had.
Unfortunately, _on most occasions_, there weren't and haven't
been any witnesses around to corroborate what happened during
the EBE's. And, that is one of the underlying reasons I don't
trust the beings. They seem to have another agenda, one that I
don't or can't understand. I'd like to believe it's benevolent.
But, I'm not a "new-age" believer. Too much "other," "bad" stuff
has happened in their company. Is that paranoid thinking? My
experience, my "proof" says not.

I have one very visible burn scar remaining on my right calf
that was checked by a burn specialist 2 days after the
occurrence. The burns went to the bone, and at the time it
occurred, I was screaming and crying. "They" quickly quelled the
pain with something that looked like a tire gauge (it did!), and
reassured me that though they would blister, I would be alright.
I have conscious recall of how, when, where I got the burns. I
can tell you, that in 1961, there was no government
experimenting on children in their bedrooms with 3-dimensional
laser-built transporters that could move into the 4th dimension
(through walls). We could barely get into orbit as I recall. Is
that enough "proof" for others? I don't know. It certainly is
for me. Pain is a great reality check. What I always _wanted_ to
believe were "bad dreams" suddenly became oh so real, fast, when
I was burnt accidentally!  That was the "last long visit." Think
they got worried? I do. There have been "check-up visits" but no
more on-going experiences.

Do I think these experiences, the EBE's and the OBE's people
(including myself) have had are real? Yes. Do I think they are
happening on the same dimensional plane? Nope. Do I have proof?
Not the kind we'd all like to have and hold in our hands. All I
have left is the "shadow," a burn scar.

I have taken numerous psychological tests and have come out "as
normal as blueberry pie." I don't even have an "overly active
imagination." Just a little higher IQ than some (although some
of my very best friends would debate both points). Yes, I'm a
lot scared when these visits occur. I never know what to expect.
I'm also exhilarated at times from what I learn (at the time).
Unfortunately, it's like reading a good book...you can remember
the plot but have trouble remembering the character's names.
That's another reason I don't trust these beings. You'd think
that with all their other-worldly knowledge, and their apparent
desire for us to learn, they'd let us at least remember what
"caca" they taught us!  Groan.  That's how to feel realllllly
inadequate.

This is a real tome. Sorry ebk. Hope I got this letter "right"
this time. I have a whole lot of trouble remembering to put in
transitions, etc. Thanks all for your patience, and whatever
understanding you could glean from this.  Read Michio Kaku's
book. It makes all I've said very clear.

Just try to keep an open mind. The fact that a lot of you are
"debunkers" is probably what will finally turn the tide, and we
will _find_ the "proof." Maybe, if we work reallllly hard, and
have some luck, a couple of you will be around when something
_does_ happen.  Oh, I sure hope so. But, I realllly don't want
anything bad to happen to anyone, and that scares me too.  It's
like being in a realllly bad traffic accident.  Just before you
crash, you pray, "Oh please God, don't let anyone else get
hurt."  Hugs, Sue S.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:38:18 -0400
Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

Stig

***

From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700


Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.

Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.

Witnesses report seeing unusual lights in sky over the beach
roughly 1000 yards to the north of Stearns Wharf in Santa
Barbara, California. Unusual light phenomena persisted for
nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
described as "electrified crackling").

The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
illuminated.

On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
classic "falling leaf" pattern.

Smoke occasionally was visible, possibly due to alien propulsion
system.

Witness #22 (K.K.) reports that she attempted to communicate
with the aliens using a flashlight, following the regimen
suggested by the work of Dr. Steven Greer. Bursts of light
frequently occurred in response to these ground-based signals,
indicating that the phenomena was intelligently directed.

Several witnesses presumed that the light bursts constituted a
form of code. Film footage will be analyzed for this, if the
government has not confiscated said footage.

Number of witnesses: Unknown, but estimated to be in the
thousands.

Possible military involvement. Naval ship spotted in the
vicinity. Many witnesses report seeing what appeared to be
weapons fire directed at the lights. Ships appeared to be
protected by some form of protective shield.

Comment: I'd like to see the skepti-bunkers denounce THIS
sighting as a heat inversion, Venus, or swamp gas!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        Firmage Interviewed By ZDnet

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:54:24
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:43:01 -0400
Subject: Firmage Interviewed By ZDnet


Source: ZDnet,

http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/bigthinkers/interact/story/0,6917,2288925,00.html

Stig

***

Joe Firmage Transcript

**

Big Thinkers: Joining us on Big Thinkers is one of the most
talked about people in Silicon Valley, Joe Firmage. So, Intend
Change, what's that about? You going from prophesy to
profiteering again?

Firmage: Well, hopefully a graceful combination of both the .com
and .org frame of mind. Intend Change is a venture construction
company that will build a small number of breakthrough new
businesses in partnership with a keiretsu if you will, venture
capital resources, engineering, and marketing talent, and also
the sort of management consulting to put all the moving pieces
together.

Big Thinkers: So what's the difference between everybody else
that's jumping on the VC bandwagon?

Firmage: Well, a number of things. First of all, the people
forming Intend Change have about as much experience in the
Internet economy as anybody on the planet. It's that simple. We
are financed by the organization that financed Yahoo! and
eTrade, and USWeb. We've got, of course USWeb/CKS.

Big Thinkers: You're talking about Softbank?

Firmage: Softbank, yes.

Big Thinkers: I must mention that Softbank is actually a part
owner of ZDTV.

Firmage: Sure. Softbank as you well know has its hands in a lot
of the leading ventures of the Internet economy. Also,
Crosspoint Ventures, with whom I go back almost a decade in
various venture capital projects. But, perhaps the most
important [aspect] of Intend Change is the expertise that we're
bringing to bear. We are hiring the seal team of Internet
economy experts, who have been there, done that, on multiple
occasions in the past half decade. And have been some of the
pioneers of assembling what we think is the Detroit of the next
century.

Big Thinkers: What did you see on the Web this time that made
you feel like you could step in and there was an opportunity
there?

Firmage: Well, we have seen at USWeb, a staggering number of
good ideas that are still-born, for lack of the expertise and
the resources to wire them together properly. We are going to
pick off 10 to 15 of the very best of those ideas, generated
either from entrepreneurs, or as spinouts from Fortune 500
companies, which is something we should talk about. And put all
of the pieces together: the management teams, the venture
capital, the strategic alliances, both inside the industry and
in the economy as a whole. To really launch these ventures
properly.


Now About Them Aliens


Big Thinkers: Your views that led you to leave USWeb obviously
didn't scare away these big investors. Have your views changed?
Have they modified since we last spoke?

Firmage: Not at all. In fact, I'm in a better position than ever
as a result of my ongoing studies and my investments in the
space sciences project to comment on it. And we'll get to that
conversation in a moment. But I think it's important to note
that the difference between USWeb and Intend Change, with
respect to my extra-curricular publishing activities, is that
the expectations are set properly in advance here. I stepped
back from USWeb because the expectations there had previously
not been set. At Intend Change I'm dealing with folks who have
been pre-disclosed. The market knows, the employees know, and
anybody who works with me knows that these are things that I
think about. These are things that I'm going to invest in and
study.

Big Thinkers: Now there are a flurry of questions from our
viewers. We've asked viewers to send in the NetCam questions.
We've got one right here. We received this NetCam question from
Colleen in Redwood City.

Colleen: I'd like to know why you believe that modern technology
is connected with aliens?

Firmage: This first and fundamental question is this: Is it
possible for life across the cosmos to develop a form of
propulsion more advanced than controlled firecrackers and jet
turbines? I, and a large body of new physicists believe the
answer to that question is definitively yes. If it is possible,
then there are all sorts of astronomers and cosmologists who
would leap over to my side of the debate and say, "Well, it's
almost certain then that humanity has been visited in the past
by advanced forms of life." If that is so, then we need to
consider more carefully the relatively well documented, better
documented than most people think, idea that at certain times in
this century, yes remarkable events have occurred that are not
public. But, that is not the center of my hypothesis. My
hypothesis does not rest anywhere close to Roswell, New Mexico.

Big Thinkers: Did you ever believe that this was going to
happen, that this was how people would respond, and was it worth
it?

Firmage: I presumed that this is the response that I would get.
But, the reason I did it was because I work with scientists and
engineers and theologians and others who for a variety of
reasons don't have the millions of dollars that I do to be able
to risk my career on talking about such subjects. The scientists
that I work with for example, behind the scenes, cannot suffer
the type of credibility damage that�

Big Thinkers: So you put yourself forward?

Firmage: Absolutely. Because I think society needs to be mature
enough to start thinking outside of the boundary conditions of
20th century physics, which we know are not a closed subject. We
all presume in western civilization that the gods of 20th
century physics have explained the fundamentals of the cosmos.
That is not so. They have derived in the past 80 years
remarkably effective mathematical equations that describe
certain parts of nature. However, every physicist knows that the
fundamental of space-time, of which I write and others write,
has not been discerned. And it is precisely in that domain that
these great innovations will arise.

Big Thinkers: If I said that your views were taken to heart and
actually were incorporated, what would transpire?

Firmage: We would start compensating the leading researchers in
engineering and science, who are pushing the limits on the reach
of humanity, at least as much as we pay our sports figures. To
me it's utterly inexcusable for society to trivialize what could
be the most profound revolution in human science ever. And at
the same time glorify the tactical and the tedious. We have
become a society which has lost its sense of discovery,
convincing ourselves that we are forever bound on this small
planet.

Big Thinkers: How could you say that? I mean, there are so many
discoveries in biotechnology, nanotechnology, cloning, on the
Internet? How could you say at a time like this that we've lost
our desire for discovery?

Firmage: That is true to a large extent in every discipline of
science other than the discipline of science which underlies
them all. Physics. Physics is to scientist what Genesis is to
the faithful. And when you have a revolution in physics, you
have a revolution in all science built there on. Which means
chemistry, geology, biology, and basically all of the
engineering disciplines that we've built on those sciences. This
is very profound stuff we're talking about.

Big Thinkers: Let's take another video mail question. This one
comes from Britt Morris from San Francisco, who wants to know
about the possible cover-up.

Morris: If there really is this big conspiracy, how come so many
people bought into it, and it hasn't been uncovered yet?

Firmage: That's an excellent question. It's one that I don't try
to spend much time talking about because I don't want to get
down the rat hole of conspiracy theories and all that stuff.

Big Thinkers: What about proof?

Firmage: I'll tell you the best information I have. The best
information I have is that the organization that does have,
shall we say, better knowledge than the public is much smaller
than you might guess. It is very small. It is also
quasi-private, established half a century ago and essentially
custodians for one of the greatest secrets of all time.
Remember, 50 years ago there was no such thing as a calculator.
The most advanced technology that John Q. Citizen was familiar
with was a Studebaker. Most people did not know the difference
between a moon and a planet. And you talk about the introduction
of knowledge that you're being visited by extra-terrestrials?


Visions in the Night


Big Thinkers: You yourself have mentioned, in The Truth, you
mentioned being visited by something. And I know you've said it
a million times before, but just for the recorded, tell me
exactly what happened.

Firmage: Well, a lot of people throughout history have
experienced what I've described. It was an image of a visitor.
At home. Waking up at 6:10 in the morning. Ready to head out to
the gym. My alarm clock goes off. I slam my hand down on the
snooze button as I tend to do. And in the next nine minutes this
image of a person hovered over my bed for about three minutes
and we had a conversation about space travel.

Big Thinkers: What did you say?

Firmage: He spoke first. He said, "So, why have you bothered
me?" He looked annoyed and perturbed. I said, I was between
asleep and awake, and I said, "Because I want to travel in
space." And he chuckled and said, "Well why should you have that
opportunity?" And I said without even thinking, "'Cause I'm
willing to die for it."

Big Thinkers: And are you?

Firmage: It's been a dream of mine since I was very, very young.
I was into astronomy and science in general starting at age 8 or
9. Bought my first telescope at age 11 and got a physics
scholarship. So I've been thinking about this sort of stuff for
a long time. But I will tell you something. You talk to anybody
in my background. Anybody. They will tell that you I'm one of
the most rational left brain type people they've ever met. So
for me to have that experience was a wake-up call, so to speak.

Big Thinkers: But the analogies to religion are very, very
strong.

Firmage: Sure.

Big Thinkers: You yourself grew up in a strict Mormon family in
Salt Lake City, Utah. Didn't an angel visit Joseph Smith, the
founder of Mormonism? I mean, angel/alien?

Firmage: Yes, he did have such an experience. And I'd left the
Mormon church by age 15. So, again, what I have come to see is
that the broad reach of science and the sweeping trajectories of
world faiths may in fact be on a path of convergence that we
will see in our lifetimes. And that path of convergence has a
direction-- the cosmos.


The Internet Chasm and Aliens on the White House Lawn


Big Thinkers: You've talked about the need to get across an
Internet chasm in the economy, so, are we going to get across
that chasm or are we going to be mired by this conflict between
the potential of communication and the vulnerabilities it
creates?

Firmage: That's a superb question. It's an open question. The
problem we have today is that we do not engineer our software
systems as if they were critical systems. Very few software
systems historically have been engineered for fault tolerant
operation in any dimension. Whether scalability, or attack, or
random failure. Infrastructure Defense is designed to aggregate
the knowledge to answer that question based upon a certain set
of attributes for a given institution or organization's IT. So,
take any government agency for example. ID would go in, make a
comprehensive assessment and compare that against its knowledge
base, and make a prediction, if you will, on the plausible
scenarios and probabilities with each scenario for the
reliability of that infrastructure.

Big Thinkers: Now I guess the question is, "Will we mire
ourselves in computer viruses and computer worms?" Is it your
belief that civilizations that we may encounter in other parts
of the universe have had to cross a similar divide, and is there
something to be learned here?

Firmage: I think there is. I personally am convinced that there
is advanced life out there and that it is equipped with
technology to travel.

Big Thinkers: Superior to ours then?

Firmage: Vastly. Vastly superior to ours. Remember we have been
engineering the "energy" in space for 40,000 days. 40,000 days
in a multibillion year planetary history. We have just begun to
learn technology. And we're confronting these seminal questions
that will be recorded in the history books a millennium from now
as fascinating, historically important debates. When we engineer
systems, on the Internet for example, for virus management on a
systemic basis, these are big, big decisions. These are the
future Y2K decisions that we're making. And we make them
everyday.

Big Thinkers: In the past, when we've gone searching for other
life, like when we came over here, we've infected that life.
These people may be advanced enough to travel in space, but are
they advanced enough to withstand our human viruses, or are we
going to wipe out another race by meeting them?

Firmage: I love that question because it answers the most
frequently asked question, "Why don't they land on the White
House lawn?"

Big Thinkers: Are they afraid of the prime directive?

Firmage: It sounds kind of corny, but it makes a hell of a lot
of sense. Every time human beings have interacted with more
primitive cultures, it's been a total disaster. So, is it
realistic to believe that if you were an advanced
extra-terrestrial visitor to this young world of primates, that
you would want to empower those 6 billion animals with the most
potent technology ever conceived? Far more potent than nuclear
energy. Far more potent.

Big Thinkers: I'm wondering how you'll work some of these large
companies that you want Intend Change to do business with, some
of which are very conservative, and may consider your views a
bit out there?

Firmage: No doubt. To parse the answer. First, everybody knows,
going in, what I do in both halves of my life. So, I think
everybody's pre-disclosed on what to expect. But, also I think,
in the Internet economy, one of the things we need most,
particularly the conservative corporations, is out of the box
thinking.

Big Thinkers: Did the Mormon belief that there are many planets
and life forms similar to ours influence you at all in this
quest?

Firmage: That's an interesting question. First of all, I would
describe my spiritual worldview as interfaith. Highly
ecumenical. Highly integrating, if you will. I see profound,
deep wisdom in ancient eastern mysticism. I see the
anthropomorphic reduction of that in Judeo-Christian teachings.
By combining the two together you get a very integrated
worldview. Mormonism is interesting because it works in a modern
civilization as well as any faith. No doubt it had some
influence on me. Mormonism is a very cosmically aware faith.
But, I'll tell you again; this is not a religious crusade. It's
about the unity of rigorous signs. And also the recognition that
what science does is measure. Science is not what you are.
Science measures what you are. You are something called the
cosmos. And I think that deserves to be characterized as a
spiritual concept.


*ZDTV News | *ZDTV Radio

*Copyright � 1997-99 ZDTV LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Use of ZDTV.com is subject to certain *Terms and Conditions. We respect
your *privacy.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                     UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:06:03
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:45:25 -0400
Subject: UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal


The sender asked me to forward this.

Stig

***


From: jessica018@email.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: stevew@magiclink.net, stig.agermose@get2net.dk
Subject: ufo detection and tracking proposal

Can you please forward this to the various relevant lists? I am
not a subscriber and I don't really want to fill my mailbox with
a mailing list.

PROPOSAL FOR DETECTION AND TRACKING ANOMALOUS FLYING OBJECTS

Hello,

It seems to me one of the main problems the UFO field has is
that it has notlaunched any long term effort to gather physical
evidence in a systematic way with equipment for the purpose of
recording and tracking the phenomena. One of the reason's SETI
seems to get funding (all of it private at this point)and UFO
research does not is because UFO research by and large has not
set up any kind of monitoring station with sophisticated
electronics.

For instance usually what the public sees on TV regarding UFO
investigation is a researcher listening to stories of "lights in
the sky", or watching a hypnotic regression of an abductee. None
of these has the "gee whiz" impact of those large radio
telescopes, racks of electronic equipment, computer screens.

When such a project was started in Europe it received funding
and attracted volunteers from local universities. I am sure
something similar could be organized here and what a better time
than "the year 2000". All the testimonials in the world aren't
worth a simultaneous clear multispectral, picture, video,
magnetometer reading, and radar return. Things that physicists
and othter people have asked for frm UFOlogists for years. Isn't
about time we make this happen??

Well, I took it upon myself to begin putting together a set up
similar to Project Hessdalen

http://www.hiof.no/crulp/prosjekter/hessdalen/

So far I have a magnetometer which detects sudden distortions or
anomalies in the magnetic field (unlike hessdalen's flux gate
magnetometer which only made a longterm record of the magnetic
field). It is as you may already know, widely thought that UFO
propulsion effects the magnetic field. Many of the technologies
described in Paul Hill's "Unconventional Flying Objects" infact
would emit a electo magnetic signature which may distort the
local magnetic field. Also esoteric technologies such as "warp
drive", 'gravity modification" etc which are being investigated
by NASA's Breakthrough Physics Program eould most definatly be
detectable on this magnetometer.

If there is a slight variation in the local magnetic field an
alarm goes off and alerts me to check the radar for any
anomalous objects.

I also have obtained a marine radar unit slightly better than
the one Project Hessdalen used. This radar is a phased array
"search radar" similar to the kind used by air traffic
controllers many years ago before the computerized systems
(which ignore UFO's BTW) came online.

This radar has tracked helicopters and airplanes as well as
balloons, and even nearby birds and distant storms! So far no
UFO's but that may have more to do with my Center City
Philadelphia location. I would be interesting to set up
something similar say in the "mysterious valley" in Colorado, or
near Green River Utah, or perhaps near the Palmdale Plant in
California or in Rachel, Nevada outside of "Area 51". In fact
ANY UFO hotspot should have one of these monitoring stations.

Other planned equipment for mine are a Gieger Counter, an
Ultrasonic listening device, a CCD video camera and Silcon
Graphics workstation, a multispectral photographic camera, a 3-D
photographic camera. A night vision (infared) camera, a full
frequency spectrum display (5hz-1500hz) and a gravitometer.

The setup I am looking to have in the near future is simply:


The Magnetometer:               $200*
The Radar Unit:                 $1300*
The IR Viewer:                  $250
The Utrasonic Reciever          $150
The 3-D Camera                  $300

* = indicates I already own this.


I would LOVE to assist any investigation in this area, or build
all of this into the back of a van (it would easily all fit in a
corner of an average sized van) for mobile use to areas of high
UFO activity.

As you can see the total cost of the above setup is a mere $2200
dollars. This is only a fracktion of the cost of any a SETI
program and is easily within the range of an ambitious
individual or the budgets of a sufficiently large UFO
organization (MUFON? FUFOR? NIDS? ISUR? BUFORA?)

I just want to clarify, I am a skeptic when it comes to this
phenomena. I could care one way or the other if there are aliens
fliting about the skies, however I do believe there is an
interesting phenomena that needs studied in a systematic way.
(Just call me Scully.) If anyone else is interested in the
specifics of this setup, how we can work together to gather
data, or how one can build such a monitoring station (it was
easy for me and I am certainly no physicist or electrical
engineer, most components are usuable right out off the shelf
thanks to current technology) they can email me at the above
address. Likewise, if anyone is already running such an
operation or is about to set one up, please by all means email
me as there is no sense reinventing the wheel.

truely,
jessica johnson
jessica018@email.com
Project DATAFO
(Detection And Tracking of Anomalous Flying Objects)











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                              Re: Doug & Dave?

From: Robert Irving <RobIrving@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:25:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:50:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:12:53 -0400
>From: Lesley Cluff <manitou@fox.nstn.ca>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

Lesley,

>Second, is it true (Brits should know about this one) that
>either Dave or Doug, I forget which, suffers so badly from
>arthritis that  he could not possibly do the necessary difficult
>and heavy walking, dragging whatever behind him long enough or
>well enough to actually create a circle.  Or maybe he just does
>the designing?

No, it's not true. Dave Chorley's death some years ago had
nothing to do with arthritis, and Doug Bower seems as fit as
ever - certainly enough to still be making circles.

Rob






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:34:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:56:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed




>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:49:31 +0100

>But also Dave, Andy Roberts and I have been
>writing a book together.


Hi All,

Interesting this, speaks volumes!

Do you have a working title for the book!

Roy..






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                 At Least 100 Members Of UFO Cult Missing In

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:55:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:04:21 -0400
Subject: At Least 100 Members Of UFO Cult Missing In

Source: Reuters via Wired News,

http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/20638.htm

Links are preceded by an asterisk.

Stig

***

UFO Cult Disappears in Colombia

Reuters

5:00 p.m.  8.Jul.99.PDT

**

At least 100 members of a religious cult were missing in
northern Colombia after they went to rendezvous with a UFO they
believed would save them from "the end of the world," relatives
said on Thursday.

"My daughter told me she had to leave because a cataclysm was
going to occur, and that she had to go to a high place to meet
extraterrestrials who would save them from the end of the
world," said Andrea de Echenique, whose daughter, Maria
Bernarda, is among the missing.

The followers of the so-called Stella Maris Church, which
describes itself as a gnostic organization, headed out to the
Sierra Nevada mountains in two groups on Friday and over the
weekend.

A police spokesman in the Caribbean resort of Cartagena, where
most of the cult members lived, said they had received reports
that the group had disappeared.

Up until now, there had been no known reports of doomsday cults
operating in Colombia. But in 1978, South America was the scene
of the worst mass suicide ever when more than 900 American
followers of the People's Temple killed themselves in Jonestown,
Guyana.

Cartagena police said, however, that no search operation had
been mounted since there was no indication that the Stella Maris
cult was planning mass suicide, or that any of the members had
been forced to go along against their will.

"The leader of the group told them the world was going to end in
August and that they had to go to the Sierra Nevada to meet some
aliens," said Pedro Perez. Four of his relatives are missing
with the other cult members.

Leaders of a gnostic group in Bogota said it did not have any
links with the Stella Maris group but had heard reports of its
beliefs.

"People had told us that certain practices of the Stella Maris
group were fanatical and dogmatic.... Over the last two years
they had been talking about a meeting with UFOs," said Wilson
Martinez, a gnostic "archbishop" in Bogota.

Martinez said gnostics believe in the spiritual but not the
historical existence of Christ and looked to "free their souls
with knowledge."

Family members have accused Rogelio Perea, self-styled head of
the Stella Maris cult, of swindling his followers out of their
homes, property, and money. They also say he forced members to
sever ties with their families.

"The two leaders told my daughter Liliana that she was God's
chosen one and made her change her name to Stella Maris to
brainwash her. She was convinced she was going to make contact
with flying saucers," said Mariela Tovar.

But others close to the Stella Maris group believe its 100 or so
members have simply gone on a routine spiritual retreat and
accuse relatives and the media of exaggerating the story.


[See also: *Aliens Out to Get Us]

Have a comment on this article?
*Send it.

Copyright � 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

              Hominid Ancestors Saw Nearby Supernova As Second

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:50:18
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:08:18 -0400
Subject: Hominid Ancestors Saw Nearby Supernova As Second

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_388000/388291.stm

Stig

***

BBC News Online: Sci/Tech

Wednesday, July 7, 1999 Published at 16:11 GMT 17:11 UK

'Star material' recovered from South Pacific

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse

**

Atoms that have travelled to Earth from a distant, exploded star have been
discovered for the first time, scientists claim.

The radioactive iron-60 atoms were recovered from ocean sediment on a
seafloor site in the South Pacific. German astronomers believe they came to
Earth from a supernova, one of nature's grandest spectacles.

When a single star explodes, it can outshine an entire galaxy of suns for
several days. It becomes brighter than a hundred thousand million stars and
light from the explosion can still be detected on Earth even if the
explosion is right on the edge of the known Universe.

Scientists are seeing supernovae all the time - they have become useful
tools for measuring the size of the Universe. On one occasion, rare and
ghostly particles called neutrinos have even been detected from a supernova.

However, finding atoms that have been ejected in the explosion is a little
controversial. In a sense, all the atoms on Earth, with the exception of
hydrogen and helium, have been processed through, or created in, supernovae
many millions - even billions - of years ago. Without supernovae there
would be no heavier elements in the Universe.


Close event


But the German team, from Technische Universitt Mnchen and the Max-Plank
Institute, say the iron-60 atoms were deposited on Earth relatively
recently - only a few million years ago.

Several sediment layers in the South Pacific were dated, and the samples
looked at with a device called an accelerator mass spectroscope that can
detect faint traces of iron isotopes.

Because Iron-60 decays by half every 1.5 million years, the levels detected
in the sample, and the lack of terrestrial sources of the isotope point to
a relatively nearby and recent supernova as its source, the researchers say.

They think the supernova may have been just 90-180 light years from the
Earth.

If this is true, our hominid ancestors must have seen it as the brightest
thing in the sky after the Sun. If the supernova had been any closer, it
might even have affected the Earth's climate, possibly causing the
extinction of species and damage to the land and upper layers of the oceans.


Relevant Stories:

*Universe is 12 billion years old  (26 May 99 | Sci/Tech)
*When a star explodes  (08 Feb 99 | Sci/Tech)
*Explosion on the edge of space  (18 Dec 98 | Sci/Tech)


Internet Links:

*Supernova Cosmology Project


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

�







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                     U.S. Astronaut Charles Conrad Dies

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:08:35 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:12:58 -0400
Subject: U.S. Astronaut Charles Conrad Dies

U.S. Astronaut Charles Conrad Dies

.c The Associated Press

OJAI, Calif. (AP) - Charles P. 'Pete' Conrad Jr., an American
astronaut who was the third man to walk on the moon, died
Thursday after a motorcycle accident near Ojai. He was 69.

Conrad was riding his motorcycle with friends when he crashed
on a turn, Ventura County Deputy Coroner James Baroni said.
Conrad, who lived in Huntington Beach near Los Angeles, died
later at an Ojai hospital.

As commander of the Apollo 12 mission in 1969, Conrad earned
the distinction of being the third man to walk on the moon.
Along with astronaut Alan Bean, Conrad spent seven hours and 45
minutes on the lunar surface.

NASA selected Conrad, an aeronautical engineer, as an astronaut
in 1962. He was the pilot of the Gemini 5 mission in 1965, which
set an endurance record in orbiting the earth. A year later,
Conrad commanded Gemini 11, which docked with another craft and
featured space walks by another pilot.

Conrad, who was an aviator in the U.S. Navy after graduating
from Princeton University, also flew in the first manned Skylab
mission, in 1973. During this mission, he established a personal
endurance record for time in space, with 1,179 hours and 38
minutes.

In an interview with The Associated Press over Memorial Day
weekend at Kennedy Space Center, Conrad said he was looking
forward to the day he turned 77.

"I fully expect that NASA will send me back to the moon as
they treated Sen. (John) Glenn, and if they don't do otherwise,
why, then I'll have to do it myself", he declared.

 After retiring from NASA and the Navy, he worked as chief
operating officer of American Television and Communications
Corp. in Denver and later for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the
aviation manufacturer.

 In 1995, he formed his own company called Universal Space Lines
and several sister companies with the goal of commercializing
space.

"He was going back to space as an entrepreneur, trying to
create ways for rockets to launch inexpensively and manage
satellites", said his widow, Nancy Conrad.

Conrad is survived by his wife, four sons and seven
grandchildren. A son preceded him in death.

 AP-NY-07-09-99 0450EDT

  Copyright 1999 The Associated Press.  The information
contained in the AP news report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without  prior





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                               Taken by UFOs?

From: Maurizio Baiata <mbalien@tin.it>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:26:17 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:20:51 -0400
Subject: Taken by UFOs?

Cartagena police department (Colombia) is searching 50 people, disappeared
sunday  (July 11)after that they said that was going with a bus to an
encounter with ET's in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.All researches with
dogs was without results.

This is the only news that we have received here in Italy, published by
daily newspaper "Il Messaggero".

If someone has more information or update, please let me know.

Thank you
All the best





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

               [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 7-9-99

From: Jocelyn Savage <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:27:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:44:38 -0400
Subject: [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  7-9-99


---------------------------------------------------------------
                    Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                         The Week Ahead
                      7-11-99 thru 7-17-99

           Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                       From sightings.com

               Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
               exclusively by Free Subscription.

                          ___________

                      * FROM JEFF'S DESK *

With more and more camcorders in the hands of people looking
skyward, ever-increasing numbers of UFOs are being captured on
tape around the world. Jaime Maussan, one of Mexico's leading
UFO researchers, told me recently he has received over 5,000
videotapes to date containing anomalous objects.   So far, he's
only been able to view about half of the submitted videos, so
there's no telling what remarkable images may be about to be
revealed.

I just received this intriguing note from another prominent
Mexican researcher, Guillermo Alarcon, this morning.  It's quite
clear the skies over Mexico continue to be very busy...

     From Guillermo Alarcon <ufoalarcon@email.msn.com>
     Friday, July 9m 1999

     My dear respected UFOlogists,

     Mexico City

     Yesterday there was a UFO sighting recorded by a tv Station TV
     Azteca. The station was only, testing the weather at the roof
     of the building in Monterrey, Mexico when all of a sudden
     there it was a ovni (UFO ).

     Then the camera man started to record this sighting live when
     they were just testing.  They put this sighting on live and
     the UFO had a shining light due to the sun's rays.  And it
     also moved into it's same circle...and it moved exactly as
     the Mexico City Video flyby!!!

     The evidence and the video I will recive on this week...the
     UFO video, and I will try to pass them out to the internet..

     My dear colleagues...this is hot, it was amazing.
     I saw it on tv!!!

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                            ** WEBTV **

I asked James Neff why webtvers could not listen on the net
because it seemed really unfair and what we could do about it.
His response follows:

     The current problem with webtv is related to the decision by
     the company not to upgrade the standard webtv's AUDIO software
     to work with RealAudio's new "G2" sound format. It appears
     that instead of upgrading the basic package, webtv is coming
     out with more expensive whole-system upgrades -- but even then,
     there is no word that these new webtv units will feature G2
     technology for Real Audio. Webtv'ers who have written the
     company with requests for upgrade or with complaints have met
     with standard form letters and nothing more. There is no way
     for Jeff Rense/Sightings to provide the broadcast in the older
     RA format as we are entirely subject to the format delivered
     to us by Broadcast.com.

Well, guess what!! He sent this just before I released this letter!!

     Hold the presses: WebTV will upgrade to the Real Audio G2
     format sometime this coming winter:

     http://www.webtv.net/corp/clubwebtv/newsletter/founders.html


       James Neff - Webmaster to: http://www.sightings.com
          Homepage & Gallery: http://www.anc.net/~neff

   FREE Internet Greeting Cards Featuring the art of James Neff
         http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html


                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                        * POLL QUESTIONS *

Great response to my question on whether you'd like to have
polls. Interestingly enough, the majority of the questions
submitted were on whether people have had sightings or
experiences. So that's where we'll start. (But keep the
questions coming(!) to me at:

jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Poll_Question)

I've had a chance to get in there and see how it works. When a
poll is generated, an email is sent to all the subscribers
letting them know and it includes a unique URL to go to. I think
a two week schedule is good.

Being ever respectful of you, before we start, I want to make
ABSOLUTELY SURE that this additional email (once every two weeks)
is okay with you. So - in essence, this is your first poll. <grin>

     If you object, please click here and send:
     mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Extra_email_NOT_OKAY

     If you think the polls will be fun, informative and you don't
     mind two extra emails per month, click here:
     mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Polls_okay

PLEASE RESPOND ON THIS. Thanks!!

                   --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                         * TOP STORIES *

           Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                    http://www.sightings.com

   * Once-Silent Earth Is Now A Cacophony Of Noise
   * Sunbathing Is Healthy Say Experts - Debate Rages On
   * Meteor Blasts New Zealand With Sonic Boom
   * Vitamin A Derivative Kills Cancer
   * US Death Rate Rises Sharply At Beginning Of The Month
   * Great Secrets Of The 20th Century - Part One
   * Latest On Some Alleged US 'Concentration' Camps
   * 60% of America's Liquid Toxic Waste Injected Underground
   * FBI/CIA Warehouse - Why So Many 'Lone Gunmen'?
   * Up To 60 Members Of ET Doomsday Cult Vanish In Colombia
   * Stunning CIA Assessment of Global Y2K Impact
   * Israel Archaeologists Find Rare 'Jesus Coins'
   * US-Canadian-Mexican NAFTA-Type Military Merger Proposed
   * The National Guard's New Y2K RAID Team
   * Abnormal Brain Scans Found In Healthy Volunteers
   * Early Man Was Older And Brighter Than thought
   * Gold Prices At 20 Yr Low - Bank of England Auctions 25 Tons
   * Philippine Volcano Rumbling - Eruption May Be Near
   * Amelia Earhart - Found?
   * Eggs 'Sunny Side Up' About To Become History In US - Warning
     Labels Due
   * China Nuke Plant Accident Revealed One Year Later
   * Resistant Bacteria With Bad Attitude Nearing Crisis Stage
   * The Best Of Insurance Claim Excuses And Explanations
   * Five Russian Ships To Carry Troops To Kosovo - NATO Opposition
     Mounts
   * Fireworks Shower Toxic Chemicals Including Dioxins On Crowds
     Below?
   * Conference Of Former Feds Said To Take Aim At Patriots
   * Disclosure Of Private Medical Records Approved By House
   * Russia 'On Verge' Of Enormous AIDS Epidemic
   * Human Memories Of A Violent Mars
   * Woman Golfer Hit By Lightning - Enough For 10,00 Electric
     Chairs
   * USAF Slip-Up Admits Large Triangle Stealth Aircraft?
   * Reno Picks US Official As Head Of Interpol World Police
   * Multiple Witnesses See Dazzling UFO

          Read the entire text of these stories and more at
                      http://www.jeffrense.com

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                         * EDITOR'S CORNER *

Hi all,

I've been especially pleased with the change-over to eGroups. They
are courteous, professional and respond very quickly to my numerous
(and sometimes redundant) new-user questions. They're a good
company to work with.

We have always zealously guarded your addresses to the point of
testing, testing, testing programs with lists of addresses we got
for ourselves for just this purpose over the months. eGroups was
chosen carefully.

Just in case you'd like to review their privacy policy at some
time, it is at: http://www.egroups.com/info/privacy.html

                                Appreciate you all!

                                Jocelyn Savage


                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                 Hidden Mysteries of the Pyramids

What secrets does the chamber under the great pyramid hold on Adam,
alien civilizations, teleportation....?
http://www.immunotex.com/books/

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--


                      * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                       7-11-99 thru 7-17-99

(Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can change due to late breaking
stories, etc)

SUN  7-9
     John Hogue:  Is Nostradamus On Schedule?
     Dr. Helmut Lammer:  MILABS: Military 'UFO' Abductions?

MON  7-10
     Geri Guidetti:  Y2K Preparations Update
     Skip Goebel:  Home Steam-Powered Electricity

TUE  7-11
     Howard Martin:  Your Heart Has A Mind, Too
     Joel Skousen:  The Secure Home And Strategic Relocation

WED  7-12
     Michael Lindemann:  Weekly UFO World Update
     Doreen Virtue:  Divine Guidance

THU  7-13
     Dr. Louis Turi:  Monthly Astropsychology Readings

FRI  7-14
     Dr. Courtney Brown:  Cosmic Explorers
     Calif. State Senator Mountjoy:  MTBEs Poisoning Our Water

Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://www.jeffrense.com

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                  * LISTENER/SUBSCRIBER COMMENTS *

Douglas H: You have a great and informative site, especially from
an investigative point of view. I am a traditional investigator
with an interest in the unexplained.  You site offers one of the
best sources for such information.

John V: I certainly enjoy your show it really makes me think.
However I find that most people I know don't want hear any of this.
I am a commercial diver and live in Bellchase La. and I have found
thru your archives that this has been and probably still is a hot
bed of CIA and mob intrigue living not but two miles from the navy
air base.I first found your show on everett Wa. radio 1380 KRKO.
and am a avid listener. As New Orleans does not carry your radio
show I have found it necessary to purchase this puter and am happy
I have, as now I am able to go thru your archives. thank you keep
up the good work./////

bellzoni: THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!  I HAVE 20 YEARS BACKGROUND IN
KNOWLEDGE INACCESSIBLE OR FORBIDDEN TO THE PUBLIC.  THERE ARE LOTS
OF RED HERRINGS AND DEAD ENDS. JEFF RENSE IMPRESSES ME NO END.  HIS
INSTINCTS ARE TRUE.  HIS BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IS UP TO DATE AND HIS
QUESTIONS ARE RIGHT ON TARGET.  I HOPE HIS SHOW BECOMES AS WIDELY
ACCESSIBLE AS LIMBAUGH AND BELL.

Neville M: I enjoy tuning in to your show and listening to your
archived recordings. You are one in a trillion Jeff, I wish there
were someone like you down here in Australia. May you continue to
have brilliant success at the forefront of this field. Without
your show, we would truly be kept in the dark.

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Are You Getting Ready for Y2K/asteroid hit/pole change/whatever??

If not then why not? Seem like a daunting task? Do it as sensibly
and as economically as possible. Here is an excellent guide to get
you started or, if you're almost ready, remind you of things you
may not have thought of: http://www.immunotex.com/prepare-now

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                   The Greatest Story Never Told
               Opening the Seven Seals of Revelations

        A book set that will revolutionize your view of who we
           are, why we're here, and who the bad guys are.
                  http://www.immunotex.com/sophia/

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
        Live Coast-To-Coast
        Monday-Friday 7-10pm Pacific 10-1am Eastern
        Sundays 8-11pm Pacific 11-2am Eastern
Call in Line:
        800 850-5043
Program Transcripts at
        http://www.immunotex.com/rense/
Program Audio Tapes
        888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
        http://www.jeffrense.com
Advertising - Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com
        Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
        mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Advertising
Sightings.com info/email center
        http://www.jeffrense.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Jeff Rense Y2K RESOURCE CENTER
        http://www.jeffrense.com/y2kresource/y2k1r.html
RenseWorld! Don't miss it!
        http://www.jeffrense.com
DISCUSSION FORUM
        http://www3.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?userid=hj135985

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share with your friends!
   Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense Weekly
   E-Newsletter to any and all who are interested... but please
   forward in its entirety and do not modify it in any fashion
   without permission. Thank you!

Past issues are archived at http://www.immunotex.com/rense/

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

To subscribe:
mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=SUBSCRIBE_RENSE

To unsubscribe:
mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE_RENSE

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

Jeff Rense Weekly E-News is independently produced by ImmunoTex
in cooperation with Jeff Rense. The material and views expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of Jeff Rense,
sightings.com, or the Jeff Rense - Sightings Radio Program,
except for the *From Jeff's Desk* segment.

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

We thank eGroups for providing this tremendous service to us. The
following ad is inserted by eGroups and is not affiliated with
Jeff Rense.
_________________________________________________________________


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

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/rense_e-news
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                           Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:01:57 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #27 - 99


Filer's Files #27 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 8, 1999,   Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

30th MUFON CONFERENCE

Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference while Jenny
Randles and Bruce Maccabee provided excellent evidence.  Joe
Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.  Fortunately
for us the aliens seem reasonably friendly.  Joe believes it is
likely that intelligent life across the cosmos was able develop
a form of propulsion more advanced than jet turbines and
controlled firecrackers.  He states, "Our scientists need to
start thinking outside of the boundary conditions of 20th
century physics.  They have not fully explained the fundamentals
of the cosmos.  For example, did we evolve on Earth?  Joe feels,
random mechanical evolution cannot account for humans.  Science
has derived effective mathematical equations that describe
certain parts of nature, but most physicists know that the
fundamental of space-time has not been discerned.  The great
innovations of the next century will arise in this area.  His
talk explained that once extraterrestrial visitation is accepted
almost every thing on Earth will change.  Physics, discoveries
in biotechnology, nanotechnology, religion, national borders and
even economics face massive changes.  We should prepare for the
coming changes.  Zero point energy and other energies are within
our grasp.  Joe is a great salesman and entrepreneur.  He held
the audience spell bound with a slick and insightful
presentation.

Jenny Randles gave us wonderful insight on the conservative but
realistic British viewpoint.  Rob Swiatek gave a great
historical review of UFOs over Washington, DC in 1952.  Bruce
Maccabee spoke about a mysterious national alert on December 6,
1950, followed two days later by an alert for flying saucer
information.  He also presented, for the first time anywhere,
some possible proof for a missing time case.  Kelly Cahill of
Australia, gave her account of a multi-witness abduction on the
morning of Aug. 8, 1993.  Six persons in three different cars
told authorities of being forced to the side of a road.  Budd
Hopkins, assured me the evidence for abductions is getting
better and better.  That the Roper poll taken in 1991 and 1999
both indicated 7% of the population have seen UFOs thus
indicating there was not an increase in the figures due to media
emphasis.  Richard Hall whose investigations started in the
1950s provided an entertaining view of history.  He said, "I'm
very empirically oriented.  We need to get back to basics."
Walter H. Andrus Jr., MUFON's international director said,
"We're dedicated to the scientific study of the UFO phenomenon."
Thanks to Susan Swiatek the symposium coordinator for her hard
work and fine hospitality.  EDITORS NOTE: I have a suggestion
for Bruce Widaman, Missouri State Director for next years MUFON
Conference in St. Louis.  Let the 'Show Me State' dedicate the
conference to showing real scientific evidence for UFOs.  MUFON
is made up of state directors and field investigators who do
great work.  Why can't some speak and show their evidence for
landing cases or the recent elk abduction by a UFO in
Washington?  Fifteen minute talks would be refreshing.  We have
state directors who are police, lawyers and FBI.  They know what
evidence is.  Video and photographic evidence, implants, MJ-12
papers evidence, and military witnesses would be wonderful.
Richard Hall has a great book ready for a publisher called the
UFO Evidence Part II.

NEW YORK UFO SIGHTINGS

MONTOUR FALLS � A mother and daughter while playing softball saw
a UFO on June 18, 1999, at 6:00 PM.  The silver object was the
size of a pea at arms length.  It glinted silver in the setting
sun as if spinning as it moved away towards the east.  It had a
textured surface that was faceted just like a disco ball.  After
five minutes, the object made a 90 degree turn to the north and
accelerated out of sight in about a second.  The second sighting
of the silver object was by six witnesses from the Watkins Glen
State Park swimming pool just before 6:00 PM.  The size was a BB
at arm's length.  It gained altitude and headed east.  The sky
was clear again and the glinting was still the same.  The
duration of the sighting was about 3 minutes.  The object again
made a left 90 degree turn northward and accelerated away at
tremendous speed.  Thanks to NY MUFON Investigator, Bob Long.
Alienchasr@aol.com

INDIANA

STINESVILLE -- Lynn Taylor writes that she has received
preliminary information regarding a multiple witness sighting
that occurred Sunday, May 30, 1999, just after dusk.  The
sighting occurred over the White River, just west of
Stinesville.  Two brilliant white objects were observed coming
down toward the witnesses.  Objects were primarily white,
although they were also emitting a rainbow of constantly
changing colors.  No sound could be heard coming from the
objects.  Objects have been spotted in this same area in the
past.  See:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/fate/324/oldriver.htm.  Thanks to
Lynn Taylor

OKLAHOMA

YUKON -- S. Ritter on June 28, 1999, at 10:15 PM writes, "I was
at home in the backyard, and I was watching the night sky and
spotted through binoculars a light heading west.  I couldn't
tell what shape this craft was.  It looked like a yellow ball of
light just flying through the sky, then the light faded in and
out and then back in view again.  Then it disappeared.  It was
not an airplane, nor a satellite, nor a falling star."  Thanks
to S. Ritter, Bbbritter.

MEXICO UFO VIDEO

MONTERREY --  Guillermo Alarcon reports that a UFO was recorded
by TV Station Azteca on July 8, 1999.  The station was testing
the weather on the roof of the building in Monterrey, when a UFO
(ovni) was observed by the camera man.  He started to record the
sighting live and the station broadcast the sighting live.  The
UFO had a shinning light due to the sun's reflection.  It moved
in a circle similar to the Mexico City video flyby!!!  My friend
works at the station and is attempting to obtain the film.
Thanks to Guillermo Alarcon, ufoalarcon@email.msn.com

CHILE SIGHTINGS CONTINUE

PARRAL - Luis C. Sanchez Perry Chilean Director Skywatch
International reports that on June 12, 1999, in the town of "El
Fiscal" sixty witnesses saw a pear shape UFO at 11:30 PM for an
hour.  It was twenty meters in diameter with a porthole.  The
UFO moved slowly over the roofs of houses materializing and
dematerializing in front of witnesses including the police.  The
UFO group AION (aion@chilesat.net) is investigating. COIHAIQUE -
On May 31, 1999, at 11:30 PM, in the sector of Cerro Negro two
hunters saw two orange balls of light fly at about 700 meters in
altitude.  The UFO flew in a very erratic Zigzag way.  A hunter
signaled the UFO a flash light, and in response one of the UFO's
came towards them.  They ran away as it came closer.  At the
same time my military friend Rodrigo Bravo saw an Air Force
Otter aircraft fly over Coihaique three times appearing to
conduct a radar search for the two UFO's.  Thanks to Luis Perry,
lsanchez@chilesat.net

NEW ZEALAND METEOR

NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND -- A meteor exploded in the sky on
July 7, 1999, between the cities of Napier and New Plymouth.  It
created an eerie blue light and showered the earth with
fragments from space at 4:15 PM

AUSTRALIA METEOR AND UFOs

LAJAMANU -- A huge object perhaps a meteorite exploded above the
Northern Territory, on Friday, June 18, 1999.  It 'boomed' like
an atomic bomb and that earth tremors were felt afterwards at
9:30 PM.  'It was this incredible blue and white flashing light
that lit up the whole town.  Thanks to Mella M. & Mitch Battros
http://www.earthchangesTV.com. GRAFTON --Barry Taylor reports 17
single objects and 5 'cluster' groups on June 26, 1999, at 2:40
PM for fifty minutes.  The self illuminated orange, blue, white
and black UFOs flew slowly north.  They were flying near the
4,000 feet cloud base traveling at various speeds.  The 'cluster
groups' ranged from 3 to 12 'spheres'.  The movement within the
'cluster' was fascinating.  A half hour of video was shot
including a clear cluster.  Thanks to Barry Taylor.

HOLLAND CROP CIRCLE ORBS

Nancy Talbot co-director of BLT Research reports new crop
circles are being reported almost every day in Europe.  England
as usual leads with fifty, Czech Republic, Germany, and Holland
follow. HOEVEN, Southern Holland -- Robert a gifted 19-year-old
Dutch eyewitness claims that two crop circles were formed on
June 7, 1999, at 12:15 AM, by a strange pink purple light.
Robert's intuition told him that something was going to happen
in the field behind his farm, so he looked out his bedroom
window.  He saw a small football shaped pinkish-purple light
move ten feet above the ground toward his home.  It moved to 60
yards behind his house and stopped over the spot where a snow
crop circle was formed a couple of years ago.  Robert said, "The
light then started to elongate and to look just like a 30 foot
in diameter aspirin or disc.  As the cloud hovered it made a
crackling sound.  Electrical discharges exploded from the
underside of the purple cloud for about ten seconds and suddenly
stopped.  Robert pulled on his pants and ran to the area and
found a 30 foot circle and two foot circle nearby.  He could
feel the heat from the wheat field."  Nancy says, her colleague
biophysicist W. C. Levengood of Michigan hypothesizes that
plants in some sampled formations were affected by numerous
spinning plasma vortexes that contain microwave energies.  The
microwaves heat the plant cells, softening and collapsing the
stems into the fluid patterns we have come to associate with
genuinely mysterious formations.  But Levengood does not know
the source of the spinning plasma vortex.  Robert feels this
energy gives him the ability to heal.  We may be dealing with
energies completely misunderstood."  Thanks to Nancy Talbott.

SOME UFOs ARE OUR BILLION DOLLAR SECRETS

Tim Matthews writes: " UK Channel 5, on July 4, 1999, broadcast
a program entitled "Billion Dollar Secrets."  Correspondent Nick
Cook of Jane's Defense Weekly ran the program.  It supported the
view that classified black projects are responsible for their
share of the UFO evidence, and that the subject has been used by
the military-industrial complex and its' intelligence allies for
decades.  The most interesting comment was from former Convair
boss Bob Widmer who made a number of fascinating claims about
his classified defense work with specific relation to the Top
Secret "Kingfish" high Mach aircraft of the late 1950s.  Not
only did he say -- with an expert insider knowledge that has
clearly had a profound affect on his personal and family life --
that the 'flying saucer' shape was seen to be the best, most
perfect shape for his future aircraft, but that proposals for
the Kingfish had moved along those lines.  In a fascinating
mirror of my own experience regarding FOIA material and
classified documents dating back to the late 1940s and 1950s
which, the various agencies claim have been destroyed.  Widmer
stated categorically that, "ALL material relating to his own
classified projects had been similarly disposed of."  This is
how they operate; by going against all protocol and destroying
documents that lead back to the many FT and disc projects of the
past.  It is also our experience -- and Nick Cooks' -- that the
fear and pressure exerted by those tasked to maintain the
near-impenetrable walls of secrecy and disinformation
surrounding these projects ruins peoples' lives.  They will do
whatever it takes to maintain secrecy including creating a
mountain of disinformation via the relatively simple seeding of
something like the MJ-12 documents.  Boyd Bushman from Lockheed
Martin discussed antigravity craft/experiments.  It is clear
that the UFO subject has been controlled from the top since
1947.  It appears the UFO community is a target test group for
psychological warfare and black propaganda."  Thanks to Tim
Matthews.  Editor's Note: We were able to obtain formerly
classified information on the Silverbug Disc aircraft with the
help of the Air Victory Museum.  Our investigators also report
on the black triangle aircraft.  They are manned black aircraft
that appear the size of commercial airliner with delta wings
that use advanced jet power to fly in excess of Mach 3.  They
may be called Aurora or Senior Citizen.  Several versions the
craft have been seen over the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and
the New England coast.  One was video taped this week over
Scottsdale, Arizona.

ABDUCTEES MUST UNITE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE, GET SKEPTICS TO HELP

Last week, I sat down to lunch at the DC MUFON Conference with
five pro UFO people.  We were joined by two of the biggest
skeptics in the country.  The honorable opposition was Phil
Klass and Dr. Gary Posner.  I heard some good advice from them.
They indicated that none of the speakers provided proof or
evidence that UFOs exist or that abductions are real.  They
asked, "Why wasn't evidence being provided by MUFON field
investigators?"  They admitted Jenny Randles from BUFORA in
Britain had some good data.  It is apparent the honorable
opposition can see the weakness of our arguments.  Phil Klass
even offered evidence to help our cause.  (See the following
article.)  They both easily knocked down my arguments about the
validity of abductions.  In their opinion abductions are fairy
tales and anyone who is hypnotized losses all credibility.  They
argued, "Without evidence abductions are a myth.  They pointed
out Jenny Randle's presentation informed us that in 1988,
hypnosis was banned in England as an investigation tool because
people were accused of simply fabricating the stories."  The two
skeptics suggested that, "Both scientists and law enforcement
officers simply do not believe the abductees stories.  They are
simply too wild to be believed without evidence.  Additionally,
a clever fake can fool most investigators into believing that
they are a real abductee.  The hundreds of hours of recording
tapes with the abductees stories proves nothing except that
people have lucid dreams.  These stories are not believed
because of the lack of supporting evidence."  Reflecting on
their comments I realized they were at least partially right.  I
remembered, I personally have provided excellent abductee's
stories to reasonable professional friends of mine.  They
laughed and I'm tired of my friends laughing at us!  I left the
conference badly hurt and disheartened by the skeptics.  I lost
that battle, but it shows I need to work harder.

PLAN OF ACTION: I feel a plan is needed to make the people who
count believe the abductee's accounts.  In a court of law, in
the court of public opinion EVIDENCE is needed.  The abductee
claim they are being abducted.  Well, help us prove it.
Researcher Victoria Alexander suggested several years ago in the
MUFON Journal that you must treat your bedroom as a crime scene.
You are being abducted from your home.  Some claim they are even
raped or tortured.  We need witnesses to support these stories.
To my knowledge a third party witness has not stepped forward to
be interviewed by MUFON field investigators with the possible
exception of the Betty Hill, Travis Walton, or the Kelly Cahill
cases.  If your being taken from your home witnesses such as a
neighbor should see a craft.  In many states police are the
profession most likely to see a UFO.  I reported 290 UFO
sightings last year, none seemed connected in any way with an
abduction.  I wonder why not?  It is logical to assume, if
thousands of abductions are taking place, that an abductee's
neighbor or relatives would see the abduction, or at least a
UFO.  Many a court case as been won with a third person witness.
They are powerful witnesses that have put many a person in jail.
With a third person witness, you and your investigator you can
go to the police and be believed.  If you are a witness to an
abduction please contact me.  Other evidence is also important.
Scratches, bruises, body marks don't prove much unless it can be
shown, who did this to you.  Perhaps the cuts are strange in
some way?  Independent physicians can establish that these
wounds were not present the previous day, but they could be self
inflicted.

The scene of the abduction or kidnapping most often is your
bedroom.  Many abductees know approximately when their abductors
might come.  You can even call the police and tell them there
have been prowlers and ask they keep an eye on your home.
"Don't tell them a UFO picks you up."  If you have an
investigator watching your home also notify the police so he is
not arrested. Neighbors can also be warned of intruders and can
help keep watch.  Prepare your bedroom to help obtain evidence.
First clean and vacuum your bedroom as best you can.  I suggest
keeping shoes outside the room.  Only walk bare foot in your
bedroom.  The night you expect an abduction attempt to have a
hard surface clean next to your bed or place plastic on your
rug.  Try not to walk on it.  Insure clean surfaces on your bed
stand and a clean bed cover.  Consider carrying out an
experiment of tying difficult to remove string or ribbon around
your body.  Essentially think up ways to make it difficult for
your abductors to remove your clothing.  Torn clothes and
bedding is evidence.  We need some scientific experiments that
provide evidence.  Hide a seed, or something living on your body
each night.  In the morning remove the seed and place it a
separate container, record the day.  There is reason to believe
that living things are affected when taken aboard a UFO.  The
seeds can be then compared.  The ones taken with you aboard the
ship are different, than those hidden on your person when you
were not abducted.  You and the living thing can be tested.
Your blood and the seeds will likely show evidence that
something happened.  More sophisticated tracking devices are
under construction.

The next morning when you awake and you suspect abduction get a
witness to come to your room and observe.  Did the intruder
leave evidence such as hair? If anything strange is found pick
it up with tweezers or wipe up with a cotton bud and place in a
clean jar.  Record all data carefully.  Recently in Australia an
abductee found a blonde hair believed to be from an alien.  It
was analyzed and the DNA was from a rare Asian race all of whom
are black haired.  Perhaps you are bleeding, you have new scars,
the plastic has been walked on by tiny feet.  Your string has
been cut that you tied around yourself, the video camera
malfunctioned, there is meteorite dust on your night table, and
newly laid plastic.  You have real evidence, now you can call an
investigator, together you call the police and hold a press
conference.  If ten persons around the country had similar proof
then abductees are more likely to be believed.  Abductees must
unite and fight.  This is just a few ideas.  I'm asking our
readers such as Derrel Sims, abductees and our field
investigators for further suggestions.  Thanks to Gary Posner,
and Phill Klass.

SKEPTIC PHIL KLASS HINTS AT EVIDENCE FOR ET CRAFT

 The skeptic Phil Klass claims that DSP satellite's-engineer Ron
Regehr hints that DSP has spotted ET craft.  Ron Regehr a member
of the Roswell Photographic Interpretation Team (RPIT's) was
featured in the July issue of the Skeptics UFO Newsletter,
published by Phil Klass.  Klass writes: "Pro-Ufologist Ron
Regehr--an engineer with Aerojet Electro Systems which produces
the infrared sensors used on DSP satellites -- published a
67-page report in 1998 titled: "How to Build a $125 Million UFO
Detector" which suggests that DSP satellites have detected ET
craft.  Because Regehr has access to classified DSP data, he
must necessarily base his speculative and vague claims on
unclassified data and published information from a variety of
sources, ranging from an OMNI magazine article on (alleged)
government UFO cover-up to an article on DSP detection of
meteoroids in The New York Times.

In reality, most of DSP's infrared sensors that look down from
its 22,000 mile high altitude operate at a wavelength
approximately 2.5 microns so that the earth's atmosphere will
heavily attenuate infrared energy emitted by military aircraft
(unless flying at very high altitude), forest fires, electric
power plants and other hot objects which would otherwise
generate thousands of false alarms.  If/when ET craft visit
Earth, if they use propulsion systems which involve high
temperatures, then they can be detected by DSP satellites prior
to descending to low altitudes where the atmosphere heavily
attenuates their infrared radiation.  However, if ET craft use
exotic propulsion techniques, such as "Zero Point Energy," as
Joe Firmage believes, then they will NOT be detected by DSP's
infrared sensors."  Thanks to Phil Klass and Bond Johnson.
Editor's Note: North Vietnamese Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs)
also set off the sensors.  Our newer sensors are doing a much
better job at picking up UFOs.  (At least one per hour.)

NEW JERSEY MUFON through the courtesy of Chuck Warren now has a
new website at: www.contrailconnection.com/njmufon.

TAPE OF EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE UFO ENCOUNTER

Lunar Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the
UFO chase occurred.  The 6th person to walk on the moon said,
"The night it happened I investigated it myself and this was a
real event."  Sam Sherman's audio documentary tape called THE
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE ENCOUNTER on the night of October 7,
1965, uses the actual voice recordings provided by the Air
Force.  During this event 12 high tech luminous UFOs invade
secure air space and came down low over the runways at Edwards
AFB.  Tower operator Sgt. Chuck Sorrels spotted them and
notified the Air Defense Command.  Sgt. Sorrels is heard on the
original tapes and in a new segment where he verifies the event
as it is heard on the archival recordings.  The UFOs are
described and a decision is made to launch F-106 fighter
interceptors.  You are there in an important part of UFO
history.  Hear it for yourself, its the best UFO tape ever made
and its record of a real event.  The cost of the tape is $14.95
each plus $2.00 for shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send
either a personal check or money order to: Independent
International Films, Box 565, Dept.  GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey
08857.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:52:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:08:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


Its about time I gave you all a behind the scenes look at what
has been going on for over two yrs regarding my investigation
into the Sheffield incident..

All you are about to read is fact and has actually occurred,
there may be a slight discrepency in the chronology.. But the
content is _Fact undeniable

IS THIS THE NEW HIGH MORAL GROUND supposedly being taken by
certain ufologist's in the UK..

Please feel free to comment on the content of this text, I hope
that you will be shocked, however if you are a supporter of the
main perpetrators of the Black PR campaign that has been waged
non stop against myself then if you are a human being you should
still be shocked..?

Remember next year it might be you?
If you dare to question and stand up to have your own opinion
about this multi faceted UFO subject.

What this really shows you is how the underhand behaviour of
some has been allowed to prevail un checked, And needs to be
stopped

And now for a chronology of just the events that have transpired
perpetrated against myself by a small and noisy group of
individuals..

In March of 1997 I began my investigation of the Sheffield
Incident,All things seemed OK I began to collate my evidence, I
was aware that others were also investigating the case...

Within three weeks of the investigation, Tim Matthew's reported
in The now defunct (Paragon publishing) Alien Encounters
Obviously copy of the text would have to have been on the
editor's desk 8 weeks previous, I know this as I wrote 5
articles for the zine and was well aware of the deadline
schedule for copy.� Alien Encounters issue 12 June 1997, Page
12 headline "Its bang up North" Tim Matthew's reported,

Houses in South Yorkshire were rattled by an unexplained
Airborne explosion on the night of March 24th (1997) and
witnesses at Marjorie Hill claimed to have seen a UFO hovering
over a hill side at the time of the mysterious detonation.


Why has Tim never passed on these witness details to myself?

I have never been given the opportunity to question these
witnesses, Will Tim now pass these witness details to myself so
that I can question them and add to my research the details of
there sighting?

Article continues......

RAF Tornadoes were despatched to search for wreckage in case
the cause was an aircraft crash, but nothing was found.

Tim, what was the source of this info? If it was the military,
who in the military? This statement if from a military source
adds another lie to the chain of events that have transpired as
a result of the MOD lies over this incident.

Mr Matthew's, if this was not from an MOD source who was it
from?

Article continues...

Rumours quickly filtered out that the explosion was caused by a
Black Triangle crashing, but they were quashed by Tim Matthew's
of LUFOS, who said that nothing had been reported taking off
from BAe Warton, Suspected home of the Triangle, on the night
of the noisy sighting.

A bit speculative to say the least?

Article continues.... The explosion was powerful enough to be
picked up by Edinburgh University's seismic unit....

Not true, the seismic disturbance at 21.52 was picked up by
Leeds University....

The 22.06 seismic disturbance was picked up by Haverhah park,
Holmfirth and Leeds University, all in the immediate area of
the explosions...

Article continues...

Which reported that it could only have been produced by
Concorde. a military jet at low altitude, or a Bolide, The
mystery remains open?.

So what you are saying then Tim was that military jets had been
sent to search for wreckage from the explosion that it is
claimed that they had caused earlier in the
evening......((SONIC BOOM))

Hmmmmmmm

Article continues

For an eye witness report on this sighting, see it could be you
(Page 42) this issue.� SOURCE UFO ROUND UP, Re produced in Alien
Encounters issue 12

This is not an attack on Tim Matthew's, And I state now that Tim
Matthews does good research, and I agree with him regarding the
whole German / Paper Clip Saucer technology scenario However I
disagree on the origin of the source of the technology

In deed I have quite a large amount of data in my files that
support's large aspects of Tim's research, however as I said
earlier we disagree on the origin of the technology, Tim likes
to stir things up and I have not got a problem with that type
of attitude, as I feel that Ufology need's a stir up some times,
if only to open up debate on matters.

And if I feel inclined, one evening I might even mail Timmy
boy, my files which contain name's places, document numbers etc,

If I get layed one Saturday, if I get lucky, Tim might get
lucky, who knows?

People can agree to disagree and still remain civil. But the
actions of in paticular Dr David Clark & Andy Robert's and to
some extent Mike Wooten, when you have read this file you will
understand is simply not acceptable as Moral and Proper
behaviour.

Why Tim Matthew's chooses to mix with this pond life aspect of
UK ufology I dont know.? Still keep you enemies closer and all
that?

Clark Roberts & Wooten cannot dispute the facts that you will
now read, I hope that you will agree that if this is the behind
the scenes behaviour of the newly reformed IUN. from these three
people, key members of this group, you should withdraw you
membership from this ORG, or you will be supporting ufological
bully boys who think they can make and change the rules to suit
there own gains, there imediate responce is to get the knives
out for those who would dare to challenge or to show a
difference of opinion...

That is not Moral and objective behaviour, lets call it by its
real name

((((((Facist's)))))))

Ok people let's get back to the facts

Dr David Clark has re interviewed the witness Dan Grayson, Dr
Clark reports that Dan Grayson has never told me he saw a UFO
or the Triangle that night, and in-deed was now quite happy
that what he saw was the search and rescue helicopter.

The thing is that in issue 12 page 43, Dan Grayson actually
said,And this is well before I had had anything about this case
in print anywhere.

And I quote

"Although my sighting was later than everyone else's, I know
what I saw was no plane or helicopter"

I asked Nina to place an advert in the next issue of Alien
Encounters issue 13 For Dan Grayson to contact which he did,
and she passed his tel numbers onto myself.� I feel that a
statement taken at the time will be more accurate than a
statement taken two yrs after the incident, due to inaccurate
memory retrieval etc...

More to the point it was myself who supplied Dan Graysons tel
number to Martyn Jeffey, as well as the numbers from a number
of my witnesses into the incident Jeffreys who assured myself
that he was working on an independent review of the case, and
nothing what so ever to do with Dr Clark, which turned out to
be a deception...

And these people want to talk about moral behavior?

Why would I have supplied the number of a witness who would
discredit my own findings further down the line it would have
been easier to have said I had lost his number?

So good folk let's continue...

At the same time Andy Robert's, reports that the case has been
solved by David Clark, to be a Bolide meteor etc mundane,
although some unknown researcher from Rotherham, (meaning
myself would have others believe otherwise).�

July 1997, My first article on the Sheffield case is published
in Alien Encounters issue 13 called, Crash and Burns.....

I call into my local news agents in Rotherham opposite David
Clarks office.When the nice lady who works there who knew that
I had an article in that issue tells me that David Clark, was
involved, I paid Dr Clark a visit we discussed the case and had
to agree to disagree, obviously Dr Clark at that time was
Bolided up to the eyeballs, I passed my number onto Dr Clark and
expressed an interest that we should exchange info... To which
he agreed

Its July or August 97 now

Approx. time frame

David Clark, has allready written up his 26 page in-depth
report for BUFORA, which despite request's will not release to
me, stating Bolide meteor or military jet, etc. Mundane, etc.,
etc.

Which just happens to agree with the official party line BGS &
the Royal astronomical society ( Dr J Mitton)

As far as Dr Clark is concerned case closed...

At around this time Andy Robert's releases a copy of his
tabloid style attack on others the armchair ufologist, makes
some derogatory remarks about myself.

August 1997 The Bufora Conference in Sheffield, I enjoyed the
conference

A while later in about November A statement is put out by Andy
Robert's that I approached at the conference himself Tim
Matthew's Mike Wooten & David Clark, and casually exclaimed to
these men and it is obvious to see that  they were out to
discredit my research even at this early stage, after all they
have got the Bolide story to protect.�

At the Bufora conference they allege that I approached then and
casually exclaimed to give my research credibility and only
them who are out to discredit myself, that "I had bribed a
witness with cannabis".

They are willing to back each other up on this, and that's me
slam-dunked.

I never made that statement, it is a complete fabrication, with
only one purpose to discredit my research and myself

However Mr Andy Robert's has since stated to Richard Conway
that he was there when I made this statement.�

Richard Conway has stated that as far as he is concerned that
conversation never took place.�

Care to comment Richard?

There has now been an add on to these alleged events by Andy
Robert's, That I was seen smoking a cannabis joint, this new
accusation comes nearly 2 yrs after the conference.�

Strange that this new claim comes after so long from a man with
a reputation for ufological type tabloid scandal waits for so
long? It never took place, I smoke rolling tobacco and do not
smoke cannabis at home or in public, however these are strange
claims to make from the man in UK UFO circles, with a
reputation as the Bob Marley of ufology, who is never without
his SPLIFF at conferences,

In two subsequent editions of the Armchair ufologists, Mr Andy
Robert's gives myself a three or four page spread in each
issue, where his attacks on myself and my research continue,

Got the Bolide story to protect.....

Later on During a tel call with Andy Robert's, during which we
had a heated debate, nothing new there then.

Later on Andy Robert's informs myself by email that he had
illegally recorded our phone conversation, and had illegally
played this to a third, a colleague from where he works, who
had given psychological comment on the recording based on what
ever back up info Mr Robert's had chosen to supply, obviously
it would not have been complimentary based on his previous
attacks against myself

The comment from Mr Robert's Colleague, who has never met or
spoken with me is that I show the traits of a habitual drug
user, with all the personality swings etc..Mr Robert's then
forwards this illegal medical diagnosis to all and sundry,

Including Judith Jaafar, Care to comment Judith?

Does anyone else find this behavior as well as totally immoral
and illegal,Find this as the acceptable face of Ufology?

What the relevant medical authorities would make of this highly
immoral and Irregular behaviour I don't know, I just know that
any self respecting psychologist would never give a diagnosis
without meeting with the person concerned.

Just more things in the long running attempts to discredit
myself...

Does anyone else find this behaviour so far quite shocking? As
well as a string of offensive e-mails coming my way mostly from
Andy Roberts.making comments like.�

"Its all pre programmed Max all pre programmed"

Tim Matthew's sends me a personal email to inform me that.

"Max you are all on your own with this"

What is the point of such messages? To wear a person down to
make them feel isolated and alone....

Nice try fella's

I don't care what anyone says this stinks of something well
organised and deliberate...

So let's move on in the chamber of horrors.�

Dr Clark re opens his investigation into the case, after now
deciding because of information that I had released and also
from when I made a special visit to Rotherham to his office, to
give him copies of everything that I had at the time, in the
interests of working together on this,immediately after he had
copied through his fax machine my papers,his colleague arrived
where a heated discussion about the case continued.� When once
again we had to agree to disagree...

Incidently Dr Clark is alleging that on this visit to his
office I insulted him in front of his collegue.

Not true, there was a discussion between Dr Clark and myself to
which Dr Clark introduced his collegue to the conversation.
after he had photo copied through his fax machine what
documents he wanted from my research. once this copying had
been done. The two of them turned on myself and began to insult
myself, this was very rude behaviour towards myself considering
I had made a special journey from Nottingham to Rotherham just
about a 100 mile round trip. I ask you this why would I take the
time to make this journey to give another researcher copies of
what I had got in the sprit of working together on research.

Then to insult the man.. I also paid all the traveling expenses
for this journey... The truth of the matter is that we had a
discussion with the obvious difference of opinion, Clark was
angry that I had made a large number of valid points regarding
the case which contradicted his version of events, he was
embarrased because his alleged intelectual pride had been
challenged in front of a work mate.

You know what I say? "If you don't like the answer you should
not ask the question"

It was Dr Clark who was extremely angry shouting and pacing
round his office, with his work mate also becoming even more
verbal.. I am always up for a debate and it is obvious that Dr
Clark and I will no doubt have to agree to disagree regarding
this case..

But that did not stop myself from making a special trip to
share my info with the man...

Who really insulted who here...

So after that poor show of manners, I told Martyn Jeffirey that
I was no longer willing to pass on any further info to Dr Clark
in light of the way he behaved....

And I hope you agree that if you were me you would have done
the same?

Dr Clark had to re open after all it had been confirmed that
there was no space debris in the atmosphere that night, which
part discredited his original report that he filed with
BUFORA.. (Bolide Meteor)..

While I was there I supplied my address and telephone number in
Nottingham, 1 week later my phone rings and a voice asks me if
I am Max Burns? I replied with yes who is calling, and the
phone got hung up....

I felt that this was strange. The following morning I am
arrested by the police because of my council tax arrears, And
guess where I am hauled off to go before the magistrate you
guessed it Rotherham.......

I now know that it was Dr Clark who had supplied my details to
Rotherham council, as Dr Clark in a previous post to this list
admitted that he had been contacted by the council, when they
asked him if he knew my whereabouts when I was arrested on
March 31st this year, by the police for my council tax
arrears...after some denials by Andy Robert's that Clark was
involved in this Clark admitted to doing this when I informed
this list that the arresting officer had shown me a copy of the
fax that Clark had sent to Rotherham council which was then
forwarded to the police in West Bridgford where I live....

So for the council to know to contact Dr Clark to ask for
information about my whereabouts in March 1999, it would mean
that Dr Clark was also the reason that I had been arrested the
previous year.�

Or how would the council have known to ask Dr Clark about
myself in 1999 unless they knew Clark knew me from his
involvement back in 1998?

If you see my point? A man with a Doctorate getting another
ufologist arrested twice of a personal matter of council tax a
civil matter I might add...

In light of our disagreements over this case this was not on
under any circumstances the right thing to do, but it did give
more ammo for the Robert's hate machine more mud to throw in my
direction.

Council tax is a civil matter and not criminal, and I am
pleased to inform you all that my council tax arrears payments
are up to date at the moment.

So at least Dr Clark will not be able to have me arrested
again.....

Is this type of behaviour morally right?

1998 early part of the year, I am booked to give a lecture for
the Bufora membership, the lecture is postponed one month and
is due to take place at the 5th May 1998 AGM...

Mike Wooten/Clark/Roberts and co start a behind the scenes
campaign to have me stopped from presenting my findings,

And includes Dr Clark calling Steve Gamble and ordering him
that I should not be allowed to speak, yes you heard right
ORDERED. with what or who's authority the press officer is
making these demands on the Bufora president I dont know?

After a continued flotilla of emails aimed towards various
council members, all of which are mostly coming from The Usual
Suspects.

Which culminates with SteveGamble calling me at home the night
before the lecture at 5.20pm

They have succeeded on this occasion.� With a barrage of e-mails
directed at council members, full of all the propaganda which I
have listed above.�

Monday May 7th I have a meeting with Phil Taylor the features
editor about the Sheffield Incident.... 1.00pm arrives and guess
who calls the News of the World and asks for Phil Taylor by
name, and professes to inform Mr Taylor that I am a drug
dealing liar...and have made the whole thing up.....

Yep you guessed it Dr Clark.....I am not a drug dealer I have
no convictions for any such offences....

I do have a charge pending and the charge is intent to supply
amphetamine. I have pleaded not guilty to the charge, other than
that I cannot make any comment on this matter, due to the laws
of prejudice and subjudicy.

Is a man not guilty until proven in a court of Law?

Has Dr Clark Andy Robert's been making prejudicial statements
about me? Yes they have...

Is this the new high moral ground of UK Ufology?

Also Andy Robert's had advance notice of one of the trial dates
which should have occurred on the 17th May 1999, 5 days before
my legal team could inform myself..

His email that he got Dr Clark to fwd to me as at this point I
had blocked all e-mails from this Clown Robert's.

Among other acidic things said,

"My masters at MI5 have asked me to wish you all the best for
May 17th"

Ever heard this saying? "Many a true word spoken in jest"

On top of that Dr Clark now alleges that I have manipulated a
medical Doctor, due to the trial on the 17th May being canceled
due to my medical Doctor, diagnosing that I had severe food
poisoning.

To which I provided a proper and legal medical certificate.
Which confirmed My medical status to the Judge,

The Judge was happy my Doctor was happy that I was ill.. But not
Dr Clark�..

It does amuse myself that a group of nasty manipulators are
accusing myself of doing what they have been up to for two yrs..

At Tim Matthew's last conference, Judith Jaafar asks Andy
Robert's how he managed to obtain such privy information before
my legal team.�

Apparently he went red in the face and was unusually stuck for
a smart  alec reply.�

Care to comment Judith?

Dr Clark now has a new hypothesis for the night events.... The
official party line is, a covert low flying exercise.�

Dr Clark's new research concludes, a covert low flying
exercise.

That's two pieces of research that Dr Clark has produced that
match the official party line..that was in play at the time...

Draw your own conclusions from that?

As well as Dr Clark spoke to Glen Ford at the BGS and asked
Glen if I had been in touch, checking up and following myself
round, it is a wonder how Dr Clark has managed to do any
investigation in between getting me arrested and checking up on
me every where I turn?


Not forgetting Mr Mike Wooten and his Bufora watch which was
basically dedicated to attacking myself and BUFORA...

Just to make a note, its the USUAL SUSPECTS Clark & Robert's
Wooten mostly but a small group of friends who make a lot of
noise, what is there connection?

The Newly Reformed IUN.... is this the high moral standards
that they profess to use? You have read the catalogue of things
that they have been engaged in their attempts to protect their
patch their own and  their research.�

Whets next? Urinating around the four corners of the Peak
District?

Mark Bell Informs me that he had a conversation with Jenny
Randles, who said that I was being denied a public platform to
present my case.�

Care to comment Jenny Or Mark?

Mark Bell, WUFOG even informs me that he received a private
email from Dr Clark, demanding to know why he was supporting my
research.� Others have recieved such emails as well....

Is this all highly irregular?

I was booked to appear on Central Weekend, at the last minute I
receive a call to inform myself that I was cancelled, guess who
was also appearing on the Show.� You guessed it Andy Roberts and
David Clark...

I received a email via one of the gang informing me that the TV
company had been informed that I was a drug dealer, and perhaps
it was best that I did not appear on the show as they had saved
me the embarrassment of being outed on TV.�

Strange comment from the same group who have been doing there
best to destroy me over the last two yrs?

What they really meant was that they did not want me to have a
public platform, and was nothing to do with them doing me a
favour...

Matthew Williams informed me that there is an undercurrent
behind the scenes trying to discredit my case and myself. aint
that the truth.�

Earlier this yr. in Feb. I believe I was booked to give a talk
for the Bufora Membership once again the booking was for June
5th. � the campaign started again with the Usual suspects
engaging in a repeat performance of there antics to try and get
me removed from the lecture, However they failed, so the NEW
IUN PLAN came into play

Enter BLUE HARE,

March 20th arrives and so does the first enticement from the
Blue Hare....this went on right up and till after my BUFORA
lecture....

Including 2 days before my lecture a EMAIL from the HARE.�

The crux of the email was in this part of the message format.�

Quote

"It is imperative that the truth comes out soon"

Obviously an enticement for me to reveal this info supplied by
the HARE at my lecture 2 days later....

Tim Matthew's turns up at the lecture, tape recorder in hand
waiting for me to reveal this BLUE HARE info... To his
disappointment I did not reveal any part of what the Blue HARE
had been feeding myself.�

Tim Matthew's even stated to another researcher in the corridor
during the interval.

And I quote

"Max did not come out with the startling revelations that we
expected him to"

Does Tim Matthew's know who the Blue Hare group are?

I believe he does, this plan that was hatched by the Robert's
Clark and obviously Matthew's as otherwise he would not have
known that there were some other info in the offing.�

It did not work for them as they hoped, they must have thought
that if we cannot get the lecture stopped, then let's feed this
in and hope that it will play out...

That failed, so they now released the info anyway and tried to
word it so as to look like they had pulled off some KOO.. the
only thing that it proved is that I verify facts before using
them.

Andy Robert's has bragged that he will be is in possesion of a
photograph of myself in the peak district park, carrying a
metel detector...

So he obviously knows who the Blue Hare group are....

Come on folks, they have been behind everything else the
pointers are there.�And this is supposed to be the NEW face of
UK Ufology.....Who have new high moral standards, that may be
the public face the newly reformed IUN try to portray...

In real life they sneaky back door low life's which is proven
by the large catalogue of facts that I have outlined here today
and that is only in there attempts to silence myself, plus
others who are feeling the teeth of this sick old lion


IS THIS MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?

I think not, should they be embarrassed? I hope so.... So I
throw it open, if you were in my shoes what would you think?

For the record I am still investigating the Sheffield case and
will not be deterred

If this is these peoples idea of moral high ground then we are
all in trouble.

Dont bust my ball's, ill get my sister on yer

ITS NICE TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ITS MORE IMPORTANT TO BE NICE

What do you good people think I would be pleased to hear your
comments on this?

Max Burns





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:00:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:13:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed



>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100


>>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
>>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:25:12 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

>Nowhere have I ever claimed that six
>specific aircraft from any specific airbase were the cause of
>the sonic booms recorded near Sheffield on March 24, 1997.
>That is a simple fact, something neither Max nor his
>"Truthseeker" friends could bring themselves to accept.

David, please read this extract from your full report
downloaded from the Pufori website.

Extract below

RAF Marham's PRO Ed Bulpitt made inquiries on my behalf
and established that six aircraft from 2 Squadron were involved
in the exercise on March 24. These were Tornado GR1A's, the
photo reconnaisance version of the Tornado fighter. He said
the first left Marham at 6.45pm and landed at 9.10pm. A second
left at 6.50 and returned at 9pm, while two others left at 7.40
and landed at 9.30, along with a fifth which had left at 7.50.

The final aircraft involved left at 7.55 and was safely back by
9.35. "They were on routine low-flying through the Peak District
and all returned safely,"

End file

Dr Klark If these are the aircraft involved in the covert low
flying exersise which is what your data has revealed... and they
are the only aircraft admitted to being in the area that
night...

If you allege that military aircraft caused the seismic
anomalies that night. then the only evidence you have is that it
must have been the above mentioned planes.

But they were on the ground by 9.35pm,

Are you now alleging that there was a _"Double"_ secret covert
low flying exersise taking place that night?

You have no evidence other than that.. it is my contention that
the other aircraft that were there after the 9.35 watershed were
on a secret mission to intercept the FT.....

It would explain the Double secret aspect to the night's events.

Other than that I am at present carefully nit picking through
your second research paper into this incident, to pull out all
the contradictions and altered witness statements for example..

Extract from Dr Klark's research. Mr Dronfield....

10pm? An 81-year-old woman pensioner at Woodlands View,
Stannington, on the outskirts of Sheffield, watching the comet
from her bedroom window saw a long dark cigar shaped object
flying in a westerly direction across the moors from Bradfield
towards Strines and the Peak District. She said it was
surrounded by an eerie "glow" as if it was on fire, and was
"very low" in the sky, almost at rooftop level. Speaking
afterwards, she said: "I was watching for the comet from my
window which has a panoramic view over the moors when I saw what
I first thought was a plane come over the top of the hills
beyond High Bradfield. It went towards Strines in the west and
was shaped liked a long cigar which looked as if it was on fire
because it glowed. I couldn't make out any wings and it made no
noise at all. The light just glowed, it didn't flash, and it was
very queer looking."

I telephoned Mrs Dronfield in light of the statement you allege
that you took from her... And I asked her some specific
questions.

1. Has David Clark contacted you?

Answer Yes..

2. Can you tell me what you told David Clark regarding your
sighting?

Answer,   "I told him exactly the same as I told you"

OK this is what Mrs Dronfield told us both.....

Extract from my interview Another witness was Mrs. Dronfield, an
elderly lady who reported her sighting to the police. According
to the police reports Mrs. Dronfield saw a cigar shaped object
flying at a very low altitude towards Strines from High
Bradfield at around 22.00. Her statement says the object was lit
up more than a normal plane would have been.

When I spoke to Mrs. Dronfield in person, more details began to
unfold. She had in fact gone to her bedroom window with a pair
of binoculars intending to look at Hale Bopp. However before she
had had a chance, she noticed the UFO. It was glowing orange as
it came across towards the Strines area and Mrs. Dronfield kept
it in view for about twenty seconds.

You seem to have altered and re worded what she told us both, of
coarse you have mundaned down what she said to make it appear
that she was describing an apparent low flying aircraft that
looked like was on fire......

Remember I have called her and checked this information.

Can you explain how a dark cigar shaped object could also be
brightly lit all over and glowing orange..

Its either dark or it light, the terminology glowing would .
suggest light..

All very strange hey David.....

Matthew Williams wrote...

>However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
>Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
>was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
>and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.

>After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
>having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
>Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
>use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
>seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
>mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
>case
 Yes David you neatly skip over this very important piece of
evidence Why?

A number of people who were at my lecture clearly heard the
audio of the interview as you have from the audio tape recording
of the lecture given to you by Tim Matthew's..

How many times did Dagenhart say it was aviation fuel in the
interview was it six or seven times?

And not a smell like aviation fuel as you allege

Mr Matthew's you were there you heard the audio twice, like to
comment?

I now ask these other people to come forward with a statement
who were at the lecture and also heard this very important piece
of evidence.

Matthew Williams
Richard Conway
Stan Conway
Roy Hale
Chris Martyn
Neil Cunningham
Steve Gamble
Judith Jaafar
Malcolm Robinson

Some points

Was Dagenhart fully aware how I was reporting this case?
Yes he was

Did Dagenhart want to remain anomenous?
No he did not

Did he give me permission to use his name?
Yes he did

Did he make all his comments freely and without prompting?
Yes he did.

Was he very excited about being involved?
Yes he was..

You can also hear extracts of the audio on the
Pufori web site.

Jeroem sorry I have lost the URL from my system could
you post this to the list please?

Below if you do not have the time or the inclination to visit
the excelent Pufori web site ( keep up the good work Jeroem and
team)

Then below I re produce the relevent extracts from the Dagenhart
interview and the comparisons in the interview which Clark
alleges took place.. after readfing the extracts you will be in
no doubt what so ever, that Dr Clark has either been decieved by
Dagenartor he is directly involved in this cover up..

There are no other choices available _ Fact_

I know which one I think it is..

After reading this I would be pleased to hear suggestions What
do you the readers think?

Just some other anomalies that have come up..

It was stated that the the fire and rescue commander it was all
down to reports of a bang and flash in the sky.. I have checked
and sonic means sound, sonic booms do not cause flashes in the
sky.. so what we are really talking about here is explosion with
heat flame and a flash..

And not the after burner of a jet, as that would not cause smoke
plumesTo rise from the peak district moorland.

And would not have been visible from the home of Mr Morton and
mother to the grid ref point they pointed out to the visiting
police officer..

A distance of 10.3 miles as the crow flies

Let us talk about Mr Dagenhart Mr. Jonathan Dagenhart

This is what Dr Clark alleges was said, when he alleges he
interviewed Dagenhart, in an unbiased and un-pressured manner!

"I was a passenger on a minibus which was traveling across the
snake pass towards Sheffield, late on the night of the 24th
March last year. When crossing the viaduct Over the reservoir
the bus was flagged down by a man who was acting suspiciously.

How do you suspiciously flag down a mini bus?

The Dr Clark then wrote, regarding the alleged interview.

He did not seem to know where he was and just said he needed to
get to Sheffield. This guy was covered in fuel of some sort, and
from the smell I thought it was Paraffin or diesel, but since
then Ive joined the RAF and I can say it was a smell like
aviation fuel.

That is simply not true and I have proved it

I commented

This is a stark turnaround of events From a man seven days
earlier was using words like brilliant, also when I asked him if
he wanted to remain Anonymous, he replied Im not bothered. Pay
careful attention to how this mans persona and attitude changes

Further to that

Mr. Jonathan Dagenhart
Telephoned me on the 12th of May at approximately 11.30
and sounding very flustered with a shaky voice informed me
that I had twisted what he said and he no longer wanted to
have his name put to his original statement. He has also
spoken with Mr. Phil Taylor at the News of the World
informing him that he was going to lose his job over the
statement that he had made to me.
When I spoke to Phil Taylor at the N.o.T.W. he said the
guy was almost in tears on the phone.

Was he made to retract his statement?

May I add that Mr. Dagenhart is under the employ of the
RAF where he works on jet engines and when I questioned
him about who had spoken with him about this he just said
a source. I further questioned him as to whether it was his
employer the RAF who had silenced him and he replied
that he could not say on that he ended the conversation
and was very upset.

Why would the RAF be hauling an engineer over the hot
coals like this?

To the point of him telling a national news reporter that he was
going to lose his job?

And trying to imply that I have twisted what he has said

Audio tapes do not lie._ Fact_

He verified the content of the taped transcript of our
conversation to Mr Mike Jarvis reporter for the News of
The World and made his statements freely and without
prompting.

When asked, at the time did he want to remain anonymous
he replied "I'm not bothered". All of which is on tape and
can be cross verified by Mike Jarvis at the News of The
World.

I hope you all agree that for someone to turn around from
being 'not bothered' to 'I'm going to lose my job', adds
more weight to my case. Why would the military be
pressurizing a member of their work force to retract a
statement about something they claim has not occurred.

I reiterate to you all I have the Dagenhart tape and he made all
comments freely and without prompting The RAF are trying to make
someone retract a statement about something that they claim
never happened anyway Why ?

Back to the comparative look, from the transcript of the audio

So I said when Mr Dagenhart told me it was aviation fuel,
I said

Burns Ah absolutely superb
Dagenhart And I will put my money on that

I will put money on that, sounds pretty certain it was
aviation fuel to me

Further on in the Dr Clark interview with Dagenhart, he wrote.

"Questioned about the clothes this man was wearing, In light of
Max Burns' claims, Dagenhart told me "they were just ordinary
dark clothes he definitely not wearing the sort of uniform
associated with RAF pilots, I would have recognised that uniform
immediately"

On the audio the taped interview

I then asked the direct question

Did it look like a flying suit he was wearing?
Dagenhart Um I don't know he'd got clothes on but I mean
it was dark and he'd got dark clothes on that's all.
Burns And he didn't know where he was?
Dagenhart No
Burns Yer and there were no vehicles in the area
Dagenhart There was nothing. A police car past us about
2 minutes after we passed him Ur cos. wed got a full
minibus there was no room at all to get him on so we
drove off.

No mention of the man acting Suspiciously.

Here is where I informed Dagenhart of exactly How I was
reporting this story.

Burns That night I've got multiple witnesses to an enormous
UFO flying about everywhere
Dagenhart right
Burns A military interception and they're trying to cover it up
but you know I'll send you a copy of this if you like
Dagenhart yer brilliant

Mr Dagenhart seems very excited and relaxed at the
moment using words like Brilliant! I then continued to
question Mr Dagenhart.

Burns Do you remember anything else was his English good
Dagenhart No it wasn't it was very poor very poor.
Burns Yer I think he might have been a NATO pilot or co-pilot
Dagenhart Yes he was of sort of African sort of origin very
very dark skinned
Burns And it was definitely aviation fuel
Dagenhart yes
Burns And you can substantiate that because you now work
for the Royal Air Force on jet engines
Dagenhart Yes
Burns And he really didn't know where he was going
Dagenhart He didn't know where he was going it looked like
he just walked off a hill
Burns Really did he have any mud or anything on him Could
you tell was his clothing dirty
Dagenhart I couldn't tell
Burns But as you work for the Royal Air Force on jet
engines your absolutely 100% certain that it was aviation
fuel not diesel
Dagenhart yes
Burns I might contact you again if that's OK
Dagenhart Yes well this is my parents number and I'm
hardly ever here
Burns Well I'll leave a message for you
Dagenhart yes
Burns Now in my report do you ant me to change your
name keep you anonymous
Dagenhart To be honest I don't care

Dr Clark then wrote,

According to Dagenharts statement on May 12th," At no stage in
any of this conversation did Max Tell me he was going to use
what I had told him in a story claiming that I had seen the co-
pilot of a Tornado which had been shot down by a UFO"

I replied

Mr Dagenhart was fully aware of how I was reporting this
incident Which was recorded on tape with permission of
Dagenhart.

I have the full interview on tape.
Further on in the alleged interview Which I believe was
nothing more than the military official new statement by
Dagenhart. The Dr Clark also asked Dagenhart
how he would react, if Max claimed he had been
silenced as a result of withdrawing his testimony

I hope you will agree that this is rather a strange
question to ask .
It is almost if the other researcher knew that I would
allege that Dagenhart had been forced to retract his
statement.

Because he has

Due to the fact that I had my original interview on audio
cassette Which completely contradicts the Interview the Dr Clark
claims took place between him and Dagenhart so obviously as Mr
Dagenhart made his Comments To myself first and really had no
need to lie anything after should be viewed as highly dubious

Ok back to Jonathan Dagenhart

David Clark alleges Dagenhart responded
"I havent been silenced by anyone, I just don't want my name
connected to a story like this and that is why I intend to tell
Max not to involve me any further,"I just told him all what I
saw that night and that is all I know".

I stated
That last line sounds like the comment of someone under pressure
and under Questioning, He did tell me all he saw that night the
truth not the bull that has been Peddled after my original
interview on the record from a very excited man. After the other
researcher had spoken with him and his bosses plus god knows who
else He sounds like he has been beaten with hickory sticks

How could he lose his job over something the RAF has claimed has
not occurred?

There are a number of other points.

How did the airforce even know about this in the first place to
be able to pull him into an office and threaten him with losing
his job?

If none of what I allege were true why would the airforce be
even bothered about my claims and what dagenhart had said to
myself?

I find it highly irregular practice for the RAF to be behaving
in this manner For a none event?

The only logical conclusion for the behaviour of the airforce,
and the subsesquent denials by Dagenhart after he had been
threatened with his job is that a tornado jet has in deed
crashed on the moors during this incident.

John Beaver Yorkshire water also said to another researcher. The
police told me that the RAF had admitted there was a plane doing
a night time exercise and it had gone through the sound barrier.
Now are the Police lying to John Beaver is John beaver lying to
the other researcher or is the other researcher lying to us
now.. You see this alleged credible statement is claiming
something the RAF have still not admitted to. And in fact at the
time John Beavers men were told to stand down the RAF would not
even admit Too having any planes in the air that night.!

Who's lying?

Please feel free to comment on these indisputable _Facts_

Max Burns





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:28:56 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:18:20 -0400
Subject: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil


'Dirio do Grande ABC', newspaper. ( 07.08.99 )

Yesterday, were seen two UFOs over the Baleia Beach, at the Bela
Island.

The signthing occurred around 12:00 Am, and saw by tree
residents. They call the police that found nothing.

According the residents, the objects had a strange metallic
yellow color and were coming from the ocean, about 20m or 30m
over the water.

The objects stayed statics, hovering the beach,  emiting a soft
sound, for 10 minutes, when suddenly they increase it's speed
and disappeared.

They had a cigar shape, were flat, and had 20m length. They had
no wings and no sound.


THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
http://www.ufomind.com/people/t/ticchetti/
********** I LOVE MY COUNTRY, I LOVE BRAZIL**************






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                          Contrails On The Increase

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:56:01 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:26:59 -0400
Subject: Contrails On The Increase


Hi everyone.

A totally clear blue sky free from contrails is becoming a rare
sight (see article below).  At least there is the promise of
more summer-like days for us in Canada.  The increased number of
woven contrail patterns in the skies will continue to fascinate
sky watchers but may annoy film makers/videographers (like
Errol?) in Hollywood North working on projects with old themes.

Nick Balaskas


PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 438  July 9, 1999

<snip>

AIRLINER CONTRAILS, the thin line-shaped ice clouds formed from
water vapor in exhaust gases, account for about 0.1% of the
worldwide cloud cover, and as much as 0.5-2% over parts of
Europe and the Eastern Northern Atlantic.

A group of atmospheric scientists (Patrick Minnis, NASA Langley
Research Center, p.minnis@larc.nasa.gov) have made of a study of
these clouds in order to forecast their possible future
radiative forcing effect, that is, the amount by which contrails
would enhance (through greenhouse action) the solar and
earth-emitted infrared radiation retained on Earth.

The conclusion: between 1992 and 2050 contrail cloud cover will
increase by a factor of 6.

During this period the contrail fraction of anthropogenic
radiative forcing may increase from about 1% (1992) to 2 or 3%.

These are global estimates; regional averages (such as for the
northern temperate zone) will be greater still.  (Minnis et al.,
Geophysical Research Letters, 1 July 1999.)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

               Literature on Satanic Ritual & Alien Abduction

From: Arnout Ponsioen <A.Ponsioen@hetnet.nl>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:01:48 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:51:19 -0400
Subject: Literature on Satanic Ritual & Alien Abduction


Dear all,

Following the discussion on the discussion about alien abduction
narratives and satanic ritual child abuse, I can recommend the
following four scientific articles. I think they will be good
food for thought for all.

1.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 20
Author: Baumeister, Roy F.; Sommer, Kristin L.
Year: 1997
Title: Patterns in the Bizarre: common themes in satanic ritual
abuse, sexual masochism, ufo abductions, factitious illness, and
extreme love.
Journal: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Volume: 16
Issue: 2
Pages: 213-223

2.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 43
Author: Schnabel, Jim
Year: 1994
Title: Chronic claims of alien abduction and some other traumas
as self-victimization syndromes
Journal: Dissociation
Volume: 7
Issue: 1
Pages: 51-59

3.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 23
Author: Paley, John
Year: 1997
Title: Satanist abuse and alien abduction: a comparative
analysis theorizing temporal lobe activity as a possible
connection between anomalous memories
Journal: Brittish Journal Of Social Work
Volume: 1997
Issue: 27
Pages: 43-70

4.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 32
Author: Dittburner, Terri-Lynn; Persinger, M.A.
Year: 1993
Title: Intensity of amnesia during hypnosis is positively
correlated with estimated prevalence of sexual abuse and alien
abductions: implications for the false memory syndrome
Journal: Perceptual And Motor Skills
Volume: 1993
Issue: 77
Pages: 895-898


Arnout Ponsioen.
Cultural Anthropologist






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

               CE-VI: Close Encounters of the Possession Kind

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 07:51:40
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:53:49 -0400
Subject: CE-VI: Close Encounters of the Possession Kind


Source:

http://www.newpara.com/baldwin.html

Stig

***

The Journal of Pan-Dimensional Literature

Volume One, Number One, May-July 1999

**

CE-VI: Close Encounters of the Possession Kind

By Dr. William J. Baldwin

*

Psychologist William Baldwin, Ph.D, of Enterprise, Florida, is
one of a number of practitioners of a new therapy called spirit
releasement. Spirit releasement is based on the notion that
sometimes the spirits of the newly-dead, still addicted to some
aspect of earthly existence (alcohol, smoking, fear, etc.),
attach themselves to a living human with a similar addiction,
and thereby compound the addiction in the human, often causing
him or her severe depression. The aim of practitioners of this
psychotherapeutic form of "exorcism" is to coax the spirit of
the deceased addict out of the human host gently and lovingly,
into the white light of the afterworld where it was intended to
go in the first place. Over the past years, Baldwin and other
spirit releasement practitioners have discovered that, on
occasion, discarnate ETs enter the body of a human being, take
it over, and try to run it. Baldwin has become experienced at
meeting attached discarnate ETs, talking to them, and persuading
them to leave and return to their home world. In a new book,
CE-VI: Close Encounters of the Possession Kind (Headline Books,
1999), Dr. Baldwin explains that he finds himself primarily
dealing with three kinds of attached ETs: scientists,
researchers and technicians; colonists and invaders; and lost,
hiding or abandoned ETs. Following are two selections from Dr.
Baldwin's book, reprinted with permission of the author. The
first is from the the preface; the second from an actual case
study with aliens...


[From the Preface]


Through the voices of the clients in altered states of
consciousness, these alien beings reveal their purposes for
being here, they describe their homeworld civilizations, and
many express the desire to go "home." In some cases, the ET
commandant on a nearby spacecraft, and even the leader of the
ruling High Council on the homeworld, will speak through the
voice of the client.

The ETs offer many reasons for their presence here. Many are
here to gather data and information on human life forms. They
are technicians and scientists. There seems to be some kind of
long-term genetic experimentation and manipulation in progress.
Some ETs may be able to help troubled humans. A few apparently
have the ability to heal physical ailments. Some people claim to
have been spiritually transformed as the result of an abduction
and interaction with aliens.

In other cases the ETs announce they are here to take control,
to simply take over the human race, beginning with our client.
They often threaten that we will be next. Such threats clearly
indicate DFE (dark force entity) influence.

This channeled information could be totally fabricated by the
client, consciously or unconsciously. It may be a product of the
collective unconscious mind, triggered by a subliminal mass
hysteria over an urban myth of alien domination. A more sinister
possibility reflects the fears of the conspiracy theorists; the
alien abductions may involve elements of our own government who
have formed some kind of alliance with ETs, beings from other
worlds or other dimensions. Equally repugnant is the possibility
that the entire UFO/ET enigma might be nothing less, nor more,
than field testing of mind control technology by earth's own
intelligence agencies or military personnel.

However, it may be exactly what it appears to be: actual
communication with an alien race. Whatever the case, the
information voiced through the clients forms a consistent body
of knowledge about the alien beings and their motivations for
coming to our planet.


[From a case study]


Mona and the ET Controllers


Mona expressed dismay at her unusually high sexual appetite and
her promiscuity. This condition had existed in her life since
late adolescence. She had difficulty maintaining monogamous
relationships and this caused her deep sadness and confusion. In
session, she discovered an ET group experimenting with
sexuality. The ET researchers would intensify her sexual desire,
like turning up the volume on a TV set, then observe her
behavior and her reactions to her own behavior.

We discovered a large network of DFEs [Dark Force Entities] of
various levels controlling the ETs in this activity. This
particular experimentation involved a broad segment of the human
population, and Mona was just one of many people affected. The
ET technicians divulged this information, and further revealed a
sordid picture of the intrusion. Some of the DFE-influenced ETs
had become personally involved in human sexuality, purposely
stimulating licentious and depraved sexual activities. Not only
were they distorted in their scientific observation, they were
participating in the experiments.

Mona was sickened by the discovery of this information. She had
known something was very wrong in her life and suspected entity
influence, but had not dreamed of this kind of extensive
involvement, particularly the ETs. She was deeply relieved to
finally get relief from this terribly intrusive and very
personal violation.

Human beings are so terribly caught up in sexual issues from
childhood through adolescence and into adulthood, even old age
as senility sets in. The entire issue is compounded by the
social issues regarding sex, marriage, monogamy, adultery,
promiscuity, the religious taboos and imposed guilt, the very
real problems of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, disease, human
possessiveness and jealousy, and other issues. It is a fertile
field for dark force entity influence.

These experiments on emotions and sexuality are ostensibly
designed to study human feelings and behavior. The technician
simply turns up the volume on some aspect of emotion or behavior
and records what happens with the human subject. This behavior
or emotional outburst causes anguish in the human. This is the
desired result. The anguish is the underlying goal of the
project.

The energy emanation of the anguish of human suffering is
harvested by the DFEs. It is used as energy, sustenance, food.
In most cases we have found, and other therapists report the
same situation, it seems the experiment is a cover for the
activity of the DFEs. This is the true purpose of the "research"
conducted by the aliens.

In most cases of ET attachment where such a group is operating,
the ship captain or the base commander may be evasive,
deceitful, even defiant, and refuse to remove the intrusive
devices and alien beings. They will usually divulge the
information that there is a high dark being who controls their
people. A client will sometimes describe a sinister and menacing
dark figure on the craft, clearly exerting powerful control, and
always situated near the ship's captain.

The ET technician is usually unaware of the dark influence. The
commander of the space craft is conscious of the dark presence
in about half of such cases. The ruling council members on the
homeworld are aware of the dark lords in charge at various
levels. They acknowledge that they, or their predecessors in the
council, struck an alliance with the dark forces long ago for
the purpose of gaining personal and political power. However,
once that dark contact was established, the DFEs took power over
the council. The DFEs assumed "ownership" of the alien
civilization, and there was nothing that could be done about it.

The council members, usually from three to eleven in number
(though once it was reported as a senate of about 1800 members),
are grateful for the assistance in separating themselves and
their citizens from the DFEs. With the assistance of many light
beings, we facilitate the total removal of the dark force
entities, from the lowliest DFE attached to the ET technicians,
through the dark lords on the craft, to the high-level dark
beings wielding power over the council members and the overseers
or enforcers who lurk behind the scenes.

After the release of the DFEs from their civilization, the
council gladly orders the removal of the implants, monitors,
communication devices, various and assorted headbands and
skullcaps, and the ET technicians. They order the return of all
the craft orbiting this world and any other, and the space
stations involved in this hideous project. A tremendous piece of
work is completed in a very short time. The effect on
consciousness cannot be measured.

Clients have discovered not only these attached ET technicians
and their equipment, but also unattended probes and other
devices in various parts of the anatomy and in the chakras, or
energy centers of the body, both on themselves and other family
members. These probes are non-physical in nature, yet connected
in a way which allows for the transmission of information to the
ET scientist's location. The probe, or connector, may also allow
the ET to remotely control some aspect of the physiology or
mental/emotional functioning of the person.

In an altered state, a client can visualize the probe, often a
black cord, leading to the ET laboratory. We direct the question
to the alien researcher. This communication passes directly to
the ETs along the attached connector, and the surprised ET will
answer through the voice mechanism of the client. This can be
surprising and distressing to the client, but with our assurance
that the control is only temporary, and that many people have
overcome this intrusion, most clients continue with the
dialogue.


In acknowledgement of his pioneering exploration of science and
spirit in his groundbreaking work, Spirit Releasement Therapy: A
Technique Manual, Dr. William J. Baldwin was honored with the
1994 Franklin Loehr Memorial Award by the International
Association for New Science in Ft. Collins, Colorado. He has
received other awards for lifetime achievement and contribution
to the transpersonal field in the tradition of bridging Mind,
Body, and Spirit. For further information, contact the Center
for Human Relations, P.O. Box 4061, Enterprise, FL 32725. CE-VI:
Close Encounters of the Possession Kind is published by Headline
Books, P.O. Box 52, Terra Alta, West Virginia 26764, ISBN
0929915224, $10.95 per copy. It is copyright �1999, Center for
Human Relations.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                             Maritime UFO Files

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:23:23 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:32:58 -0400
Subject: Maritime UFO Files



Hello Errol and List,

The following is to announce that the Maritime UFO Files website
has been updated and enhanced. It includes [so far] a few cases
from the book of the same name and links to an article on Shag
Harbour and another. I've got an expert in the website field
helping me so most of the credit goes to him. The website may be
accessed at:

http://www.xweb.ns.ca/maritime_ufo_file/

Just follow the links. The link to my email address does not
work on the cover page but does in the gateway page at the top.
Again that's the experts link. The one that doesn't work is
mine, but it is a pretty color blue. I'll fix it as soon as I
find out how.

Also, I'm travelling west in September and will have some time
to meet up with some of you on my return trip. More on that
later.

Best 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

             College Joins Thousands In Search For Life In Space

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:11:54
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:58:29 -0400
Subject: College Joins Thousands In Search For Life In Space


[List only]

Source: The Miami Herald,

http://www.herald.com:80/content/fri/news/broward/digdocs/089877.htm

Stig

***

Published Friday, July 9, 1999, in the Miami Herald

College joins thousands in search for life in space

By PAUL BRINKLEY-ROGERS
Herald Staff Writer

As of noon on Thursday, Paul Perone's personal computer at
Broward Community College had not detected an alien
civilization.

But every now and then, he could not resist checking the screen,
looking for a sign that something in deep space was beaming a
radio message at planet Earth.

"You see a spike," he said, referring to sudden blips on a
multicolored bar graph, "and you say, `Wow!' Am I being
contacted by an alien?"

One week ago, the power of 50 PCs at BCC was harnessed as part
of the SETI@home program coordinated by the University of
California in Berkeley. It is an international search for alien
intelligence.

Since the project was announced in May, 89 campuses and more
than 600,000 individual PC owners in 205 nations have enrolled
in the effort. The University of Florida is the other Florida
school working with the program. U.S. campuses involved include
the likes of Harvard, Purdue, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia
Tech and the University of Texas at Austin.

Anyone with a home computer and a connection to the Internet can
join.

Instead of PCs just gobbling up electrical power when they are
idle, the SETI@home program can enlist a legion of computers to
help analyze raw data on signals beamed at earth, said Perone,
BCC's special projects coordinator.

Chances are exceedingly small that a desktop or laptop computer
at BCC may actually detect a meaningful radio signal from blocks
of data forwarded by the coordinators of SETI, which stands for
"Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence." The universe is
full of naturally occurring radio sounds.

But the possibility -- however remote -- of detecting a message
is tantalizing, as evidenced by the flood of campuses and
individuals downloading the software from SETI@home that makes
them a part of the quest. More than 30 million personal
computers are believed to have access to the Internet, SETI
directors say.

"There is a small but captivating possibility that your computer
will detect the faint murmur of a civilization beyond Earth,"
the SETI@home homepage

http://Setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

says in explaining its mission. The program, designed for both
Windows and Macintosh users, takes about five minutes to
download.

SETI@home, which developed the idea of enrolling idle PCs to
boost its own limited resources, is part of a larger project
called SERENDIP -- or Search for Extraterrestrial Radio
Emissions from Nearby Developed Intelligent Populations. The
project gathers and records raw data accumulated by the world's
largest radio telescope at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico.

Perone said the BCC computers are, in effect, borrowed by
SETI@home during their down time.

"Mine does it every time I walk away for five minutes," Perone
said, referring to the SETI software that springs to life when
his PC is not being used. "A screen saver pops up." The PC goes
to work analyzing raw data from Arecibo, a continuously moving,
multicolored bar graph indicating radio signal strength.

"That data is then relayed back to Arecibo," he said. "The PC
user is aiding research and will be notified if anything of an
alien nature flares up. Anyone participating has the opportunity
to be the first earthling to discover new life and new
civilizations."

He said the SETI organizers pledge that if something turns up
the user of the PC that makes the discovery will be the first to
know.

The SETI@home effort will take data gleaned from all the sky
visible from Arecibo three times over in a two-year period. SETI
experts say it may take decades to sift and find even one alien
radio transmission amid all the naturally occurring radio noise
beamed at earth.

The SETI software has been installed on 50 computers in the
Learning Resource Center on the central campus, said Ken
Libutti, BCC education technology supervisor.

The school hopes to eventually involve as many as 200 of its
PCs.


COMMUNICATING WITH ALIENS?

Go to the SETI@home Web page --

http://Setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Download the program -- which takes about five minutes.

Get the free computer screen saver that will analyze relatively
small chunks of data when computers are idle.

You're ready.


*Contact Us

Copyright 1999 Miami 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                 7/11: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN

From: Diana Botsford <Diana_Botsford@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:39:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:02:50 -0400
Subject: 7/11: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN


The UFO Community on MSN is available at
http://communities.msn.com/ufo/. All chats are accessible by
using either our built in chat page, MS Chat or any IRC client.
The chat server name is irc.msn.com and the channel/room name is
#briefing.

========================================
***The Politics of UFOs
Project Blue Book
Back to the Beginning
Sunday, 6pm, PT
Join Melanie Ray and the rest of the Politics staff for a
historical look at Project Blue Book and how it's effects on
Ufology are still felt.  We recommend reading her editorial
perspective prior to the chat. You can find the article at
http://communities.msn.com/ufo.
========================================
***Excuse Me, Mr. President?
Washington, DC 1952 UFOs
Everyone jokes about UFOs landing on the White House lawn. Find
out what DID happen in July of 1952, with multiple radar
confirmations. Read this report from IUR's Michael Fousse and
listen to his detailed Media Player audio interview recounting
the events.
========================================
***This Week in UFO History
UFO Historian Cliff Capers brings back our favorite feature.
This week? Socorro, New Mexico.
========================================
***Ancient Connections
Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI* Research Association
Chat with Giorgio Tsoukalos
Wednesday, 7pm, PT
========================================
***World Wide Watch Database Available
Over 20,000 people have downloaded the results - have you?

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


Chats This Week at the UFO Community on MSN:

SUNDAYS - The Politics of UFOs - 6pm, PT
TUESDAYS - This Week in the News - 6pm, PT
WEDNESDAYS - Ancient Connections- 7pm, PT
THURSDAYS - UFO Skeptics - 7pm, PT
FRIDAYS - The Science of UFOs - 8pm, PT
SATURDAYS - Abductions - 1pm, PT - 9pm, GMT
SATURDAYS - General Discussion - 6pm, PT

Our chat room is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for
discussion relating to any UFO issues.

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


We look forward to seeing you online.

Diana Botsford
Publisher/Forum Manager
UFO Community on MSN
http://communities.msn.com/UFO

- - - - - -
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought . . .
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
Tennyson's Ulysses



************************
The ufo listserv is a free service of MSN's UFO Forum.
To subscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net
In the body of the message write: subscribe ufo

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net
In the body of the message write: unsubscribe ufo






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                              Re: Satanic Abuse

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:08:51 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:09:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>Re: Satanic Abuse

Hi again List,

>>Leanne simply guesses in a way that "doesn't fit
>>into your personal world view," as you put it.

I didn't "guess" -  I simply asked the bleeding obvious as there
are people who will tell such stories for a range of reasons.
Just one of these reasons may be that the reporting individual
is experiencing/has experienced a delusional state as part of a
medical condition. It is only right and proper that anyone who
is investigating these types of claims consider this as a
possible reason for the report.

>Leanne is entitled to any "guesses" she may care to take. I was
>responding to her use of the term "condition" (implying
>something other than an _actual_experience_) when referring to
>reports of UFO abduction. Like I said, it would be nice to see
>some folks investigating what is being reported _first_ before
>creating explanations that they are comfortable with.  I don't
>recall seeing any reports of abduction or UFO sightings that
>were prefaced by; "because of my 'condition' I saw or
>experienced the following." Reports, especially contact reports
>from reputable, honest people should be checked out like cops
>do, _as they are reported_ before allowing ones own personal
>speculations to enter the picture.

Read and act on what I actually say or ask - not on what you
thought I said or asked.

Regards,
Leanne  ];-)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

              New Mars Cydonia Pictures - Including 'The Face'

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:41:39 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:06:39 -0400
Subject: New Mars Cydonia Pictures - Including 'The Face'


Hi List,

The Cydonia region on Mars is perhaps most "famous" for being
the location of a feature that--in Viking Orbiter images--
seemed to resemble a human face. Nearby buttes and hills were
considered by some to represent a "city".

Last year, several pictures of a portion of the Cydonia region
of Mars were photographed, at lower resolution than is now
possible in the Mapping Phase of the MGS mission.

The Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) onboard the Mars Global Surveyor
(MGS) orbiter, was designed specifically to bridge the gap
between what can be seen from orbit in typical Mariner 9 and
Viking orbiter images, and what can be seen from the ground by
landers such as Viking 1 and Mars Pathfinder. The camera,
therefore, takes pictures of extremely high resolution. These
images are often comparable to aerial photographs used by
geologists when they are exploring Earth. The highest resolution
images that can be obtained are in the range of 1.4 to 2.0
meters (4.6 to 6.5 feet) per pixel.

The MGS spacecraft flew over the "famous" Cydonia landforms
again--for the first time since April 1998--on June 27, 1999, at
10:53 UTC (Greenwich Mean Time). The new MOC images shown here
provide the highest resolution view yet obtained of the "Cydonia
city" landforms.

See the new unprocessed and processed pictures -- created on
July 7, 1999, and produced by Malin Space Science Systems --
here:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/PIAGenCatalogPage.pl?PIA02092

http://photojournal-a.jpl.nasa.gov//outdir/PIA02092.4968.jpeg

Images were subjected to image processing techniques to improve
the visibility of features in the images. The processing applied
includes bit-error correction, reseau removal, very slight
brightness alteration, and projection to a standard map view
(mercator projection) with north at the top.

Contrast/Brightness enhancements and image sharpening were not
performed as these would create images that would differ
depending on the nature of the monitor on which they were being
viewed.


Best Regards,

Asgeir









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                 The Millennium Project News - July 12, 1999

From: Paul Anderson - TMP/CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:55:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:18:29 -0400
Subject: The Millennium Project News - July 12, 1999


The Millennium Project News
News and Updates from The Millennium Project

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

July 12, 1999

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING

The big and surprising story at the moment is the release of a
new, high-resolution photo of the controversial Cydonia region
of Mars, by the Mars Global Surveyor. Earlier pictures taken
last year, the first since the Viking mission in 1976, failed to
resolve the enigma of whether there are actually ruins of an
ancient civilization in that area of Mars. The new image is of
higher resolution, and is now being examined closely by many
researchers, including TMP. The image is a strip cutting through
part of the "city" area, similar to the previous pictures, and
does not contain the famous "face". A direct link to the NASA
web site is provided. Hopefully future photos will cover more
adjacent areas of the whole Cydonia region. Analysis by TMP of
some of the previous images in '98 as well as the new ones now,
will be added to the Special Research Projects section of the
web site soon, with some interesting findings.

Also, some comparisons of radar and satellite images of the
"radar anomalies" have been added to the web site, in the Radar
Anomalies area of Special Research Projects.

The crop circles continue at a brisk pace, with new reports from
England and the Czech Republic.

See below for complete listing of this week's news and updates.

Wishing a good week to all of you.

Paul Anderson
Director
The Millennium Project

_____________________________


NEWS AND REPORTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/news.html

* New High Resolution Mars Global Surveyor Images of
   Cydonia
* Latest Crop Circle Updates from England and
   Around the Globe
* New Review of STS-48 UFO Video by Mark Carlotto
* Filer's Files #27 - July 8, 1999
* Meteor Explodes Over New Zealand


SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/srp.html

Y2K:
*Troop Deployment Appears Inevitable

Radar Anomalies:
* Comparison of Radar and Satellite Images of Ring
   Anomalies


LINKS TO RELATED WEB SITES

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/links.html

* New Reverse Speech Web Site by RS Analyst Jon Kelly

_____________________________


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

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

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

E-Mail:
psa@direct.ca

Tel / Fax:
604.731.8522

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

� The Millennium Project, 1999








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                Re: Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:21:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:22:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation


>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org>
>Subject: Looking for UFO Crash Report Confirmation
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Note: This is an unconfirmed report and the author is looking
>for others that can confirm the event. E mail ASSAP to Bill to
>coordinate research.

>From:WLH1@aol.com

>I have recieved a very distrubing report of a grounded UFO in
>the Mojave desert here in California. The observer saw the two
>crew members and reported that they looked alike. Blonde hair,
>crew cut, tall, fair skinned.  Nortic Type. Almost as if they
>had been cloned from the same genetic material. Have you seen
>any reports like this?

>Bill Howard
>The New Herald


Dear Bill ( and Francisco )

.. Uh,  does anyone have a date for this supposed incident?

The approximate location would also be nice. There are no less
than three (3) Interstate freeways crossing the Mojave Desert in
California.

Crashed saucer stories are relatively rare, and almost
invariably lead to naught .. most especially if aliens are
involved, 'nortic' or otherwise.

If there's a new one, I'm sure we would all like no know all
about it no matter how 'distrubing'!

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:45:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:24:53 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT

>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>Stig

>***

>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700

>Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.

>Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

>Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.

>Witnesses report seeing unusual lights in sky over the beach
>roughly 1000 yards to the north of Stearns Wharf in Santa
>Barbara, California. Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>described as "electrified crackling").

>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>illuminated.

>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>classic "falling leaf" pattern.

>Smoke occasionally was visible, possibly due to alien propulsion
>system.

>Witness #22 (K.K.) reports that she attempted to communicate
>with the aliens using a flashlight, following the regimen
>suggested by the work of Dr. Steven Greer. Bursts of light
>frequently occurred in response to these ground-based signals,
>indicating that the phenomena was intelligently directed.

>Several witnesses presumed that the light bursts constituted a
>form of code. Film footage will be analyzed for this, if the
>government has not confiscated said footage.

>Number of witnesses: Unknown, but estimated to be in the
>thousands.

>Possible military involvement. Naval ship spotted in the
>vicinity. Many witnesses report seeing what appeared to be
>weapons fire directed at the lights. Ships appeared to be
>protected by some form of protective shield.

>Comment: I'd like to see the skepti-bunkers denounce THIS
>sighting as a heat inversion, Venus, or swamp gas!


Dear "MC"

You gave the time of day,  but said "last night" for the date.

Since your original message is dated 05 July 1999, may we
presume that these events took place at  2000 to 2100 hours PDT,
on the Fourth of July 1999?

If so,  I suggest that the ships/boats offshore were indeed
firing things into the sky, and that swamp gas and temperature
inversions had nothing to do with it.

Such festivities were sadly called off on my corner of San
Francisco Bay due to fire hazards etc. this year.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                                Greece 1946?

From: Jan-H. Raabe <y0001095@rzab13.rz.tu-bs.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:21:37 +0100 (METDST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:30:13 -0400
Subject: Greece 1946?


Hallo List,

This is a question about an alleged American investigation in
Greece after WWII. Ray Fowler wrote about this in his 'Casebook
of an UFO Investigator'.

He wrote he had communication with the physicist Prof. (Paul ?)
Santorini, who told him, he was involved in an UFO project,
which later was taken over by an American military team.

As source, Fowler gave only his personal letters. Did anyone
ever try an FOIA request on this topic ?

Thanks and best regards,

Jan Raabe







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #307

From: Lehmberg@snowhill.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:52:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:52:07 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #307

        ::
:
:
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:34:56 +500
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #307
:


Apology to MW #307 (For July 10, 1999)

I live to sing the music of a sort that won't pretend what the errors of our
past produce today. All the terror raining bombs, insulted Arabs, wounded Jews;
all the hate that's running rampant while some *Christians* hold their sway.
Still the saucers struggle in the blackness out of sight, and we cower in indiff
erence
to pretend that wrong is right. We sacrifice the *least* of us to pad our feathe
red
halls. We pump the tits of brainwashed girls to make them take our fall. We
tear our eyes from lights that fly. We laugh and smirk and don't ask why. We're
mired in mistakes so plain they make us senseless, cruel -- insane.

Make a man a public figure, choose him out -- make _him_ your nigger! Place
him on your pedestal -- then hold him up for ridicule. Listen to his radio.
Hit his site. He's getting bold (?) -- then cast him out you fickle snitch!
You whining puling spawn -- you bitch! It all comes down to you at last. It's
what _you_ catch in nets you cast. You! So safe and in position spewing gay
jokes, and impositions. Wrapped in your convenience -- proud! And at the sufferi
ng,
laugh out loud! Your son is ravaged -- used, abused! Tormented! Savaged! Depress
ed
and confused! From where would come your laughter then? You are a clueless _jerk
_
my friend. Art comes clean. It's _you_ that's dirty. You're knowing who you
are -- eh 'berty?

Conspiracy's alive and stark! Insidious and plainly dark, it thrives too well
in quick denial -- is nurtured by reluctant trial. It preens itself in your
detraction, growing in your crass inaction! I _agree_ the water's filthy, but
save the baby -- could we? Will we? We're mushrooms to the unelected. We're
in the dark, fed shit -- defective. We don't have a wit or clue if what we're
told is "nothing's new." Faith and trust is what's pretended, crass betrayal,
instead, extended. Nothing's like you think it is; it won't conform. It's falsel
y
glib. You say it's false, and then stop looking -- blinded then to looting --
rooking. It's like you *know* and just don't care, contributing to the angst
that's there. In a bubble thought secure you rationalize your lies -- inured.


Hidden in this churning madness, caught up in elitist gladness are the truths
that we would have if we would cop to what we've said. Hallowed treaties by
the score, around five hundred, *slightly* more -- ripped apart by Uncle Sam
to fill the vaults of shadow men. Fixing prices, built in failure, planning
for a short-term nadir, building walls they hide behind for insulation's sake
-- contrived. Knowledge _is_ the power, friend (explains our schools that just
pretend). Autonomy is what we're missing, teams have power beyond dismissing,
but that is what the man still fears (above all else) it so appears.

Flying in the skies like crickets, *somewhere*, it has been admitted, are reflec
tions
of ourselves that look and wonder for themselves. They're not here 'cause we're
not there (?), our science says, but oh -- contraire. Better that we treat them
like they're watching us prepared to strike. The evidence -- historical, photos,
papers, anecdotal, are the tips of massive 'bergs that float serenely unperturbe
d.
We're not LOOKING. We don't admit it. We're lost to our indifference with it.
Our focus is on learned sneering, proudly bloated profiteering. We've no thought
beyond tomorrow, and _that_ is our collective sorrow.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Everybody's dad dies -- doesn't make me special, but my dad was a lover of
Words, and his passing deserves some kind of notice in the habitats and environm
ents
of words.

He was a scientist, a published author, a poet and, undeniably, he was one who
had remained curious about things. An artist, he was noted for his flamboyantly
creative and efficacious manner. While not occurring in a manner of statistical
significance <g>, he could admit that he was wrong.

His accomplishments are widely and interestingly varied. He's done everything
from work with Stanton Friedman on project NERVA (an early, and working, atomic
engine) to oil exploration among alleged headhunters in South America. A politic
al
independent (a little too right for my taste <g>), he kept an open mind that
was an inspiration to many and an astonishment to the rest.

All unquestionably intelligent persons would agree that he was the very soul
of rationality, and he had an edge. He had the courage to profess that he felt
it likely there was a solidly esoteric foundation to the UFO conundrum, and
that it deserved unflinchingly serious study -- for example.

Alfred Lehmberg II died Tuesday at seventy-six, laughing with his family almost
to the end. I will miss him, as will anyone who knew him.

For a taste of him, visit his Web Site at:

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

Restore John Ford! <Dad always knew Suffolk County was crooked -- said that
it had been that way a long time>





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        Abduction And Sleep Paralysis

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:28:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:55:33 -0400
Subject: Abduction And Sleep Paralysis


I was catching up on some reading over the weekend, and ran
across an article in the NY Times Science section for Tuesday,
July 6, 1999, titled:  "Alien Abduction?  Science Calls it Sleep
Paralysis."

Archived copies can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/

click on the "archives" tab and search for "Alien Abduction".
There is a $2.50 charge to download the article.  A pretty good
overview of the arguments surrounding AA, but specialists will
find nothing new.

Brian






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:32:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:03 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT

>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700

>Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>described as "electrified crackling").

>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>illuminated.

>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>classic "falling leaf" pattern.

I love it!!! I saw exactly the same thing here in Indiana on the
same date. Thousands of witnesses also.

Let's see them try to cover _this_ one up!

Brian






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:53:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:10:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:34:28 +0100

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:49:31 +0100

>But also Dave, Andy Roberts and I have been
>writing a book together.

Roy Hale wrote:

>Hi All,

>Interesting this, speaks volumes!

A pun Roy! You have a sense of humour after all.

Not that it's relevant to UFO UpDates but it will be called 'The
UFOs That Never Were' [Tsk, tsk - nothing like you handing the
feed a byte --ebk] (not my choice of title!)

Froth now ETHers!

Happy Trails

Andy Roberts







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                        Hugh F. Cochrane 1923 - 1999

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:23:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:23:23 -0400
Subject: Hugh F. Cochrane 1923 - 1999




From: Errol Bruce-Knapp
UFO UpDates - Toronto


Hugh F. Cochrane 1923 - 1999

It is with sadness and much regret that I have to report the
passing of Canadian UFO researcher & author, Hughie Cochran.

He died at 3:00 a.m. this morning, in Toronto, after a lengthy
cancer-related illness.

Hughie was the author of 'Gateway To Oblivion - The Great Lakes
Triangle', a journalist, columnist and a gifted cabinet-maker.

Here's 'The Doo' - I shall miss our conversations.

Errol Bruce-Knapp






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 13

                                IHEDN Report

From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:35:39 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:55:16 -0400
Subject: IHEDN Report


It has come to our attention that an important report should be
released on newstands throughout France on 17th July. This
report is said to be an assessment of the ufological situation
and current status of official research in France and was
prepared by a committee from the Association of Former Junior
Officials from the French Institute for High Defence Studies
(IHEDN) of which the association is a subset. The committee was
said to have held private hearings on the subject for the past
two years, in which military personnel, among others, where able
to testify.

The report, which was due out several months ago was postponed
after the outbreak of the conflict in the Balkans. It is said to
be over 100 pages long, and could have been forwarded, according
to information having reached SOS OVNI, to the highest political
figures in France although it is not known if they have endorsed
the proposals.

It is expected the report will underline the interest of first
hand reliable testimony and the need for an intensification of
means granted to SEPRA, the french official investigative body
headed by Jean-Jacques Velasco.

Perry Petrakis
Editor Phenomena
http://www.sosovni.com






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                             Satellite Question

From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:44:23 -0400
Subject: Satellite Question


Dear list,

Here's one that I can't seem to find an answer for, so I'm
hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in this
blank.

Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
satellites?) Do they reflect the light of the Sun? Or do they
have lights of their own? If they do have lights, why? What
purpose do they serve?

Thanks in advance!

-Scott C. Carr
Editor, The Flying Saucer Gazette
http://www.erols.com/sardonica

Producer, "UFO Desk"
99.5 FM WBAI, NY





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    BBC: First Degree In Science Fiction

From: Steven J. Dunn <SDunn@logicon.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:54:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:19:55 -0400
Subject: BBC: First Degree In Science Fiction


Tuesday, July 13, 1999 Published at 11:45 GMT 12:45 UK

BBC:  First degree in science fiction

Students could be studying the latest Star Wars film, as a
university offers a degree in science fiction.

The University of Glamorgan will offer a degree in Science and
Science Fiction from September, with the syllabus examining the
link between science fiction and 'real' science.

The degree, described by the university as being "an award about
science as much as an award in science", will look at science
fiction in books, television, cinema, computer games and
merchandising - from the publication of Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein through to the current Star Wars movie.

The university, which has previously offered a course which
considered the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, wants the
attraction of science fiction to become "a revolutionary new way
of encouraging more people to consider careers in science and
technology".

Students will tackle topics such as 'Will robots take over the
earth?' - which can be considered from the perspectives of both
science fiction and science fact.

The cultural significance of science and science fiction will be
examined, in the context of such influences as the Cold War or
the development of space travel. The range of texts will cover
the spectrum of science fiction, from HG Wells to Doctor Who.

"The link between science fiction and science fact is becoming
much more tangible, but is often ignored as a way of encouraging
people to explore the fascinating developments in human
scientific knowledge," said principal lecturer, Mark Brake.

Popularity of science fiction

According to Dr Brake, scientists wanting to raise interest in
their subject need to recognise that much public understanding
and interest in science and technology begins with science
fiction.

Dr Brake says that the course will "harness the popularity of
science fiction" alongside the "serious study of science".
Students will consider fictional approaches to science in course
modules, while studying formal science disciplines in other
course units.

"It is important that we retain high academic standards while
developing new and innovative ways of teaching science-related
courses," said Dr Brake.

The course, which will aim for "at least a hundred students"
will also address the shortage of young people considering
careers in teaching science.

"Society badly needs more people who are science educators, with
the ability to inspire and encourage young people to develop an
interest in science and technology," said Dr Brake.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:21:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:31:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:52:09 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>To: Updates@globalserve.net

>Its about time I gave you all a behind the scenes look at what
>has been going on for over two years regarding my investigation
>into the Sheffield incident..

was highly entertaining and demands comment. Let us first say
this:

Firstly, most of what Max says is based in some truth. But note
the words 'most' and 'some'.

Secondly, most of what Max says is open to interpretation and
his particular brand of paranoid 'spin doctoring'.

To reply to each and every tedious allegation would be time
consuming and boring. But I will happily do that on the list or
in private. For now here are a few observations. Thanks to EBK
for the chance to see how contested UFO investigations
_actually_ are, warts and all.

>Houses in South Yorkshire were rattled by an unexplained
>Airborne explosion on the night of March 24th (1997) and
>witnesses at Marjorie Hill claimed to have seen a UFO hovering
>over a hill side at the time of the mysterious detonation.
>Why has Tim never passed on these witness details to myself?

Have you asked Tim? Why should he? And this was obviously the
witness named in the newspapers as elementary research would
have shown.

>Article continues.... The explosion was powerful enough to be
>picked up by Edinburgh University's seismic unit....
>Not true, the seismic disturbance at 21.52 was picked up by
>Leeds University....

>Who, Max, along with many other centre supply the BGS with information.
>Dr David Clark has re interviewed the witness Dan Grayson, Dr
>Clark reports that Dan Grayson has never told me he saw a UFO
>or the Triangle that night, and in-deed was now quite happy
>that what he saw was the search and rescue helicopter.
>The thing is that in issue 12 page 43, Dan Grayson actually
>said,And this is well before I had had anything about this case
>in print anywhere.
>And I quote
>"Although my sighting was later than everyone else's, I know
>what I saw was no plane or helicopter"

Max seems to have a problem with witnesses who change their
minds. This is entirely their perogative and is not in any way
indicative of a cover-up, being 'silenced' or whatever other
paranoid fantasies are cool in the dark side of UK ufology.

>At the same time Andy Robert's, reports that the case has been
>solved by David Clark, to be a Bolide meteor etc mundane,
>although some unknown researcher from Rotherham, (meaning
>myself would have others believe otherwise).�

I'd be interested to see myself quoted as saying that Max.
According to a witness I interviewed a few days after the event
a bolide _seemed_ possible. It was never a main contender for
the case and was part of a theory in progress. No big deal
there.

>David Clark, has allready written up his 26 page in-depth
>report for BUFORA, which despite request's will not release to
>me, stating Bolide meteor or military jet, etc. Mundane, etc.,
>etc.

Surely you wouild have read it in BUFORA's publication?

>Which just happens to agree with the official party line BGS &
>the Royal astronomical society ( Dr J Mitton)

And your point is exactly?

>At around this time Andy Robert's releases a copy of his
>tabloid style attack on others the armchair ufologist, makes
>some derogatory remarks about myself.

Certainly did - I suggest listers read it on the Magonia site -
it's called the Armchair Ufologist and it's quite good if you
like to see the soft underbelly of UK ufology exposed. It's the
sort of publication people love when they are not in it!

>At the Bufora conference they allege that I approached then and
>casually exclaimed to give my research credibility and only
>them who are out to discredit myself, that "I had bribed a
>witness with cannabis".

Actually Max we're stating it, not alleging it. For the simple
reason that the conversation took place and Max did in fact
state clearly that he had bribed a 'traveller' (hippy who lives
in an old bus for our US readers) with marijuana to get him to
relate his UFO sighting.

I have stated this many times and despite Max's threats of legal
action if I did not retract (which haven't materialised) and
Matthew Williams' attempts to bribe me into silence I will
continue to raise it. Because when you have an investigator who
openly admits to this kind of behaviour I think it is reasonable
to suggest that it casts doubt on _all_ aspects of his
investigations. When it is further backed up by the fact that
Max is currently on bail for a very serious drug charge I think
that throws an enormous shadow across anything he says.

>There has now been an add on to these alleged events by Andy
>Robert's, That I was seen smoking a cannabis joint, this new
>accusation comes nearly 2 yrs after the conference.�

Max, you appear unable to get even your ad hominem attacks
factually correct! Where exactly did I say this? Copy please.

>In two subsequent editions of the Armchair ufologists, Mr Andy
>Robert's gives myself a three or four page spread in each
>issue, where his attacks on myself and my research continue,

Read them people, read them for yourselves.

>Later on Andy Robert's informs myself by email that he had
>illegally recorded our phone conversation, and had illegally
>played this to a third, a colleague from where he works, who
>had given psychological comment on the recording based on what
>ever back up info Mr Robert's had chosen to supply, obviously
>it would not have been complimentary based on his previous
>attacks against myself

Yes and yes, but not the last bit, I just let the evidence speak
for itself.

>The comment from Mr Robert's Colleague, who has never met or
>spoken with me is that I show the traits of a habitual drug
>user, with all the personality swings etc..Mr Robert's then
>forwards this illegal medical diagnosis to all and sundry,

That's what he said based on your phone call, your emails and
your writings Max. His opinion.

>What the relevant medical authorities would make of this highly
>immoral and Irregular behaviour I don't know, I just know that
>any self respecting psychologist would never give a diagnosis
>without meeting with the person concerned.

He isn't self-respecting. And yes Max, mental health
professionals frequently offer opinions over the phone based
purely on symptoms described to them.

>Does anyone else find this behaviour so far quite shocking? As
>well as a string of offensive e-mails coming my way mostly from
>Andy Roberts.making comments like.�
>"Its all pre programmed Max all pre programmed"

And so it was/is/will be Max, the parabola of your beliefs,
paranoia and ever increasing fantasies was obvious from the
start.

>It was Dr Clark who was extremely angry shouting and pacing
>round his office, with his work mate also becoming even more
>verbal.. I am always up for a debate and it is obvious that Dr
>Clark and I will no doubt have to agree to disagree regarding
>this case..

Unfortunately opinions differ as to what happened that day.

>1998 early part of the year, I am booked to give a lecture for
>the Bufora membership, the lecture is postponed one month and
>is due to take place at the 5th May 1998 AGM...
>Mike Wooten/Clark/Roberts and co start a behind the scenes
>campaign to have me stopped from presenting my findings,

Yes, that's right, we did. For the reason that Mike (who edited
BUFORAs journal for many years and virtrually ran BUFORA
for as many) and David (then BUFORA press officer) and myself
(and many other people including their Director of Investigations
Gloria Dixon) firmly believed that Max should not be allowed to speak
on a BUFORA platform for all the reasons obvious in both Max's
and my posts.

Max has more or less completely destroyed BUFORA, whose
membership is down from over 1000 (when Mike Wootten was a
driving force) to less than 500 and falling. This is _entirely_
due to the Max Burns effect. BUFORA have lost two journal
editors, one press officer, a director of investigations and
many sensible members. On the other hand they have preserved the
right of free speech for fantasists at all costs.

So it was worth it.

>Monday May 7th I have a meeting with Phil Taylor the features
>editor about the Sheffield Incident.... 1.00pm arrives and guess
>who calls the News of the World and asks for Phil Taylor by
>name, and professes to inform Mr Taylor that I am a drug
>dealing liar...and have made the whole thing up.....

And your evidence for this is?

>I do have a charge pending and the charge is intent to supply
>amphetamine. I have pleaded not guilty to the charge, other than
>that I cannot make any comment on this matter, due to the laws
>of prejudice and subjudicy.

Which is precisely why numerous people thought you were highly
unsuited to giving lectures to a national UFO body. The tabloids
would have made a meal of it and BUFORAs credibility would have
plummetted further.

>Also Andy Robert's had advance notice of one of the trial dates
>which should have occurred on the 17th May 1999, 5 days before
>my legal team could inform myself..

The implication being? (other than you should have got yourself
a legal team who could use a 'phone properly!).

>"My masters at MI5 have asked me to wish you all the best for
>May 17th"
>Ever heard this saying? "Many a true word spoken in jest"

And your implication is? Obviously that I _am_ working for MI5.
Max, as I've told you a million times, I would if they paid me.

>On top of that Dr Clark now alleges that I have manipulated a
>medical Doctor, due to the trial on the 17th May being canceled
>due to my medical Doctor, diagnosing that I had severe food
>poisoning.

>To which I provided a proper and legal medical certificate.
>Which confirmed My medical status to the Judge,

I'm sure you did. But it seemed more than a tad 'odd' that you
felt able to run round the Peak District looking for SAS men
less than twenty four hours before your trial was due to begin.

>At Tim Matthew's last conference, Judith Jaafar asks Andy
>Robert's how he managed to obtain such privy information before
>my legal team.�

>Apparently he went red in the face and was unusually stuck for
>a smart  alec reply.�

Puhleese Max.

>The Newly Reformed IUN.... is this the high moral standards
>that they profess to use? You have read the catalogue of things
>that they have been engaged in their attempts to protect their
>patch their own and  their research.�

The IUN is not newly reformed Max, it's been in existance since
1987. We have never professed high moral standards. And yes,
research must be protected from contamination by fabricated
facts. Nothing wrong with that.

>Matthew Williams informed me that there is an undercurrent
>behind the scenes trying to discredit my case and myself. aint
>that the truth.�

And Matthews evidence is? Would this be the Matthew Williams who
admits hoaxing crop circles, believes the Queen and the
Freemasons run everything but only because they are manipulated
by the aliens? I think so.

>Earlier this yr. in Feb. I believe I was booked to give a talk
>for the Bufora Membership once again the booking was for June
>5th. � the campaign started again with the Usual suspects
>engaging in a repeat performance of there antics to try and get
>me removed from the lecture, However they failed, so the NEW
>IUN PLAN came into play

>Enter BLUE HARE,

Ahh, your Close Encounter of the Furred Kind!

>Does Tim Matthew's know who the Blue Hare group are?

Have you asked him?

>I believe he does, this plan that was hatched by the Robert's
>Clark and obviously Matthew's as otherwise he would not have
>known that there were some other info in the offing.�

Surely MI5 could come up with something more imaginative.
Unfortunately Max your paranoia has got the better of you once
again and nothing we say can alter that. Or put it another way:

If we deny the bluehare hoax you won't believe us.

If we admit to the bluehare hoax how can you be sure we are
telling the truth?

>Andy Robert's has bragged that he will be is in possesion of a
>photograph of myself in the peak district park, carrying a
>metel detector...

I hope to have one soon, yes.

>So he obviously knows who the Blue Hare group are....

Not so - But as you know I tend to end up as a clearing house
for rumour, gossip, hoaxes etc etc. Knowing what I know about
other hoaxes it wouldn't surprise me if a photo came my way.

>Come on folks, they have been behind everything else the
>pointers are there.

Max! Paranoia again. 'Behind everything else' is a rather bold
statement. I have seen little evidence of anything from you to
back this up save a desire for you to have a scapegoat for your
fantasies and lack of facts to back up your beliefs about the
Sheffield case.

>In real life they sneaky back door low life's which is proven
>by the large catalogue of facts that I have outlined here today
>and that is only in there attempts to silence myself, plus
>others who are feeling the teeth of this sick old lion

No facts from you Max - merely a series of interpretations,
misperceptions, assumptions and beliefs.

>IS THIS MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?

No! But you don't have to shout.

>I think not, should they be embarrassed? I hope so.... So I
>throw it open, if you were in my shoes what would you think?

We aren't at all embarrased for investigating a case thoroughly
and scientifically and then protecting the facts about that case
from being overwhelmed by fantasy and wishful thinking.

>For the record I am still investigating the Sheffield case and
>will not be deterred

Good Max, glad to hear it. When you can answer just one - just
_one_ of the three questions (see my last post) we have been
posing you for two years now, then perhaps the case will
progress.

>If this is these peoples idea of moral high ground then we are
>all in trouble.

More of a moral grassy knoll actually Max.

>What do you good people think I would be pleased to hear your
>comments on this?

Easy - some people will be horrified, some will be amused, some
won't care less, some will be indignant, some will agree with
Max, some with us, some a little bit of both. Life will go on.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:21:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:28:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:52:09 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>To: Updates@globalserve.net

>Its about time I gave you all a behind the scenes look at what
>has been going on for over two years regarding my investigation
>into the Sheffield incident..

was highly entertaining and demands comment. Let us first say
this:

Firstly, most of what Max says is based in some truth. But note
the words 'most' and 'some'.

Secondly, most of what Max says is open to interpretation and
his particular brand of paranoid 'spin doctoring'.

To reply to each and every tedious allegation would be time
consuming and boring. But I will happily do that on the list or
in private. For now here are a few observations. Thanks to EBK
for the chance to see how contested UFO investigations
_actually_ are, warts and all.

>Houses in South Yorkshire were rattled by an unexplained
>Airborne explosion on the night of March 24th (1997) and
>witnesses at Marjorie Hill claimed to have seen a UFO hovering
>over a hill side at the time of the mysterious detonation.
>Why has Tim never passed on these witness details to myself?

Have you asked Tim? Why should he? And this was obviously the
witness named in the newspapers as elementary research would
have shown.

>Article continues.... The explosion was powerful enough to be
>picked up by Edinburgh University's seismic unit....
>Not true, the seismic disturbance at 21.52 was picked up by
>Leeds University....

>Who, Max, along with many other centre supply the BGS with information.
>Dr David Clark has re interviewed the witness Dan Grayson, Dr
>Clark reports that Dan Grayson has never told me he saw a UFO
>or the Triangle that night, and in-deed was now quite happy
>that what he saw was the search and rescue helicopter.
>The thing is that in issue 12 page 43, Dan Grayson actually
>said,And this is well before I had had anything about this case
>in print anywhere.
>And I quote
>"Although my sighting was later than everyone else's, I know
>what I saw was no plane or helicopter"

Max seems to have a problem with witnesses who change their
minds. This is entirely their perogative and is not in any way
indicative of a cover-up, being 'silenced' or whatever other
paranoid fantasies are cool in the dark side of UK ufology.

>At the same time Andy Robert's, reports that the case has been
>solved by David Clark, to be a Bolide meteor etc mundane,
>although some unknown researcher from Rotherham, (meaning
>myself would have others believe otherwise).�

I'd be interested to see myself quoted as saying that Max.
According to a witness I interviewed a few days after the event
a bolide _seemed_ possible. It was never a main contender for
the case and was part of a theory in progress. No big deal
there.

>David Clark, has allready written up his 26 page in-depth
>report for BUFORA, which despite request's will not release to
>me, stating Bolide meteor or military jet, etc. Mundane, etc.,
>etc.

Surely you wouild have read it in BUFORA's publication?

>Which just happens to agree with the official party line BGS &
>the Royal astronomical society ( Dr J Mitton)

And your point is exactly?

>At around this time Andy Robert's releases a copy of his
>tabloid style attack on others the armchair ufologist, makes
>some derogatory remarks about myself.

Certainly did - I suggest listers read it on the Magonia site -
it's called the Armchair Ufologist and it's quite good if you
like to see the soft underbelly of UK ufology exposed. It's the
sort of publication people love when they are not in it!

>At the Bufora conference they allege that I approached then and
>casually exclaimed to give my research credibility and only
>them who are out to discredit myself, that "I had bribed a
>witness with cannabis".

Actually Max we're stating it, not alleging it. For the simple
reason that the conversation took place and Max did in fact
state clearly that he had bribed a 'traveller' (hippy who lives
in an old bus for our US readers) with marijuana to get him to
relate his UFO sighting.

I have stated this many times and despite Max's threats of legal
action if I did not retract (which haven't materialised) and
Matthew Williams' attempts to bribe me into silence I will
continue to raise it. Because when you have an investigator who
openly admits to this kind of behaviour I think it is reasonable
to suggest that it casts doubt on _all_ aspects of his
investigations. When it is further backed up by the fact that
Max is currently on bail for a very serious drug charge I think
that throws an enormous shadow across anything he says.

>There has now been an add on to these alleged events by Andy
>Robert's, That I was seen smoking a cannabis joint, this new
>accusation comes nearly 2 yrs after the conference.�

Max, you appear unable to get even your ad hominem attacks
factually correct! Where exactly did I say this? Copy please.

>In two subsequent editions of the Armchair ufologists, Mr Andy
>Robert's gives myself a three or four page spread in each
>issue, where his attacks on myself and my research continue,

Read them people, read them for yourselves.

>Later on Andy Robert's informs myself by email that he had
>illegally recorded our phone conversation, and had illegally
>played this to a third, a colleague from where he works, who
>had given psychological comment on the recording based on what
>ever back up info Mr Robert's had chosen to supply, obviously
>it would not have been complimentary based on his previous
>attacks against myself

Yes and yes, but not the last bit, I just let the evidence speak
for itself.

>The comment from Mr Robert's Colleague, who has never met or
>spoken with me is that I show the traits of a habitual drug
>user, with all the personality swings etc..Mr Robert's then
>forwards this illegal medical diagnosis to all and sundry,

That's what he said based on your phone call, your emails and
your writings Max. His opinion.

>What the relevant medical authorities would make of this highly
>immoral and Irregular behaviour I don't know, I just know that
>any self respecting psychologist would never give a diagnosis
>without meeting with the person concerned.

He isn't self-respecting. And yes Max, mental health
professionals frequently offer opinions over the phone based
purely on symptoms described to them.

>Does anyone else find this behaviour so far quite shocking? As
>well as a string of offensive e-mails coming my way mostly from
>Andy Roberts.making comments like.�
>"Its all pre programmed Max all pre programmed"

And so it was/is/will be Max, the parabola of your beliefs,
paranoia and ever increasing fantasies was obvious from the
start.

>It was Dr Clark who was extremely angry shouting and pacing
>round his office, with his work mate also becoming even more
>verbal.. I am always up for a debate and it is obvious that Dr
>Clark and I will no doubt have to agree to disagree regarding
>this case..

Unfortunately opinions differ as to what happened that day.

>1998 early part of the year, I am booked to give a lecture for
>the Bufora membership, the lecture is postponed one month and
>is due to take place at the 5th May 1998 AGM...
>Mike Wooten/Clark/Roberts and co start a behind the scenes
>campaign to have me stopped from presenting my findings,

Yes, that's right, we did. For the reason that Mike (who edited
BUFORAs journal for many years and virtrually ran BUFORA
for as many) and David (then BUFORA press officer) and myself
(and many other people including their Director of Investigations
Gloria Dixon) firmly believed that Max should not be allowed to speak
on a BUFORA platform for all the reasons obvious in both Max's
and my posts.

Max has more or less completely destroyed BUFORA, whose
membership is down from over 1000 (when Mike Wootten was a
driving force) to less than 500 and falling. This is _entirely_
due to the Max Burns effect. BUFORA have lost two journal
editors, one press officer, a director of investigations and
many sensible members. On the other hand they have preserved the
right of free speech for fantasists at all costs.

So it was worth it.

>Monday May 7th I have a meeting with Phil Taylor the features
>editor about the Sheffield Incident.... 1.00pm arrives and guess
>who calls the News of the World and asks for Phil Taylor by
>name, and professes to inform Mr Taylor that I am a drug
>dealing liar...and have made the whole thing up.....

And your evidence for this is?

>I do have a charge pending and the charge is intent to supply
>amphetamine. I have pleaded not guilty to the charge, other than
>that I cannot make any comment on this matter, due to the laws
>of prejudice and subjudicy.

Which is precisely why numerous people thought you were highly
unsuited to giving lectures to a national UFO body. The tabloids
would have made a meal of it and BUFORAs credibility would have
plummetted further.

>Also Andy Robert's had advance notice of one of the trial dates
>which should have occurred on the 17th May 1999, 5 days before
>my legal team could inform myself..

The implication being? (other than you should have got yourself
a legal team who could use a 'phone properly!).

>"My masters at MI5 have asked me to wish you all the best for
>May 17th"
>Ever heard this saying? "Many a true word spoken in jest"

And your implication is? Obviously that I _am_ working for MI5.
Max, as I've told you a million times, I would if they paid me.

>On top of that Dr Clark now alleges that I have manipulated a
>medical Doctor, due to the trial on the 17th May being canceled
>due to my medical Doctor, diagnosing that I had severe food
>poisoning.

>To which I provided a proper and legal medical certificate.
>Which confirmed My medical status to the Judge,

I'm sure you did. But it seemed more than a tad 'odd' that you
felt able to run round the Peak District looking for SAS men
less than twenty four hours before your trial was due to begin.

>At Tim Matthew's last conference, Judith Jaafar asks Andy
>Robert's how he managed to obtain such privy information before
>my legal team.�

>Apparently he went red in the face and was unusually stuck for
>a smart  alec reply.�

Puhleese Max.

>The Newly Reformed IUN.... is this the high moral standards
>that they profess to use? You have read the catalogue of things
>that they have been engaged in their attempts to protect their
>patch their own and  their research.�

The IUN is not newly reformed Max, it's been in existance since
1987. We have never professed high moral standards. And yes,
research must be protected from contamination by fabricated
facts. Nothing wrong with that.

>Matthew Williams informed me that there is an undercurrent
>behind the scenes trying to discredit my case and myself. aint
>that the truth.�

And Matthews evidence is? Would this be the Matthew Williams who
admits hoaxing crop circles, believes the Queen and the
Freemasons run everything but only because they are manipulated
by the aliens? I think so.

>Earlier this yr. in Feb. I believe I was booked to give a talk
>for the Bufora Membership once again the booking was for June
>5th. � the campaign started again with the Usual suspects
>engaging in a repeat performance of there antics to try and get
>me removed from the lecture, However they failed, so the NEW
>IUN PLAN came into play

>Enter BLUE HARE,

Ahh, your Close Encounter of the Furred Kind!

>Does Tim Matthew's know who the Blue Hare group are?

Have you asked him?

>I believe he does, this plan that was hatched by the Robert's
>Clark and obviously Matthew's as otherwise he would not have
>known that there were some other info in the offing.�

Surely MI5 could come up with something more imaginative.
Unfortunately Max your paranoia has got the better of you once
again and nothing we say can alter that. Or put it another way:

If we deny the bluehare hoax you won't believe us.

If we admit to the bluehare hoax how can you be sure we are
telling the truth?

>Andy Robert's has bragged that he will be is in possesion of a
>photograph of myself in the peak district park, carrying a
>metel detector...

I hope to have one soon, yes.

>So he obviously knows who the Blue Hare group are....

Not so - But as you know I tend to end up as a clearing house
for rumour, gossip, hoaxes etc etc. Knowing what I know about
other hoaxes it wouldn't surprise me if a photo came my way.

>Come on folks, they have been behind everything else the
>pointers are there.

Max! Paranoia again. 'Behind everything else' is a rather bold
statement. I have seen little evidence of anything from you to
back this up save a desire for you to have a scapegoat for your
fantasies and lack of facts to back up your beliefs about the
Sheffield case.

>In real life they sneaky back door low life's which is proven
>by the large catalogue of facts that I have outlined here today
>and that is only in there attempts to silence myself, plus
>others who are feeling the teeth of this sick old lion

No facts from you Max - merely a series of interpretations,
misperceptions, assumptions and beliefs.

>IS THIS MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?

No! But you don't have to shout.

>I think not, should they be embarrassed? I hope so.... So I
>throw it open, if you were in my shoes what would you think?

We aren't at all embarrased for investigating a case thoroughly
and scientifically and then protecting the facts about that case
from being overwhelmed by fantasy and wishful thinking.

>For the record I am still investigating the Sheffield case and
>will not be deterred

Good Max, glad to hear it. When you can answer just one - just
_one_ of the three questions (see my last post) we have been
posing you for two years now, then perhaps the case will
progress.

>If this is these peoples idea of moral high ground then we are
>all in trouble.

More of a moral grassy knoll actually Max.

>What do you good people think I would be pleased to hear your
>comments on this?

Easy - some people will be horrified, some will be amused, some
won't care less, some will be indignant, some will agree with
Max, some with us, some a little bit of both. Life will go on.


Happy Trails






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

              (Skyopen) 'The UFO Coverup', Larry King Live from

From: Jim Hickman <jhickman@itlnet.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:29:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:06:24 -0400
Subject: (Skyopen) 'The UFO Coverup', Larry King Live from

-----

From: A.J. Craddock <webmaster@cseti.org>
To: <webmaster@cseti.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 1:01 AM
Subject: "The UFO Coverup", Larry King Live from Area 51


"The UFO Coverup", Larry King Live from Area 51, was aired on
October 1st, 1994.

At the time it gained the highest ratings ever for any one of
his shows, and featured CSETI's Dr. Steven Greer, as one of his
panellists.

We are pleased to announce that the entire TV show with no
commercials can now be played from CSETI's Website via
RealPlayer G2

UPN's KCOP Channel 13 News Special about CSETI and Dr. Greer can
also now be played directly from the Website.  This features the
testimony of two of CSETI's Congressional Witnesses.

Order's for Dr. Greer's upcoming book can also be placed from
the Website, and places for upcoming CSETI Training Seminars can
also be booked.

As the above TV shows take up huge amounts of expensive space on
the Website, we would welcome the donation of Webspace hosting
from any interested party so that we can continue to place such
material in the public domain for educational purposes.



Regards

Tony Craddock
Web Administrator
CSETI
<http://www.cseti.org>http://www.cseti.org






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

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

Skywatch International Inc. and this list service are not
responsible for content or authenticity of posts.

Skywatch International, Inc. endorses no political candidate for
office due to the organization's status as a non-profit
corporation."

"What could be stranger than the truth?"

To post send your message to skypost@unix.ltlb.com

Please visit the Skywatch International Inc. website at
http://www.skywatch-international.org

To unsubscribe send an email to majordomo@unix.ltlb.com.  Do not
type a subject.  In the body of the message type "unsubscribe
skyopen" without the
quotes.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                          The Plot Behind The Book

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:19:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:15:21 -0400
Subject: The Plot Behind The Book


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:34:28 +0100

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:49:31 +0100

>>But also Dave, Andy Roberts and I have been
>>writing a book together.


>Interesting this, speaks volumes!

>Do you have a working title for the book!

>Roy..


Hi,

We have a definite title for the book, since it is written and
being edited as we speak. The book is called 'The UFOs That
Never Were' and is due out around Christmas. Its a series of
case reports, written individually by each of the three of us,
describing UFO investigations that we consider led to IFOs
rather than UFOs as the outcome - primarily through our own
first hand experience. It certainly is not an attack on
investigators, but a study  of what we regard as sober
investigation methods into initially puzzling cases. Some are
big cases that will cause surprise. Others are lesser known ones
that offer illuminating insights.

By writing up these solved cases we hope to show some of the
value of this kind of work. It fits in with my DC lecture
premise (one of my 12 points) that IFOs are regarded as failures
to find aliens by most ufologists when in truth they should be
perceived as successfully doing ones job -  resolving a mystery,
often with beneficial effects to society as we show.

Although it sounds like a negative book, it isn�t. We all make
clear that we consider there to be unsolved cases and are not
diehard sceptics (and in one or two cases the 'solved' label is
fairly said to be contentious).  I have certainly written enough
books about still unsolved evidence to prove that I am neither a
debunker nor a disbeliever, as such. But this was a book we felt
was useful to Ufology. It is also different enough to offer a
new angle on a subject that can be very repetitive, so appealed
to me as a writer of 43 books for that reason.

I am curious to know why - in your words - 'this speaks volumes'
about something or other (you don't specify what) as the recent
debates are not a factor in the book if this is what you were
surmising. It was written before they happened. Please elaborate
as to what you meant by this cryptic comment. Don't be shy. Tell
us straight! From my point if view there is nothing dishonest
about this book and nothing I am ashamed to discuss openly.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                         Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:54:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:35:48 -0400
Subject: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:00:16 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Max can rant and rave all he likes - it won't change the fact
that no aircraft was lost as a result of UFO action over
Sheffield.

It's interesting now to watch Max trying to discover what the
word "fact" means -  he wouldn't know what a fact was if it
jumped up and bit him.

He exhibits all the symptons one would expect from someone
suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder, in particular
rampant paranoia.

As John Keel noted in his study of The Flying Saucer Subculture
(Journal of Popular Culture Vol 8, 1974, p. 874):

"The two types of distinguishable personalities present at UFO
conventions are the obsessive-compulsive and the paranoid-
schizophrenic.

"In order to understand the flying saucer literature itself, and
the underlying trends, we must reconcile ourselves with the
above cruel facts. The flying saucer myth could not have come
into being, and could not have perpetuated itself without the
involvement of such personalities."

Now Maxy baby, come take your medicine..... This is the form it
takes - straight answers to the following questions:

1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was
killed as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March
24, 1997.

2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all
trace of its existence hidden from the public.

3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak
District.

Anything else other than straight answers are purely a
distraction. a smokescreen, to hide the simple fact that you
have no answers to give.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:38:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>30th MUFON CONFERENCE

>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.

Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage? Why did MUFON give
him podium space? We've heard this same drivel over and over
again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from Adamski.

What has Firmage done for Ufology? Name one case, name one
solid research effort funded, name one insightful hard datum that
he has contributed. So far, all he has done is focus more foolish
press attention on the field (and on the goofier aspects of it,
at that) than we've had since the Roswell anniversary.

>Fortunately
>for us the aliens seem reasonably friendly.  Joe believes it is
>likely that intelligent life across the cosmos was able develop
>a form of propulsion more advanced than jet turbines and
>controlled firecrackers.  He states, "Our scientists need to
>start thinking outside of the boundary conditions of 20th
>century physics.  They have not fully explained the fundamentals
>of the cosmos.  For example, did we evolve on Earth?  Joe feels,
>random mechanical evolution cannot account for humans."

How can this man be called intelligent if he doesn't even
understand the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory, yet
believes he is capable of scoffing at it? Anyone with a passing
knowledge of evolutionary theory knows that random mechanical
evolution is a contradiction in terms, and that the explanation
of evolution relies on variation and cumulative selection.

The quotes above may sound profound, but are just more drivel.
"Believes it is likely"? On what basis, with what evidence?

"Our scientists need to start thinking outside of the boundary
conditions of 20th century physics"? What does this mean? It's
the typical garbage produced by those with no real knowledge of
contemporary science or how it works. Scientists are always
pushing the frontiers, but it must be done in a disciplined
fashion, not by running off and listening to our "feelings"
(which apparently are the source for Firmage's less than
profound knowledge of evolutionary theory).

>Science has derived effective mathematical equations that describe
>certain parts of nature, but most physicists know that the
>fundamental of space-time has not been discerned."

Another meaningless statement. What "fundamental"? Is Firmage
about to claim that his "feelings" invalidate General and
Special Relativity (which define the concept of space-time)?

>The great
>innovations of the next century will arise in this area.  His
>talk explained that once extraterrestrial visitation is accepted
>almost every thing on Earth will change.  Physics, discoveries
>in biotechnology, nanotechnology, religion, national borders and
>even economics face massive changes.

Even if everyone developed this "faith" tomorrow, it wouldn't
alter anything a whit. What would generate change would be
actual physical proof of visitation or the derivation of new
physical principals from an analysis of UFO data. But even then,
why pick on biotechnology, nanotechnology and the jumble of
other things thrown together here? If extraterrestrial
visitation is occurring and is proven, the changes in sciences
and technologies will be those caused either by direct transfer
of information or principles derived from detailed observations,
not from belief.

>Joe is a great salesman and entrepreneur.  He held
>the audience spell bound with a slick and insightful
>presentation.

The salesman part is true. The slick depends on the gullibility
or ignorance of the audience. The insight is non-existent.

Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
ride to nowhere.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------
Content-Type: application/rtf
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Beyond.rtf"
X-BeyondMail: rtf1

 Beyond21.rtf





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>30th MUFON CONFERENCE

>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.

Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage? Why did MUFON give
him podium space? We've heard this same drivel over and over
again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from Adamski.

What has Firmage done for Ufology? Name one case, name one
solid research effort funded, name one insightful hard datum that
he has contributed. So far, all he has done is focus more foolish
press attention on the field (and on the goofier aspects of it,
at that) than we've had since the Roswell anniversary.

>Fortunately
>for us the aliens seem reasonably friendly.  Joe believes it is
>likely that intelligent life across the cosmos was able develop
>a form of propulsion more advanced than jet turbines and
>controlled firecrackers.  He states, "Our scientists need to
>start thinking outside of the boundary conditions of 20th
>century physics.  They have not fully explained the fundamentals
>of the cosmos.  For example, did we evolve on Earth?  Joe feels,
>random mechanical evolution cannot account for humans."

How can this man be called intelligent if he doesn't even
understand the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory, yet
believes he is capable of scoffing at it? Anyone with a passing
knowledge of evolutionary theory knows that random mechanical
evolution is a contradiction in terms, and that the explanation
of evolution relies on variation and cumulative selection.

The quotes above may sound profound, but are just more drivel.
"Believes it is likely"? On what basis, with what evidence?

"Our scientists need to start thinking outside of the boundary
conditions of 20th century physics"? What does this mean? It's
the typical garbage produced by those with no real knowledge of
contemporary science or how it works. Scientists are always
pushing the frontiers, but it must be done in a disciplined
fashion, not by running off and listening to our "feelings"
(which apparently are the source for Firmage's less than
profound knowledge of evolutionary theory).

>Science has derived effective mathematical equations that describe
>certain parts of nature, but most physicists know that the
>fundamental of space-time has not been discerned."

Another meaningless statement. What "fundamental"? Is Firmage
about to claim that his "feelings" invalidate General and
Special Relativity (which define the concept of space-time)?

>The great
>innovations of the next century will arise in this area.  His
>talk explained that once extraterrestrial visitation is accepted
>almost every thing on Earth will change.  Physics, discoveries
>in biotechnology, nanotechnology, religion, national borders and
>even economics face massive changes.

Even if everyone developed this "faith" tomorrow, it wouldn't
alter anything a whit. What would generate change would be
actual physical proof of visitation or the derivation of new
physical principals from an analysis of UFO data. But even then,
why pick on biotechnology, nanotechnology and the jumble of
other things thrown together here? If extraterrestrial
visitation is occurring and is proven, the changes in sciences
and technologies will be those caused either by direct transfer
of information or principles derived from detailed observations,
not from belief.

>Joe is a great salesman and entrepreneur.  He held
>the audience spell bound with a slick and insightful
>presentation.

The salesman part is true. The slick depends on the gullibility
or ignorance of the audience. The insight is non-existent.

Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
ride to nowhere.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

              Open letter to Fred Lehmberg... An Ode To An Ode

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:35:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:10:33 -0400
Subject: Open letter to Fred Lehmberg... An Ode To An Ode


Hey Fred...

I see him in me, my dad, I mean.  The way he writes with
passion.  The way he looks and acts, the way he just can't be
mean.  The way he has of saying so much with not a word, just a
look.  And that look.  I do that too.  I share his passion and I
share his love.  It cannot be genes alone, can it?

Nah.  Maybe there's a thing with life, where the spirit bears
close resemblance to from whence it came.  Maybe we're a little
like the Big Guy?  Maybe a little like the old guy? Maybe the
spirit has it's own genes, too.  Maybe.

Whatever the answer, it does not belong to me. And so I can,
with impunity, say anything I wish. Because aint nobody else got
a clue to spew.  Who can nay say me?  My theories are just as
good as anyone else's theories.  Let them rank and rant.  Let
them decant.  Let them spite and fight and yell and scream. Let
them dream. I don't much care.

I know better.  I know they know nothing. But neither do I.  Sue
me.

Fred, I know you are somewhere else.  And I also know my dad
will be joining you soon.  He's got that look. And he's pretty
old now.  I saw him just the other day.  He had a spark in his
eye that I haven't seen in a long time.  He took out one of his
old pipes and some of that 40 year old tobacco he's kept since
he quit smoking that long ago, and sat outside in the shade and
had a pipe full.  It was almost like having dad back again, the
young one I miss.  The one with the sharp look in his eyes, the
piercing stare which bored though my heart.  A short smile on
his face.  A lost reverie found.  The old man was my dad again.
But how can that be?  Nothing changed.  Musta been me.

On thinking about it, it was me.  And it was him.  His spirit,
his soul, his life force, call it what you will, burst upon the
scene like an unexpected clap of thunder from a flash seen
almost at the same time.  It shocked me. But then I thought long
and hard and realized that we are not the lump of meat which
begins to die after only a few years on this planet.  It's the
thing within which gives the thing without the means to be.  And
that thing, whatever it is, revealed itself once more. Maybe for
the last time.

So I wept a little as I drove off.  But the feeling went away.
After I read Al's 307, when he said he was no one special
because your spirit left this mortal plane. Everyone loses his
dad.  I had to laugh at that I did.  See, Fred ... you are
special.  Which makes him so.  I know and so does he that you
just had to go.  The ol' bod' couldn't work no more.  But just
you wait, Fred.  He'll be along any time soon.  Just like the
rest of us maroons.  To take the place we all deserve, along
side our dads drinking Grand Reserve.  Reminiscing about all
those times you gave to me and I accepted. I just hope I can say
that I did the same for someone(s) else.  Shit, Fred, you just
can't take without giving. It's not expected.  We don't lose our
dads.  We merely see the thing to which his spirit gave life,
wither and pass.  Wasn't you, wasn't me.  It was a gas, when he
said that.  But then I understand, it's modesty which rears it's
head.

Some son's shame precludes admitting that you are they and they
are you.  "In my father's house there are many mansions, and
each one a' them got a fireproof floor.  Got to have your own
harem when you come through he door.  Got to play your harp
until your lips bleed."  It's the law.  Poor bastards they are.
Ashamed of their dads.  I'm glad I had mine. And I know Al's
glad he had you.

Been really neat knowing you Fred.  I'll pass along my best and,
if you don't mind, do me a favor please.  Tell my granddad, the
one I barely remember, that while mine rarely speaks of him, his
love shows through the sparsity of words.  With my dad it's a
little different.  It's not that he's ashamed, just that it's
hard for him to talk about him.  But shoot, he already knows
that.

Never mind.  Glad we had this talk.

Al? He's gonna be fine.  Just a little ruffled until he comes
through that door, the one on the other side.  Best be sure you
meet him there when he does.  Oh, and I suspect that he's like
my own dad.  Aint gonna talk much about his old man.  Not that
he is ashamed or anything.  It's just that he can't. It's a
thing with some guys...

I'll send along a mass card.  It's more for him than you, you
know.  It's for both your spirits.  One needs the other.  Always
will.  It's a little tough down here alone.  But you know that
too.  You lost yours one day long past.  Didn't you?  Al lost
his.  I will lose mine too.  Shame.  Somehow, I think we brought
all this on ourselves.  Just a feeling.  Just my own opine.

Pray for us, Fred.  It's lonely down here.  Must be one of the
tests they give to us.  If you pass and weep, then you lose what
you keep.  Funny, it aint got nuttin to do with IQ.  Now there's
one for the books.  Something new.  Be seein' ya'.

Love,
Jim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Allen Loper <cheepnis@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:05:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:42:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed



>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:52:09 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>To: Updates@globalserve.net

>Its about time I gave you all a behind the scenes look at what
>has been going on for over two yrs regarding my investigation
>into the Sheffield incident..

>All you are about to read is fact and has actually occurred,
>there may be a slight discrepency in the chronology.. But the
>content is _Fact undeniable

<snipped for brevity>

>What do you good people think I would be pleased to hear your
>comments on this?

>Max Burns


Hi Max, All

I dont do Jerry Springer so here is my comment:

"1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was
killed as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March
24, 1997.

2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all
trace of its existence hidden from the public.

3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak
District."


Respectfully,

K. Allen

"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
troublesome."

--Isaac Asimov






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                   Re: UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal

From: Rick Goldsmith <rgoldsm@synapse.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:24:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:51:50 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal


>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:06:03
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>Subject: UFO Detection And Tracking Proposal

>The sender asked me to forward this.


>From: jessica018@email.com
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
>To: stevew@magiclink.net, stig.agermose@get2net.dk
>Subject: ufo detection and tracking proposal

>Can you please forward this to the various relevant lists? I am
>not a subscriber and I don't really want to fill my mailbox with
>a mailing list.

>PROPOSAL FOR DETECTION AND TRACKING ANOMALOUS FLYING OBJECTS

>Hello,

>It seems to me one of the main problems the UFO field has is
>that it has not launched any long term effort to gather physical
>evidence in a systematic way with equipment for the purpose of
>recording and tracking the phenomena. One of the reason's SETI
>seems to get funding (all of it private at this point)and UFO
>research does not is because UFO research by and large has not
>set up any kind of monitoring station with sophisticated
>electronics.

Actually, the main problem would probably be $$$. If everyone on
this list won a substantial lottery, I'm sure we would have the
answers to most of our UFO questions inside of a year or two.

>For instance usually what the public sees on TV regarding UFO
>investigation is a researcher listening to stories of "lights in
>the sky", or watching a hypnotic regression of an abductee. None
>of these has the "gee whiz" impact of those large radio
>telescopes, racks of electronic equipment, computer screens.

>When such a project was started in Europe it received funding
>and attracted volunteers from local universities. I am sure
>something similar could be organized here and what a better time
>than "the year 2000". All the testimonials in the world aren't
>worth a simultaneous clear multispectral, picture, video,
>magnetometer reading, and radar return. Things that physicists
>and othter people have asked for frm UFOlogists for years. Isn't
>about time we make this happen??

What an excellent idea! It has no doubt been tabled in the past
but never really come to any fruition on a large scale, that I
am aware of. Again I blame lack of funding or worse; funding in
the wrong hands.

>Well, I took it upon myself to begin putting together a set up
>similar to Project Hessdalen

>http://www.hiof.no/crulp/prosjekter/hessdalen/

>So far I have a magnetometer which detects sudden distortions or
>anomalies in the magnetic field (unlike hessdalen's flux gate
>magnetometer which only made a longterm record of the magnetic
>field). It is as you may already know, widely thought that UFO
>propulsion effects the magnetic field. Many of the technologies
>described in Paul Hill's "Unconventional Flying Objects" infact
>would emit a electo magnetic signature which may distort the
>local magnetic field. Also esoteric technologies such as "warp
>drive", 'gravity modification" etc which are being investigated
>by NASA's Breakthrough Physics Program eould most definatly be
>detectable on this magnetometer.

>If there is a slight variation in the local magnetic field an
>alarm goes off and alerts me to check the radar for any
>anomalous objects.

>I also have obtained a marine radar unit slightly better than
>the one Project Hessdalen used. This radar is a phased array
>"search radar" similar to the kind used by air traffic
>controllers many years ago before the computerized systems
>(which ignore UFO's BTW) came online.

>This radar has tracked helicopters and airplanes as well as
>balloons, and even nearby birds and distant storms! So far no
>UFO's but that may have more to do with my Center City
>Philadelphia location. I would be interesting to set up
>something similar say in the "mysterious valley" in Colorado, or
>near Green River Utah, or perhaps near the Palmdale Plant in
>California or in Rachel, Nevada outside of "Area 51". In fact
>ANY UFO hotspot should have one of these monitoring stations.

Is this radar operating in a back yard somewhere? How many
watts? Less than a cell phone, I hope :)

>Other planned equipment for mine are a Gieger Counter, an
>Ultrasonic listening device, a CCD video camera and Silcon
>Graphics workstation, a multispectral photographic camera, a 3-D
>photographic camera. A night vision (infared) camera, a full
>frequency spectrum display (5hz-1500hz) and a gravitometer.

>The setup I am looking to have in the near future is simply:

>The Magnetometer:       $200*
>The Radar Unit:         $1300*
>The IR Viewer:          $250
>The Utrasonic Reciever  $150
>The 3-D Camera          $300

>* = indicates I already own this.

The setup I have at present is:

Passive IR motion detector (pointing straight up)            $75.00
Piezo buzzer and assorted illuminated switches               $15.00
12V 20Ah battery
$25.00
12V solar panel     (talked the guy down from $30)           $25.00
misc. wire and a real snazzy box to put it in                $ 5.00

Total cost:
$140.00 Canadian

How it works:

The whole mess hangs in a South facing window with the detector
pointing up. The window is conveniently located beside my
computer. If something flies over at a very low altitude, the
buzzer beeps, a light comes on and I look up. So far my
monitoring equipment has detected 2 gulls and a hot air balloon.
Oh yeah, it charges from the solar panel by day so you never
have to plug it in, making it completely mobile. Other features
include a charge indicator and audio-silent switch. Binoculars
and a camera are also kept handy. I'll add a $20.00 gravitometer
as soon as I can decide what to use for a mass and  low cost
electro-static and magnetic sensors are also in the works.

I'd much rather be using the equipment described in the message
quoted but I don't think any corporate or academic sponsors are
lining up at my door to fill my pockets. At least I have the
satisfaction of knowing that if I do find and record something
substantial, I will be able to share the information for free,
with everyone and not be bound contractually or otherwise to
keep a lid on things.


>I would LOVE to assist any investigation in this area, or build
>all of this into the back of a van (it would easily all fit in a
>corner of an average sized van) for mobile use to areas of high
>UFO activity.

I would like to suggest a VW deisel van. You can get them with
no windows (good shielding) and the diesel engine is more
resistant to the pesky stalling effect that is often reported
during sightings. The're not cheap but "if I had the money" that
would be my first choice. A killer stereo will also be needed to
combat any sub-sonic beat-tones that may occur possibly having
mind and body altering results. Ear plugs won't do it, you need
wattage. Figure in at least a grand for this baby.

>As you can see the total cost of the above setup is a mere $2200
>dollars. This is only a fracktion of the cost of any a SETI
>program and is easily within the range of an ambitious
>individual or the budgets of a sufficiently large UFO
>organization (MUFON? FUFOR? NIDS? ISUR? BUFORA?)

What would the owner/operator of this vehicle  be getting paid
an hour? Have to figure that in as well. I might be willing to
do it for nothing but eventually I'll have to go back to my day
job once in a while to eat, pay bills, have life, etc. Being
self-employed, I could probably pull this off for a while, at
least until the wife threatens to leave me :) .

>I just want to clarify, I am a skeptic when it comes to this
>phenomena. I could care one way or the other if there are aliens
>fliting about the skies, however I do believe there is an
>interesting phenomena that needs studied in a systematic way.
>(Just call me Scully.) If anyone else is interested in the
>specifics of this setup, how we can work together to gather
>data, or how one can build such a monitoring station (it was
>easy for me and I am certainly no physicist or electrical
>engineer, most components are usuable right out off the shelf
>thanks to current technology) they can email me at the above
>address. Likewise, if anyone is already running such an
>operation or is about to set one up, please by all means email
>me as there is no sense reinventing the wheel.

The ideas expressed in the post quoted are worthy of praise, as
is the work and expense devoted to the project described
therein. I don't like to cast shadows on anyones garden but I
can't see this taking off in any big way. The cost is
prohibitive to most individuals and I can't see many
institutions being in a rush to join the project. The bigger the
organization, the more image-conscious and paranoid they seem to
become. If potential investors don't see it as having any
pay-back ( dollars please, no lofty intellectual pursuits for
the sake of...) they won't be in a big rush to part with venture
capital.

If we could reduce the whole thing down to a $40.00 black box
that anyone could sit in there back yard and just leave there,
something that would record, alarm and maybe even report in to a
security monitoring station by phone, I bet there'd be one on
every street. If someone was to offer a reward (J. Firmage comes
to mind) for alarms leading to substantial tracking or
photographs of flying anomalies and if the reward was more than
forty bucks, I'm sure they'd sell like crazy. I can see the
info-mercial now...

All this being said, I really hope that at least one of these
vans hits the streets. I'm sure there would be plenty of
suggestions from this list as far as hot spots go. I look
forward to future posts and reports from Jessica when and if
things pan out for her project. In the meantime I'll just keep
listening for the beep and looking up.

Rick Goldsmith










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK

From: Ian Darlington - CUFORG <cuforg@interweb-design.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:50:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:30:04 -0400
Subject: Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK


DATE: Monday 12th June 1999
TIME: 1 - 1.30am
LOCATION: Feock, Truro & Penzance - Cornwall, UK

REPORT No. 1:

One of our members received an email report from a couple who
were travelling from dinner with friends in Playing Place, Truro
to Feock when they noticed a large, glowing, orange orb hovering
over a field and seemingly scanning the ground.

As they watched two football-sized red orbs emerged from the
larger orb and moved off in opposite directions, one left and
one right.

Soon they all shot off vertically at great speed and became
indistinguishable from the other stars. As they tracked the
objects in to the sky, they noticed other objects manoeuvring
high up.


REPORT No.2:

Tony James, an astronomer working at the Falmouth observatory,
received this report from 3 witnesses who saw objects
manoeuvring above Penzance.


APPEAL:

If anyone knows of any other sightings or experiences from the
early hours of Monday morning or late Sunday night, please
contact us at the addresses below, thank you.

Regards,

Ian Darlington.
Editor/Webmaster 'Skywatchers'.

Cornwall UFO Research Group
http://www.interweb-design.co.uk/cuforg
mailto:cuforg@interweb-design.co.uk
ICQ 12387110







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                             Nick Redfern on IRC

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:06:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:15:40 -0400
Subject: Nick Redfern on IRC

UK-UFO-Networks special guest for this Saturday night's meeting
on IRC in Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern is 34 years old from near Walsall, England. He's
one of the best and most respected researchers in the UK. His
first book, A Covert Agenda, published by Simon and Schussler
was released in England in October 1997 and is available on
import in America.

Covert Agenda details the British Government's involvement in
the UFO phenomenon even though they still insist they have no
interest in the subject due to the fact that there is no
national security breaches, a fact which is proved otherwise by
Nick.

Nick has instrumented an unprecedented number of documents from
the Public Records office in London as well as detailed accounts
from civilian and military witnesses. All this research proves
beyond a doubt that there is indeed more to the phenomenon than
governments admit.

His second book, The FBI Files. Nick also has a third new book
out called Cosmic Crashes.

The meeting will take place in #ufo on Chatnet at 11pm GMT this
Saturday the 17th of July

For connection information you can check out for more details
http://www.crowman.demon.co.uk/
http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                      Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:21:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:47:30 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil


>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>Subject: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:28:56 -0300

>'Dirio do Grande ABC', newspaper. ( 07.08.99 )

>Yesterday, were seen two UFOs over the Baleia Beach, at the Bela
>Island.

>The signthing occurred around 12:00 Am, and saw by tree
>residents. They call the police that found nothing.

>According the residents, the objects had a strange metallic
>yellow color and were coming from the ocean, about 20m or 30m
>over the water.

>The objects stayed statics, hovering the beach,  emiting a soft
>sound, for 10 minutes, when suddenly they increase it's speed
>and disappeared.

>They had a cigar shape, were flat, and had 20m length. They had
>no wings and no sound.


Dear Thiago:

What Brazilian state is Bela Island in?

Is there some fairly large city nearby, so I can orient myself
on the map? [Please give approximate distance and direction if
possible.]

May I assume that "yesterday" means the incident took place very
early on 07 July 1999,  and that "around 1200 AM" means the
first minutes of the 7th .. as opposed to the final minutes ..
going into the 8th of July?


Thank you in advance ..

- Larry Hatch

=  =  =  =






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:34:44 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:25:53 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:35:39 +0200
>From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: IHEDN Report

>It has come to our attention that an important report should be
>released on newstands throughout France on 17th July. This
>report is said to be an assessment of the ufological situation
>and current status of official research in France and was
>prepared by a committee from the Association of Former Junior
>Officials from the French Institute for High Defence Studies
>(IHEDN) of which the association is a subset.


Hello Perry,

Please keep us informed about this report when it appears in the
newsstands.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:51:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:30:35 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT

>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>Stig

>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700

>Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.

>Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

>Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.

>Witnesses report seeing unusual lights in sky over the beach
>roughly 1000 yards to the north of Stearns Wharf in Santa
>Barbara, California. Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>described as "electrified crackling").

>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>illuminated.

>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>classic "falling leaf" pattern.

>Smoke occasionally was visible, possibly due to alien propulsion
>system.


Just from the above description, what the witnesses may very
well have seen is one of the "Russian Cosmospheres."

These devices were first introduced into the picture in the early
to mid-seventies.  They used dual systems to propel them in those
early years...

1. Rocket thrusters to propell the "egg shapped," or "ball
shapped," vehicle up from the earth high enough to allow a
switch to a

2.  magnetic motor with which it then propelled itself into a
high earth stationary position, where it could stay for
indefinite periods of time.

The "electrified crackling" is a dead give-a-way to the type of
propulsion system it is using...as previously described. The
"skyquakes" is also a bi-product of discharging the vehicles
particle beam weapon into the atmosphere causing the air to
superheat and thus explode...thus there is no visible evidence
of a weapon of any type.  No damage, no evidence...just a shock
wave which can be tracked and recorded for many miles.

Many may not be aware of these "Cosmospheres."  But I assure you
that the did and do exist.  Russia has improved these devices in
the last ten years to where they no longer require the "rocket
thrusters" to get it airborn.  They can now fly entirely by
magnetic propulsion.

You may ask where to the get the energy to power these vehicles.
It is quite simple.  They use Nuclear Energy.  These vehicles
are shielded to protect the crew from radiation.  It also used
this nuclear reactor to provide power to the "particle beam"
weapons, used for whatever purpose they were told.

It appears they were used to destroy American Spy Satellites in
the 70's, 80's and early 90's as well as add to the premature
return of the American Space Station, "Sky Lab", to earth.

There are many stories of these vehicles being used by Russia to
maintain military equalibriumn in the 1980's...especially during
the Falkland Island war between Britain and Argentina.

For those of you who want more information on these vehicles, I
suggest you find and read the discourses of Dr. David Peter
Beter, which were transcribed from audio taped radio interviews
which Dr. Beter did on a weekly basis.  He died in 1982 of a
heart attack, and thus ended his reports on the "non-pullic"
activities occurring in the world by the worlds governments and
military powers.

I'm sure you will remember many or most of the incidents he
reports on, from the headlines of TV, Radio, and Newspaper
reports at that time.  It is what you did not read, or hear that
Dr. Beter told them.

REgards, Mike



 Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
 ICQ#:7508455
 BBS: (270) 683-3026
 Fax: (270) 686-7394
 Home: (270) 683-6811
        ---





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:45:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:32:28 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:32:42 -0500

>>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT

>>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700

>>Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>>described as "electrified crackling").

>>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>>illuminated.

>>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>>classic "falling leaf" pattern.

>I love it!!! I saw exactly the same thing here in Indiana on the
>same date. Thousands of witnesses also.

>Let's see them try to cover _this_ one up!

>Brian



Gee you  actually got to SEE them. Here on the Oregon coast they
were bright flashes in the fog.

-GT McCoy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:56:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:34:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Satellite Question

>Dear list,

>Here's one that I can't seem to find an answer for, so I'm
>hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in this
>blank.

>Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
>satellites?)

>Do they reflect the light of the Sun?

Yes. That's why they are most easily seen just after sunset, and
just before daybreak.

It is then that they strongly reflect the sun due to their
altitude, before the glare washes out in broad daylight.  People
out in the country, with the least light pollution, are often
surprised at the number of them.

>Or do they have lights of their own?

No, generally not.

>If they do have lights, why?    What
>purpose do they serve?

None at all, especially the secret devices. Commercial
satellites likewise would have no use for lights in general.

There may be some special purpose satellites with lights
attached, but I have personally never heard of any.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

=  =  =  =  =  =






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 04:25:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:36:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question

>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Satellite Question

>Dear list,

>Here's one that I can't seem to find an answer for, so I'm
>hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in this
>blank.

>Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
>satellites?) Do they reflect the light of the Sun? Or do they
>have lights of their own? If they do have lights, why? What
>purpose do they serve?

Hiya Scott,

Depending on their orbit, whether they have a reflective
material or solar panels, angle to the Sun, time of day &
location of observer, size and distance of the object, (plus)
weather conditions, will -all- play some part in determining how
'visible' any given satellite is from the ground.

Some will appear as 'starlike' objects that track across the
sky. While others may appear to blink on and off due to
reflective and nonreflective surfaces alternating as the object
tumbles in orbit or as refelective surfaces relay light to the
ground when 'angles' (line of sight) that are fortunate for the
ground based observer occur.

A satellite will not;

1. Hover in one spot. (it will be in motion either on its own,
or if a 'stationary satellite' due to the turning motion of the
earth.)

2. will not 'stop' and then 'start' moving again.

3. will not appear 'under' clouds or execute random turns.

A satellite will track across the sky in a long shallow arc that
apporoximates the curvature of the horizon line. It will move in
one direction and move at a pretty constant rate of speed. Most
satellites will appear fairly low in Southern skys (towards
equator) for Northern observers as satellites in a 'polar orbit'
are -extremely rare.-

I'm not familiar with any "internally lit" satellites or ones
with "running lights" so my guess would be that it's the
metallic coverings of some objects that will reflect the Sun and
account for most (if not all) of the satellites that are visible
from the ground. But then, who knows 'what' the military has put
up since jumping into bed with our [used to was] "civilian"
space program.  ;)

The NASA or Sky & Telescope websites would be good hunting
grounds for such info.

>Thanks in advance!

You're welcome in retrospect! :)

John Velez,
Amateur astronomer, & Space Cadet 1st class, Starfleet Command
________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                    New UK Peak District Aircrash Mystery

From: David Clarke <David.Clarke@rim.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:53:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:39:45 -0400
Subject: New UK Peak District Aircrash Mystery


Post redirected from
David Clarke crazydiamonds@compuserve.com

A FRESH "mystery aircrash" scenario unfolded today as police and
search and rescue teams scoured the Peak District Moors after
reports of a plane disaster.

Two helicopters, more than one hundred Mountain Rescue Team
staff, police and dog teams spent more than six hours searching
moors after two people reported hearing a plane in trouble on
Tuesday (July 13, 1999).

One of the witnesses - an airline pilot - reported hearing what
he thought was a light aircraft in difficulties and another
heard an bang like an explosion in the air at 5pm.

They said the mystery aircraft appeared to be travelling from
Chapel across the High Peaks eastwards towards Mam Tor mountain
and the Hope Valley during heavy cloud.

Search and rescue teams from Edale, Buxton and Kinder searched
the 2,000 foot ridge of Mam Tor and Hollins Cross in driving
rain with sniffer dogs in the early hours.

Checks were carried out with glider clubs in the area, and with
Manchester airport which reported no planes missing or distress
calls received. The search was called off in the early hours of
Wednesday morning after more than 25 square miles of moor had
been searched without finding any trace of the aircraft.

Today police and Mountain Rescue leaders added the mystery to
their growing file of mystery aircrash reports from the same
region of the Peak District. At one stage during the search
Manchester Airport alerted the RAF's Distress and Diversion Cell
at West Drayton Command Centre who used their sophisticated
equipment to search for radio signals.

Air Traffic Controllers at Manchester said they had not received
any distress calls or picked up anything unusual on radar.

But a senior ATC admitted the reports came from a region within
a short distance of the approach to Ringway's terminal 214 above
Whaley Bridge. A spokesman said the radar tapes for the period
had been retained and a decision was to be taken whether to
reconstruct the incident on radar.

"We received a report from Derbyshire police that a member of
the public had reported an aircraft accident and we passed
details to the RAF West Drayton," he said.

"The Distress and Diversion Cell have a number of facilities
available to them including the ability to locate missing
aircraft and are the body responsible for following up reports
of this kind."

But Peak District Mountain Rescue Team Leader Mike France - who
co-ordinated the search operation -  revealed the Hope Valley
region lay on a radar "blackspot" for Manchester.

He said: "We received several reports via the police describing
an aircraft in difficulties and we had to take it seriously
because these were independent witnesses.

"If there had have been a light plane downed on the moors we
could have had been two and 20 casualties so we brought in more
than one hundred volunteers to search.

"At one stage we had both the Derbyshire and South Yorkshire
Police helicopters airborne but the weather was so bad most of
the search had to be done from the ground.

"The search went on for more than six hours but we found nothing
and there were no reports of missing aircraft.

"We remain on standby to go out again if any other evidence
comes to hand, for example if a private pilot comes forward and
says it was his plane."

A spokesman for Buxton Police said the report was just the
latest of a series of sightings of phantom planes from the Hope
Valley-Derwent Dams area.

"We receive three or four of these kinds of sightings every
year, including sightings of a phantom bomber in the Derwent
Dams area.

"We have to respond to each one individually and on its own
merits. Usually if it is a light plane which has crashed it can
be located relatively quickly.

"But in this case we have carried out a fairly comprehensive
search and are fairly satisfied that nothing has crashed.

"The witnesses were sincere in their reports but we have drawn a
blank. "It could have been anything, including a light plane
whose engine misfired, or a bang caused by a thunderclap or an
explosion in a quarry as the weather conditions were right for
that last night."

A Manchester Airport spokesman said: "Pilots of light civil
aircraft do not have to file a flight plan if on and individual
flight in unrestricted airspace.

"There are many private airstrips in use and there is nothing to
stop a pilot taking off and landing without informing air
traffic control.

"Unless they enter controlled airspace they would not need to
notify us and it is quite possible this explains what has
happened."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@freeside.fc.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:43:10 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:42:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Satellite Question

>Dear list,

>Here's one that I can't seem to find an answer for, so I'm
>hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in this
>blank.

>Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
>satellites?) Do they reflect the light of the Sun? Or do they
>have lights of their own? If they do have lights, why? What
>purpose do they serve?

The vast majority of manmade earth satellites, essentially all,
are visible due to sunlight reflected off of parts of the
satellite, often off large elements such as solar panels.

I can't really comment on lights.  Some craft may have lights,
especially manned craft with which docking might be done.
But in general such lights would be far to faint to be seen
from the ground.

-Brian Cuthbertson






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:44:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:47:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


EASTON MAKES GRAB FOR PUBLICITY
BECOMES THE LATEST TO BE STUCK TO THE
ARNOLD-EXPLANATION-TARBABY

James Easton has gone public with his pelican theory.

>N E W S  R E L E A S E

>Is the 'Flying Saucer' Mystery Finally Solved


>On 24 June, 1947, just before 3:00 p.m., private pilot Kenneth
>Arnold was flying over the Cascade mountain range in Washington
>state, when something caught his eye. To his left and in the
>distance was a formation of nine unusual objects which "fluttered
>and sailed", their wings occasionally reflecting light from the
>afternoon sun.

>Arnold noticed that the formation flew like a flock of geese,
>however, as it seemed they were too fast for birds, he presumed
>these must be a new type of military jet. Arnold reckoned the
>aircraft were travelling in excess of 1,000 miles an hour and
>later told a fascinated media how the objects flew "like speed
>boats on rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite
>that I once saw blowing in the wind".>

>More significantly, he recalled in his subsequent book, 'The
>Coming of the Saucers', "As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton,
>Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across
>the water". First reported as 'saucer-like', they quickly became
>known as 'flying saucers' and hysteria followed fears of a new
>Soviet weapon or 'men from Mars'.

>Yet Arnold never claimed to have seen anything saucer-shaped at
>all! The objects were actually 'bat-like' and "flew like many
>times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-
>like line as if they were linked together - they were flying
>diagonally in echelon formation".>


>1. Photograph of Kenneth Arnold with a sketch depicting one of
>the 'bat-like' objects he observed:

>http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/arnold.jpg

COMMENT:
This shows a drawing of what Arnold said was ONE of the nine,
the only one with a double crescent rear end.  Apparently it
stood out in Arnold's mind because it was unique.

Arnold's drawing in the Air Force report shows semicircular
objects with convex rear coming to a dull point. (Image in Trent
photo 1 has a similar characteristic shape.)

>It was these distinctive flight descriptions and others which led
>Scottish researcher and writer James Easton to take up the reins
>of the 50 year-old mystery.>


>Realising the similarity with a formation of birds, yet
>unfamiliar with any species which could explain all of these
>features, Easton wrote to an Internet based discussion forum for
>Pacific North-west 'birders'. He explains, "The clue to possibly
>identifying the enigmatic objects was in Arnold's description of
>their flight characteristics. Often, birds have a distinctive
>signature, the 'jizz' as it's known, and from this a bird's
>probable identity can be determined, even if the sighting was
>inconclusive".>

>Easton's hunch proved correct and Arnold's long forgotten details
>were recognised by the American birders. And it was no ordinary
>bird they proposed. It was a formation of American White
>Pelicans.>

<snip>

>Arnold believed the objects were many miles distant, however,
>previous attempts to solve the 'flying saucer' riddle have
>deduced that Arnold could have misjudged the perspective against
>a background of snow-covered hills. Easton states, "It has been
>proven that Arnold was mistaken about his estimated height of
>nearby peaks and he used them to judge relative distances between
>himself, the 'objects' and consequently their size and speed. We
>must keep in mind that Arnold's account is his subjective
>interpretation of a 'brief encounter' with no corroborative
>witnesses and nobody ever again saw the type of 'craft' which
>Arnold reported".

It has been "proven that Arnold was mistaken about his estimated
height of neaby peaks..."?  He said they were going "in and out
of" the chain of mountain peaks south of Rainier. An observation
such as this does not require a knowledge of th actual altitudes
of the peaks. No corroborative witnesses? Obviously Fred Johnson
(prospector near Mt. Adams) did not see pelicans... but he did
think he saw Arnold's UFOs.

But, anyway, since Easton has now placed his head publicly on
the chopping block.....so let's see where it falls... I
challenge him to provide a pelican based explanation which makes
sense by demonstrating, with maps for clarity, where these
pelicans were relative to Arnold every 15 seconds during the
sighting.

MACCABEE'S FIRST LAW OF UFO EXPLANATION:

"Any explanation based on a known  phenomenon should obey the
laws of physics and the particular phenomenon."

Therefore, it should be possible for Easton to devise at least
ONE combination of pelican and Arnold flight tracks which
explains Arnold's descriptions.

Naturally this "scenario" must include an assumed speed of the
pelicans, an assumed speed for Arnold, the track Arnold was
following when he first saw them, the track the pelicans were
following (basically southward or nearly perpendicular to
Arnold's track), an initial pelican location (or a set of
possible initial locations), an initial Arnold location (or set
of locations), a demonstration that the assumed pelicans could
have appeared to Arnold as if they traveled from some location
NORTH of the direction (from Arnold's intial position) of Mt.
Rainier, past Rainier and southward past Mt. Adams (as viewed
from Arnold's ending position).

This scenario must also include the implications of Arnold's
claim that he turned his plane "sideways" and rolled down his
window to be certain that there was no reflection from glass
between himself and the objects.   Considering that Arnold was
on the left side of the plane  he would have rolled down the
left-side window.

Based on this one may conclude that Arnold was traveling for a
period of time in the same direction as the objects.  Hence the
pelican hypothesis must explain why Arnold would not have
realized he was gaining on the pelicans.  (No, the assumption
that Arnold was traveling at only 50 mph is not acceptable.
This has been discussed with Easton before.)

As an aide to the understanding of this scenario I would suggest
that Mr. Easton use 15 second time marks along the trajectories
and plot them on a grid so that any supporters of the
pelican  hypothesis can, for themselves, prove that pelicans
can appear as shiny semicircular objects with convex rear ends
that travel in and out of mountain peaks 20 miles away and
seem to be moving at supersonic speeds.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@plinet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:54:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:14:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

At 08:38 AM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
>ride to nowhere.


Perhaps so, but this one is sitting on a million bucks or so.
That makes him a desirable commodity on anyone's podium,
especially around fund raising time :)

Bobbie



Bobbie Felder
Denver, CO

jilain@plinet.com
ICQ #7524076
IRC Undernet #Devils_Tower



                  ~~~Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
                       Life is but an empty dream!
                     For the soul is dead that slumbers,
                       And things are not what they seem.~~~









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:08:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:14:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:54:05 -0400
>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:00:16 EDT
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was
>killed as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March
>24, 1997.

>2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
>provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all
>trace of its existence hidden from the public.

>3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
>UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak
>District.

Call me old fashioned, but given that the answers to these three
questions are the basis of Max's theory of the Sheffield
Incident, isn't it about time he answered them?

Tony





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                       Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:21:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:58:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:54:05 -0400
>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Max Burns <MBurns6711@cs.com>
>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:00:16 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>>UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Max can rant and rave all he likes - it won't change the fact
>that no aircraft was lost as a result of UFO action over
>Sheffield.

>It's interesting now to watch Max trying to discover what the
>word "fact" means -  he wouldn't know what a fact was if it
>jumped up and bit him.
<snip>

>1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was
>killed as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March
>24, 1997.

>2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
>provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all
>trace of its existence hidden from the public.

>3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
>UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak
>District.

>Anything else other than straight answers are purely a
>distraction. a smokescreen, to hide the simple fact that you
>have no answers to give.

Hi,

I would say amen to that, David.

I know there are lot of people out there finding this boring, or
needlessly vindictive and that surely Max is entitled to his
view and David to his. Well, yes, of course, that's true, if it
could be left as that. But it can't because the decision to hold
to a rational view about this case degenerates into a farcical
attempt to accuse anyone denying an alien truth to be a debunker
or government agent.

This is the growing problem and why such issues are globally
important. We need to be able to debate facts and evidence
openly and in reasonable fashion. We have to avoid making
ludicrous accusations against colleagues. I have just been
accused, for instance, of giving away 'by body language' my
membership as a secret agent because I smiled at a scientist
prior to a TV show and that scientist later (in the view of this
person) shouted down his theory during the later debate. I had
met the scientist three minutes earlier. Did not even know his
name and was just being polite. But, no, I was revealing my true
origin as an MI 5 agent. Faced with that it is easy to despair
of the UFO field. This is not logic and good argument. Its
paranoia and we have to prevent it splitting ufology assunder.

Consequently, David has done the right thing here.  He has posed
precisely the key questions to this case that Max - if he has
any reason beyond belief to judge as he does - should be able to
answer. I am keen to hear his evidence and facts because as an
impartial, non-witness to this case I need to know the evidence
that makes someone, evidently sincerely, believe a UFO shot down
an RAF Tornado just a few miles from my back door without my
seeing or hearing a thing.

As a Derbyshire rate payer I funded the massive (and frivolous)
air search rescue that followed. I dont begrudge that because it
could have been a life saving venture. But I do begrudge either
such exercises becoming commonplace when they are mounted at
great expense every time a meteor whizzes by or a thunderclap is
heard, because of loud mutterings about secret plane crashes. Or
indeed if such exercises were not sent out when they need to be
because the authorities got sick of spending thousands chasing
crashed planes that simply are not there. One day the incident
might be for real and people could die thanks to the promoting
of tall tales and incessant crying wolf.

So Max, if you have the evidence, speak up, we are all
listening. But evidence, remember, has to be more than so and so
told me such and such but I cant give any names because of the
cover up. It has to be - like David has provided - names, dates,
times, quotable sources and hard fact. Otherwise any reasonable
person has to weigh one against the other and decide
accordingly.

If you have not got this evidence to provide, then please
consider the long term harm you may unintentionally be doing by
inferring that such facts exist.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                            ID2 - UK UFO Magazine

From: Anthony Chippendale <ufo-net@clara.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:24:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:05:40 -0400
Subject: ID2 - UK UFO Magazine


Source: British UFO Magazine

http://www.ufomag.co.uk/ID2.htm

2ND AUGUST - INDEPENDENCE DAY?

UFO Magazine received a very curious telephone call this morning
(Wednesday, 14th July) from a London taxi driver by the name of
'John'. He wanted to know if we had heard a rumour that aliens
may be about to land on 2nd August!

John claimed that on Tuesday morning, 13th July, he picked up
some Microsoft executives to take them to the Dorchester Hotel
in London. They were later picked up by another driver from his
firm later in the day.

As John drove through central London, his ears picked up when he
overheard the executives talking about UFOs. Between using their
mobile phones, he heard the men state that the United States had
to reveal all they knew about UFOs by 2nd August or there would
be a mass alien landing! He heard mention of 'six crashed
saucers' and 'Roswell'.

After dropping the men off at the Dorchester, John later related
the conversation to fellow cab drivers, who inevitably responded
with a fair degree of ribbing. John alleged that he was so put
out by what he overheard that he visited a newsstand to locate a
UFO-related magazine in the hope that he could discover more.

As it turned out, he picked up a copy of The Unopened Files (our
sister title) and obtained our telephone number from that. His
first words to us were: 'Does anyone know if aliens are about to
land on August 2nd?' We contacted the Dorchester Hotel and were
told that no Microsoft or related computer function took place
there on Tuesday. The only computer function taking place today
is a two-hour meeting organised by HHCL. Of course, this could
be yet another variation on the 'guess what I found in a
briefcase left behind in my taxi' routine. On the other hand,
John had a definite cockney accent and spoke with conviction.

A good actor? A fanciful hoax?

Make of it what you will.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 14

                               Faulty Numbers

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:21:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:13:11 -0400
Subject: Faulty Numbers


Hi Errol, Hi All

It has often been quoted that out of all the UFO sightings
reported that some ninety five percent can be explained one way
or another.[1] It has also been suggested that only some ten
percent of actual UFO sightings ever get reported. Is this
because the sightee fears ridicule or whatever, I don't know.

_IF_ and that's a BIG if, we have five hundred sightings
reported each year that cannot be readily explained
(world-wide), that would mean that we have a nine thousand five
hundred sightings that can be explained. (Follow the logic here)
That would also mean that we have one hundred thousand odd of
actual sightings happening each year, right?

Being that there are only 525,600 minutes in a calendar year
does this mean that the good people of earth are seeing
Unidentified Flying Objects at a rate of one every five and a
half minutes world-wide?

Some have also suggested _millions_ of Americans are being
abducted each year too.[2] That would be three or four every
minute of the day, every day of the year, and that's not
counting the non-American abductees either!

(On a side issue, if millions of Americans _are_ being abducted
then they are mighty busy little greys - or whatever.)

Getting my drift? No? Well its simple. Statistics can say
whatever you want them to say. My personal feelings are that the
figure of _real_ UFO's (or alien space craft) is less than ONE
percent! And that is of the amount of UFOs unexplained!

I would love to point out, much to the annoyance of the likes of
Andy Roberts, that no matter how many cases his (or her) hard
work and research explain I still _believe_ in aliens and in
"flying saucers".

Whilst I am rambling, many hundreds of _genuine_ unidentifieds
are seen each year [3] and many, many more are explained by hard
work and research. This  insignificant little mudball that we
call Earth, is astronomically at the back end of beyond, so if
we are getting visited at hundreds of times each year why has
there been no PUBLIC contact? Is this because _they_ are
monitoring is or is there some "Prime Directive" about
non-interference?

So this brings me to a conclusion. Yes we are being visited, but
nowhere near the quantity that _some_ would have you believe.

----- Many thanks to Mark Cashman for some of the figures and
sources that he supplied me with.

1) Project Blue Book claimed 95% IFOs, but their sample was
highly biased toward NL cases which typically yield more IFOs
than CE cases. The somewhat better Condon sample attained only
30% IFOs. It is likely that a CE only investigation would have
50% or lower IFOs.

2) The high numbers for abductions come from the Roper poll,
which most reputable researchers consider highly flawed. Indeed,
given the various potential psychological side effects if
abductions are real, it is possible that there are many fewer
abductions than even reported by the abductee population.

3) The best database of UFOs is Larry Hatch's *U* Database,
which contains 16,000 unexplained sightings, with (I believe)
most in the fifty year interval since 1947. 16,000 sightings
over 50 years implies 320 a year, or about one a day. However,
there are some days with many more and many days with none. The
1952 wave alone contains a significant percentage of all reports
ever made. See:

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/wave/index.htm

for more info.

--
    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
 Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm
            UFO page--http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:54:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:19:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>30th MUFON CONFERENCE

>>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.

>Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage? Why did MUFON give
>him podium space? We've heard this same drivel over and over
>again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from Adamski.

<snip>

>The salesman part is true. The slick depends on the gullibility
>or ignorance of the audience. The insight is non-existent.

>Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
>ride to nowhere.

Mark-

Joe Firmage gave a very moving presentation that really took
most of those at the conference by surprise.  I'm not sure I
would have called him the "Star" of the symposium, but he was
the only speaker to get a standing ovation at the conclusion of
his talk (which followed Bud Hopkins on Saturday evening).

I would certainly agree that he isn't going to become the
salvation of ufology (if it indeed needs to be saved from
anything), but his approach of looking at the world around us
from a different perspective struck a chord that is hard to
ignore.  I would also add that he is a good motivational
speaker, which is fairly common

I certainly wouldn't compare him to ACC, however.  That would
imply that he hopes to profit from this involvement, and I would
suspect that the opposite is more true, in that there are those
in ufology that hope to profit from him.  Just as abductees
don't need to be convinced of alien visitation, Joe Firmage
isn't concerned about proving that UFOs are real because for him
that question has already been answered.  He was very candid
about the fact that he wants to pursue research into technology,
rather than into research into whether or not UFOs are alien
craft.  So, I would suspect that in the long run he will have
very limited involvement with the traditional "research" end of
ufology.  On the other hand, I'm sure he will be approached for
funding from time to time, and I wouldn't rule out his helping
those projects that he finds interesting.

From all appearances Joe Firmage has developed a philosphy of
life and where we have come from.  Unlike most of us, he has the
means to share it with the world.  We may not agree with his
line of thought, or his conclusions, but he also doesn't appear
to be forcing his philosophy on the rest of us (as we have seen
from so many others).  I spoke with him for a few minutes at the
symposium and came away with the feeling that he is very sincere
in his beliefs, and had an honest desire to share them with
others. He certainly isn't trying to get everyone in the genre
to buy from USWEB, and I would suspect most aren't even sure
what that Company does.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                      Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:59:43 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:27:25 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:21:01 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO Over Bela Island, Brazil


Hello Larry, how are you?

>What Brazilian state is Bela Island in?

In Sao Paulo

>Is there some fairly large city nearby, so I can orient myself
>on the map? [Please give approximate distance and direction if
>possible.]

Yes, Santos and Guaruj. They are in the Sao Paulo coast.

>May I assume that "yesterday" means the incident took place very
>early on 07 July 1999,  and that "around 1200 AM" means the
>first minutes of the 7th .. as opposed to the final minutes ..
>going into the 8th of July?

Yes, you're right.


>Thank you in advance ..

Thank you.


THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI
Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE -
EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
ICQ - 35119615
http://www.ufomind.com/people/t/ticchetti/
********** I LOVE MY COUNTRY, I LOVE BRAZIL**************





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

              36th National UFO Conference - San Antonio, Texas

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:09:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:34:26 -0400
Subject: 36th National UFO Conference - San Antonio, Texas


The Anomalist Hosts the 36th National UFO Conference

The world's oldest UFO conference will be hosted in San Antonio,
Texas, this year by The Anomalist. Dates are Saturday and
Sunday, September 25 & 26, 1999. Location is the Seven Oaks
Hotel & Conference Center, 1400 Austin Highway, San Antonio.

Speakers and subjects are as follows:

Walt Andrus: The Disappearance of Frederich Valentich in
Australia

Jim Moseley (Conference Chairman, MC, editor and publisher of
"Saucer Smear"): Weird Personal Experiences of a Skeptical
Believer

Patrick Huyghe (Co-editor of The Anomalist): The Alien Horde: A
Field Guide Approach to the Unknown

Karl Pflock: Behind the Flying Saucers: A New Twist on Aztec

Constance Clear ("Reaching for Reality"): Abductees: Human
Ambassadors or Lab Rats?

Tom Deuley: MJ-12 & the El Indio-Guerrero Crash

Linda Corley: An Intimate Conversation with Major Jesse A.
Marcel (Marcel's last interview.)

Joe Firmage: The Truth and the International Space Sciences
Organization

Kevin Randle: The Abduction Enigma: A Scientific Analysis

Whitely Strieber: Why Do We Deny It? (Including new video.)

Special Guest: East Coast literary agent Cherry Weiner. Make an
appointment!

$45 advance, $60 door. Rooms $45, suites $75.

For room reservations, call 1-800 346-5866 and be sure to ask
for the above Conference rates.

Advance registrations should be made payable to Dennis Stacy and
sent to PO Box 12434, San Antonio, TX 78212.

E-mail dstacy@texas.net for a Conference flyer and speaker
schedule. Include your snail mail address or send a long SASE to
the above address.

Hope to see you there!

Dennis Stacy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:18:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:26:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 04:25:28 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:36:12 -0400
>Subject: Re: Satellite Question

>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Satellite Question

<snip>

>A satellite will not;

>1. Hover in one spot. (it will be in motion either on its own,
>or if a 'stationary satellite' due to the turning motion of the
>earth.)

I assume the question is how does the satellite look as seen by
the observer on Earth?  A geosynchronous satellite seen in a
telescope (as most are since they are quite high and therefore
dim) _will_ appear to be stationary in the field of view with
the background stars moving past if the telescope does not have
a clock drive or the drive is turned off.  In fact, turning off
the drive and watching the sattelite just sit there is a cool
way to tell if the satellite is in geosync orbit.  Also, if a
dim telescopic moving light is near the celestial equator (hence
above the Earth's equator, too) this is also a good sign that is
might be a geosync satellite.

>2. will not 'stop' and then 'start' moving again.

Ah, contraire.  Perhaps the most commonly reported movement of
fixed astronomical object IFOs, aircraft IFOs, satellite IFOs
(and probably nocturnal light UFOs which have not (yet?) been
judged an IFO) is a stopping and starting, zig-zagging and
jerking caused by autokenitic motion of the eye muscles.  This
is the cause of the famous Falling Leaf Effect.  Satellites are
classics, particularly when they are close to the horizon and
moving slowly without many nearby dimmer stars because of
atmospheric dimming near the horizon.

>3. will not appear 'under' clouds

but might appear below clouds at a distance, with the witness
assuming the object is under the clouds.

>or execute random turns.

But, see autokinetic motion, above.

<snip>

Most satellites will appear fairly low in Southern skys (towards
equator) for Northern observers as satellites in a 'polar orbit'
are -extremely rare.-

This is absolutely wrong, John.  Most satellites and their
launchers which are easily visible to the unaided eye (because
they are in lower orbits) are, indeed, polar orbiters.  ust go
out tonight and watch for them. They can thus cover the entire
Earth.  Manned missions, by contrast, are usually further south
toward the equatorials regions, mainly because of the latitute
of the launch facilities.

Clear skies,

Bob Young





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:55:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:29:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:38:26 -0400
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>30th MUFON CONFERENCE

>>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.

>Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage?

Because Old Money Bags has galloped in like a white knight and
those with a largely pecuniary interest in the subject are just
salivating.  They think that they have a great big fish who's
just nibbling at the bait.

>Why did MUFON give him podium space? We've heard this same drivel
>over and over again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from
>Adamski.

Anyone else who made these claims about secret inside knowledge
from top Government figures would be treated with the skepticism
(may I use that word?) they deserve.

>What has Firmage done for Ufology? Name one case, name one
>solid research effort funded, name one insightful hard datum that
>he has contributed. So far, all he has done is focus more foolish
>press attention on the field (and on the goofier aspects of it,
>at that) than we've had since the Roswell anniversary.

That's telling 'em, Mark.

Clear skies,

Bob Young





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:37:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:39:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:44:11 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>EASTON MAKES GRAB FOR PUBLICITY
>BECOMES THE LATEST TO BE STUCK TO THE
>ARNOLD-EXPLANATION-TARBABY

>James Easton has gone public with his pelican theory.

>>N E W S  R E L E A S E

>>Is the 'Flying Saucer' Mystery Finally Solved


Hello list,

I have made a promise to myself not to comment negatively on
someone else's theorizing about UFOs, but on this occasion I
have to make an exception. Twice on this list in the last two
years I have seen James Easton defending his pelican theory as
an explanation for Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting of anomalous
objects above the Cascade Mountains.

Twice I have witnessed the process of James defending himself
against the criticism of his theory coming from several noted
students of the UFO phenomenon. Twice I have seen James totally
ignoring an endless string of extremely rational arguments as to
why the Arnold sighting simply cannot be explained by a flock op
pelicans. Twice I was simply horrified by the extent to which
someone can close his mind to anything, no matter how
scientific, that disproves his theory. But twice the result was
that James stuck to his pelicans.

Well, let him. If his theory proves anything then it is that no
matter how flawed a theory can be, some people believe what
they want to believe.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                    Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour]

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:52:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:33:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour]


>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:21:48 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Faulty Numbers

>Hi Errol, Hi All

>It has often been quoted that out of all the UFO sightings
>reported that some ninety five percent can be explained one way
>or another.[1] It has also been suggested that only some ten
>percent of actual UFO sightings ever get reported. Is this
>because the sightee fears ridicule or whatever, I don't know.

>_IF_ and that's a BIG if, we have five hundred sightings
>reported each year that cannot be readily explained
>(world-wide), that would mean that we have a nine thousand five
>hundred sightings that can be explained. (Follow the logic here)
>That would also mean that we have one hundred thousand odd of
>actual sightings happening each year, right?

>Being that there are only 525,600 minutes in a calendar year
>does this mean that the good people of earth are seeing
>Unidentified Flying Objects at a rate of one every five and a
>half minutes world-wide?

> Snipped, but respectfully

>1) Project Blue Book claimed 95% IFOs, but their sample was
>highly biased toward NL cases which typically yield more IFOs
>than CE cases. The somewhat better Condon sample attained only
>30% IFOs. It is likely that a CE only investigation would have
>50% or lower IFOs.

>2) The high numbers for abductions come from the Roper poll,
>which most reputable researchers consider highly flawed. Indeed,
>given the various potential psychological side effects if
>abductions are real, it is possible that there are many fewer
>abductions than even reported by the abductee population.

>3) The best database of UFOs is Larry Hatch's *U* Database,
>which contains 16,000 unexplained sightings, with (I believe)
>most in the fifty year interval since 1947. 16,000 sightings
>over 50 years implies 320 a year, or about one a day. However,
>there are some days with many more and many days with none. The
>1952 wave alone contains a significant percentage of all reports
>ever made.
>Snip

OK Jones, I've about had it, Pal.  I've had to listen to
Gesundt, Klass and some others like that Krakow guy.. what's his
face the astrologer, but to hear it from _YOU_ of all people, a
guy I thought had some, je ne sais quoi... is the absolute
limit.

If I have to hear your damned common sense again, I just may
give up any hope that the next debunker will drive me to drink.
In fact, with your kind of common sense, just about everyone
will give up drinking, drugs and the evil weed... the entire
world economy will collapse... bastard.

Now please, _CUT THAT 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:58:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:36:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>
>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>
>>30th MUFON CONFERENCE
>
>>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.
>
>Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage? Why did MUFON give
>him podium space? We've heard this same drivel over and over
>again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from Adamski.
>
>What has Firmage done for Ufology? Name one case, name one
>solid research effort funded, name one insightful hard datum that
>he has contributed. So far, all he has done is focus more foolish
>press attention on the field (and on the goofier aspects of it,
>at that) than we've had since the Roswell anniversary.
>
>>Fortunately
>>for us the aliens seem reasonably friendly.  Joe believes it is
>>likely that intelligent life across the cosmos was able develop
>>a form of propulsion more advanced than jet turbines and
>>controlled firecrackers.  He states, "Our scientists need to
>>start thinking outside of the boundary conditions of 20th
>>century physics.  They have not fully explained the fundamentals
>>of the cosmos.  For example, did we evolve on Earth?  Joe feels,
>>random mechanical evolution cannot account for humans."
>
>How can this man be called intelligent if he doesn't even
>understand the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory, yet
>believes he is capable of scoffing at it? Anyone with a passing
>knowledge of evolutionary theory knows that random mechanical
>evolution is a contradiction in terms, and that the explanation
>of evolution relies on variation and cumulative selection.
>
>The quotes above may sound profound, but are just more drivel.
>"Believes it is likely"? On what basis, with what evidence?
>
>"Our scientists need to start thinking outside of the boundary
>conditions of 20th century physics"? What does this mean? It's
>the typical garbage produced by those with no real knowledge of
>contemporary science or how it works. Scientists are always
>pushing the frontiers, but it must be done in a disciplined
>fashion, not by running off and listening to our "feelings"
>(which apparently are the source for Firmage's less than
>profound knowledge of evolutionary theory).
>
>>Science has derived effective mathematical equations that describe
>>certain parts of nature, but most physicists know that the
>>fundamental of space-time has not been discerned."
>
>Another meaningless statement. What "fundamental"? Is Firmage
>about to claim that his "feelings" invalidate General and
>Special Relativity (which define the concept of space-time)?
>
>>The great
>>innovations of the next century will arise in this area.  His
>>talk explained that once extraterrestrial visitation is accepted
>>almost every thing on Earth will change.  Physics, discoveries
>>in biotechnology, nanotechnology, religion, national borders and
>>even economics face massive changes.
>
>Even if everyone developed this "faith" tomorrow, it wouldn't
>alter anything a whit. What would generate change would be
>actual physical proof of visitation or the derivation of new
>physical principals from an analysis of UFO data. But even then,
>why pick on biotechnology, nanotechnology and the jumble of
>other things thrown together here? If extraterrestrial
>visitation is occurring and is proven, the changes in sciences
>and technologies will be those caused either by direct transfer
>of information or principles derived from detailed observations,
>not from belief.
>
>>Joe is a great salesman and entrepreneur.  He held
>>the audience spell bound with a slick and insightful
>>presentation.
>Snip

Mark, Errol, Sean (as in Jones) and the rest of us best...

This is the second time today that I've been disappointed in two
of my favorite people... Sean and now Mark.  What has happened
to you guys?  And Mark, how is it that you can actually ask all
those questions about Fromage, when you know quite well, what
the answers are?   I KNOW you do.

Basically, if I understand your general querries, you are aksing
why it is that we believe this cheese person in light of the
fact that there has been nothing of "substance" put forth other
than his "belief" system. N'est pas, Msr. Cashman?

Well, the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.  The answer
is blowing in the wind.  Not only is it blowing there, but it
blossoms, dearie, in your very name, Msr. CASHman....

To whit, Sir, anyone whose very expensive tires have been heard
squeeling as loud as that cheese upstart, is listened to with an
intensity greater than the Holy Word uttered by the Big Guy
Himself.  Money talks, Sir, and B.S. walks.  It is said.  It is
also said that when one has not a pot to make wee wee in, that
even the righteous words of such ones (those without a pot), are
B.S.

In other words, if you got it, made it and made it real big, you
got the Motts.  If you aint got it no matter how hard you tried
to get it, then the only thing you got is your word.  And your
word, sir, is about as good as the last bill you didn't pay, eh?

It the American way.  God bless America and all the ships at sea.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                 ewarrior: Mark Cashman - Face On The Fringe

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:35:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:38:25 -0400
Subject: ewarrior: Mark Cashman - Face On The Fringe


UFO UpDates' own Mark Cashman was kind enough to go on record
with an email interview regarding the Face on Mars. He applies
his consummate analytical skill to Carlotto's
"orthorectification" and tells us some interesting facts about
the Viking camera. Along the way he mentions little known facts
about French Ufologist Jacques Vallee, Aime Michel's
"orthoteny", and blithely comments about his severed
relationship with GeoCities.


"Face On The Fringe"
http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/Cydonut2.htm

-eWarrior





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:44:39 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:34:44 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:35:39 +0200
>>From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: IHEDN Report

>>It has come to our attention that an important report should be
>>released on newstands throughout France on 17th July. This
>>report is said to be an assessment of the ufological situation
>>and current status of official research in France and was
>>prepared by a committee from the Association of Former Junior
>>Officials from the French Institute for High Defence Studies
>>(IHEDN) of which the association is a subset.


>Hello Perry,

>Please keep us informed about this report when it appears in
>  the newsstands.

Hello Henny, hello everybody,

This report will be released by a french magazine (VSD
Hors-Serie) friday the 16th. It is not a report from the IHEDN!
It's not an official report. But I confirm that it will be
signed, individually, by high rank persons of the french army,
intelligence and so on... These persons have founded a
association, a sort of private committee. But it's important to
say that's not a "state" report, even if the authors are (or
have been) in functions at a high level of the french defense
community. The preface will be written by a famous general,
former director of the IHEDN.

At first, this report has been written at the attention of the
President Chirac and his Prime Minister. After some talks
between the magazine and the association, a public released (via
the "VSD-Hors Serie"mag.) has been granted under strict
conditions.

The title : "OVNI & Defense - A quoi devons-nous nous attendre"
(UFO and Defense - What must we wait for?) - sorry for the
eventual bad translation.

It will be interesting because the names of the people. There
are 3 main parts:

1. Facts and witnesses
2. Knowledge level (what we know until now)
3. Involvment of the french Defense, advise for the gvt.

I think it will possible for non-french people to order this
issue. Last year, the same magazine published another special
UFO issue. There were a lot of important persons (military
pilot, scientists, and so on...) who were interviewed. The
journalists (not ufologists) working for that magazine are very
good I think. But it's only my personal point of view.

Regards

Thierry
UFOCOM Gen.Coord.
http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                             Re: Faulty Numbers

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:54:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:03:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Faulty Numbers


>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:21:48 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Faulty Numbers

>Hi Errol, Hi All

>It has often been quoted that out of all the UFO sightings
>reported that some ninety five percent can be explained one way
>or another.[1] It has also been suggested that only some ten
>percent of actual UFO sightings ever get reported. Is this
>because the sightee fears ridicule or whatever, I don't know.

>_IF_ and that's a BIG if, we have five hundred sightings
>reported each year that cannot be readily explained
>(world-wide), that would mean that we have a nine thousand five
>hundred sightings that can be explained. (Follow the logic here)
>That would also mean that we have one hundred thousand odd of
>actual sightings happening each year, right?

>Being that there are only 525,600 minutes in a calendar year
>does this mean that the good people of earth are seeing
>Unidentified Flying Objects at a rate of one every five and a
>half minutes world-wide?

>Some have also suggested _millions_ of Americans are being
>abducted each year too.[2] That would be three or four every
>minute of the day, every day of the year, and that's not
>counting the non-American abductees either!

>(On a side issue, if millions of Americans _are_ being abducted
>then they are mighty busy little greys - or whatever.)

>Getting my drift? No? Well its simple. Statistics can say
>whatever you want them to say. My personal feelings are that the
>figure of _real_ UFO's (or alien space craft) is less than ONE
>percent! And that is of the amount of UFOs unexplained!



Hi,

I talked about this in my recent DC lecture. I agree with the
figure of 95% IFOs (by IFOs meaning known phenomena). This is
based upon 25 years as collator of northern British UFO data for
NUFON (thousands of cases) and the on-going statistical analysis
of same. As we have learned to recognise more and more IFO types
the percentage has risen from 90% in my earliest days as a
ufologist. Of course, many cases are subjective just like Blue
Book found 40 years ago.

For instance, in the past few days we have had a flying
jellyfish that my evaluation says was a deflated weather
balloon. The ATC agrees but we cannot track it to source or
convince the witnesses. They think they saw a spaceship. I
don't. Its always going to be a value judgement. Many cases turn
out like this. I count this case as an IFO, contributing to the
95%, but someone else evaluating the data may think it still a
UFO.

The remaining 5% are not what you might call a UFO (if by UFO
you mean an alien intrusion). Most of those 5% constitute some
kind of UAP. In my estimation  - as I think I phrased it in
Washington - less than 1% offer any prospect of being an alien
craft. These are sobering numbers, rarely appreciated. I used it
as an argument for taking IFO and UAP seriously. Regardless of
whether aliens exist (and they may, or may not) five times as
many sightings are unresolved UAP that could benefit science and
95 times as many cases are IFOs. We ignore this data at huge
cost in our often forlorn quest to find aliens. I am not
advocating we dump research into alien contact. What I am saying
is the vast majority of the UFO mystery has no prospect of being
it. So we need to redress the balance somewhat and focus some
attention onto the data too many of us summarily dismiss when it
fails to lead towards ET.

As for sightings reported/unreported. Several surveys have been
carried out in thar regard and a figure of just one in ten
reported is in my view not wildly inaccurate. Sadly most of the
nine out of ten that are not made public are the better calibre
stuff from the high quality witnesses, who have most to lose.
Police officers, for instance, report openly in only about one
in 50 cases.

These are factors of UFO image.

We project the wrong cultural impression and it stiffles
reporting. It is another reason why we should be more modest in
our public presentations (regardless of self belief) and pay
more note of the scientific value of IFO and UAP. These are
easier things for the public to accommodate and a realisation
that what they saw probably wasnt an alien spaceship (as I think
we all agree the overwhelming odds are in any single case that
it was not) would boost the chances of people sharing their
evidence with us.

In our zeal to scream cover up and proclaim alien invasion we
actually put off more people than we attract, and the ones we
put off are the ones we need - the best witnesses. At present
far too many are afraid to embrace the ET prospect, even when
they almost certainly have not confronted it. That is largely
our fault because as a UFO community we mishandle PR.

Those still guffawing at Andy, Dave and I writing a book called
'The UFOs That Never Were' may now get an insight into some of
the reasons why we think this a useful exercise - and it is not
because we are paid to do it by the CIA or because we expect to
nuke ufology into oblivion. I, at least, genuinely believe this
is a sea change ufology needs to make for its own good.

These statistical studies in the UK, by the way, reveal an
interesting thing about window areas. There are two kinds - real
and socially induced windows. I will offend many (no doubt in
Scotland) but I think Bonnybridge is an example of the second.

What I mean is this.

Take a town, call it Anytown. If 50 sightings occur in Anytown
during a particular year (as in any place of similar size) then
by our stats we should expect about 5 to get reported. It will
be like all other towns in that regard and so no big deal.

However, when special factors intervene things change.

For instance, a collection of active ufologists sets up shop,
the local paper starts to take sightings seriously, a local
politician endorses them, a high profile witness such as a
police chief goes public with a story - the effect is to
temporarily raise the apparent number of sightings for three
reasons. People who would not normally do so ride the coat tails
and take the plunge.

The example by a high profile witness encourages others. And the
existence of reporting outlets - the media, UFO investigators
with hotlines etc, increases awareness. The result - for a time
maybe 20 - 30 sightings per year flood in from Anytown and it
suddenly looks like a window.

In Bonnybridge this effect has been maintained by a clever local
effort to maintain the area in the public eye for some years
through countless media features aiming - it seems - towards
tourist potential for the area. I am not knocking that. All
power to the town. But what I am saying is that it becomes
artificially perceived as a window through social forces when in
fact it is merely displaying the level of UFO reporting that
would be found elsewhere if restraints on public reporting did
not prevent 90% of UFO sightings from getting into the public
eye.

A real window, by the way, is easy to spot because it shows far
less variation in trends across time. Sightings are higher here,
year in year out, without any external influence - and, more
importantly, historical data searches can find more than just
isolated reports that are decades or centuries old and long
predate modern UFO publicity.

I reckon there are maybe 100 genuine windows worldwide and a lot
more pseudo windows that result from social factors. Often,
these fizzle out after just a year or so. Sometimes skilfull
mareketing keeps them visible far longer (eg Gulf Breeze and
Bonnybridge - both not real windows in my view).

This does not mean, of course, that the cases reported from the
latter type of window are any less interesting or that the
advantage given to us by higher reporting numbers should not be
explored. This is no attack on areas like Bonnybridge (as some
of my Scottish friends have seen it - one saying - oh, so its
okay for the Pennines in Lancashire to be a real window, but not
Bonnybridge). Politics is not what it is about. The point is the
Pennines are a clear window from their long track record.
Bonnybridge was an ordinary town pre l992 and the genesis of the
window area belief is easy to follow when you look at the social
factors that led to its sudden arrival on the scene.

All of this is in no way a slight on Bonnybridge (or Gulf
Breeze). But we need to know which areas are true windows and
which are socially induced because windows could be a key to
understanding how certain UFOs (or more likely UAP) manifest. As
such we need to consider real windows side by side and seek
patterns that differentiate why they occur and we will be
fatally mislead if we include socially induced windows in this
process as well.

So, as you can see, a study of basic statistics is not a boring
aside. It can take us into interesting territory.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:39:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:07:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


Please see the minor correction below:

>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:54:31 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

<snip>

Regarding Firmage, I originally wrote (in part):

>I would certainly agree that he isn't going to become the
>salvation of ufology (if it indeed needs to be saved from
>anything), but his approach of looking at the world around us
>from a different perspective struck a chord that is hard to
>ignore.  I would also add that he is a good motivational
>speaker, which is fairly common

In my rush I failed to finish the last sentence of that
paragraph, and it should have read:

>         I would also add that he is a good motivational
>speaker, which is fairly common among computer company
>Executives that I've run into.

Sorry for my lapse.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                            Re: Finnish UFO Hoax

From: Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland <ufofinland@saunalahti.fi>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:08:49 +0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:21:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Finnish UFO Hoax


The following announcement is translation from Matias Paatalo's
original report.

Finnish UFO Hoax

Reported encounter of a UFO and a Finnish Air Force Hornet
fighter plane in Lapland is a hoax.

The case in brief:

In the winter 1999 it was reported (e.g. UFO ROUND UP Volume 4
Number 1 January 5, 1999), that Finnish Air Force F18A-Hornet
encountered UFO in Lapland (Northern Finland) on March 31 year
1997. The pilot had told that he observed a UFO in the air
around Inarinjarvi (The Lake of Inari). The bright object was
disk-shaped and orange-colored. It was alleged that the object
was also observed by Lapland's radar-control. Pilot's radio
communication broke off and there appeared some
electrical-system malfunctions on Hornet. According to the story
the Air traffic control gave the permission to fire, but F 18A
Hornet's 20 mm cannon weapon system jammed unexplainable. UFO
disappeared at the speed of 4,5 Mach to the east.

This story is possibly intentional misinformation intending to
annoy UFO researchers or the Finnish Air Force. The story can't
stand the following facts:

1) Man can only guess why someone is started to act as a
ghost-pilot and call up crisis intervention hotline. The real
Hornet pilot wouldn't do in that way. Exceptional hard
selecting-tests proves that.

2) Hornets in Finland are type F18C and F 18D, not F 18A as the
story tells.

3) The pilot is not known by name at Finnish Air Force files.

4) Hornets came to Lapland wing not until 11.1.1999.

5) Cannons aren't used on training flights in Finland.

6) If event would be true that would be currently informed along
with a statement.

7) Any report about encounter between UFO and Hornet
doesn't exist.

The background of the event

Mysterious phone-call came to a helping service-phone last year.
The duty officer got a call from a man who introduced himself as
a Finnish Hornet-pilot and have met UFO at Lapland. The man was
anguished because of the experience. He was also asking how
should be proceeded because of the event. He also stated his
name and a major to be his military rank.

Completely indefinite, unstudied and relied only to telephone
conversation the rumors about the event started to move. They
also reached critical UFO researchers, who were naturally
interested in the reality of the event. Checking started.

The name of the caller was found. The man himself has not been
found. Existing of the pilot and the name that was told are odd
to Defence Force. The checking from the Air Force staff from
Tikkakoski made sure, that non Hornet-pilot with that name is in
the Finnish Air Force. Defence Force's medical superintendent,
medical colonel Matti Ponteva keeps up the possibility, that the
"pilot" sufferers from mentally problems. "The motive of the
call is difficult to estimate, because the person remains
unknown. Genuine Hornet-pilot he couldn't have been", assures
Ponteva.

Investigations in both Lapland's Wings and Finnish Air Force on
the staff indicates that event in question hasn't been reported
during the mentioned time. Lapland Wing's commander colonel
Sippo Ryynanen affirms also that any Hornet plane units has not
been there at that time, and thus no any Hornet could have been
in the air. Hornets brought to Finland are type F18C and F 18D,
not type F 18A, like the story says. Hornets came to
Lapland-Wing not until 11.1.1999. Cannon shot aren't shoot on
training.

"If actual UFO-meeting would have taken place, then we would
find flight-and control-reports, extract from the minutes of
pilot's interview, formal statements, conclusion and the summary
of technical staff. Pilot can observe rare phenomena in the
atmosphere, but this described case is completely baseless. I
heard about this not until now. If case would happened that
would be known here", says colonel Ryynanen. Currently
information system along the Air Force has any reason for
conceal these kinds of events. They are mainly nature's own
lights but unknown phenomena can be among others. Universities
examine many new phenomena, so formal and critical
UFO-researchers do get information as needed.

Finnish Air Force's the staff information service major Kalevi
Reiman says he has seen the story in the Internet. He confirms
case as totally groundlessness, so the ghost-pilot has been
active. The same answer is given also from the Armed Forces.
There information service Erkki Paukkunen wonders the caller's
behavior.

Rumour still spreads in the Internet

The story is now spreaded on the Internet and already got
international attention. The Air Force on the staff is annoyed
about the groundless UFO-rumour. Information service major
Kalevi Reiman says: "If actual UFO-Hornet-conflict would have
occurred, that would be known certainly on the Air Force on the
staff and would be told to researcher, and a statement would
also been given to the public".

Science and UFOs younger investigator Sampo Puoskari finds the
case extremely regrettable because the reputation of UFOs as a
target of serious research get even worse. "This is clear
indication so that those who spreads UFO-Hornet-story on
Internet hasn't spiritually spine and sense of responsibility.
Story of conflict is spread in Internet already to tens of pages
without that these propagators anyhow are bothered to examine
the case", says Puoskari.

Interviews made by Matias Paatalo:

- Lapland's Wing commander Colonel Sippo Ryynanen

- The staff of Tikkakoski`s information service major Kalevi
  Reiman

- information service of the General Staff Erkki Paukkunen

- Science and UFOs research group's researcher Sampo Puoskari

- Defence Force's medical superintendent, medical Colonel Matti
  Ponteva


UFO-Finland
www.ufofinland.net (only in Finnish)
ufofinland@saunalahti.fi





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:25:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:31:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:54:44 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@plinet.com>
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>At 08:38 AM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

><snip>

>>Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
>>ride to nowhere.

>Perhaps so, but this one is sitting on a million bucks or so.
>That makes him a desirable commodity on anyone's podium,
>especially around fund raising time :)

>Bobbie

Hi,

Thought I would add a different view here - as someone who
frankly would not have known Joe Firmage from Joe Soap before I
got to the MUFON conference. Although I did pass a few comments
on UpDates last week about turkeys voting for Christmas, which I
had best elaborate upon!

Firmage was an impressive speaker. No doubt. His ideas struck a
chord with new age thinkers who have a scientific bent.
Certainly. I enjoyed his talk immensely - as a talk - but, for
me, it was far from the UFO highlight of the conference.

Most people I saw afterwards told me they understood about one
tenth of what Firmage said (which barely mentioned UFOs and was
mostly a philosophy of how he sees science in 50 years time). So
why give him such an ovation, I asked? Because, most told, me
he's a real brave guy willing to risk all and stand up for
ufology.

The same thing happened at MIT in l992 when John Mack made his
debut. The abductees present gave him the sort of reception
you'd expect for a newly elected president. The motive was
similar. Here was a hero who would save ufology. It didnt
happen. Nice as Mack is. Useful as his support is proving. He
knows as much (or as little) as we all do and ultimately will
founder against the same rocks we do of seeking to prove
impossible things and battling to decipher confusing,
irreconcilable differences between the evidence.

And so Firmage. He's an astute man. He  is not and I suspect
never will be a ufologist. He is a techologist who wants to
build a new future and use some UFO ideology. But he made
perfectly clear, to those who were listening, that he is not
interested in funding UFO investigations because that job has
been done. Frankly, I got the impression listening to him he was
actually saying - great work chaps. You've kept the camp fires
burning whilst I grew up, made my millions, and saw how this
field is a gold mine for new technology research. Now, with all
my thanks for what you have done, go off and enjoy the sun in
the happy retirement home for worn out ufologists. The day of
UFO investigation is dead. The day of the science/technocrat is
here.

Now he did not actually say all of this (he did say some and I
read the rest in between the lines - perhaos rightly, perhaps
wrongly). Nor am I criticising him for it. He's doing what he
wants to do and what he thinks is right and funding UFO research
just isnt really on his agenda because its not what he's about.
Yes, he may offer some of that. But the last I saw of Richard
Hall he was sad because Firmage had not appeared at a meeting in
which he was going to ask for some money to publish 'The UFO
Evidence Part Two'. 'He was a no show' was how a depressed
looking Richard put it.

Now maybe after I left Joe came up trumps and helped Richard out
here. If so good on him and it would be a terrific gesture to
ufology.  That UFO Evidence (scandalously turned down by major
publishers whilst they print some utter twaddle on UFOs instead)
needs to be seen. Of course, its not Firmage's business to do it
for us and we should not expect him to be a philanthropist and I
am certainly not saying he is wicked if he has decided not to
fund this book. He could have many good reasons and other places
to put his money.

My point is that there might be an unrealistic expectation of
what Firmage can or will do. He has a very obvious agenda and it
intersects with mainstream ufology not as much as most of those
cheering seemed to believe. In fact, if he is hailed by the
media, feted by ufology and becomes the new leader of the field
I suspect its something he wont want because it could intefere
with his other ambitions. Some scientists, for instance, will
not want to play footsie with ufologists. So he might be better
off distancing himself.  It will also drag attention away from
the ego ridden UFO leaders (yes there are some out there) and if
they get less requests to appear on TV because Firmage is the
new public face of ufology, how long before the knives are out?
I predict mutterings (utter garbage as they will be) that
'Firmage is a government plant' beginning once ufology senses
the reality of things. Dont worry Joe when they do. Its a sign
that folk are really worried about what you are saying. The day
people dont invent such yarns about you is the day to wonder if
you have stopped doing anything worthwhile!

As such, what I meant was, that ufologists (the turkeys) could
be voting for Chistmas (thinking it is the start of a great,
prosperous future) when in truth Firmage will do his own things
that may in some ways signal the death of traditional ufology.
After all if he does what he says, uses UFO technology to build
spaceships for everyones garage within a few years, who the heck
will care about the Piddletown UFO Clubs annual report of how
many pink lights were seen over the local park.

So, I found his talk entertaining but also disturbing. I found
Firmage a pleasant, friendly chap, whose vigour and clearly
honest intentions are of appeal but a man wjo is obviously
intelligent and with calculated plans. So he wont be here just
to help us - nor, indeed, primarily to help us. Dont forget
that. I dont think he has any aspiration to harm ufology, let
alone not aid it all he can. But I suspect part of the Firmage
effect could be a lot more negative than most folk are right now
hoping it will be.

But then what do I know? Hopefully, I'll be proved completely
wrong and he will fund dozens of major UFO initiatives, open up
a new golden age where we are all taken seriously and we can do
all those amazing projects we would start tomorrow if we had the
power, money and prestige.

Sorry, I have to go, a pig just landed on my roof.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: Paul Wittry <ppw3@premier1.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:02:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


>>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>>>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Satellite Question

> <snip>

Here's an URL that will answer some of the questions brought to
the fore by this subject:

NASA's "J-Track" Site

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/realtime/JTrack/3d/JTrack3d.html

This site is a real-time image of the known satellite's orbits,
from here you can visit other sites with images of specific
satellites.

If I recall correctly, there is no need for "Plugins". Just a
Netscape 4.x browser, or the equivalent.

ENJOY!!

-Paul





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:15:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:14:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:54:31 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>>>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>30th MUFON CONFERENCE

>>>Joe Firmage was the star of the MUFON Conference... Joe
>>>Firmage is an exceptionally intelligent and extremely gifted
>>>person who states matter of factly that he has been told by high
>>>ranking government officials that extraterrestrials are visiting
>>>us.  Only a few hundred persons are privy to this secret.
>>>Unfortunately, he refused to reveal his sources.

>>Why is anyone paying attention to Firmage? Why did MUFON give
>>him podium space? We've heard this same drivel over and over
>>again. It is no more credible from Firmage than from Adamski.

><snip>

>>The salesman part is true. The slick depends on the gullibility
>>or ignorance of the audience. The insight is non-existent.

>>Firmage is just another ACC. A lot of hot air taking us for a
>>ride to nowhere.

>Mark-

>Joe Firmage gave a very moving presentation that really took
>most of those at the conference by surprise.  I'm not sure I
>would have called him the "Star" of the symposium, but he was
>the only speaker to get a standing ovation at the conclusion of
>his talk (which followed Bud Hopkins on Saturday evening).

<snip>

Hi Steve, Mark, Luke, John, Jaime, et Al, mostly Al...

Regarding Mr. Fromage...

The man may have everything in it's proper perspective.  He may
not. The point I wish to make in this post is that no matter
what number he came up with in answer to the question of God,
the Universe and Everything, that the level of credence given to
that number is directly proportional to both bankroll and the
manner in which it was garnered. The information contained
therein had little to do with it.  Which sucks big time.  In my
view at least.

To put it another way, it has been said many times on this list,
that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  In
the case of Dr. Cheese (or Dr. Vin Frais), one may add
"extraordinary money garnered in a most extraordinary way" to
the equation.  Face it folks, if some farmer out in the West
with big bucks, did what Rockyfeller did, that is, fund a study;
and a similar study was funded by, oh, say, _ME_, I'll give you
fantastic odds as to whose study would get proper press. In
fact, both studies may have nearly the exact conclusions, the
same words, the same science and scientists, but the one funded
by the man with the best color blood and the best smelling buns
would get the best review.  And get it beginning to end.

The question of whether or not Mr. Firmage has, is or will, do
Ufology any good is not at issue here.  From my perspective, the
issue is the manner in which the good, if any is ultimately
done, was the end which gave the means it's justification.  And
if one views this question from this stated angle, then how much
value has the content in the face of the form?  And how does
this define us as intellects?

Personally, I thank Mr. Firmage for coming out of his closet.  I
also came out of mine most recently.  But I'm not worth billions
and I was not the darling of Wall Street.  I wasn't (and am not
now) a stain on the couch! Except to my mommy (I'm an only
child!).  It was not all that hard for me to do.  However in the
doing of it, I did not make the New York Times, the LA Trib or
even the Washington Post.  So much for my "WOW" signal
generating capability, eh?

Mainstream scientists take some big hits when it comes to
exiting their closets of sand (where they are supposed to have
their heads buried).  And when they come out, they are
disbarred, disrobed, have their licenses to examen feet taken
away, et. al.  Especially Al.

So much for science and scientists.

The same is true of those who give their lives to the study of
UFOs and who have little professional status by way of the CV.
In the face of making their life's work the vocation AND the
avocation, of becoming experts in their areas of study, in spite
of spending their own limited resources and being forced to
literally beg on the street, they are given the ridicule they
deserve.  Fools to a man, eh?

Ah, but have a rich man, a famous man, a man accomplished by
virtue of his successes in, say, cheese, or wine, come out of
his closet ... and the "WOW" signal is immediately given the
credence it does not necessarily deserve.  Not a scientist, not
a silly fossifer, not anything but a cheese or wine man.  But a
rich one.  And he's got the Motts.

"Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they
make you King!"

And some of you wonder why I drink Gripple?  Fools!

Jim





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                           The First UFO Sighting?

From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:29:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:49:26 -0400
Subject: The First UFO Sighting?


Hi all,

I know the following will probably cause a difference of
opinion, but does anyone have an answer to the question?

It is not clear whether the person is talking about the very
first sighting(!), the first alleged landing, or perhaps even
the first alleged landing in the USA. Mention of the late 1800's
could mean the airship wave.

Unfortunately I do not know the name of the person asking the
question.

=======================================
Delivered-To: jhayes@cableinet.co.uk
From: Hololog@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:31:58 EDT
Subject: I have a question about UFO's
To: webmaster@ufoinfo.com


Dear Sir,

I have a question about UFO's.  I want to know when and where
the first UFO sighting occured.  I have heard that it was in
Lodi, CA during the late 1800's.  Also it was reported by an
army general who said a craft landed and little men came out and
tried to take him in the craft but he didn't go.  I have no idea
if this is true but if you know I would deeply appreciate it.

Please e-mail ASAP at this address:

        hololog@aol.com

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

Replies can be made direct or via the list for me to forward.

Thanks in advance,

John Hayes

ufoinfo@ukgateway.net
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Archives for UFO Roundup/Filer's Files/UK UFO Network Bulletin/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                    Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour]

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:26:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:21:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Faulty Numbers [Caution - 'umour]


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:52:54 EDT
>Subject: Re: Faulty Numbers - Caution 'umour
>To: updates@globalserve.net

OK Morty

>OK Jones, I've about had it, Pal.  I've had to listen to
>Gesundt, Klass and some others like that Krakow guy.. what's his
>face the astrologer, but to hear it from _YOU_ of all people, a
>guy I thought had some, je ne sais quoi... is the absolute
>limit.

Wow there is one??? Limit that is.

>If I have to hear your damned common sense again, I just may
>give up any hope that the next debunker will drive me to drink.
>In fact, with your kind of common sense, just about everyone
>will give up drinking, drugs and the evil weed... the entire
>world economy will collapse... bastard.

I must admit I thought us Brits where noted for their common
sense. Being that I am common, the only sense I must have must
be common? Hey I can't afford any of the fancy stuff meself :-)

>Now please, _CUT THAT OUT_.

Which bit???

>Docca Morty

Not doctored in anyway, Sean.

--
    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
 Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm
            UFO page--http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:29:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:37:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99



>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:58:10 EDT
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Mark, Errol, Sean (as in Jones) and the rest of us best...

>This is the second time today that I've been disappointed in two
>of my favorite people... Sean and now Mark.

Hiya Jimbob

I hope Mark doesn't feel insulted having his name put in the
same sentence as mine. And many, many thanks, I didn't realise I
was one of your favourite people :-) I am deeply honoured,
friend :-)

--
    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
 Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 15

                             Re: Faulty Numbers

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:24:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:26:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Faulty Numbers


>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:21:48 +0100
>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:13:11 -0400
>Subject: Faulty Numbers

<snip>

>So this brings me to a conclusion. Yes we are being visited, but
>nowhere near the quantity that _some_ would have you believe.

<snip>

>1) Project Blue Book claimed 95% IFOs, but their sample was
>highly biased toward NL cases which typically yield more IFOs
>than CE cases. The somewhat better Condon sample attained only
>30% IFOs. It is likely that a CE only investigation would have
>50% or lower IFOs.

>2) The high numbers for abductions come from the Roper poll,
>which most reputable researchers consider highly flawed. Indeed,
>given the various potential psychological side effects if
>abductions are real, it is possible that there are many fewer
>abductions than even reported by the abductee population.

Dear Sean and List:

Don't forget the study done by J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO
Studies after the Air Force Blue Book records became availble.
The Center's volunteers knocked the number of Air Force Unkowns
down in half.

Also don't forget the fifteen month study later done for CUFOS
by their full-time investigator, Allan Hendry (The UFO Handbook
- A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating and Reporting UFO
Sightings, Doubleday and Co., 1979).

Hendry reported, using Hynek's UFO categories:

Out of the 1307 UFO reports, only 20 made it into the �best� UFO
category.

In the Nocturnal Lights group, only 14 out of 1103 reports made
it into the �best� UFO category.

Out of 89 Daylight Disks, only 4 made it into the 'best' UFO
category.

No radar-visual case made it into the �best� category.  Hendry
went back to look at the other radar-visual cases and found that
they were very poor.

Only 2 of 49 Close Encounters of the First Kind made it into the
�best� UFO category.

None of 25 Close Encounters of the Second Kind made it past
Hendry's nose into the �best� UFO category.

Likewise, none of the 7 Close Encounters of the Third Kind made
it into the 'best' UFO category.

Furthermore, all of these were investigated by one person, Allan
Hendry, with carefully designed questions and standardized
interviews.  As time went on, Hendry seemed to get better at his
investigations.  By the early months of the year following the
study the total of IFOs sometimes reached 100% in some months.
Then Hynek announced that the International UFO Reporter was not
the International IFO Reporter and henceforth would not devote
much time on non mysteries.

Clear skies,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                   PRG Programming Announcement - 7/15/99

From: Stephen Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:28:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:50:52 -0400
Subject: PRG Programming Announcement - 7/15/99

PRG Programming Announcement - 7/15/99

Guest:   Stephen Bassett
         Paradigm Research Group

Program: Strange Days.....Indeed w/ Errol Bruce Knapp & Jonn Kares

Topics:  UFO State Ballot Initiative, Joe Firmage,
         Politics of UFOs/Disclosure, 2000 campaign, more

Where:   CFRB AM 1010 - Toronto - 50,000 Watts
         Internet Cast on Media Player

When:    Sunday, July 18
         11 pm EST

Links:   For links to the show and the Netcast go to:

www.paradigmclock.com/speaking&eventschedule.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:59:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:24:29 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:51:52 -0700
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT>

>>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>>Stig

>>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700>

>>Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.>

>>Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

>>Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.

>>Witnesses report seeing unusual lights in sky over the beach
>>roughly 1000 yards to the north of Stearns Wharf in Santa
>>Barbara, California. Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>>described as "electrified crackling")..

>>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>>illuminated.>

>>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>>classic "falling leaf" pattern.>

>>Smoke occasionally was visible, possibly due to alien propulsion
>>system.


>Just from the above description, what the witnesses may very
>well have seen is one of the "Russian Cosmospheres."

Another sucker gets bagged by a report of fireworks!


>These devices were first introduced into the picture in the early
>to mid-seventies.  They used dual systems to propel them in those
>early years...
>1. Rocket thrusters to propell the "egg shapped," or "ball
>shapped," vehicle up from the earth high enough to allow a
>switch to a

>2.  magnetic motor with which it then propelled itself into a
>high earth stationary position, where it could stay for
>indefinite periods of time.>

Sounds like a crock to me.

>The "electrified crackling" is a dead give-a-way to the type of
>propulsion system it is using...as previously described. The
>"skyquakes" is also a bi-product of discharging the vehicles
>particle beam weapon into the atmosphere causing the air to
>superheat and thus explode...thus there is no visible evidence
>of a weapon of any type.  No damage, no evidence...just a shock
>wave which can be tracked and recorded for many miles.>

>Many may not be aware of these "Cosmospheres."  But I assure you
>that the did and do exist.

You can assure me?  Prove it... without reference to someone
else.

> Russia has improved these devices in
>the last ten years to where they no longer require the "rocket
>thrusters" to get it airborn.  They can now fly entirely by
>magnetic propulsion.

>You may ask where to the get the energy to power these vehicles.
>It is quite simple.  They use Nuclear Energy.  These vehicles
>are shielded to protect the crew from radiation.  It also used
>this nuclear reactor to provide power to the "particle beam"
>weapons, used for whatever purpose they were told.

How heavy do you think the SHIELDING on the reactor might
me.....to protect a living crew from being fried while said
reactor is generating megawatts of power?


>It appears they were used to destroy American Spy Satellites in

<snip>

>turn of the American Space Station, "Sky Lab", to earth.

Crock.

>There are many stories of these vehicles being used by Russia to
>maintain military equalibriumn in the 1980's...especially during
>the Falkland Island war between Britain and Argentina.

Many stories?  Never heard on before.

>For those of you who want more information on these vehicles, I
>suggest you find and read the discourses of Dr. David Peter
>Beter, which were transcribed from audio taped radio interviews
>which Dr. Beter did on a weekly basis.  He died in 1982 of a
>heart attack, and thus ended his reports on the "non-pullic"
>activities occurring in the world by the worlds governments and
>military powers.

>I'm sure you will remember many or most of the incidents he
>reports on, from the headlines of TV, Radio, and Newspaper
>reports at that time.  It is what you did not read, or hear that
>Dr. Beter told them.

Never heard of this guy. Reported in Weekly World News, perhaps?





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                         Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

From: Kurt Jonach - eWarrior <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:46:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:30:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:03:44 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:54 -0400
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #27 - 99

>>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
>>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:27:41 EDT
>>Subject: Filer's Files #27
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Joe is a great salesman and entrepreneur.  He held
>>the audience spell bound with a slick and insightful
>>presentation.

>The salesman part is true. The slick depends on the gullibility
>or ignorance of the audience. The insight is non-existent.

Joe Firmage is a smart guy.

Early last month the Internet Auction giant, EBay, was forced to
suspend online transactions for almost 22 hours. This was front
page news, above the fold, on a Saturday morning in the San Jose
Mercury News. Only in Silicon Valley, right?

This software glitch cost lots of people lots of money. Its the
kind of thing that can happen in a start-up environment, with
programmers producing in "Internet time" and supported by little
or no software quality assurance.

Since then, Joe has started peppering his tech talk with
software engineering issues.

He's right, of course.

-eWarrior (Kurt Jonach)
July 15, 1999





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                           Filer's Files #28 - 99

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:02:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:38:21 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #28 - 99


Filer's Files #28 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 15, 1999,   Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020
Dedicated to life, liberty and the scientific pursuit of UFOs.

SAKHAROV CLAIMS WE CAN INSTANTANEOUSLY CROSS SPACE

As reported in the July 1999 issue of "Physics Today," two and a
half months  before his death, the world-renowned Russian
physicist Andrei Sakharov gave a speech in Lyons, France.
Included in that speech was the following:  "We are looking into
the fantastic possibility that regions of space separated from
each other by billions of light years are, at the same time,
connected to each other with the help of additional parallel
entrances, often called 'wormholes.'  In other words, we do not
exclude the possibility of a miracle: the instantaneous crossing
from one region of space to another.  The elapsed time would be
so short that we would appear in the new place quite
unexpectedly, or, vice versa, someone would suddenly appear next
to us.  I talk of such things in order to show what kinds of
questions are being raised and discussed at the cutting edge of
science."

RON REGEHR CLAIMS UFOs VISIT EARTH

Last week these files carried an article from the Skeptical UFO
Newsletter, written by Phillip J. Klass the retired Senior
Aviation Editor for the prestigious trade journal Aviation Week
& Space Technology.  Ronald S. Regehr, Aerojet Senior
Specifications Analyst (Ret.) responds that Klass is incorrect
in his recent summarization on the characteristics of
atmospheric attenuation as relates to remote sensing by U.S.
"spy" satellites.  In the July 1999, edition of SUN  Klass
states the following:"  In reality, most of DSP's infrared
sensors that look down from its 22,000 mile high altitude
operate at a wavelength approximately 2.5 microns so that the
earth's atmosphere will heavily attenuate infrared energy
emitted by military aircraft (unless flying at very high
altitude), forest fires, electric power plants and other hot
objects which would otherwise generate thousands of false
alarms.  If/when ET craft visit Earth, if they use propulsion
systems which involve high temperatures, then they can be
detected by DSP satellites prior to descending to low altitudes
where the atmosphere heavily attenuates their infrared
radiation.  However, if ET craft use exotic propulsion
techniques, such as "Zero Point Energy," as Joe Firmage
believes, then they will NOT be detected by DSP's infrared
sensors."  Let�s examine Mr. Klass� statement, sentence by
sentence. " Since the DSP is one contiguous unit, all of the DSP
infrared sensors look down from geosynchronous
orbit�approximately 22,300 miles.  There is no separate unit in
any other orbit.   "operate at a wavelength approximately 2.5
microns" One can refer to almost any book on the atmosphere and
readily see there are several "gaps" in the atmospheric
transmissibility spectrum.  These "gaps" are the ones used by
any and all devices that wish to view the Earth using the
infrared portion of the spectrum.  "so that the earth's
atmosphere will heavily attenuate infrared energy" The reason we
use specific wavelengths is to avoid as much atmospheric
attenuation as possible�precisely the opposite of the claim made
by Mr. Klass.  "emitted by � objects which would otherwise
generate thousands of false alarms."  Mr. Klass has stated,
quite correctly, that false alarms are a potential problem.
Further, in the very early days of the DSP there were some false
alarms that led to "interesting" events.  However, in order to
assess low-intensity targets, Aerojet designers strove (quite
successfully, I might add) to make the detectors as sensitive as
possible, relying on the time/intensity profiles of the targets
to differentiate "real" targets from "false" targets.  "If/when
ET craft visit Earth, if they use propulsion systems which
involve high temperatures" I believe they not only have visited
Earth, they continue to do so.  In addition, there is no
requirement for their "propulsion systems" to "involve" high
temperatures.  Almost any source of moderately intense infrared
(IR) energy is detectable under proper viewing conditions.
"they can be detected by DSP satellites prior to descending to
low altitudes where the atmosphere heavily attenuates their
infrared radiation."  As noted earlier, the DSP does not rely on
the target being at high altitude; if so, it would have failed
it�s primary mission�the one for which it was ultimately
designed�the detection and reporting of missile launches!
Launches occur at ground level, not at "very high altitudes"!
Klass errs in making a basic assumption, and then carries it to
an erroneous conclusion.  Thanks to Ron Roger.  Editor's Note: I
think the various governments should release their data that
UFOs, un-correlated targets, what ever they prefer to call them
are regularly entering our atmosphere.

CONNECTICUT

STAMFORD -- I've been wanting to see a UFO since 1950.  I've
read most of the books on the subject and lately have been
reading your sightings reports.  Contrary to Phillip Klass'
theory that most people see UFO's simply because "they want to"
If that were that the case, I would have seen thousands by now,
and I haven't seen any, that is until yesterday.  I live in
southwestern Connecticut.  On July 11, 1999, at about 6:00 PM,
we were having a family cookout close to the shore of Long
Island Sound.  I spotted a shiny object very high in the sky.
At first I thought it was a satellite, but then I noted that it
was standing still.  It then moved upward and to my right.  I
brought it to my nephews attention, pointed to the general
direction and in a few seconds he saw it.  Then suddenly a
second one appeared to the left and a bit lower to the first
one.  They were quite small (about the size of the plastic
pinhead from a new shirt) but definitely solid metallic objects.
They couldn't be military aircraft since they left no vapor
trail, and they stopped from moment to moment.  Suddenly the two
craft disappeared and seven more just as suddenly, appeared to
the left of where the two were last seen.  They seemed in a
"loose formation" not staying equidistant.  But more like a
random pattern.  We saw those for less than a minute and they
also suddenly disappeared!  Needless to say that after nearly 50
years of skywatching, I was quite excited at my first sighting.
Were there any other reports of this sighting?  Thanks to Mel
Rich at mrich76926@aol.com.

NEVADA

AREA 51 -- Norio Hayakawa captured a photo of a dark UFO at Area
51 on June 6, 1999.  Mitch Battros writes, "My good friend Norio
Hayakawa who is best known for disclosing Area 51 and bringing
it to the knowledge of the general public, has just sent in some
fascinating photos that he captured during this years 'Peoples
Rally' at Area 51."  Norio states, it was actually captured by
accident.  Victor Camacho, a Los Angeles Spanish radio talk-show
host, was sitting at the Warning Sign when Norio took the photo.
The Final People's Rally will be held next year, on June 5-6,
the year 2000.  www.eagle-net.org/groomwatch/" Groom Lake/AREA
51: Secrecy & Controversy.

GROOM LAKE -- Bob Collins received an interesting letter from a
retired officer.  "Mr. Collins,     I understand you are
interested in the Air Force's Investigation of UFOs.  I have
read you web site and was very impressed with the postings.  I
am a retired AF Major.  I served from 1972 to 1994.  My entire
AF career was spent in AF Intelligence.  I served with the Air
Force Scientific Advisory Group, Groom Lake, NV, from June 75 to
April 83 and from March 88 to October 94, my retirement date
from the AF.  I worked on numerous special projects.  All
involved the reverse engineering of captured UFOs.  Yes, I was
intimately involved in this operation.  I worked with JAROD,
EBE-2.  We called him the "Puppet Master."  The most perfect
non-human being in the Universe.  He actually had a good sense
of humor.  He could imitate anyone's voice.  I very clever
creature.  I worked on various other projects that involved the
collection of UFO related intelligence.  I worked with a Special
Agent R. who was our counterintelligence agent who conducted
operations to prevent disclosure.  He was briefed into the above
Top Secret COSMIC-MAJIC program called Majastic-12 in 1980.  I
wish I could go public because I can prove that the UFO subject
is real and to let you know you're on the right track.  Thanks
to Robert Collins.  Editor's Note: Similar letters are
circulated on the net, our big problem is to determine if they
are genuine.

BRAZIL

BELA ISLAND -- On July 7, 1999, two UFOs were seen over the
Baleia Beach.  The sighting occurred around 12:00 A M, and was
seen by three residents.  They called the police but nothing was
found.  According to the residents, the UFOs had a strange
metallic yellow color and were coming from the ocean, about 25
meters above the water. The objects stayed static, hovering near
the beach , emitting a soft sound for 10 minutes, when suddenly
they increased their speed and disappeared.  They had no wings.
The shape was like a flat cigar 20 meters in length.

JARDIM DAS PIRANHAS -- Thiago Ticchetti reports that: The Diario
de Natal Newspaper of July 6, 1999, indicated that a UFO was
filmed in Rio Grande do Norte.  Amateur film producer Ricardo
Rilley Oliveira, 32 years old, videotaped a strange object. His
attention was attracted when he left his house at 8:00 PM on
July 5, by a craft. Later that night he saw the phenomenon
again.  The object was the size of 20 stars.  The colors are
visible in the tape and shine like a fluorescent light.  The UFO
was blue at that time, and then became reddish."  Ricardo Rilley
said, The object was shaped like a plate.  The sighting lasted
10 minutes and seemed to effect the camera's battery.  On Sunday
they filmed the object again, but it was higher in the sky.
Many other witnesses saw it.  This time the object reflected
more shine that could be taped better.  It was a white orb and
them became red, with a green circle around the hole, that
changed it's colors.  Thanks to Thiago Luiz Ticchetti, Director
of the Publication Department and Specialized Translation
http://www.ufomind.com/people/t/ticchetti/ "Dirio do Grande ABC
" Newspaper. (7/6 and7/8/99.

RUMORS OF UFO LANDINGS ON AUGUST 2

I don't normally carry this kind of story, but this one claims
they'll land on my birthday.  British UFO Magazine web site
claims, John a London taxi driver phoned.  He wanted to know if
they had heard a rumor that aliens may be about to land on 2nd
August!  John claimed that he picked up some Microsoft
executives to take them to the Dorchester Hotel in London.  He
overheard the executives state, the United States had to reveal
all they knew about UFOs by 2nd August or there would be a mass
alien landing!  A fanciful hoax?  Thanks to UFO Magazine at
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/page001.htm.  Editor's Note: Rumors from
France claim that information from military and gendarmerie is
being released that indicate that aliens are landing on Earth.
Speaking of landings my son's first child was born on July 13th.
Her name is Alexandria Danielle Filer, who weighed 8 pounds 2
ounces.

MY INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE OF THE SITUATION

Alien craft are penetrating our atmosphere on a regular basis.
Fortunately they do not generally cause major problems.  On
occasion they may have sabotaged or accidentally interfered with
nuclear ballistic missile systems apparently to provide a
warning to world governments.  For now they seem content in
collecting intelligence information, watching, and carrying out
their other missions.  Although these craft have been visiting
us for more than fifty years, perhaps for thousands, there are
few stories of hostile action.  Even these hostile encounters
seem to involve actions of self protection.  Their technology
appears far superior to our comparatively primitive weapons.
Based on recent intelligence data from C. Stevens we estimate
numerous UFOs will be observed over South America, particularly
in Chile and Argentina.  Sporadic reports will occur over the
Northern Hemisphere particularly Mexico and the Middle East.
Numerous videos will be taken of the objects.  Venus is a
brilliant "Evening Star" low in the west at dusk with a
magnitude -4.4.  MARS with a magnitude -0.3 shines orange in the
southwest during the evening.  The significant videos will not
be of planets, but of UFOs.

COMET LEE MAY CAUSE EARTH TROUBLE

VANCOUVER -- Scientists at the Millennium Group are worried that
Comet Lee, a wild card (non-periodic) comet first discovered by
Australian Steven Lee on April 16, 1999, may pass
discomfortingly close to Earth sometime starting in mid-August,
1999 and continuing through early 2000.  At the very least, they
say, Comet Lee may cause solar explosions (CMEs) in our solar
system, earthquakes, and hurricane -- like weather on Earth.  At
the worst, well, Shoemaker-Levy's comet fragments crashing into
Jupiter could be a pictorial warning for Earth if Comet Lee is
captured in Earth orbit.  Millennium scientists claim Comet
Lee's behavior is defying all predictive models by NASA's and
other's supercomputers.  James B. Ervin says, "The truth of the
matter is that nobody can project its path.  I believe there is
ample evidence to suggest that it will pass much closer to Earth
than originally anticipated.  Thanks to Millennium Group at:

http://www.millenngroup.com/repository/cometary/lee.htm

Editor's Note:  My calculations are that Comet Lee will not
strike Earth.  Don't be surprised to see meteors with long paths
across the sky.  We might even get a few daylight fireballs.

POSSIBLE MEXICO UFO CRASH?

Larry W. Bryant Director of Governmental Affairs for MUFON has
written to Mexican, Ambassador Reyes-Heroles.  Dear Sir: Word
has come to me of the surfacing of an official US document
referring to the rumored retrieval by US military authorities of
a "flying saucer" from its crash-landing site in December 1950
on Mexican soil across the border from Del Rio, Texas.  As I
await receipt of the planned press release on this development,
it occurs to me that the Mexican government may wish to embark
upon an effort to reclaim this part of international history
stolen from Mexico by the opportunistic and deceptive US
soldiers who chose to confiscate the apparently extraterrestrial
spacecraft without proper authority from your central
government.  Accordingly, I suggest that you immediately contact
the US State Department with the request that it proceed with
the prompt return of the craft to Mexican custody, accompanied
by an official US apology for the improper confiscation.  Should
the US State Department deny your request, I recommend that you
file a formal complaint with the United Nations World Court in
The Hague.  Concurrently, you may wish to convene a "truth
commission" in Mexico (patterned after the truth-commission
process being pursued in South Africa) to investigate and report
upon the facts, events, and principals associated with this
international incident of official deception and cover-up now
nearing its 50th anniversary.  The "Del Rio Case Truth
Commission's" subpoena power could help ferret out UFO-cover-up
whistleblowers and produce further documentary evidence from
both sides of the border in this unfolding saga of what
occurred, and why, on Mexican soil so long ago.  This renewed
opportunity for investigation and public disclosure comes at a
time most apropos in the history of UFO research, both in the
United States and in Mexico.  For, right now, US citizens in at
least 16 states are contemplating the gathering of signatures
for placing on their respective ballots a proclamation calling
for a full-scale congressional inquiry into the UFO cover-up.
Likewise, Mexican citizens' awareness of UFO reality has
intensified during the past few years of increased UFO activity
in your country.  I realize, of course, that you might wish to
predicate your response to this revelation upon your receipt of
the document in question.  As soon as I receive a copy of it, I
shall forward it to whomever you designate as the appropriate
recipient in your embassy.  Could you please have that person
call me soon at 703-931-3341 to coordinate this transmittal?
Thank you for helping reopen, reexamine, and resolve this
historic case of international intrigue.

A second letter has been sent stating: "I also ask that you
inform the ambassador of the following (formerly classified)
excerpt from a 1950 official US military document that surfaced
in a recent examination of UFO-related records maintained by the
US National Archives that: "It has recently been rumored that
one of these so-called flying saucers crashed in Mexico;
however, the details are somewhat bizarre at this moment."
(written to an M.I.T. scientist by US Air Force Lt. Colonel
Robert H. Blount, chief of the Medical Research Division, Office
of the Surgeon General, Headquarters, USAF, the Pentagon.)
Washington, DC.  Thanks to Larry W. Bryant MUFON. Editor's Note:
This is one of the few documents over looked in the sweep of
military records mentioning a UFO crash.

STRANGE SPIRITS IN PHOTOS

My name is Matt Graham.  A few weeks ago, a few of my friends
were over and we were swimming in our pool.  Since we were
having a good time, we decided to take a few pictures.  When we
developed the film, my mother and I were shocked.  In a few of
the pictures, we saw what we took as a spirit of some sort
hovering above my father and around my friends in some other
pictures.  I'm going to send a copy of this picture.  I'm hoping
that you can tell me what it is?  Thanks to: Matt Graham.
Editor's Note: These orbs or spirits are becoming more common
and may indicate high electrical current as discussed next.

IS ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY RELATED TO CROP CIRCLES AND ORBS?

GUNTERSVILLE, AL -- The International Conference on Atmospheric
Electricity is focused on researching the lightning circuit in
thunder storms.  Atmospheric electricity is like a massive
photographic flash.  An electrical charge is built up, a switch
is closed, and electrons barge across a gas, ionizing it and
producing light.  But a flash is a complete circuit.  In the
case of the Earth, Conference Chairman Dr. Lothar Ruhnke
explained, the atmosphere completes the circuit.  Thunderstorm
charge generation happens inside clouds.  Current flows out of
the tops of clouds -- blue jets and red sprites may play a role
-- and connects with the upper atmosphere and the ionosphere.
Ultimately, the current returns to Earth through the clear
atmosphere.  Because it's diffused over most of the globe, it's
also quite weak at any given point.  "All three values are very
difficult to measure," Ruhnke said.  The current is 10-12 amps
per square meter -- "almost nothing." The field is about 100
volts per meter, meaning that the electric potential increases
by about 200 volts from the ground to the top of a persons head.
Finally, air is an excellent insulator, so its conductivity is
close to zero. Lightning appears to circle strongest updrafts in
a thunderstorm.  The NASA Science web site indicates that, "Fair
weather' measurements are important to understanding
thunderstorms, lightning and atmospheric electricity.  While
experts advise you to stay indoors to avoid lightning, few will
tell you that you can't escape it altogether.  In fact you're
soaking in the return path for all the thunderstorms taking
place across the world.  Fortunately, the voltage is modest and
the current is almost nothing.  "Fair weather electricity deals
with the electric field and the electrical current in the
atmosphere, and the conductivity of the air," explained Dr.
Lothar Ruhnke of Airborne Research Associates in Weston,  Mass."

The discovery of the fair weather circuit followed Ben
Franklin's demonstration that lightning is caused by
electricity.  Would-be experimenters take heed: Old Ben was
exceptionally lucky.  Others replicating his experiment have
been killed, so don't try it.  Later experimenters showed that
clear, calm air carries an electrical current which, it turns
out is the return path for the electrical display we know as
lightning.  In effect, there is a fair weather "circuit,"
showing normal potential between the ground and atmosphere.
Lightning research at NASA/Marshall and the Global Hydrology and
Climate Center is finding large amounts of electricity around us
even during fair weather.  Ruhnke said.  Even though you're
standing in an electric field, your hair does not stand on end.
(If you were outdoors, and it did, it would mean you're about to
be hit by lightning, so tuck into a tight crouch right away.)
Thanks to Dr. John M. Horack, Director of Science Communications
NASA/MSFC.  Editor's Note: The air and ground around us is
charged with electricity and impressive orbs and plasmas are
being photographed by UFO researchers.  It is possible that the
formation of a crop circles is tied to this lightning circuit
process.  W. C. Levengood of Michigan hypothesizes that plants
in some sampled formations are affected by numerous spinning
plasma vortexes that contain microwave energies.  Their research
has also found meteorite dust within the crop circles.  My
hypothesis is that meteorite dust may be the catalyst to cause
the lightning circuit's current to pass through the crops in a
particular area.  UFOs may not be part of the process.  However,
persons who have examined the UFOs claim they have put their
arms into the sponge like material and pulled out a dusty arm.
A UFO traveling through space would likely pick up the meteorite
dust and deposit it when hovering over the crops.  Observations
of the fields at night should determine if UFOs participate in
the process.  The orbs and plasmas floating in various
photographs may be part of this electrical circuit.  Orb photos
can be seen through the courtesy of Chuck Warren at the new NJ
MUFON Website at: www.contrailconnection.com/njmufon.

The Snyder Family invites people to join with them in
celebrating the life of Stephen L. Snyder at the South Jersey
Regional Airport.  Steve was the Director of Air Victory Museum
when he lost his life recently while flying his F-86 jet
aircraft. There will be a military flyby, skydiving, missing man
formation, paraplane, memorial skydive and other events starting
at 1:45 on July 23. Steve was the inventor of the square
parachute and many patentsand a great guy.  We are building a
UFO exhibit in the museum and need your help.

TAPE OF EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE UFO ENCOUNTER

Lunar Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the
UFO chase occurred.  The 6th person to walk on the moon said,
"The night it happened I investigated it myself and this was a
real event."  Sam Sherman's audio documentary tape called THE
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE ENCOUNTER on the night of October 7,
1965, uses the actual voice recordings provided by the Air
Force.  During this event 12 high tech luminous UFOs invade
secure air space and came down low over the runways at Edwards
AFB.  Tower operator Sgt. Chuck Sorrels spotted them and
notified the Air Defense Command.  Sgt. Sorrels is heard on the
original tapes and in a new segment where he verifies the event
as it is heard on the archival recordings.  The UFOs are
described and a decision is made to launch F-106 fighter
interceptors.  You are there in an important part of UFO
history.  Hear it for yourself, its the best UFO tape ever made
and its record of a real event.  The cost of the tape is $14.95
each plus $2.00 for shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send
either a personal check or money order to: Independent
International Films, Box 565, Dept.  GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey
08857.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                     Re: Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:49:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:52:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK


>From: Ian Darlington - CUFORG <cuforg@interweb-design.co.uk>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Sighting Report - Cornwall, UK
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:50:51 +0100

>DATE: Monday 12th June 1999
>TIME: 1 - 1.30am
>LOCATION: Feock, Truro & Penzance - Cornwall, UK

>REPORT No. 1:

>One of our members received an email report from a couple who
>were travelling from dinner with friends in Playing Place, Truro
>to Feock when they noticed a large, glowing, orange orb hovering
>over a field and seemingly scanning the ground.

>As they watched two football-sized red orbs emerged from the
>larger orb and moved off in opposite directions, one left and
>one right.

>Soon they all shot off vertically at great speed and became
>indistinguishable from the other stars. As they tracked the
>objects in to the sky, they noticed other objects manoeuvring
>high up.

<snip>

Dear Ian:

I would like to list the Truro - Feock sighting  above in the
*U* UFO Database. Could you advise me if any more details come
to light, whether they tend to support or refute the sighting as
described?

I take it that 2 people were in a car, somewhere between Truro
and Feock, Cornwall, ( approx. 5:03W - 50:14N ) when they saw
the objects over a roadside field. Is that essentially correct?

Best wishes, and thanks in advance!

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                            Re: Finnish UFO Hoax

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:21:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:56:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Finnish UFO Hoax


>From: Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland <ufofinland@saunalahti.fi>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Finnish UFO Hoax
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:08:49 +0300

>The following announcement is translation from Matias Paatalo's
>original report.

>Finnish UFO Hoax

>Reported encounter of a UFO and a Finnish Air Force Hornet
>fighter plane in Lapland is a hoax.

>The case in brief:

>In the winter 1999 it was reported (e.g. UFO ROUND UP Volume 4
>Number 1 January 5, 1999), that Finnish Air Force F18A-Hornet
>encountered UFO in Lapland (Northern Finland) on March 31 year
>1997. The pilot had told that he observed a UFO in the air
>around Inarinjarvi (The Lake of Inari). The bright object was
>disk-shaped and orange-colored. It was alleged that the object
>was also observed by Lapland's radar-control. Pilot's radio
>communication broke off and there appeared some
>electrical-system malfunctions on Hornet. According to the story
>the Air traffic control gave the permission to fire, but F 18A
>Hornet's 20 mm cannon weapon system jammed unexplainable. UFO
>disappeared at the speed of 4,5 Mach to the east.

>This story is possibly intentional misinformation intending to
>annoy UFO researchers or the Finnish Air Force. The story can't
>stand the following facts:

<snip>

>Interviews made by Matias Paatalo:

>- Lapland's Wing commander Colonel Sippo Ryynanen

>- The staff of Tikkakoski`s information service major Kalevi
>  Reiman

>- information service of the General Staff Erkki Paukkunen

>- Science and UFOs research group's researcher Sampo Puoskari
>
>- Defence Force's medical superintendent, medical Colonel Matti
>  Ponteva

>UFO-Finland
>www.ufofinland.net (only in Finnish)
>ufofinland@saunalahti.fi

=   =   =   =   =   =

Dear Minna and Matias:

Thank you very much for clarifying the 31MAR97 Inarinjarvi
matter! Another one bites the dust.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

=   =   =   =   =   =





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:35:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:41:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
>From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Satellite Question

>Here's one that I can't seem to find an answer for, so I'm
>hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in this
>blank.

>Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
>satellites?) Do they reflect the light of the Sun? Or do they
>have lights of their own? If they do have lights, why? What
>purpose do they serve?

Dear Scott,

Satellites do not have lights, flashing or otherwise.  The light
from the Sun reflecs off their surface just like it does off the
surface of the Moon.

Michel M. Deschamps
MUFON Provincial Section Director &
UFO Researcher/Historian





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                           Re: Satellite Question

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:17:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:47:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Satellite Question


From: Scott C. Carr <sardonica@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:44:23 -0400
Subject: Satellite Question

>Why is it that we can see satellites? (Or at least some
>satellites?) Do they reflect the light of the Sun? Or do they
>have lights of their own? If they do have lights, why? What
>purpose do they serve?

Nearly all satellites are passively visible from reflected
sunlight.  The only satellites that I'm aware of that carried
their own lights for visibility were the GEOS series of geodetic
mapping satellites launched between 1965 and 1975, which had
flashing beacons.

---

Source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/multi/explorer.html

NASA web site on GEOS I (Explorer 29) and GEOS II (Explorer 36):



GEOS 1
NSSDC ID: 65-089A

Other Name(s)

�Explorer 29 �GEOS-A �01726

Launch Date/Time: 1965-11-06 at 18:43:00 UTC
On-orbit dry mass: 387.00 kg

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

Description

The GEOS 1 (Geodetic Earth Orbiting Satellite) spacecraft was a
gravity-gradient-stabilized, solar-cell powered unit designed
exclusively for geodetic studies. It was the first successful
active spacecraft of the National Geodetic Satellite Program.
Instrumentation included:

(1) four optical beacons

(2) laser reflectors

(3) a radio range transponder

(4) Doppler beacons, and

(5) a range and range rate transponder.

These were designed to operate simultaneously to fulfill the
objectives of locating observation points (geodetic control
stations) in a three dimensional earth center-of-mass coordinate
system within 10 m of accuracy, of defining the structure of the
earth's irregular gravitational field and refining the locations
and magnitudes of the large gravity anomalies, and of comparing
results of the various systems onboard the spacecraft to
determine the most accurate and reliable system.

Acquisition and recording of data were the responsibility of the
GSFC Space Tracking and Data Acquisitions Network (STADAN).

Ten major observing networks were used.



GEOS 2
NSSDC ID: 68-002A

Other Name(s)

�Explorer 36 �GEOS-B �03093

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

Launch Date/Time: 1968-01-11 at 16:19:00 UTC
On-orbit dry mass: 469.00 kg

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

Description

The GEOS 2 (Geodetic Earth Orbiting Satellite) was a
gravity-gradient-stabilized, solar-cell-powered spacecraft that
carried electronic and geodetic instrumentation.

The geodetic instrumentation
systems included

(1) four optical beacons

(2) two C-band radar transponders

(3) a passive radar reflector

(4) a sequential collation of range radio range transponder

(5) a Goddard range and range rate transponder

(6) laser reflectors, and

(7) Doppler beacons.

Non-geodetic systems included a laser detector and a Minitrack
interferometer beacon.

The objectives of the spacecraft were to optimize optical
station visibility periods and to provide complementary data for
inclination-dependent terms established by the Explorer 29 (GEOS
1) gravimetric studies.

The spacecraft was placed into a retrograde orbit to accomplish
these objectives. Operational problems occurred in the main
power system, optical beacon flash system, and the spacecraft
clock, and adjustments in scheduling resulted in nominal
operations.




David Rudiak





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Allen Loper <cheepnis@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:15:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:21:43 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:59:42 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:51:52 -0700
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

>>>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT>

>>>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>>>Stig

>>>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>>>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>>>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700>

>>>Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.>

>>>Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

>>>Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.


<snip>

>>For those of you who want more information on these vehicles, I
>>suggest you find and read the discourses of Dr. David Peter
>>Beter, which were transcribed from audio taped radio interviews
>>which Dr. Beter did on a weekly basis.  He died in 1982 of a
>>heart attack, and thus ended his reports on the "non-pullic"
>>activities occurring in the world by the worlds governments and
>>military powers.

<snip>

Hi Bruce, All

I agree entirely with your comments Bruce and want to add my own
short one. this guys name reminds me of a character in Richard
Pryor's movie 'Toys' I believe they called the young lad 'Master
Bates' which leads me to file the whole story as suspect.

thanks
k

"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's
troublesome."

--Isaac Asimov






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                            What's New At Magonia

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:44:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:23:48 -0400
Subject: What's New At Magonia


http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/newmag.htm

What's new at Magonia

16/07/99

Abduction Watch #19/20
Bumper issue!
Abusing the Holocaust; Moving Forward?; Manipulation of health
issues: AIDS, ME and ET; Gordon Creighton's Angels; Betty Trout
and the line-dancing aliens; The Return of Tony Dodd - Alien
Ambassador; Oh Jesus!

Magonia Monthly Supplement #16
Predictions and Crashes by Nigel Watson; reviewed: The Rising of
the Moon & Alien Art; In the ring: Karl T. Pflock vs Martin S.
Kottmeyer Mark Pilkington

"A heathen perhaps, but not, I hope, an unenlightened one."
Lord Summerisle
------------------------------------------------
Magonia Online



http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:35:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:29:22 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

I am pleased to confirm all the information given by Thierry
Wathelet.

The report was on the French newstands this morning, and I think
we can say that it is a very positive event for ufology, in
France and internationaly.

The title is in fact:

'Les OVNI et la Dfense. A quoi doit-on se prparer?'

The literal translation is:

"UFOs and Defence. What must we get prepared for?"

The name of the group which wrote this report is "COMETA", so it
should be referred to as the 'COMETA Report', to be accurate.

Members of COMETA include Air Force generals Denis Letty and
Bruno Le Moine, Admiral Marc Merlo, Professor Andr Lebeau,
former President of CNES, and the report is prefaced by General
Bernard Norlain, former Director of IHEDN (Institute of Higher
Defence Studies). An impressive team for an "independant"
report.

This report confirms as "quasi certain" the reality of UFOs, and
considers as very probable the UFO crash near Roswell!

There are a nice couple of pages on the mechanism of
disinformation, at the end of this very serious and well
documented report.

Let's see now if it has any impact in the media.

I want to thank publicly here the action of journalist Bernard
Thouanel who has been at the core of this excellent operation.

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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 16

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:18:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:32:05 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

<snip>

Thierry,

Can you give us Yanks the URL for the website of the VSD Hors
Series magazine?

Thanks!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

               [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 7-16-99

From: jocelyn@dewittec.net
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:52:18 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:54:16 -0400
Subject: [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  7-16-99


----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                         The Week Ahead
                      7-18-99 thru 7-23-99

           Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                       From sightings.com

               Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
               exclusively by Free Subscription.

                 --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * From Jeff's Desk *

The first time I realized popular American 'humour' was under
assault by the manipulators was back in the early 70's in college.
I recall watching a sitcom, couldn't tell you which one, and
noticing that something wasn't quite right. It was the laughter...
which sounded rather odd at various times during the program.

Listening closely, it became apparent the live studio audience
hadn't laughed as much as the producers wanted during taping, so
their modest chuckles and tittering had been 'enhanced' with
previously recorded laughter.  This was, of course, an early use
of that staple of mind-conditioning magic called the 'laugh
track.'  Presto: no more 'bad audiences' to worry producers and
actors into ulcers and gray hair.  No more risk...humour could
now be certified and guaranteed...it was hi-tech 'product.'

It was obvious even back then that not only were we about to be
told exactly *what* was 'funny.'  Furthermore, we were even going
to be conditioned to know precisely *how* funny a gag line or
situation was supposed to be...according to the volume of canned
laughter.

What's so funny?

Sit through most any contemporary film 'comedy' in a theater and
observe how much of the audience laughs on cue, and how loudly, at
some of the allegedly humourous lines and situations. Ask yourself:
'Was that really funny?" This can be a very sobering experience.

It is true, of course, that comedy is subjective and is often
linked to misfortune...certainly, slapstick was doing that back
in the silent film era. And there certainly ARE genuinely funny
films around today.  However, for the most part, today's pop
culture 'humour' has sunk to an alarmingly primitive, desultory,
scatalogical, and often cruel state. People laugh at death, laugh
at filthy language, laugh at pain, laugh at belittlement, laugh
at bodily functions, laugh at meanness, laugh at...nothing.  And
they do so, on cue, with great vigor and gusto.

Mass America has been *told* what is funny.  And mass America is
laughing on command. To wit, here is an article which further
illustrates the often unhumourous state of what much of America
considers 'funny'...

                       The Joke of the Butt
                            By Rip Rense
                          WorldNetDaily.com
                              7-14-99

It's not every day that someone just comes out and announces, "I
am an ignorant, unsophisticated, crass, arrogant buffoon."

Yet that, in effect, is what "writer" A.J. Jacobs did recently in
an issue of Entertainment Weekly. For reasons known only to the EW
editor, Jacobs was given a couple of pages to tell the world about
his taste in comedy. Why anyone should be interested in his taste
in comedy was not clear. Give the editor the benefit of the doubt
and chalk it up to being provocative.

In an article bearing the '90s-banale-speak headline, "Everything
Old Blows," A.J. begins by proclaiming that all black-and-white
comedy films are not funny. Color, he avers, is a requisite for
laughter.

The drooling idiocy of this statement should require no elucidation.

Further, A.J. declares that Chaplin wasn't funny ("I just think he
sucks," he so eloquently offers.) Neither was W.C. Fields (boring),
Jackie Gleason (too loud), The Marx Brothers (too much music),
Lucy and Desi, Jack Benny, Abbott and Costello, Sid Caesar, Phil
Silvers, Gracie Allen. ...

A.J. didn't bother to mention Laurel and Hardy, presumably because
they are so dull as to be beneath contempt.

All right, you say, let's give this guy a break. Everyone, after
all, has his or her own taste. I never really liked Abbott and
Costello, for instance. But sympathy for A.J. fades quickly as
one encounters the crux of the Jacobs Theory of Comedy: "There's
nothing funnier," he writes, "than a well-placed, well-timed,
well-earned use of the word ass."

What's more: "In my opinion, too many butts are better than no
butts at all. Butts, after all, are a part of life. ... Did
Steamboat Willie ever emit a flaming fart?"

Disregarding the fact that "Steamboat Willie" is a sound-pioneering
Disney cartoon, not a comedy, A.J.'s point is clear. The essence of
witticism, the epitome of amusement, the very fundament of all
things funny (so to speak) in the world of A.J. Jacobs is. ...

The human hindquarters.

Yes, one "butt" or "fart" joke and old A.J. is on the floor,
busting a gut, lips peeled back, tears streaming. Hee-hawwww!
Hee-hawwww!

Now, notwithstanding the rich history of scatology in humor (from
Chaucer to the tokus-infused routines of the Catskills), I must
insist that there is more to eliciting merriment and mirth in the
human psyche than speaking the word, "butt."

Yes, it is true that horse-laughing hordes in Las Vegas hotels and
HBO comedy specials go berserk at the faintest suggestion of the
cloven configuration resting atop the legs. But then, these folks
aren't exactly in the market for subtlety. They're like the
groundlings of Shakespeare's day, whom the Bard always remembered
with token references to things derriere. No doubt A.J. would
pronounce this slight aspect (no pun intended) of Shakespearean
comedy to be its very pinnacle.

Yes, according to A.J., if Laurel and Hardy had just broken wind
a lot, they would be funny (provided their films were colorized,
of course). W.C. Fields? Should have just said "butt" every minute
or two. (To his "credit," he does address a woman as "Mrs.
Broadbottom" in one film, and in another remarks, "Isn't it
wonderful how everything always rounds itself out nicely in the
end?") Gleason? If he'd changed "To the moooooon, Alice!" to "I'm
gonna moooooon you, Alice," A.J. would have been happy. This is a
guy, after all, who complains of the great Buster Keaton -- as
innovative and clever a comedic filmmaker as ever to get behind a
camera -- he "never talked out of his buttocks, now did he?"

Furthermore, "I need the joke-a-second pace of South Park or
Friends," A.J. writes, thus confessing to being the victim of a
psychotically fractured attention span, like much of the
TV-mainlining public. Yes, A.J. is haplessly primed for kneejerk
yucks in response to jokes, jokes, jokes -- by his own admission
-- as long as they come fast and furious. "Call me an MTV-bred
Philistine," he writes.

OK.

And here is the most dreadful part of A.J.'s "argument": "All the
actors are dead. Lucy? Dead. Desi? Dead. That guy who hangs from
the clock? Dead. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be reminded of my
mortality. ..."

This is where Jacobs' appropriated Paul Reiser/Howard Stern
bitchiness becomes asinine (again, no pun intended) to the point
of, well, hilarity. This guy is actually dismissing the worth of
artists because they are dead! Take that, John Belushi, Gilda
Radner, and Phil Hartman! I wonder if this prejudice extends to
other professions, such as science or music, for instance. Perhaps
A.J. would not have much use for Einstein, Beethoven, Salk. ...

What this puerile glib-meister has forgotten, or tragically seems
never to have learned -- like so many people today -- are things
called irony, satire, subtlety, social commentary, incisiveness,
comedy that aims a little higher than the belt -- say, somewhere
around the head.

Oh, and then there's a little item called context. Listen, A.J.,
you might never find Fields or Chaplin as funny as "The Buttmans"
from In Living Color, but does it occur to you that the world was
very different in the pre-A.J. period of human history? Perhaps if
you could understand something of the time of Fields, Chaplin, et
al., you might be embarrassed by the pomposity of your currently
held opinions. But probably not. I think you would sneer at Edison
for not owning a cell phone.

The real tragedy of Jacobs' article is not the point of view per se,
but the fact that he was given a platform in a national magazine to
present it. Why not just invite some twelve-year-old kid off the
street to rant and rave? (To be fair, the always-thoughtful Ken
Tucker was allowed to, pardon the expression, rebut -- in less
space.) A.J.'s piece was devoid of perspective and evidenced no
understanding of anything other than that which pleased A.J. What
criteria exist at this magazine (and the media in general) for
allowing people to spout off? Traditionally, writers have had to
claim some sort of expertise in a subject in order to hold forth
about it. A.J. has all the credentials of kids in the "Cultural
Revolution" of China. Given absolute power, those tykes and teens
promptly dismissed as irrelevant and evil anything they couldn't
understand. As with A.J., everything "old" was bad.

"Butts," writes A.J. Jacobs, "after all, are a part of life."

Yes, and so are brains. And they're really a lot more interesting.
Try using yours sometime, A.J. When you're not too busy chortling
at somebody saying "buttcrack" on Friends or South Park.

And in the spirit of generosity, let me close by giving you just
what you asked for, a well-placed, well-timed, well-earned use of
the word:

Ass.

     You can read Rip's weekly commentaries on Joe Farah's
     WorldNetDaily.com each Wednesday.  Use the WND search engine
     to pull up a list.  You can also read a large number of them
     under 'Rip Files' at Sightings.com

Rip Rense is writer and columnist whose work has appeared in many
newspapers and magazines, including the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Emmy Magazine, TV Guide, and
China Review.

                   --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

In case you missed the website of July 13th guest, Howard Martin,
you can now find it under Guest Links on sightings.com or at
http://www.immunotex.com/rense/ under Guest webpages.

                   --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                         * TOP STORIES *

           Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                    http://www.jeffrense.com

Have You Reloaded This Page? You May Be Missing An Update!!


   * Of Visiting ETs, Wormholes, Sightings, Electricity And Crop
     Circles
   * Neuro-Technology Revolution - Mind Machines Doing Many Things
   * Grey Whales Dying - Scientists Seeking Answers
   * Y2K - Computer Viruses Said Being Readied To Add To Chaos
   * Y2K - US Banks Making Secret Lists Of Non-Compliant Companies
   * China To Test New Mobile Nuke ICBM Shortly
   * Russians Want Part Of Alaska Back!
   * Increasing Jet Contrail Volume May Change Climate
   * Taiwan Sticks To Sovereignty Declaration - Much To US Chagrin
   * How The Serbs Outfoxed NATO
   * The Dismemberment Of Yugoslavia - Next Step An 'Independent'
     Montenegro
   * Nostradamus 1999 And The 'King Of Terror' Quatrain
   * Y2K - 10,000 Arkansas National Guard Troops To Be On Duty
   * Y2K - Polish Airline Grounds January 1 Flights
   * Y2K - San Diego Police Told To Prepare For Family Survival
   * Regarding Some Apollo Astronauts Allegedly Seeing UFOs On
     The Moon....
   * NASA Cancels One Comet Mission - Announces Another For Same
     Comet
   * Computer Monitor Radiation Blamed For 1/3 Employee Sickness
   * Tinkering With The DNA On Your Dinner Plate
   * Wrong Moves Can Be Deadly With Lightning
   * Some Plants Found To Have Nervous Systems Like Humans
   * Chile Documents Expose Criminal Role Of US Foreign Policy
   * Sahara Desert Born Suddenly Only 4,000 Years Ago
   * UPDATE Robin Hood Preferred 'Merrie Men' To Maid Marian
     Claims Professor
   * Cell Phone On Your Belt Brings Radiation To Liver And Kidneys
   * Breast Milk Said 'Most Contaminated' Of All Human Foods
   * The Week's UFO Sightings - Crop Circle Eyewitness?
   * 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski Was CIA Mind Control Subject!
   * Mystery Flight Attendant Sickness Baffles Air Industry

Read the entire text of these stories and more at
                     http://www.sightings.com

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       * EDITOR'S CORNER *

What a response! Over 500 people responded to my question about
the polls. Of that, 23 people (fewer than 5%) preferred not to
have them but were incredibly generous about it just the same.

So... polls it is. A dash of reality, though - they're are fun
but they are not scientific. They can only measure the respondents,
they do not a represent a cross section of the population or even
this group. So really, they simply measure how many of this (now)
6,200 felt strongly enough about the issue to click and vote.

One of the gentleman who disliked polls raised a very good point.
He said he was against them because they artificially shaped
opinions. Yes, I must concur - he is right. However, I am ever
amazed at the depth of the intelligence and discernment of the
people I've been so fortunate as to be in contact with in this
group.

So let's just have some fun with them. The first question -
tomorrow - will cover what over 50% of the submitted questions
have asked about, UFO's.

Keep those questions coming! mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Poll_Q
uestion

                                                Jocelyn

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                What's under the pyramid, really?

Hidden Mysteries of the Pyramids - Not been to this website yet?
Go take a look. Bookmark it if you're not ready for it. This book
genuinely would be a unique and valuable addition to your
knowledge and understanding about this planet we are planted on.
http://www.immunotex.com/pyramid/

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                       6-27-99 thru 7-02-99

(Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can change due to late breaking
stories, etc)

SUN 7-18-99
     Constance Clear: Extraordinary ET Encounters

MON 7-19-99
    Ed Fouche': US Military Flying Triangles
    Sherman Skolnick: Attempted Gore Assassination??

TUE 7-20-99
    Val Valerian: Creator of www.trufax.com

WED 7-21-99
    Michael Lindemann: Weekly UFO/ET World Update
    Peter Davenport:  Latest UFO Eyewitness Recordings

THU 7-22-99
    Mike Adams:  www.y2knewswire.com Report
    Skip Goebel: Home Steam Electric Generators

FRI 7-23-99
    Doc Marquis: Occult Societies

Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://www.jeffrense.com

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                         * GUEST QUOTE *

"Since the majority of our life journey seems to involve dealing
with the unknown, from whence all comes, the more we address that
issue, the less it matters what happens or when. In effect, we are
then to a degree prepared for anything, because understanding the
unknown, to whatever degree, brings the realization that we are,
as spiritual beings exploring life in polaric experience, immortal
- that this is just one in a long line of lives in the continuum
of our individual and collective existence. Change? Bring it on.
It is one of the only constants in the universe. Everything around
us in society is synthetic - the computer systems, the money, the
calendar .. programmed consensus reality is so far removed from
what matters. Y2K, coronal mass ejections, total economic collapse
-- none of this really matters except to those thoroughly entangled
in the drama of a synthetic life in a dysfunctional paradigm.
Ultimately, people are preoccupied and worried about the future to
the degree that they have not make the attempt to harmonize with
their inner life and become comfortable with the unknown."

                                     Val Valerian, June 1999

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--
                    Do ~NOT~ buy these books!

      ...unless you're prepared for the upheaval of every
           religious doctrine you've ever been taught.
        Proceed with caution - you may never be the same.

               "The Greatest Story Never Told"
             The Key to Unlocking the Mystery of God

              "Opening The Seven Seals of Revelation"
     The Methodology of Decrypting Hidden Messages in the Bible

                  http://www.immunotex.com/sophia/

                     --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
        Live Coast-To-Coast
        Monday-Friday 7-10pm Pacific 10-1am Eastern
        Sundays 8-11pm Pacific 11-2am Eastern
Call in Line:
        800 850-5043
Program Transcripts at
        http://www.immunotex.com/rense/
Program Audio Tapes
        888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
        http://www.jeffrense.com
Advertising - Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com
        Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
        mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Advertising
Sightings.com info/email center
        http://www.jeffrense.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Jeff Rense Y2K RESOURCE CENTER
        http://www.jeffrense.com/y2kresource/y2k1r.html
RenseWorld! Don't miss it!
        http://www.jeffrense.com
DISCUSSION FORUM
        http://www3.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?userid=hj135985

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share with your friends!
   Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense Weekly
   E-Newsletter to any and all who are interested... but please
   forward in its entirety and do not modify it in any fashion
   without permission. Thank you!

Past issues are archived at http://www.immunotex.com/rense/

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

To subscribe:
mailto:rense_e-news-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe:
mailto:rense_e-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com

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

Jeff Rense Weekly E-News is independently produced by ImmunoTex
in cooperation with Jeff Rense. The material and views expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of Jeff Rense,
sightings.com, or the Jeff Rense - Sightings Radio Program,
except for the *From Jeff's Desk* segment.

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Get Paid to surf: http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=AMR609

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:44:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:58:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


I posted the following on James Easton's UFO Research List and
on the Project 1947 List where he also posts, but as far as I
know there has been no response.

Brad Sparks

---

List Members,

James Easton has announced a new theory explaining the Arnold
case as white pelicans.  My response posted on his UFO Research
List was as follows:



Subj: Re: News Release
Date: 7/13/99 5:38:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: RB47Expert@aol.com
To:     UFORL@listbot.com

UFO Research List - http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/

James,

I think Arnold's second sighting was not 5 days later but a
MONTH and 5 days later, on July 29, 1947.

The bird theory runs into the following fundamental problems,
among others:

(1)  ARC-LIGHT OR SUNLIKE BRIGHTNESS.  Arnold described a
blinding light that caught his attention that lit up his plane
and was so bright it reminded him of arc welding light. He
thought at first it was sunlight reflecting off metal from an
airplane in near-collision, so he quickly looked around to try
to avoid crashing.  Birds could not possibly be this bright,
especially from the distance necessitated to avoid Arnold's
110-120 mph plane from overtaking them.

(2)  MORE THAN 100-DEGREE FLIGHT PATH.  Arnold's reported
azimuths of the objects' flight path covers more than 100
degrees of sky from first sighting north of Mt. Rainier till
disappearing just after passing Mt. Adams to the south.
Duration at the very extremes was from 1 to 3 minutes.  So
taking the birds' speed at 60 mph that's 1 mile/min or 1 to 3
miles of flight path running roughly perpendicular to Arnold's
heading as he reported.  For this length to cover 2 radians (100
degs) of sky the distance must be 0.5 to 1.5 miles from Arnold's
plane.

But at Arnold's speed of 2 mi/min, this distance would be closed
IN 1/4 to 3/4 MINUTE, or one-fourth of their total flight path.
Thus, the birds would NEVER HAVE EVEN MADE IT ACROSS MT. RAINIER
before Arnold had flown over them or the projection of their
path, which is contrary to Arnold's testimony in every account
he gave in 30+ years.

(3) ARNOLD'S PLANE WOULD HAVE OVERTAKEN BIRDS.  As we've just
calculated, Arnold's plane flying east at 110-120 mph would have
overtaken 60 mph birds flying north-south in the 1-3-minute
duration of the sighting.  If we try to juggle flight paths --
contrary to Arnold's observations -- we still cannot escape the
simple flight dynamic contraints of basic physics:

Suppose the birds flew east at their full speed of 60 mph in
order to delay Arnold's plane overtaking them.  This would only
reduce Arnold's relative velocity with respect to the birds down
to about 60 mph.  Arnold's plane would still overtake the birds
in just one-half the sighting, in 0.5 to 1.5 minutes' time.
Moreover, this is an impossible example in any event, because
the birds would have to fly in the same direction as Arnold,
eastward, and thus would NEVER HAVE BEEN SEEN TO THE NORTH OR
SOUTH AT ALL, flatly contrary to Arnold's observations
indicating more than 100 degrees of arc covered from north to
south, from north or Rainier to south of Mt. Adams.  Arnold
would also have seen the birds' elevation angle dropping as he
flew over them till they disappeared underneath his plane --
which he certainly did NOT report (the objects were near the
horizon in the distance the entire time).

(4) ALTITUDE TOO HIGH FOR SPEED.  Arnold reported the objects
were at roughly his altitude of about 9,200 feet.  This is most
likely too high for white pelicans or if just within their
flight ceiling, it is too high for them to sustain 60 mph
maximum speed in level flight.

Notice I'm carefully refraining from getting into heated
arguments over the SHAPES, FLIGHT PATTERNS and ANGULAR SIZE.
These could be argued endlessly so I don't think it fruitful to
pursue.

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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                     Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:04:58 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:02:56 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA


>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:59:42 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:51:52 -0700
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA

>>>From: stig.agermose@get2net.dk (Stig Agermose)
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>Subject: UFO Sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>>Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:45:41 GMT>

>>>Source: "alt.paranet.ufo".

>>>Stig

>>>From: "MC" <mcannon@instanet.com>
>>>Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>>>Subject: UFO sighting: Santa Barbara, CA
>>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 05:46:28 -0700>

>>>Location: Near Stearns Wharf, Santa Barbara, CA.>

>>>Time: Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., last night.

>>>Category: High strangeness phenomena; multiple witness event.

>>>Witnesses report seeing unusual lights in sky over the beach
>>>roughly 1000 yards to the north of Stearns Wharf in Santa
>>>Barbara, California. Unusual light phenomena persisted for
>>>nearly an hour, occasionally accompanied by ineplicable auditory
>>>effects (whistling, frequent skyquakes, and a sound one witness
>>>described as "electrified crackling")..

>>>The light phenomena were surprisingly varied. A multi-colored
>>>array was visible to many witnesses, most of whom offer
>>>strikingly convergent reports. Lights pulsated, sometimes
>>>becoming so bright that the faces of nearby witnesses became
>>>illuminated.>

>>>On a number of occasions, white lights floated groundwards in a
>>>classic "falling leaf" pattern.>

>>>Smoke occasionally was visible, possibly due to alien propulsion
>>>system.

>>Just from the above description, what the witnesses may very
>>well have seen is one of the "Russian Cosmospheres."

>Another sucker gets bagged by a report of fireworks!

>>These devices were first introduced into the picture in the early
>>to mid-seventies.  They used dual systems to propel them in those
>>early years...

>>1. Rocket thrusters to propell the "egg shapped," or "ball
>>shapped," vehicle up from the earth high enough to allow a
>>switch to a

>>2.  magnetic motor with which it then propelled itself into a
>>high earth stationary position, where it could stay for
>>indefinite periods of time.>

>Sounds like a crock to me.

>>The "electrified crackling" is a dead give-a-way to the type of
>>propulsion system it is using...as previously described. The
>>"skyquakes" is also a bi-product of discharging the vehicles
>>particle beam weapon into the atmosphere causing the air to
>>superheat and thus explode...thus there is no visible evidence
>>of a weapon of any type.  No damage, no evidence...just a shock
>>wave which can be tracked and recorded for many miles.>

>>Many may not be aware of these "Cosmospheres."  But I assure you
>>that the did and do exist.

>You can assure me?  Prove it... without reference to someone
>else.

>> Russia has improved these devices in
>>the last ten years to where they no longer require the "rocket
>>thrusters" to get it airborn.  They can now fly entirely by
>>magnetic propulsion.

>>You may ask where to the get the energy to power these vehicles.
>>It is quite simple.  They use Nuclear Energy.  These vehicles
>>are shielded to protect the crew from radiation.  It also used
>>this nuclear reactor to provide power to the "particle beam"
>>weapons, used for whatever purpose they were told.

>How heavy do you think the SHIELDING on the reactor might
>me.....to protect a living crew from being fried while said
>reactor is generating megawatts of power?

>>It appears they were used to destroy American Spy Satellites in

><snip>

>>turn of the American Space Station, "Sky Lab", to earth.

>Crock.

>>There are many stories of these vehicles being used by Russia to
>>maintain military equalibriumn in the 1980's...especially during
>>the Falkland Island war between Britain and Argentina.

>Many stories?  Never heard on before.

>>For those of you who want more information on these vehicles, I
>>suggest you find and read the discourses of Dr. David Peter
>>Beter, which were transcribed from audio taped radio interviews
>>which Dr. Beter did on a weekly basis.  He died in 1982 of a
>>heart attack, and thus ended his reports on the "non-pullic"
>>activities occurring in the world by the worlds governments and
>>military powers.

>>I'm sure you will remember many or most of the incidents he
>>reports on, from the headlines of TV, Radio, and Newspaper
>>reports at that time.  It is what you did not read, or hear that
>>Dr. Beter told them.

>Never heard of this guy. Reported in Weekly World News, perhaps?


Bruce, You are a nice guy and all that, and you have a good
heart, so I won't say anything. But, in this case, you need to
do your own homework.

<smile>

Oh, I don't mind the bashing... I'm used to it. <G>

REgards, Mike


 Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
 ICQ#:7508455
 BBS: (270) 683-3026
 Fax: (270) 686-7394
 Home: (270) 683-6811





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:00:39 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:30:22 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:18:52 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report

>>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

><snip>

>Thierry,

>Can you give us Yanks the URL for the website of the VSD Hors
>Series magazine?

>Thanks!

>Dennis


Dennis,

I'm sorry but the VSD "Hors-Srie" has no website. I think it's
possible to order the issue directly at:

G.S. Presse,
79-83 Rue Baudin
92309 LEVALLOIS-PERRET CEDEX
FRANCE
Tel. : *33(0)1 55.21.00.50
Fax : *33(0)1 55.21.00.55

The VSD "Hors-Serie" is released once a year.
Last year, it was also about the UFOs. You can find an
announcement for that old issue at:

http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usvsd.htm

I hope it will possible to get an interview and/or write an
article to present the report.

Thierry






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:24:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:33:23 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:35:17 EDT
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

>I am pleased to confirm all the information given by Thierry
>Wathelet.

>The report was on the French newstands this morning, and I think
>we can say that it is a very positive event for ufology, in
>France and internationaly.

>The title is in fact:

>'Les OVNI et la Dfense. A quoi doit-on se prparer?'

>The literal translation is:

>"UFOs and Defence. What must we get prepared for?"

>The name of the group which wrote this report is "COMETA", so it
>should be referred to as the 'COMETA Report', to be accurate.

>Members of COMETA include Air Force generals Denis Letty and
>Bruno Le Moine, Admiral Marc Merlo, Professor Andr Lebeau,
>former President of CNES, and the report is prefaced by General
>Bernard Norlain, former Director of IHEDN (Institute of Higher
>Defence Studies). An impressive team for an "independant"
>report.

>This report confirms as "quasi certain" the reality of UFOs, and
>considers as very probable the UFO crash near Roswell!

>There are a nice couple of pages on the mechanism of
>disinformation, at the end of this very serious and well
>documented report.

>Let's see now if it has any impact in the media.

>I want to thank publicly here the action of journalist Bernard
>Thouanel who has been at the core of this excellent operation.


Dear Gildas and Thierry:

Will there be someplace on the internet where we can see the
actual report in full?

Could the pages possibly be scanned,  and possibly OCR'ed into
text files?

Best wishes and congratulations

- Larry Hatch






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #308

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:32:16 +500
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:02:58 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #308


Apology to MW #308 (For July 17, 1999)

It's about the individual, and the progress that is made in
pursuit of efficacious satisfaction. It's better than the group,
in fact defines the groups complacence as it practices group
meanness and detraction. And in no way will it matter that it
suffers for its task, though it greases sullen gears it has
designed. Its labors often punished as it hurdles common fear,
and elevates us all, we often find. It follows different rhythms
it has beat against indifference that the sheeple have contrived
as so inspired!

But the satisfactions missing from the short sight of our ways,
and we rape our mother world for all the comfort she can pay.

When it suffers ostracization  that is sure to come its way (for
no good deed can go, therefore, unpunished) it is left to its
devises that it makes up on its own, and it stays a little
lonely, but astonished. It only wants what's righteous for the
spirit's celebration. It wants to look beyond the common pale.
It wants the elevation but it wants to know the price. It wants
to know the secrets and the tales. It's wants to see a UFO, and
question small grey men -- or the reptiles or the Nordics, come
what may!

It will do this for the difference -- the novelty implied. It
will do it for advancement, and it will not be denied.

We could let these spacemen push us past the limits we now share
that are foolish and contrived but self imposed. The truth of
their existence is admitted by the egg heads, but they can't
admit they're here, they're indisposed. UFO's are REAL friend.
You'd see them if you looked -- if you pulled the scabrous
scales from your eyes. But to rail at the scales is to suffer
for your sin, and it's you that's disrespected and despised. The
evidence is massive, but it's picked apart by slugs, and hidden
by the liars, cheats and thieves.

It is these that suck the power from the marrow of your bones,
as they warp your sensibility to make you think that you're
alone.

I want to know the truth that is -- though heaven cracks and
falls, or the wisdom of the ages falls apart. If the heavens
shatter quickly than they GOT their just desserts -- they were
empty of their meaning from the start. It is foolish to assume
that we will stay within our womb, and ignore the deep expanse
of time and space. To assume that *they* are there is common
sense of rare refinement, and a steadfast change of course to
find our grace. I won't be hammered down to suit mere
skeptibunky clowns -- cretins that won't see beyond their noses.


It's our future way up there that stares from space, and is
unblinking. Are YOU to turn your back on it, and ape a cowards
thinking?

And NO! You shall not waver in your task exposing terror that
has crippled and confined you to this day. And No! You shall not
suffer vapid christians phony postures as they scrape you from
their shoe, but make you pay. And NO, you are no coward! You are
bravery unrestricted! You are talent, strength and passion
unconfined! If you but slipped the bonds of that which binds you
unremitting, you would win your freedom's bounty you would find.
And changing is the thing, the course to center (seeking
balance) you deserve for heating water, doing work . . .

So, NO! You are no shirker, but you'll make your grievance
known! It's you, the individual! It's been YOU, and you alone!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

But for you, and your effort -- society crumbles. You deserve a
respect and a forthcoming-ness for your labor that in NOT coming
your way. Perceive this as a . . . as a mechanism of unethical
_design_.

Restore John Ford!

 --
 Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
 View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
 Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
 See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
 Take a ride in the Teleporter.

 Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

 http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
 <Updated 17 July>

 John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
 money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
 (cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
 304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
 $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

 "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:32:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:46:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:44:30 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:58:54 -0400
>Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

>The bird theory runs into the following fundamental problems,
>among others:

>(1) ARC-LIGHT OR SUNLIKE BRIGHTNESS.

<snip>

>(2) MORE THAN 100-DEGREE FLIGHT PATH.

<snip>

>(3) ARNOLD'S PLANE WOULD HAVE OVERTAKEN BIRDS.

<snip>

>(4) ALTITUDE TOO HIGH FOR SPEED.

<snip>

To this list add:

(5) THE OBJECTS WERE TOO FAR APART TO BE FLOCKING BIRDS. Arnold
said they were flying in a linear formation, strung out over 5
miles at a distance of approximately 25 miles (the 5 miles was a
distinct plateau which Arnold said he later flew over and
measured). Arnold was thus describing the formation covering an
angle of 5/25 = ~.2 radians, or about 11 degrees. Even if Arnold
were grossly in error about the actual distance to the objects,
this still would have no effect on the observed angular size of
the formation. All one needs to do is rescale to any given
distance to get the length of the formation.

E.g., if the "pelicans" were 5 miles away instead of 25, their
linear formation would be one mile in length instead of five.
Each of the nine "birds" would be separated from the next by
over 600 feet. But in the real world, birds have to be only a
few feet apart to flock and play follow-the-leader with the bird
in front. Even if you reduce the distance to an absurdly close
1000 feet, the birds would still be in a formation 200 feet long
and separated from each other by 25 feet, again too far apart
for proper flocking.

>Notice I'm carefully refraining from getting into heated
>arguments over the SHAPES, FLIGHT PATTERNS and ANGULAR SIZE.
>These could be argued endlessly so I don't think it fruitful
>to pursue.

Very wise, since Easton is still engaged in his equally absurd
line of argumentation that the saucer shape was created by the
media and never described by Arnold. In fact there are number of
quotes from Arnold immediately after the sighting in which
Arnold described the basic shape as saucer-like, disk-like, like
a pie plate, etc. His drawing to the Air Force two weeks later
was again of thin objects rounded in front and coming to a
rounded point in back, just like his verbal descriptions. Easton
is well aware of these quotes, but simply ignores them like they
never existed.

LATER, Arnold added that the lead object was somewhat different
from the rest, having the double-crescent rear edge, giving it a
flying wing type appearance. There is a picture which Easton
obsesses on, where Arnold is holding a drawing of this
_singular_ object. To Easton, that's ALL Arnold ever described,
conveniently ignoring all of Arnold's earlier descriptions that
the other 8 objects were saucer-like in appearance. The
double-crescent was a pelican, and pay no attention to the rest.

>I posted the following on James Easton's UFO Research List and
>on the Project 1947 List where he also posts, but as far as I
>know there has been no response.

Easton will never respond properly to these devestating
criticisms of his pelican theory, because he is incapable of
doing so. He seemingly can't comprehend even the simplest
scientific objections and then respond in kind with
well-formulated logical counter-arguments. He is a wordsmith,
not a scientist. Obfuscation through judicious editing and
semantic quibbling are his tools of debate. The Arnold case is
certainly not the first time I've seen him deliberately ignore
evidence that strongly contradicts his opinions.

Unable to respond to his critics, he and his flock of admirers
take another tack. The critics of his theories have no valid
points that merit response. They are simply "true believers" who
can't bear to have their pet sightings explained.

Not so. I for one don't mind reasonable explanations that do a
good job of explaining most of the details (the mark of a good
theory). What we so-called "true believers" can't stand are the
utterly idiotic "explanations" put forward by people seeming to
lack all common sense and/or intellectual integrity.

David Rudiak






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                          Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:42:07 -0400
Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?



-----Forwarded Message-----

From: Martin Jeffrey <martin-j@lineone.net
To: Hauntedscotland@listbot.com <Hauntedscotland@listbot.com
Date: 17 July 1999 17:10
Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


Haunted Scotland - http://Hauntedscotland.listbot.com

Hello to all the people on the Haunted Scotland list

Here's an interesting article that has just appeared in the
Sheffield Star Newspaper on the 14.07.99.

If you have followed the Sheffield UFO incident, in which two
investigators seem to be having a verbal war via the internet,
then you'll find the following interesting....

MAM TOR HUNT AFTER "AIR CRASH"

Rescue teams spent hours searching Mam Tor after reports of a
light aircraft crash. Police alerted the Edale, Buxton and
Kinder teams after receiving several reports of a plane in
trouble (sounds familiar?) that may have crashed near Castleton.
Two helicopters, 104 mountain rescue team members and six search
and rescue dogs combed Mam Tor, Lords Seat, Perry Foot and
Sparrow Foot before abandoning the search as bad weather set in
last night. They will search again today...

The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
April 1997

Again the above case has the same commitment and dedication from
the brave voluntary rescue teams combing over 25 square miles
just because of several reports.

I would be interested in what other people think...


Martin and Louise Jeffrey
Mystery Magazine

------

Hi,

Heres a neat twist for you on the above. The incident occurred
at Chapel-en-le-Frith. I live at Dove Holes - a mile away. I was
one of the witnesses who assisted Buxton police on this non
event. I heard the aircraft and the explosion and gave details
of both to David Clarke at the Star and to the Daily Mail, who
phoned me. The Mail seemed to want it to be a phantom bomber
from World War Two. There is no chance of that. This was a plane
far smaller than a bomber.

The whole affair was, in my view, an 8 hour exercise in
futility. The aircraft was unusual - a small light plane flying
very low (500 feet or so). Yes, planes come over here going into
Manchester every few minutes. They are very high (8000 feet or
so) and quite different in every respect. All locals know them
backwards. Yes, military jets nearly knock our rooftops off
every few days on a training exercise. This was no jet but was
as low as they fly. The plane was sufficiently odd to cause me
to go to the window and look (I saw nothing) but unlike an
airline pilot who lives in Chapel and reported it to the police
I thought nothing other than it was a low flying plane maybe
doing aerial photography (as one did last year for a new housing
estate). The pilot says he thought the engine sounded rough. It
did not to me. It was merely flying in low cloud, its sound thus
echoing a bit in the humid atmosphere and crossed right over my
house heading for Mam Tor. But because of the credibility of the
pilot witness the police launched a search and alerted Ringway
(who are scanning radar records but don't seem to have recorded
anything - as I don't expect them to have done, since at 500 feet
this plane would have been too low for radar coverage in these
hills).

As for the explosion, it followed some minutes later, was never
directly connected with the plane by me (I thought - and still
think - they were two entirely separate incidents) and was
without question an airborne report not a ground impact. This I
know for certain because the RMC quarry at Dove Holes shakes our
house regularly with detonations of limestone. This bang was
much louder but caused no ground shake, because, in my view it
was airborne. The weather was humid, low cloud, drizzle and at
the time I believed it was an isolated thunderclap ( although no
actual storm followed - rain did). I still think this.

I was first alerted when Dave called me next morning. I had
never connected either of these events with anything strange or
linked them together, frankly. I told the police in my view this
was an unconnected overflight by an unusually low flying light
plane and a subsequent thunderclap. They told me this was what
they had concluded as well and were delighted to have my account
as it fitted their findings.

This morning I went to Chapel (as I do every Saturday) and asked
around in the library, newsagent, supermarket, bakery etc. I
found nobody who had heard either noise. Several had heard the
story but none of those considered it in any way an an unusual
matter and were perfectly happy with the aircraft and
thunderclap solution. It is not creating any interest in these
parts.

Sorry - no mystery.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                           Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:46:42 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:33:44 -0400
Subject: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:42:04 +0200
>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:17:30 -0400
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

<snip>

>- One of the planes were different from the others. Not much
>attention has been paid to this


<snip>


Hi List,

To pay some more attention to the above mentioned "problem", and
to get a clearer picture of this, I have tried to systemize a
little bit, and using some of the available info. on the Web.

Given that the transcriptions are correct (and not manipulated
with either), this is some of Arnold's _own words_ regarding his
sighting on 24 June 1947, taken from the following main, 3
various transcription sources on the Web:

1:

http://davisref.samford.edu/ufos/chap1.htm

With the following excerpts:

"I proceeded to gather my scattered wits together, got back in
my airplane, and took off for Pendleton, Oregon. I remembered
that I had forgotten to mention the fact that one of these craft
looked different from the rest, was darker and of a _slightly
different shape_, and that.....".


"I watched as these objects rapidly neared the snow border of
Mount Rainier, all the time thinking to myself that I was
observing a whole formation of jets. In group count, such as I
have used in counting cattle and game from the air, they
numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in an echelon
formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first
four and the last five."


2:

http://www.geocities.com/~pjctsign/LagIV.htm

With the excerpt:

"_They_ look something like a _pie plate_ that was cut in half
with a sort of a _convex triangle_ in the rear. Now, I thought,
'well, that maybe they're jet planes with just the tail�the tail
painted green or brown or some'thin�and didn't think too much of
it, but kept on watching 'em."


3:

http://communities.msn.com/UFO/arnold.asp

With the excerpts:

"Of course, when the sun reflected from one or two or three of
those units, _they_ appeared to be _completely round_; but I am
making a drawing to the best of my ability, which I am including
(see below; AWS), as to the shape I observed these objects to be
as they passed the snow-covered ridges as well as Mt. Rainier".

"Capt. [E. J. Smith] (left), copilot (Ralph) Stevens (right) of
United Airlines and myself (in the middle) have compared our
observations in as much detail as possible", i.e.,

http://www.nwmyst.com/images/nwmyst-ufo-0022-4.jpg

(with enlargement:)

http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo/arnolsmi.jpg


"... and agreed we had observed the same type of aircraft as to
size, shape and form."


But, we don't really know what shape and form Arnold, Smith and
Stevens were discussing in the above mentioned picture. (It is
not possible to see that on the piece of paper they are sharing
in their hands, since the drawing is on the opposite side. The
photografer is also unknown.....)

However, the drawing sent to the Commanding General at Wright
Field, Dayton, Ohio (US  Air Force), along with his first
report, is likely to be this one:

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arn_draw.jpg


I will call this shape and form a "scallop shape", or just a
"shell shape".

An alleged photo of a similar kind of aircraft, taken on 9 July
1947 in Phoenix, AZ,  is shown here:

http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo/rhodes1.jpg


The drawing shown here:

http://www.nwmyst.com/images/nwmyst-ufo-0022-3.jpg

is likely to be made some years later, and it is probably a
depiction of the different "z craft", or the leader of the
formation. I will call the shape of this craft a "bat shape".

Further, Arnold describes their formation as follows:

"I was fascinated by this formation of aircraft. They didn't fly
like any aircraft I had ever seen before. In the first place,
their echelon formation was backward from that practiced by our
Air Force. The elevation of the first craft was greater than
that of the last. They flew in a definite formation, but
erratically."

It is assumed here that Arnold's echelon formation, that I'm
trying to depict below, "to the best of my ability", was simply
a stepped-up line, with no tilting, neither to the left nor to
the right, with the leader (z) at the lowest (B), or highest
(A), point, and each following (x) craft slightly higher (or
lower).

This could be depicted something like this, i.e., the 5 miles
long chain of craft (x and z), as seen from above:


(A: The _first_ plane, z, different?)                   x (or z)
                                                                             x
The first four                                                        x
                                                                             x

Larger gap
                                                                             x
                                                                             x
The last five                                                         x
                                                                             x
(B: The _last_ plane, z, different?)                   z (or x)



The side-view of the echelon formation of craft (x and z), and
with the angle (echelon) of the whole formation in relation to
the horisontal plane somewhat exagerated, is depicted something
like this:

                                         5 miles
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------->

             Last five              Larger gap               First four
<--------------------------> <-----------------> <----------------------->


                                          (A: The first plane, z, different?)


           z (or x)

   x
                                                                           x
                                                                  x


                                   x
                         x
                x
        x
x  (or z)       (B: The last plane, z, different?)

The important point in my mail is that it is to be noticed that
Arnold -- in 1947 -- didn't really mention (with purpose?)
_which one_ of the 9 craft  was different from the others (e.g.,
the very _first_ one in the chain?), and what the "slight"
difference in _shape and form_ really was. Though, he's
mentioning the colour in his book in 1952, i.e.,

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arnolbok.jpg.


The saucers depicted on this book's front page look very
different fom his other aircraft depictions/descriptions as
well, even though this book seems to be co-authored by Arnold,
and the depictions _should_ also have been "authorized" by him.
The craft shown on the book front has a "doughnut hole" in the
middle of the craft, not shown on his Air Force drawing. The
convex triangle in the rear is not shown either. (See also
below; The Fate magazine.)

Arnold seems to be mixing the shape and form of the 8 ones with
the 9th one (i.e., the different one); the shape(s) he's
mentioning could be that of the (different) "z plane", or those
of the "x planes". He just told the press in 1947 (and maybe
later as well) that all 9 of them had the same shape and form.

It seems that Arnold -- for reasons unknown (to me) -- actually
was withholding (or "forgetting"), and mixing, some (important)
information.

Thus it is not so difficult to understand that the media came up
with rather different headlines regarding the shape and form of
the objects.

Further, no vapour trails (contrails) from the craft have ever
been mentioned anywhere by Arnold (indicating no jets?). Any
sonic booms (or any engine noise at all) were never reported
either, neither by e.g. Fred Johnson nor any other observers on
the ground, i.e.,

http://www.nwmyst.com/nwmyst-ufo-0008-1.html


or,

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arn_fbi1.jpg

though they were -- according to Arnold -- flying
more than the speed of sound along the mountain ridges,
i.e.,

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/m_rainer.jpg


or,

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arn_mirg.jpg

However, 500 mph, were reported by some people on the ground.
(Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, 740 mph (on average), on
October 14, 1947. Yeager again set a speed record in 1952,
attaining 1650 mph.)


In addition, shown as a depiction in the URL above (nearly)
_all_ of the the objects are -- mistakingly -- depicted with a
double curve at the rear and a dark-coloured spot on top (or
below?). According to Arnold only one of the craft had this
shape. Arnold's description of a dark coloured spot is probably
mistaken by some artists as a "doughnut hole" in the middle of
the craft, as shown on the front page of his book fom 1952, and
also shown on the front page of the Fate magazine in 1948:

http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arnofate.jpg

My personal, subjective opinion -- from an armchair theorist's
viewpoint, based upon "pure speculations", and keeping more to a
"terrestrial explanation" --  is that the leading craft in the
front dragged the other 8 craft behind in a wire, and that these
were light-weight, mirror bright "target drones", or just kites,
with some metal foil, used as a target to e.g. reflect electro
magnetic (visible/invisible) rays of some kind, and being
monitored by control stations on the ground, and for some
unknown purpose. The leading craft up in the front of the chain
could be a Northrop, tail-less, flying wing construction (an
early YB-49 prototype, or scaled model?). (I don't believe very
much in the "pelican theory".) The craft could be manned or
remotely controlled, using e.g. a pulse radar.

Given that the transcriptions were correct, and that Arnold
wasn't a hoaxster or disinformant himself, and also didn't take
part in any conspiracy, and that he gave correct info. to the US
Air Force regarding the scallop shape, a conclusion which can be
drawn is:

* Apparently, Arnold didn't give any complete or correct info.
neither to the media nor to the US Air Force.

* All but one of the discs Arnold saw were shaped like a sea
shell/scallop. They were traveling -- in a rather
aerodynamically strange/"wrong" way -- with their rounded ("pie
pan") part at the front, in the direction of flying -- and
opposite to e.g. a "flying flapjack", V173 or F5U. Their convex
triangular part was the aft end of the craft.

* The 9th aircraft was shaped like a bat, having a double curve
at the rear, and might be the leader of the formation, located
either at the bottom or top of the echelon formation, but most
likely at the top.


Best regards,

Asgeir
www.asgeirskavhaug.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 17

                                  Gore UFO?

From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:58:14 -0400
Subject: Gore UFO?


Hiya UpDates listers,

Have been waiting to see something on this list about this
but haven't so...

Thought it was mostly unsubstantiated rumor till I heard from
no less than three non-ufolks that they had seen the news report,
most likely on CNN.

------

Subject: Gore UFO?
Date: Thu, Jul 15, 1999, 12:36 AM


Dear Guys and Gals,

While in the car today shortly before noon, I heard a report on
the radio that Al Gore's jet, Airforce Two, was instructed to
make an evasive, emergency 60 degree turn to avoid hitting an
object that suddenly appeared on the ground station radar that
was tracking his plane.

The report said that the mysterious object disappeared after 50
to 60 seconds.

I tuned in again at the top of the next hour but the report was
not repeated nor was it picked up by any of the other news
services I've been scanning all day...

I'm wondering if any of you heard the story or can find a report
of it anywhere on the Internet.

Many thanks for any help






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                           Kenneth Arnold's Claims

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:47:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:41:50 -0400
Subject: Kenneth Arnold's Claims


In response to various comments re the suggestion that Kenneth
Arnold's pivotal sighting report was possibly of White
Pelicans...


In his report for the Air Force, Arnold wrote:

"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
flew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
where Ashford, Washington, is located.

Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
altitude of about 9,200 ft.

The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, I trimmed out my airplane in the
direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain".


Ashford is to the north-east of Mineral and if he made a "360
degree turn to the right" and was "starting again toward
Rainer", which is also north-east of Ashford, how he was also
travelling in the direction of Yakima?

Although his ultimate destination was Yakima, Arnold was still
engaged in the search for a missing, presumed crashed, C-46
'Marine transporter' and a five thousand dollar (ten thousand
according to one newspaper report) reward.

Yakima was not directly east of his position and if instead he
was travelling due east, 'almost in the direction of Yakima', it
makes a significant difference to the interaction between Arnold
and the objects, should they have been much closer than he
realised.

I note from the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' newspaper
article of 26 June: "Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at
2:50 p.m. Tuesday toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared
directly in front of him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet
altitude".

The further due east he was actually travelling, the more he was
heading in the direction of the objects and they sooner they
would cross his path.


The account in his later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers', is
also different, making no mention whatsoever of 'heading towards
Yakima' and stating, "It was during this search and while making
a turn of 180 degrees over Mineral, Washington, at approximately
9200 feet altitude" when he first noticed a 'bright flash'.

Back in time, in what seems to be the first radio interview he
gave, Arnold explained:

"I had made one sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of
the canyons and was dragging it for any types of objects that
might prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I come out of the
canyon there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28
miles from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I
noticed to the left of me a chain which looked to me like the
tail of a Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific
speed across the face of Mt. Rainier. I, at first, thought they
were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast
that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of
new jet planes in formation".

According to this earliest full account - original witness
testimonies often proving to be more reliable - the first thing
which Arnold noticed was _a chain of objects_ that flew like
geese and were crossing the face of Mt Rainier.

Further documented at the time, were the following:

"Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday
toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front
of him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude".

Source: Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian - June 26, 1947


"Arnold said the strange aircraft were skittering across the
southwest slope of Mount Rainier when he first sighted them".

Source: Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947


"Arnold, general manager and owner of the Great Western Fire
Control Company, said he first saw the objects when they flashed
in the sun low over the slopes of Mt. Rainier.

'Then I saw them, weaving and ducking in and out as they came
south not more than 500 feet over the plateau'".

Source: Oregon Journal - June 27, 1947


There's no evidence here that Arnold saw the objects before they
were perceived to be crossing Mt. Rainier.

However, when his book, 'The Coming of the Saucers', was
published, it was literally a different story with Arnold
claiming:

"It was during this search and while making a turn of 180
degrees over Mineral, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet
altitude, that a tremendously bright flash lit up the surfaces
of my aircraft. I was startled. I thought I was very close to
collision with some other aircraft whose approach I had not
noted. I spent the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently
searching the sky all around--to the sides, above and below
me-in an attempt to determine where the flash of light had come
from.

[...]

Before I had time to collect my thoughts or to find any close
aircraft, the flash happened again. This time I caught the
direction from which it had come. I observed, far to my left and
to the north, a formation of very bright objects coming from the
vicinity of Mount Baker, flying very close to the mountain
topics and travelling at tremendous speed.

At first I couldn't make out their shapes as they were still at
a distance of over a hundred miles".


In this final account, Arnold submits:

1. A "tremendously bright flash lit up the surfaces of my
aircraft".

2. He spent, "the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently
searching the sky all around".

3. There was a further flash.

4. He then (some more seconds having elapsed), saw "a formation
of very bright objects coming from the vicinity of Mount Baker",
which was to the north of Mt. Rainier.

5. Even then, the objects were "still at a distance of over a
hundred miles".


So, how far distant were they when that first flash "lit up the
surfaces" of his aircraft, some 30 seconds before?

If the objects were travelling at Arnold's estimated speed, as
he later timed them, some 1,200 mph, then in that 30 seconds
they would have been even further north.

Let's call it an even hundred miles from that initial 'flash'
and say it's 50 miles (probably slightly less ) from Mt. Rainier
to Mt. Adams.

Arnold claimed the objects took one minute and forty two seconds
to travel southwards between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams,
therefore, they should have taken about twice as long to first
of all reach Mt. Rainier from their starting position 100 miles
northwards.

Bottom line, Arnold would have had the objects in view for
around three minutes before they even arrived at Mt Rainier.

Now we know that simply isn't correct, Arnold previously having
clarified in his letter to the Air Force that the total duration
of his sighting only lasted for, "around two and one half or
three minutes".

A further uncertainty is that in the early radio interview, he
stated differently: "the whole observation of these particular
ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes".

Worse still, in one of the first newspaper reports, the 'Chicago
Daily Tribune' of 25 June, quoted Arnold as confirming he
"checked off one minutes and forty two seconds from the time
they passed Mount Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount
Adams" and that, "All told the objects remained in view slightly
less than two minutes from the time I first noticed them".

This could be a more accurate recollection, corroborating that
Arnold first saw flashes from objects which were between his
location and Mt. Rainier and which were already passing the
mountain's slopes.

There seems no doubt that Arnold did observe bright flashes from
the objects, although whether they were so brilliant as his
evident elaborations, is questionable.

Is it really sustainable that his aircraft was 'set alight' from
the reflection of an object which was more than 100 miles away?

Yet, that's what Arnold claimed in his book and apparently
didn't consider a problem.


In conclusion, there's sufficient documented evidence to accept
some innocent exaggerations along the way, as we might expect.

That may be acceptable in other circumstances, but not when we
are dealing with purported evidence of objects which could be
extraterrestrial spacecraft.

By any default, there can be no tolerance for so much ambiguity.


Speed and distance estimates are of course still dependent on
where Arnold was in relation to the objects and their respective
routes.

As we appreciate, it's greatly compounded by Arnold's comments
that at some point he turned his airplane around and opened the
window - accepted this would be the right-hand side window - to
get a better look at the departing objects.

When this action occurred is absolutely critical and we simply
don't know as he never explained it in context.

Is there maybe a clue when he did this?

Unfortunately, the only references seem to be:

"Well, uh, I uh, it was about one minute to three when I started
clocking them on my sweep second hand clock, and as I kept
looking at them, I kept looking for their tails, and they didn't
have any tail. I thought, well, maybe something's wrong with my
eyes and I turned the plane around and opened the window, and
looked out the window, and sure enough, I couldn't find any
tails on 'em".

Source: Radio interview.


"I observed these objects not only through the glass of my
airplane but turned my airplane sideways where I could open my
window and observe them with a completely unobstructed view.
(Without sun glasses.)"

Source: Letter to the Air Force.


However, both indicate that Arnold recognised his observational
difficulties before too long and not in the latter stages.

Pointedly, in his letter to the Air Force, Arnold strives to
affirm that he had the objects in sight for some time after
having altered course for a clearer view.


Theorising the probabilities with Arnold's exact location and
direction, the nine objects' initial location and direction,
plus when Arnold changed course, is like a game of chess, when
each side has only three equitable pieces left on the board. You
can move them around continually without ever reaching a
resolution.


Evidence why Kenneth Arnold's description of the distinctive
flight characteristics of those enigmatic objects was consistent
with a formation of White Pelicans, has previously been cited in
detail.

For those suffering from Pelicanitis, I would only add a mention
of the National Geographical article, 'Pelican Profiles', which
I recently located in the November 1943 issue and records:

"I recall the day in the early thirties when a companion and I,
sight-seeing among the bubbling mud geysers on the eastern side
of the [Salton] sea, observed a hundred white birds manoeuvring
majestically in the sky. They played follow the leader.

Then they soared into the blue until only the sun, glinting on
white feathers, flashed their location".

As I've said, this is proof these birds were reflective from a
considerable distance, even 'out of sight'.

Perhaps how they 'flashed their location' is comparative to
Arnold's comments, from the early radio interview:

"I could see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier
and against the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing".

"They seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror"

"I could see them only plainly when they seemed to tip their
wing, or whatever it was, and the sun flashed on them".


Bruce Maccabee, in his paper, 'The The Complete Sighting Report
of Kenneth Arnold..." states:

"It is important to notice how Arnold's attention was first
drawn to the presence of strange flying objects because his
initial observation rules out any explanation that is based on
things in the sky which are not shiny (reflective, like a
mirror) such as, for example, birds".

Demonstrably not so and once these birds are 'ruled in'...


Notably, the 1943 article records how, "Descending, they
'snapped the whip' and performed other acrobatic feats".

It further corroborates that these massive birds were seen to be
flying in formation similar to how a whip would uncoil, or
comparatively, as Arnold described, "a chain, which looked to me
like the tail of a Chinese kite".

"The white pelican is a giant seaplane of the bird world...it is
a master of graceful formation flying".

Documented in the early 1940s, it confirms what I had been
emphasising - that these birds are rarely recognised as being
majestic formation flyers - Arnold's nine enigmatic objects also
"flying diagonally in echelon formation".


The point about Pelicans... is that they are unlike other birds
and when migrating have a long, motionless gliding action,
interspersed with 'flapping.'

To an unfamiliar observer, these bat-like (Arnold's objects of
course being bat-like), tail-less birds, if at first seen to
gliding at speed, could appear to be 'aircraft'.

If this is what Kenneth Arnold briefly observed, there should
naturally be some clues and he did describe how the nine
objects, "fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately
and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their
surfaces".

What type of 'craft', terrestrial or otherwise would conceivably
'flutter'?


Arguably conclusive, it's a description which features in
Arnold's subsequent encounter, as he relates in 'The Coming of
the Saucers':

"I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five
minutes to seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and
straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of
about twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects that looked
like ducks.

They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific
rate of speed.

The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were
coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on
my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As the group of
objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away
from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and
fluttering and flashing a dull amber color.

They appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a
dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be
absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly.
I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared
to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane. I knew they
were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast".


What could these "twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects
that looked like ducks", and which were "fluttering and
flashing", possibly have been?

Arnold noted, "I was a little bit shocked and exited when I
realized they had the same flight characteristics of the large
objects I had observed on June 24".

Err... in other words they were birds?

Trusting it can be accepted that a critical evaluation of
Arnold's overall claims is demonstrably long overdue.


James.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:10:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:43:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:58:14 -0400
>Subject: Gore UFO?

<snip>

>Date: Thu, Jul 15, 1999, 12:36 AM

>While in the car today shortly before noon, I heard a report on
>the radio that Al Gore's jet, Airforce Two, was instructed to
>make an evasive, emergency 60 degree turn to avoid hitting an
>object that suddenly appeared on the ground station radar that
>was tracking his plane.

>The report said that the mysterious object disappeared after 50
>to 60 seconds.

>I tuned in again at the top of the next hour but the report was
>not repeated nor was it picked up by any of the other news
>services I've been scanning all day...

>I'm wondering if any of you heard the story or can find a report
>of it anywhere on the Internet.

Dear Stephen and Listers:

     I remember hearing something about this on the news, but I
thought they said that a small plane had come close to Gore's
aircraft.  Checked AP headlines for that day and didn't find
anything.

Clear skies,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:54:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:46:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>Subject: Gore UFO?
>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

>Hiya UpDates listers,

>Have been waiting to see something on this list about this
>but haven't so...

>Thought it was mostly unsubstantiated rumor till I heard from
>no less than three non-ufolks that they had seen the news
report,
>most likely on CNN.

>------

>Subject: Gore UFO?
>Date: Thu, Jul 15, 1999, 12:36 AM

>Dear Guys and Gals,

>While in the car today shortly before noon, I heard a report on
>the radio that Al Gore's jet, Airforce Two, was instructed to
>make an evasive, emergency 60 degree turn to avoid hitting an
>object that suddenly appeared on the ground station radar that
>was tracking his plane.

>The report said that the mysterious object disappeared after 50
>to 60 seconds.

>I tuned in again at the top of the next hour but the report was
>not repeated nor was it picked up by any of the other news
>services I've been scanning all day...

>I'm wondering if any of you heard the story or can find a report
>of it anywhere on the Internet.

>Many thanks for any help

At sightings.com - If you can wade thru the assasination
conspiracy stuff - there is a reference to the story at:

http://www.sightings.com/politics4/assass.htm

Tim


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:42:35 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:48:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
>>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:42:04 +0200
>>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:17:30 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

><snip>

>>- One of the planes were different from the others. Not much
>>attention has been paid to this


><snip>


>Hi List,

>To pay some more attention to the above mentioned "problem",
>and to get a clearer picture of this, I have tried to systemize a
>little bit, and using some of the available info. on the Web.

<snip>

>This could be depicted something like this, i.e., the 5 miles
>long chain of craft (x and z), as seen from above:

>(A: The _first_ plane, z, different?)                   x (or z)
                                                                             x
>The first four                                                        x
                                                                             x

>Larger gap

                                                                             x
                                                                             x
>The last five                                                         x
                                                                             x
>(B: The _last_ plane, z, different?)                   z (or x)

<snip>


Hi List,

Sorry about the character disorder in my mail, but it seems that
the characters "x" and "z" got displaced when shown on the Web
site, due the transmissions and the use of different font types.

Instead I can try to explain: What I was trying to depict was
that the x and z craft simply were following each other on a
straight line -- as seen from above.

The other x and z depiction, showing the side view (found down
below the  depiction mentioned above), seems to show the correct
shape of the echelon -- as I thought it should be depicted
(according to my interpretation of Arnold's descriptions) -- but
the text and associated lines shown above the echelon of x and z
(i.e., "Last five", "Larger gap", "First four", "Five miles")
should be "stretched out" a little bit, to match the depiction
of the echelon.

I hope you'll figure out, and I hope I didn't bring too much
confusion in here!


Regards,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                       Re: Clark McClelland's Web Site

From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:37:47 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:53:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Clark McClelland's Web Site


From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>

I noted a lot of hype in the Clark McLlellan book proposal but
had trouble finding facts.

How old is he? Where and when did he get his aerospace
engineering degrees? Was he an enginer o a technician? To what
professional organizations does he belong? What papers has he
published? Just when and where did he talk to Von Braun about
Roswell?

Perhaps more importantly, why did Clark bring the matter up to
Wernher?

There are essentially no factual statements about Roswell in
print that would lead to any questioning before 1978.. But Von
Braun died in 1977. The mentions in Frank Edwards', and Ted
Bloecher sure weren't enough.

53 years would imply Clark being in his mid 70s or was he a very
early starter like Kal Korff, Bill Spaulding, etc?? I seem to
recall a Pittsburgh connection as well....






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:37:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:57:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>-----Forwarded Message-----

>From: Martin Jeffrey <martin-j@lineone.net
>To: Hauntedscotland@listbot.com <Hauntedscotland@listbot.com
>Date: 17 July 1999 17:10
>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

<snip>

>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
>April 1997

>Again the above case has the same commitment and dedication from
>the brave voluntary rescue teams combing over 25 square miles
>just because of several reports.

Hello,

Of course Martin and Jenny have hit the nail on its proverbial
head. The "regular occurrence" of yet another search for a
crashed plane on the Peak District moors bears out what I have
been trying to put across to the hard-of-hearing diehard UFO
nuts for the last two years.

Martin and Jenny know what they are talking about because they
live in the Peak District, they are familiar with the toings and
froings of aircraft and the dedication of the emergency
services.

Just because helicopters and search teams have been called out
is not _proof_ that something must have crashed.

It is simply procedure - the police simply cannot take chances;
if they receive a report they have to check it out.

In last weeks case, Mountain Rescue leader Mike France (with
whom I discussed the case as the search was on-going) was happy
to accept yet another down-to-earth explanation for this report
- viz a low-flying light aircraft and the coincidence of a
thunderclap which sounded like an explosion.

A similar series of coincidences are what produced the March 24,
1997 search and rescue operation in the Howden area of the Peaks
- which some obsessive UFO buffs have been so determined to turn
into something it never was.

As Mike, the Buxton Police and everyone else involved in the
search on Tuesday were quick to point out - this sort of thing
occurs all the time, on average three or four times per year.
Two weeks ago I took part in a dummy-run search and rescue
exercise involving three Peak District Mountain Rescue Teams,
two helicopters and police mounted and underwater search teams
in the Thorne Moors area of South Yorkshire.

I saw first hand how the different arms of the emergency search
and rescue services work, and the professional way they perform
their job.

During this operation I discussed the various claims made about
the 1997 Peak district incident with Mike France and was able to
inspect the area search maps used that night.

As readers will recall, one of the central planks of the UFO
promoters of this case is that the Mountain Rescue teams (141
volunteers) were deliberately sent to the wrong area of the moor
while the military secretly removed the wreckage of a crashed
Tornado.

These maps provide conclusive proof that the Rescue Teams were
sent to those areas where the logged eyewitness accounts
suggested an aircraft might have crashed. Mike France then took
up control of the incident and directed both the volunteer
search teams from his communications base, and directed the RAF
and Police helicopter to search the areas of moor he felt were
involved.

If there was a cover-up then MIke, a civilian with 30 years
experience of saving life in the mountains, must have been party
to it.

Jenny Randles - in whose back garden this crash literally took
place - has already commented upon the ludicrous nature of these
claims. But the sad and simple fact is that not one of the UFO
believers who have made these claims have made any attempt to
contact those dedicated Mountain Rescue staff who took part that
day.

What are the afraid of?

It's easy to make crazy claims if you simply use selective
evidence, and ignore the bits which you don't like.

It seems in the days of post-X Files ufology the very basics of
investigation skills - like talking to those who actually took
part - have gone out of the window.

All we have now is just blind faith - pure and simple.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:45:36 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:59:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>Subject: Gore UFO?
>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>Thought it was mostly unsubstantiated rumor till I heard from
>no less than three non-ufolks that they had seen the news report,
>most likely on CNN.

>------

>Subject: Gore UFO?
>Date: Thu, Jul 15, 1999, 12:36 AM

<snip>

>I'm wondering if any of you heard the story or can find a report
>of it anywhere on the Internet.


Hi Stephen,

The following was posted on uk.rec.ufo a few days ago:

=======================================
From: darrenmparrSAPUSX@ukonline.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.rec.ufo
Subject: Too Close for Comfort
Date: 16 Jul 1999 09:58:47 GMT


I found the following news brief in xoomcom's science update.
Does anybody know any more about this event?


"A published report (Wednesday) says that Air Force Two,
carrying Vice President Al Gore, was instructed by air traffic
controllers near Chicago to make a jarring 60-degree turn to
avoid a crash on Friday night. The Chicago Sun-Times reports the
government 747 traveling from Seattle to Washington at about 600
mph was instructed to veer sharply off course after what
appeared to be another plane appeared on radar. Federal Aviation
Administration officials said the image mysteriously disappeared
from radar screens about 45 to 60 seconds after it appeared."

Any further info would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks y'all.

Please remove the SAPUSX before replying by email.
=======================================

No follow-up postings have been made so far.

Regards,



John Hayes

ufoinfo@ukgateway.net
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Archives for UFO Roundup/Filer's Files/UK UFO Network Bulletin/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:05:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Date: 18 July 1999 11:45
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100

>>-----Forwarded Message-----

>>From: Martin Jeffrey <martin-j@lineone.net
>>To: Hauntedscotland@listbot.com <Hauntedscotland@listbot.com
>>Date: 17 July 1999 17:10
>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

<snip>

>>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
>>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
>>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
>>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
>>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
>>April 1997

>>Again the above case has the same commitment and dedication from
>>the brave voluntary rescue teams combing over 25 square miles
>>just because of several reports.

>Hello,

>Of course Martin and Jenny have hit the nail on its proverbial head.
>The "regular occurrence" of yet another search for a crashed plane
>on the Peak District moors bears out what I have been trying to
>put across to the hard-of-hearing diehard UFO nuts for the last
>two years.

>Martin and Jenny know what they are talking about because they
>live in the Peak District, they are familiar with the toings and
>froings of aircraft and the dedication of the emergency services.

>Just because helicopters and search teams have been called out
>is not PROOF that something must have crashed.

>It is simply procedure - the police simply cannot take chances;
>if they receive a report they have to check it out.

Hi,

Yes, I echo all that. And, as I said in a couple of responses to
Max Burns the other day, my real fear is simple. Around here
these rescue teams are essential, but it is a huge drain on them
personally (because of the time and risk involved) and on local
taxpayers too. This must be true in many other locations
worldwide.

We do not begrduge false alarms because they may not be false
and chances cannot be taken with human life. Every now and then
lives are saved. What I certainly do begrudge is some stupid UFO
tale being invented in the absence of anything resembling real
evidence (as certainly would be true of last weeks case) - built
around a subject as serious as this.

Why? Because the danger is that crying wolf time after time
might - however subconsciously - put doubt in the minds of those
charged with a rescue mission on the grounds - its just another
stupid UFO misperception, when, of course, it might be a real
plane crash one of these days. These are not matters to be
trivialised and it is therefore very important that we act as
ufologists to prevent non stories built around them becoming
popularised and spread by the media and our own junk literature.

So, I applaud what David has done on these stories and deplore
any continued attempts to make mystery out of non events because
it is here far more than an academic point scoring exercise over
a UFO incident. One day someone might die as an indirect result
of the series of wild UFO crash stories that have driven the
authorities ro distraction and that in the UK are unquestionably
proliferating (I can think of four or five in the oast 2 - 3
years). As such those who promote them on the basis of no solid
evidence are not merely hurting UFOlogy they are (probably
without realising it) putting doubt in the minds of those who
need to act quickly, selflessly and without pondering if it is
just another UFO rumour.

In my discussions with Buxton police last week I told them of my
25 years UFO investigation. During that time I have been
involved in at least half a dozen alleged UFO/plane crash cases
that were in fact nothing of the sort. Mostly they are triggered
by meteors and satellite debris re-entries. Buxton told me their
experience is similar. But they cannot afford to take chances.

One good outcome is that, because of my contacts with places
like Jodrell, they have now put me on the contact list for such
incidents (their suggestion, I should add - not mine). I might
in some small way be able to advise if there is any substance to
a story. They knew, for example, that if a 'crashing plane' is
really a meteor a ufologist might learn that almost before
anyone because they will receive sightings from far and wide. A
spread over many miles of the same light sighting will rule out
a crashing plane and prove the phenomenon was high in the
atmosphere - such as a meteir or space junk burning up.

This could be an area where many investigators out there could
profitably aid the authorities. I would not have thought of it
myself until the police made the request of me on Wednesday.
Maybe you didnt either. But it makes good sense when lives are
at risk. Why not help just a little in a practical way. It could
be a lot more satisfying than forever accusing the government of
a cover up or forlornly chasing alien bodies.

I am not simply 'getting at' Max Burns here. Many of us look for
UFO mysteries in incidents that do not justify them.  Its a
tendancy I propose we all need to draw back from. This is one
situation (but far from the only one) where we have to consider
the inherent risks we take by playing political games with
serious matters. It is clearly vital that we learn to moderate
our claims in positions where public welfare is at risk.

This, incidentally, is a feature of the Code of Practice that we
self determined in British ufology years ago. Any action that
interfered with police activity would be in direct contravention
of the code and a person who signed allegience to it could be
fired by any responsible UFO group who had adopted it as
mandatory. Sadly in the UK, to my knowledge, only ASSAP, BUFORA
and NARO have adopted the code this way. Not even the IUN - so
how about it IUN members???

I hope there are others out there whom I dont know about -
please tell us if you are. Lets draw up a registry of groups
that support the code of practice and issue an internet
declaration of such support to try to attract others. Of course,
BUFORA should be doing this - but then whats new!

Maybe those who scoffed at the Code as a waste of time (and
there were some serious ufologists who did) will now rethink
this. Not only does it serve to protect witnesses via hypnosis
(it does not BAN it - this was a unliateral BUFORA move
extending the code - but does insist that it be conducted by a
medically qualified practitioner, which is not what happens in
many (even famous) cases these days is it?)  It also is now seen
here to be useful outlawing situations where rescue operations
might be hampered by inappropriate actions or statements.

The code could be due for a reawakening.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:55:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:40:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>Subject: Gore UFO?
>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

>Hiya UpDates listers,

>Have been waiting to see something on this list about this
>but haven't so...

>Thought it was mostly unsubstantiated rumor till I heard from
>no less than three non-ufolks that they had seen the news report,
>most likely on CNN.

<snip>


Concerning Air Force 2's order for evasive maneuvers:

Yes! Yes! I heard the report. It was not reported as a UFO, just
as "an object" that appeared on the radar and then vanished and
that FAA admins claimed the radar was working in top order. No
one breathed that dirty word: UFO. Thats for nutcases and
fanatics you know. TFPIC. (Tounge Firmly Planted In Cheek)

-NR





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                               Re: UMMO Case?

From: Richard D. Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:58:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:43:14 -0400
Subject: Re: UMMO Case?


Dear List,

A friend of mine in France, Rene Voarino (Centre d'Etudes Ovni
France = CEOF), wishes to get in touch with people interested by
the UMMO case.

CEOF works on UMMO for many years, on the basis, not shared by
many ufologists, that this case is not a hoax.

You can reach him at rvoarino@worldnet.fr

I thank you in advance for him.

RDN





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:46:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:55:37 -0400
>From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>>Subject: Gore UFO?
>>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Hiya UpDates listers,

>>Have been waiting to see something on this list about this
>>but haven't so...

>>Thought it was mostly unsubstantiated rumor till I heard from
>>no less than three non-ufolks that they had seen the news report,
>>most likely on CNN.
>
><snip>
>
>Concerning Air Force 2's order for evasive maneuvers:
>
>Yes! Yes! I heard the report. It was not reported as a UFO, just
>as "an object" that appeared on the radar and then vanished and
>that FAA admins claimed the radar was working in top order. No
>one breathed that dirty word: UFO. Thats for nutcases and
>fanatics you know. TFPIC. (Tounge Firmly Planted In Cheek)


I wouldn't get too excited about some target showing up on ATC's
screens then disappearing, it happens all of the time. Light
aircraft out in the areas not regarded as control zones might
show up briefly when they get above the "grass" so that radar
can see them. Primary radar doesn't know the height, just the
direction. The "target" could look like it's right in the path
of Gore's aircraft but actually several thousands of feet below
it.

AF 2 would have received a radio call from Flight Following
telling him that an aircraft, type and altitude unknown, was in
its line of flight. It was prudent for the pilot to avoid the
area.

Prudency counts for a lot in safe flying.

Probably the only reason that we even heard about this was because
Gore's aircraft was involved.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 18

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:13:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:53:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:32:26 EDT
>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>
>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
>>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:44:30 EDT
>>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:58:54 -0400
>>Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

David Rudiak's last couple of sentences says a whole lot:

>I for one don't mind reasonable explanations that do a
>good job of explaining most of the details (the mark of a good
>theory). What we so-called "true believers" can't stand are the
>utterly idiotic "explanations" put forward by people seeming to
>lack all common sense and/or intellectual integrity.

Amen David. There are, unfortunately, a whole lot of people who
are going to be eating "pelican," ostrich and crow _when_ the
theories are finally supported by physical evidence. So, keep
looking.  Maybe one such bird will build a nest on a more
enlightened person's head (than Mr. Easton's), lay an egg, and
when the bird hatches, maybe that person on whose head the nest
is precariously perched, will hear a noise, a chirp, and get
curious enough to lift up his arms to his head and recognize
that something has been nesting in his hair...and keeps coming
back each spring!

However, history has shown that it is more likely that the
person in whose hair the nest is made, will simply remove the
nest and forget about it, allowing it to happen all over again
the following spring.  How many years has it been...50, 100,
1000, 1450 BC? Perhaps if Mr. Easton starts defeathering all
those birds making nests in his hair, maybe he will avoid the
tar and feathering that will inevitably result should he wait
till more people recognize his predicament. How many others out
there are unaware that you've got nests of one kind or another
built right on top of your heads!  Just because you can't see
those nests in your own hair, you can recognize them in others,
can't you?

I was only 12 when the "swamp gas" theory emerged. Dad informed
us at the dinner table that that was the latest explanation. I
laughed so hard I spit out my asparagus salad. Tears streamed
down my face. We lived in the Midwest where corn grows high, and
swamps were something the dinosaurs used to roam. I envisioned
my bedroom a "swamp" conjuring up ridiculous images of green
slime covered, smelly clothes that had laid so long on the floor
of my bedroom that they gave off fetid smelling gas. Then
further imagining my "visitors" holding their wee little noses
as they emerged, walking into my "swamp" bedroom, handing me a
bar of Dial soap. I ended up rolling on the floor in a fit of
laughter.

It was at that point in time that I realized that people will go
to _any_ lengths to refute that which they don't understand,
even if they see it, experience it, or feel it. We "true
believers" get our funny bones tickled regularly.  Hope this





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W

From: Keith Basterfield Network <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:50:05 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:15:39 -0400
Subject: Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W


Sighting Report Australia
_____________________________________

Cape Hawke in Foster, north of Newcastle. N.S.W
Australia

Saturday 10th July 1999
Time: 6.00pm
Location Cape Hawke in Foster north of Newcastle N.S.W

Report by Ufologist Peter Turner (UFO Research NSW)

The (object was observed by Mr. Steven Gammage, his wife,
sister, mother and father on Saturday evening of 10th July 1999
at about 6.00pm.

The location is from a deck on the north side of their residence
which is on the hillside at Cape Hawke in Foster, north of
Newcastle.

The viewing platform is elevated and looks over the roofs of
other houses. The ocean cannot be seen.   Steve and his father (
who was visiting form Sydney were looking up at the sky on
Saturday evening. Sky mainly clear as it had been all day. They
were looking at Venus to the north west which was very bright.

Suddenly low down on the horizon a disc shaped object appearance
from the north moving south. "Very fast". The object stopped and
hovered at an increased elevation.

This object was followed by another similar object but less
bright. The colours were red-orange. The second object moved to
a position over the first object and they both hovered together.

At this point the rest of the family came out to view the
objects and Steve brought out his reflector Telescope (114mm
diameter and 900mm long - his description. He was able to view
the first bright object and noted that it was disc shaped with a
row of white lights across the middle of the disc.

The disc was rotating but not so fast that he could not pick out
the individual lights. He & his family watched the two objects
for about 5 minutes. Both objects then shot off north at very
high speeds and disappeared. About half an hour later a single
object similar to the first two appeared from the north, hovered
and then disappeared north again. Steve & his family were amazed
at what they had seen. He has not had any
similar sightings. END
______________________________________________

Regards Diane Harrison

Co Director Australian UFO Research Network
Australian Skywatch International

The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw/new
______________________________________________

 Australian UFO Research Network Hot Line Number
                       1800 77 22 88
        Free Call any state any time





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:51:05 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:10:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:55:37 -0400
>>From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:26:42 +0000
>>>Subject: Gore UFO?
>>>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>Hiya UpDates listers,

>>>Have been waiting to see something on this list about this
>>>but haven't so...

<snip>

>I wouldn't get too excited about some target showing up on ATC's
>screens then disappearing, it happens all of the time. Light
>aircraft out in the areas not regarded as control zones might
>show up briefly when they get above the "grass" so that radar
>can see them. Primary radar doesn't know the height, just the
>direction. The "target" could look like it's right in the path
>of Gore's aircraft but actually several thousands of feet below
>it.
>
>AF 2 would have received a radio call from Flight Following
>telling him that an aircraft, type and altitude unknown, was in
>its line of flight. It was prudent for the pilot to avoid the
>area.
>
>Prudency counts for a lot in safe flying.

>Probably the only reason that we even heard about this was because
>Gore's aircraft was involved.

>Don Ledger

Thank you all for the continuing info.

I may not have made clear that I didn't see any of the actual
press coverage. The fellow ufolk who passed on the message
placed the unidentified radar contact in the "ufo" context.

Jenny Randles' recent Sheffield 2 'non-incident' report comes to
mind as an excellent analogy for the help another perspective
can quickly bestow upon us less aeronauticly initiated. I am
actually the first son in four generations not bitten by that
bug.

    Thanks again.

SMiles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:59:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:59:46 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:24:55 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report

>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:35:17 EDT
>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

>>I am pleased to confirm all the information given by Thierry
>>Wathelet.

>>The report was on the French newstands this morning, and I think
>>we can say that it is a very positive event for ufology, in
>>France and internationaly.

>>The title is in fact:

>>'Les OVNI et la Dfense. A quoi doit-on se prparer?'

>>The literal translation is:

>>"UFOs and Defence. What must we get prepared for?"

>>The name of the group which wrote this report is "COMETA", so it
>>should be referred to as the 'COMETA Report', to be accurate.

>>Members of COMETA include Air Force generals Denis Letty and
>>Bruno Le Moine, Admiral Marc Merlo, Professor Andr Lebeau,
>>former President of CNES, and the report is prefaced by General
>>Bernard Norlain, former Director of IHEDN (Institute of Higher
>>Defence Studies). An impressive team for an "independant"
>>report.

>>This report confirms as "quasi certain" the reality of UFOs, and
>>considers as very probable the UFO crash near Roswell!

>>There are a nice couple of pages on the mechanism of
>>disinformation, at the end of this very serious and well
>>documented report.

>>Let's see now if it has any impact in the media.

>>I want to thank publicly here the action of journalist Bernard
>>Thouanel who has been at the core of this excellent operation.


>Dear Gildas and Thierry:

>Will there be someplace on the internet where we can see the
>actual report in full?

>Could the pages possibly be scanned,  and possibly OCR'ed into
>text files?


Dear Larry:

I have checked this afternoon with journalist Bernard Thouanel
of VSD: the text will not put on the Internet.

The copyright belongs to the group, named COMETA, but the
address is not given in the publication.

Thouanel tells me that any infringement on the copyright may
well be sued by the group (they have a good international lawyer
among them, Michel Algrin).

I intend to write this week a summary of the contents in
English, but before sending it I will pass it to Thouanel and he
will have it checked by one of the members, presumably the head
of the group, general Letty. You see, they don't want any fancy
presentation of their report, and for my part, I am going to
respect that.

I proposed this text to Michael Lindeman for CNI News, and just
after I will send a copy to UFO Updates.

For a paper copy of the report, see the address already given by
Thierry Wathelet. If you have a problem, please ask me.

Best regards,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:34:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:05:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100

>In my discussions with Buxton police last week I told them of my
>25 years UFO investigation.


Hi Jenny,

I would like to ask you this simple question regarding the above
statement.

Since you have 25 years of UFO Investigation behind you, could
you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime in
the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at least
one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial craft?

I know you have written a lot of books and columns in magazines
and given great lectures around the world, but do you think that
Earth has ever been visited by any form of Extraterrestrial
life?

Yes or No?


Roy..






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 19

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:03:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:08:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:13:33 -0600

<snip>

>It was at that point in time that I realized that people will go
>to _any_ lengths to refute that which they don't understand,
>even if they see it, experience it, or feel it. We "true
>believers" get our funny bones tickled regularly.  Hope this
>true story tickled yours.  Hugs, Sue, another experiencer

Very true that people will go to extreme ends to refute things
they find impossible or that don't fit into their 'reality
tunnel', but also very true that people are just as likely to
cling to a personal belief that something DOES exist, even in
the face of evidence against it, especially if said belief is
long held.

Extreme belief in the _existence_ of something, is in many ways,
quite simply, the same as belief that something does _not_ exist.

Best,

Tim Brigham, Cognitive Deprogramming Expert, and Minister (both
via the Universal Life Church)


)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:52:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:05:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100

>-----Forwarded Message-----

>MAM TOR HUNT AFTER "AIR CRASH"

>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
>April 1997

>Heres a neat twist for you on the above. The incident occurred
>at Chapel-en-le-Frith. I live at Dove Holes - a mile away. I was
>one of the witnesses who assisted Buxton police on this non
>event. I heard the aircraft and the explosion and gave details
>of both to David Clarke at the Star and to the Daily Mail, who
>phoned me. The Mail seemed to want it to be a phantom bomber
>from World War Two. There is no chance of that. This was a plane
>far smaller than a bomber.

It's just a thought, but low-flying small aircraft without
recognised flight-plans suggest an illicit operation. As
Manchester is one of the main centres of the drugs business,
could it be a drugs runner dodging radar?

Martin





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:47:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:13:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:34:10 +0100

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100

>>In my discussions with Buxton police last week I told them of my
>>25 years UFO investigation.

>Hi Jenny,

>I would like to ask you this simple question regarding the above
>statement.

>Since you have 25 years of UFO Investigation behind you, could
>you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime in
>the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at least
>one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial craft?

>I know you have written a lot of books and columns in magazines
>and given great lectures around the world, but do you think that
>Earth has ever been visited by any form of Extraterrestrial
>life?

>Yes or No?


Hi,

You may think this is a simple question. I dont.

I think the probability of other life in the universe is high.
I think the probability it has visited our solar system at some
time in the history of this neck of the space-time continuum
maybe 50/50. I think the probability it has done so during the
few millenia we have been here maybe 1 in 100.

But that's not what you asked. In fact what you asked is a very
different question. Have any UFO sightings anywhere ever been
the result of an alien craft?

Its possible. Of course it is. But look at the facts. The vast
majority of cases (I mean 99% of them) absolutely do not offer
any indication of that origin at all. They are, in fact, other
things such as IFO and UAP. The disturbing prevalence of this
data has to make you wary of assuming too much about the 1%
because too often we have seen promising cases crumble even
years down the track.

The tiny few cases left each year (maybe 10 - 20 cases globally
per annum) have some prospect of resulting from alien contact,
but possibility and prospect do not proof make.

There are suspicious circumstances around some cases that could
indicate another intelligence. I accept that the theory is a
viable one and worthy of exploration. But another intelligence
is not necessarily ET on a jaunt from Alpha Centauri. There are
other options even here since alien is defined more broadly than
just spaceships in my book.

As we do not have anything approaching scientific evidence -
that is alien DNA, non earthly technology conclusively in our
possession, photos of landed craft or aliens that are close to
probative rather than a joke, etc. The sort of things any police
officer would need to accept, for instance, to seek to prove
that a crime has been committed, then the only proper answer to
give to this question is not yes or no but maybe. The evidence,
quite simply, is not nil but is certainly inconclusive.

That isn't your yes or no - but I cannot give you an answer that
conflicts with my approach to this field - which is let the
facts dictate what we conclude. It is easy to believe. It is a
lot hareder to accept through proof. I am saddled with that
latter philosophy of life.

To me ufology is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact
and evidence. The fact and evidence supports the contention that
we have unexplained UFOs. I am willing to state that new science
will be learned once we comprehend this mystery.  It is also not
opposed to the possibility of alien visitors but it is not close
to proof of that either. Other ufologists may take a leap of
faith. I wont do that. So sorry, perhaps is as far as I will go
- but perhaps certainly isn't no. I am more persuaded of the
possibility, I should add, than I was a few years ago, so maybe
that will be smal comfort.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:31:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:18:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:46:01 -0400
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>I wouldn't get too excited about some target showing up on ATC's
>screens then disappearing, it happens all of the time. Light
>aircraft out in the areas not regarded as control zones might
>show up briefly when they get above the "grass" so that radar
>can see them. Primary radar doesn't know the height, just the
>direction. The "target" could look like it's right in the path
>of Gore's aircraft but actually several thousands of feet below it.

>AF 2 would have received a radio call from Flight Following
>telling him that an aircraft, type and altitude unknown, was in
>its line of flight. It was prudent for the pilot to avoid the area.

Don Ledger's non-UFO explanation is:

1.  Well-informed

2.  Rational

3.  Logical

4.  Plausible

5.  Never uses the word "pelican"

Sounds like a winner to me.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:50:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:20:46 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:59:32 EDT
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>Dear Larry:

>I have checked this afternoon with journalist Bernard Thouanel
>of VSD: the text will not put on the Internet.

>The copyright belongs to the group, named COMETA, but the
>address is not given in the publication.

>Thouanel tells me that any infringement on the copyright may
>well be sued by the group (they have a good international lawyer
>among them, Michel Algrin).

>I intend to write this week a summary of the contents in
>English, but before sending it I will pass it to Thouanel and he
>will have it checked by one of the members, presumably the head
>of the group, general Letty. You see, they don't want any fancy
>presentation of their report, and for my part, I am going to
>respect that.

Dear Gildas,

With the utmost respect for the group of French top army officials
that created the report, I don't think they understand much about
the internet or about selling hard copy for that matter. If they
want to sell the report the best thing for them to do is to produce
a copy of the report themselves and post it on the internet. Along
with a guideline of how to order the full text.

Since they are not doing that the UFO community, and any other
interested group for that matter, will for the most part rely on
second hand accounts of the content of this report and on
summaries made by persons not belonging to the group. Especially
second hand accounts could easily give a distorted image of the
content of the text.

For your information, a text can be copyrighted by the
author(s), but a summary of the same text made by other persons
is not covered by that copyright. In other words, you are free
to post your own summary of the text without permission from
COMETA. This is covered by the right of freedom of publication.
They can sue whatever they like, but their demands will not hold
up in court.

The reason that I am advising you about this is that I find it
important that the main ingredients of the text come available
to a large public.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Diana Botsford <Diana_Botsford@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:01:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:24:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


The UFO Community on MSN is available at
http://communities.msn.com/ufo/. All chats are accessible by
using either our built in chat page, MS Chat or any IRC client.
The chat server name is irc.msn.com and the channel/room name is
#briefing.

========================================
***New From Cydonia
Chat with SPSR
Tuesday, 6pm, PT

Suddenly and silently, Malin Space Systems posted a newly
captured photo of the Cydonia region. And dead smack in the
middle is the ice crater discovered by SPSR geologist Harry
Moore last year. (As first reported here on the MSN UFO
Community). Join imaging specialist Dr. Mark Carlotto along with
geologists Harry Moore and Jim Erjavec for a preliminary report
of their findings from this new image.

========================================
***Ancient Connections
Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI* Research Association
Chat with Giorgio Tsoukalos
Wednesday, 7pm, PT
========================================
***Commentary
Obit:  Ufology Dead at 52?
Roswell, NM - Well known lecturer, writer, television producer,
radio talk show host and internet web site magnate "Ufology" was
pronounced dead at Eastern New Mexico Medical Center at 5:23 am
this morning.

For additional information, please see http://communities.msn.com/obit.asp
========================================
***This Week in UFO History
Cliff Capers takes a look back 37 years to the Washington, DC
UFO Flap.
========================================
***The Screening Room
Staff reviewer Ru Drisi takes a hard look at the SPSR's book
"The Case for the Face".
=======================================
***This Week's Hot Topic
UK Ufologist James Easton proposes that Kenneth Arnold's 1947
sighting was due to a flock of pelicans.  Do you agree or
disagree.  Join the discussion on our watchfire newsgroup.
=======================================
Chats This Week at the UFO Community on MSN:

SUNDAYS - The Politics of UFOs - 6pm, PT
TUESDAYS - This Week in the News - 6pm, PT
WEDNESDAYS - Ancient Connections- 7pm, PT
THURSDAYS - UFO Skeptics - 7pm, PT
FRIDAYS - The Science of UFOs - 8pm, PT
SATURDAYS - Abductions - 1pm, PT - 9pm, GMT
SATURDAYS - General Discussion - 6pm, PT

Our chat room is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for
discussion relating to any UFO issues.

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


We look forward to seeing you online.

Diana Botsford
Publisher/Forum Manager
UFO Community on MSN
http://communities.msn.com/UFO

- - - - - -
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought . . .
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
Tennyson's Ulysses



************************
The ufo listserv is a free service of MSN's UFO Forum.
To subscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net
In the body of the message write: subscribe ufo

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net
In the body of the message write: unsubscribe ufo





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:54:50 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:26:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:03:25 -0500

>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:13:33 -0600

Tim Brigham wrote:

><snip>

>...but also very true that people are just as likely to
>cling to a personal belief that something DOES exist, even in
>the face of evidence against it, especially if said belief is
>long held.

>Extreme belief in the _existence_ of something, is in many ways,
>quite simply, the same as belief that something does _not_ exist.

Hi Tim,

Oh, that that 2nd paragraph were always true, regardless of
reality borne of experience. If I wish hard enough that
everything that happened to me was real, then can I turn it into
fantasy? Can I prove it was all make believe? Show me how Tim.
Because, that is exactly why I'm on this list...to try to
understand where the lines between "personal belief," and
"personal proof" are drawn, for myself and others.

Most times I wait in the side lines, to listen and learn what
other people have experienced, or what their theories entail.
Hoping for a rational theory that will please explain what has
been going on for a very long time, to me, to thousands of
others.

I have looked for rational explanations wherein the evidence
presented would negate my "personal proof," my experience. When
I started on this list, I thought I was alone. I found there are
thousands of people all over the world who have had very similar
experiences. That didn't give me comfort. It didn't give me a
sense of security in numbers. Instead, it grates against
everything I wish were true...that I'm nuts!  A rational person
_wants_ to believe their experiences are hog wash, a huge bad
dream, or better yet, hallucinations.

Hoaxes continually permeate this field on both sides of the
fence because everyone wants to believe _none_ of this has
really happened. It's a true case of denial, in every single
person's mind, regardless of whether they are labeled "true
believers" or "debunkers." I really don't expect others to
accept my reality as theirs.  They can't! They we're there.

If you stand in a rain storm, you expect to get wet. You feel
the water dripping off your face and clothes. You are
uncomfortable, you want to change into dry clothes. You can
understand that feeling because "you've been there, done that."

If you put your hand (or leg, in my case) within an inch of an
errant laser beam, you expect to get burnt. You expect it to
hurt, a lot. It did. You scream, you cry from the pain. You
remember the pain. You expect it to blister. It did. You go to
the doctor to make sure it's going to heal ok, and expect to be
given some medicine to help it do so. I did go to a burn
specialist 2 days after it happened.  He sprayed the burns with
novocaine (brand new thing in 1961...spray novocaine), and stuck
a thin, wire-like 6" needle through those burns to see how deep
they went.  He turned sheet white. They went to the bone. The
doctor didn't believe me when I told him I'd burnt my leg on a
hot water bottle. I didn't expect him to after he had "his
proof." I also didn't expect him to believe "the truth." He
wasn't there.

I have conscious recall of how I got those burns...from an
errant laser beam attached to a transporter, in my bedroom in
1961 with many "visitors" present. Do I expect you to believe
that? No. You weren't there.

The doctor dressed the burns and gave me ointment for them. They
took several months to heal. You expect a scar. It's still
there. I see it every time I bathe.

I can tell you when I felt my first baby move in my womb, May
30, 1970. Do I expect you, Tim, to be able to recognize that
feeling? No, of course not. You aren't me. You weren't there.

But, after you've experienced those kinds of feelings, you don't
forget, ever. Although one memory is very painful and the other
pleasurable, it does not refute the reality of either feeling or
experience. They happened. Simple as that.

Now, what I have left is to either come up with a rational
explanation...or face it. I've had to face it. No one has come
up with evidence to prove what happened to me, _didn't_ happen.
I have the evidence...the memories of those experiences, and the
burn scar. I was there, unfortunately.   Hugs, Sue





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                   Ontario, Canada Reports - June/July '99

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:53:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:44:50 -0400
Subject: Ontario, Canada Reports - June/July '99


Tuesday, June 15, 1999

Location:  Dowling, Ontario

At around 11:20 p.m., a Dowling resident was outside looking at
the star-studded sky when, out of nowhere, appeared a strange
light..."as you turn a light on," he said.  It was in the
western part of the sky, about 3/4 of the way up from the
horizon.  Then, it got brighter and bigger and went out.  Where
the light disappeared, another light appeared, which was a lot
smaller than a star.  This second light went away slightly to
the right at a 45� angle and vanished.  The sighting lasted
about 5 seconds.


Tuesday, June 22, 1999  (reported on Sunday, July 11, 1999)

Location:  Sudbury, Ontario

At approximately 11:45 p.m., a Sudbury resident noticed a
reddish orange light travelling from south to north.  He thought
that it was probably a plane heading for the Sudbury airport
even though it seemed to be pulsating instead of blinking.  He
was about to turn away when the light suddenly got brighter and
another light lifted straight up from it, sat above it for a
minute and then took off at high speed to the northwest.  He
went out for a better look with his binoculars, but the lights
were gone.

He stayed outside for a few more minutes and was about to go
back inside when he saw two reddish orange lights coming towards
New Sudbury from the southwest.  The lights were travelling side
by side, with one slightly ahead of the other and passing under
the clouds.  "They were much brighter than any other stars or
planets and moving at a steady pace," he said.  "I watched them
with the binoculars but couldn't make out any kind of distinct
shape about them.  They then seemed to get brighter and a light
would rise up from the front one about every 5 to 10 seconds and
then bank around and head back towards downtown Sudbury.  The
back one also had lights rising from it, but at a much faster
rate than the front one and these lights were much smaller and
only red in colour."

He said that the smaller lights were also banking around and
heading towards downtown at a high rate of speed.  The two main
lights then started to curve slowly towards the northwest and
seemed to just fade out.  The sighting lasted for about 8 to 10
minutes.  He never saw them again, even though he stayed out for
another 30 minutes or so.


Sunday, June 27, 1999

Location:  Lively, Ontario

At around 12:20 a.m., a Lively resident reported that he saw
what he thought was a star in the sky.  Upon closer examination,
he noticed that this steady white light was moving very slowly.
It then suddenly sped up and disappeared into the night sky at a
45� angle.  The sighting lasted between 2 and 5 seconds.


Early July  (received anonymous call on July 10, 1999)

Location:  River Valley, Ontario

An elderly resident from River Valley reported that at around
10:30 p.m., she saw a great big light travelling from the
northwest and heading east.  It was about the size of a plane,
then it suddenly disappeared.  The sighting took place during
the same time period of the wind storm that damaged trees and
property.


Sunday, July 4, 1999  (reported on Sunday, July 11, 1999)

Location:  Providence Bay, Manitoulin Island, Ontario

At around 9 p.m., while camping at Providence Bay, a family of
four saw an unusual object in the sky.  The family dog was the
first to "sense" something strange.  They described it as a
single white light which travalled straight across the horizon,
from east to west.  It then flared up twice and disappeared.
There was no sound.


Monday, July 12, 1999  (Reported on Thursday, July 15, 1999)

Location:  South Bay, Manitoulin Island, Ontario

A couple camping out at their camp on Manitoulin Island couldn't
sleep because of the heat so they decided to lay down on the
deck of their boat.  As they watched the sky, they spotted a
silver object as it came in from the west, stopped and reversed
direction without turning around.  The time was between 4 and 5
a.m.


Monday, July 12, 1999

Location:  Chelmsford, Ontario

While fishing at Vermillion River, a Chelmsford resident saw an
unusual light that came in from the west and headed south at a
20� angle as it disappeared behind the treetops.  Then about 2
seconds later, he watched as the light came up from behind the
treetops, heading in the same direction it originally came from,
at an incredible speed.  The time was approximately 10 p.m. and
the night was clear.  He said the light looked like a falling
star.  It never flashed and it was yellowish-blue in colour.
There was no sound.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:48:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:49:29 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:59:32 EDT
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:24:55 -0700
>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report

>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>>>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:35:17 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>>From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report
>>>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:55:40 +0200

<snip>

>>>This report confirms as "quasi certain" the reality of UFOs, and
>>>considers as very probable the UFO crash near Roswell!

Ouch!

<snip>

>I have checked this afternoon with journalist Bernard Thouanel
>of VSD: the text will not put on the Internet.

>The copyright belongs to the group, named COMETA, but the
>address is not given in the publication.

>Thouanel tells me that any infringement on the copyright may
>well be sued by the group (they have a good international lawyer
>among them, Michel Algrin).

>I intend to write this week a summary of the contents in
>English, but before sending it I will pass it to Thouanel and he
>will have it checked by one of the members, presumably the head
>of the group, general Letty.   You see, they don't want any fancy
>presentation of their report, and for my part, I am going to
>respect that.

>I proposed this text to Michael Lindeman for CNI News, and just
>after I will send a copy to UFO Updates.

>For a paper copy of the report, see the address already given by
>Thierry Wathelet. If you have a problem, please ask me.


Dear Gildas:

I understand completely.

Hopefully, they will allow a summary of their conclusions, which
might not infringe upon their copyright.

I hope they do not depend on the Roswell incident too heavily;
this case is highly controversial here. Some people contend that
Roswell has been shot to pieces, and I must say they put up a
good argument.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

              Re: Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:00:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:52:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W


>From: Keith Basterfield Network <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Cape Hawke in Foster North of Newcastle N.S.W
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:50:05 +1000

>Sighting Report Australia
>_____________________________________

>Cape Hawke in Foster, north of Newcastle. N.S.W
>Australia

>Saturday 10th July 1999
>Time: 6.00pm
>Location Cape Hawke in Foster north of Newcastle N.S.W

>Report by Ufologist Peter Turner (UFO Research NSW)

<snip>

Dear Diane:

That's a nice account! 3 separate disk-like objects seen by five
witnesses! The date, time of day, duration, directions of travel

etc. all nicely indicated.

May I presume that the main witnesses have been interviewed?

I would like to include this case in my *U* Database if nobody
minds. Actual witnesses will not be named.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

http://www.jps.net/larryhat





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                            UFO Over Rome, Italy?

From: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:42:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:27:34 -0400
Subject: UFO Over Rome, Italy?


Hi List Members,

I found a short notice in a German newspaper, today, about a
'UFO' over Rome, Italy. Hundreds saw a mysterious light-object
over the city. It was possibly a meteor.

Does anyone more information about this matter?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:20:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:47:26 +0100

>>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:34:10 +0100

>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100


Hi, Jenny,

>I think the probability of other life in the universe is high.
>I think the probability it has visited our solar system at some
>time in the history of this neck of the space-time continuum
>maybe 50/50. I think the probability it has done so during the
>few millenia we have been here maybe 1 in 100.

On what do you base those odds, besides sheer guesswork?

>But that's not what you asked. In fact what you asked is a very

>different question. Have any UFO sightings anywhere ever been
>the result of an alien craft?

>Its possible. Of course it is. But look at the facts. The vast
>majority of cases (I mean 99% of them) absolutely do not offer
>any indication of that origin at all. They are, in fact, other
>things such as IFO and UAP. The disturbing prevalence of this
>data has to make you wary of assuming too much about the 1%
>because too often we have seen promising cases crumble even
>years down the track.

Curious.  In a lecture you gave in Sydney in 1991, at a
conference we both attended, you said you considered the ETH a
likely explanation for the most puzzling UFO reports.  I recall
your saying that your view of the UFO phenomenon was now much
like my own.  I have enormous respect for you, Jenny, but it
seems to me, as one who's been reading your work for years, that
your views are all over the map and are consistent in only one
thing: their constant changeability.  There certainly are worse
sins, of course, but I can't help wondering, given past
experience, how long you'll be holding to your current
neoskeptical course.

In your response you might inform list members exactly what a
"UAP" is supposed to be.

I would also be interested in knowing which "promising cases"
allegedly have crumbled.  The classic UFO cases, in my reading,
have stood up pretty well to years of sustained attack by
would-be debunkers, including -- mostly recently -- your friend
James Easton's failed attempt to identify Arnold's UFOs as
pelicans. Now the neoskeptics are hinting darkly that Arnold's
case has _finally_ been explained (is this explanation #243 or
#244? I'm afraid I've lost count at this point), but they can't
tell us about it.  And the relentlessly self-promoting Kal Korff
promises an "expose" (his word) of the Hill case in the near
future.  Will someone wake me when it's over?

>As we do not have anything approaching scientific evidence -
>that is alien DNA, non earthly technology conclusively in our
>possession, photos of landed craft or aliens that are close to
>probative rather than a joke, etc. The sort of things any police
>officer would need to accept, for instance, to seek to prove
>that a crime has been committed, then the only proper answer to
>give to this question is not yes or no but maybe. The evidence,
>quite simply, is not nil but is certainly inconclusive.

In your opinion.  In a statement he made to the UFO history
conference in Chicago this past May, historian of astronomy
Steven Dick said something to the effect that science has no one
definition of, or universal agreement to, what constitutes
"evidence."  He cited the UFO controversy as one area where this
issue is being played out.

In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
intrude on somebody's dreams?

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                           Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:02:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:20:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:03:25 -0500

>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:13:33 -0600

><snip>

>>It was at that point in time that I realized that people will go
>>to _any_ lengths to refute that which they don't understand,
>>even if they see it, experience it, or feel it. We "true
>>believers" get our funny bones tickled regularly.  Hope this
>>true story tickled yours.  Hugs, Sue, another experiencer

>Very true that people will go to extreme ends to refute things
>they find impossible or that don't fit into their 'reality
>tunnel', but also very true that people are just as likely to
>cling to a personal belief that something DOES exist, even in
>the face of evidence against it, especially if said belief is
>long held.

>Extreme belief in the _existence_ of something, is in many ways,
>quite simply, the same as belief that something does _not_ exist.

>Best,

>Tim Brigham, Cognitive Deprogramming Expert, and Minister (both
>via the Universal Life Church)


Pelicans, pelica.

Of course blind belief will get you nowhere.

Still, one must avoid the pitfall of the syllogistic "belief
system" argument.

One may relativize belief.  We must also objectivize reality.

Some people believe Arnold saw pelicans.

Others have observed this cannot be the case.

Serge Salvaille, computer program bug expert, and user and





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:24:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:31:19 EDT
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:46:01 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>I wouldn't get too excited about some target showing up on ATC's
>>screens then disappearing, it happens all of the time. Light
>>aircraft out in the areas not regarded as control zones might
>>show up briefly when they get above the "grass" so that radar
>>can see them. Primary radar doesn't know the height, just the
>>direction. The "target" could look like it's right in the path
>>of Gore's aircraft but actually several thousands of feet below it.

>>AF 2 would have received a radio call from Flight Following
>>telling him that an aircraft, type and altitude unknown, was in
>>its line of flight. It was prudent for the pilot to avoid the area.

>Don Ledger's non-UFO explanation is:

>1.  Well-informed

>2.  Rational

>3.  Logical

>4.  Plausible

>5.  Never uses the word "pelican"

>Sounds like a winner to me.

>David Rudiak

One problem:

I take it that Air Force 2 was enroute when the incident
occurred.  That means that he was in controlled air space and
probably above 30,000 feet in altitude.  Not very many small,
uncontrolled aircraft at that altitude or that would even appear
to be at that altitude.  In fact, I think the FAA gives you a
"ticket" for being in controlled airspace and not talking to an
air traffic control center.

I also beg to differ with the statement that "it happens all the
time".  It might during an approach to an airfield or during the
climb to altitude but it certainly doesn't happen very often
elsewhere.  How many 60 degree turns does everyone remember when
they were flying cross country?  Not many, I'll wager.

Loy Pressley
Once an air traffic controller
Now, a very frequent flyer






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:29:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:38:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:31:19 EDT
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?
>To: updates@globalserve.net


>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:46:01 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?
SNIP
>Don Ledger's non-UFO explanation is:

>1.  Well-informed

>2.  Rational

>3.  Logical

>4.  Plausible

>5.  Never uses the word "pelican"

>Sounds like a winner to me.

#5 is clearly the most important reason to accept Ledger's
explanation.

I note also other excellent reasons

6 no mention of temperature inversions (like a mirage but
  affects radar)

7 no mention of nearby, shiny military aircraft

8 no mention of quirks of eyesight  (everything looks round when
  far enough away......  :)  )

9 no mention of motes in the eye

10 no mention of billowing blasts of snow/reflecting haze
   layers/orographic clouds

#11 no mention of meteors







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:17:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:50:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:52:13 +0100

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100
>
>>-----Forwarded Message-----

>>MAM TOR HUNT AFTER "AIR CRASH"

>>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
>>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
>>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
>>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
>>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
>>April 1997

>>Heres a neat twist for you on the above. The incident occurred
>>at Chapel-en-le-Frith. I live at Dove Holes - a mile away. I was
>>one of the witnesses who assisted Buxton police on this non
>>event. I heard the aircraft and the explosion and gave details
>>of both to David Clarke at the Star and to the Daily Mail, who
>>phoned me. The Mail seemed to want it to be a phantom bomber
>>from World War Two. There is no chance of that. This was a plane
>>far smaller than a bomber.

>It's just a thought, but low-flying small aircraft without
>recognised flight-plans suggest an illicit operation. As
>Manchester is one of the main centres of the drugs business,
>could it be a drugs runner dodging radar?

Hi,

The drug running idea was seriously considered by the police
during the l997 incident. It remains an option for the untraced
light aircraft, I believe.

Some of the mystery helicopters connected with the l973 - 75
Pennine/Peak District wave (ressurected by Nick Redfern -
somewhat bizarely in his new tome 'Cosmic Farces' - ooops,
Freudian slip there, 'Cosmic Crashes' - as possible intelligence
agency vehicles tied to UFO crashes) were at the time blamed on
drug smuggling by the police (as well as ferrying illegal
immigrants and even a home-made helicopter illegally flown from
someones garage)!

In fact many of these 'helicopters' were merely LITS and the
term helicopter was applied by police who pursued them due to
apparent manoueverablity. As an investigator just starting out
then I learned this from Oldham police one night when told - 'we
chase these buggers over't hills and they just fly off. I'm
damned if any aircraft can do that. So we reckon it must be a
'elicopter'

Hardly anyone actually saw what clearly was a helicopter. But
the name stuck.

As for last week's escapade - my main reason to doubt this idea
that it was a drug run is simple. A flight in the dark over the
fairly remote moors west of Sheffield (as in l997) is fair
enough. A flight in broad daylight literally following the path
of the A 6 - chock-a-block at this time of year with holiday
traffic and at that time of day with commuters to and from
Buxton would be just plain daft. Maybe Del Boy (note for non UK
readers - a slightly dodgy dealing, but incompetent TV character
in Britain's top rating sit com) was flying it, but I can't see
any half-sensible drug runner choosing such a time and locale to
sneak through (if sensible drug running is not a contradiction
in terms).

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                      Early 20th Century Reports Sought

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:15:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:53:47 -0400
Subject: Early 20th Century Reports Sought


Please post to all appropirate news groups and "lists":

Early 20th Century Reports Sought

The UFO Research Coalition is funding a study by Richard Hall,
Fund for UFO Research Board member, of UFO reports from 1900
through 1946--post-airship and pre-Arnold--to determine whether
typical UFOs were reported during that period, and what patterns
they showed.

Copies of reports or bibliographic references may be sent to
Richard Hall, 4418 39th St., Brentwood, MD 20722. Limited
funding is available to offset costs of photocopying and postage
(query first).

Hall is particularly seeking reports of "daylight discs" as
opposed to pinpoint sources of light, and reports showing what
are now "standard" UFO features, such as hovering and rapid
acceleration, light beams, distinct geometrical form, body
lights, and brilliant illumination of the environment.

All reports should be in English language since funds are not
available for translation.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

              UFO Videos Back Online And Available For Download

From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:45:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:56:53 -0400
Subject: UFO Videos Back Online And Available For Download


Greetings to all listmembers,

UFO Scotland are pleased to announce that we now have all of our
anomalous UFO video collection back online again and available
for free download.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to all of our
visitors in the past who have experienced problems whilst trying
to download the video clips from our website. The technical
problem has now been rectified and all is working very well from
our new host and server.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our new
hosts at (www.anomalies.net) for all of their appreciated help
and support, enabling UFO Scotland to bring these video clips to
you all to assist in your research etc.

Hopefully, now that all is working ok, we will be posting more
UFO footage to the site in the near future, including a new and
very interesting raw piece of footage recorded in Boston USA in
1997, showing two, possibly three, anomalous ufos clearly flying
across the skyline and the skyscrapers of the city of Boston,
before making a severe climb up into the air above the city.

Hopefully we will be able to add these and others in the near
future :0)

If any of the readers have any UFO footage that they would like
shown on the UFO Scotland videos site, please contact us at this
address: (ufoscot@cableinet.co.uk) All copyrights etc will be
respected of course.

To view our amazing video collection, please visit our UFO
Scotland videos pages at:

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

Many thanks to all the listowners and members alike and we hope
to see you all at the UFO Scotland video site in the near
future.

All the very best to you all and good luck with your various
projects.

From your friend,

                Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)

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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:18:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:16:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@GlobalServe.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT

>Hi, Jenny,

>>I think the probability of other life in the universe is high.
>>I think the probability it has visited our solar system at some
>>time in the history of this neck of the space-time continuum
>>maybe 50/50. I think the probability it has done so during the
>>few millenia we have been here maybe 1 in 100.

>On what do you base those odds, besides sheer guesswork?

>>But that's not what you asked. In fact what you asked is a very

>>different question. Have any UFO sightings anywhere ever been
>>the result of an alien craft?

>>Its possible. Of course it is. But look at the facts. The vast
>>majority of cases (I mean 99% of them) absolutely do not offer
>>any indication of that origin at all. They are, in fact, other
>>things such as IFO and UAP. The disturbing prevalence of this
>>data has to make you wary of assuming too much about the 1%
>>because too often we have seen promising cases crumble even
>>years down the track.

>Curious.  In a lecture you gave in Sydney in 1991, at a
>conference we both attended, you said you considered the ETH a
>likely explanation for the most puzzling UFO reports.  I recall
>your saying that your view of the UFO phenomenon was now much
>like my own.  I have enormous respect for you, Jenny, but it
>seems to me, as one who's been reading your work for years, that
>your views are all over the map and are consistent in only one
>thing: their constant changeability.  There certainly are worse
>sins, of course, but I can't help wondering, given past
>experience, how long you'll be holding to your current
>neoskeptical course.

>In your response you might inform list members exactly what a
>"UAP" is supposed to be.

>I would also be interested in knowing which "promising cases"
>allegedly have crumbled.  The classic UFO cases, in my reading,
>have stood up pretty well to years of sustained attack by
>would-be debunkers, including -- mostly recently -- your friend
>James Easton's failed attempt to identify Arnold's UFOs as
>pelicans. Now the neoskeptics are hinting darkly that Arnold's
>case has _finally_ been explained (is this explanation #243 or
>#244? I'm afraid I've lost count at this point), but they can't
>tell us about it.  And the relentlessly self-promoting Kal Korff
>promises an "expose" (his word) of the Hill case in the near
>future.  Will someone wake me when it's over?

>>As we do not have anything approaching scientific evidence -
>>that is alien DNA, non earthly technology conclusively in our
>>possession, photos of landed craft or aliens that are close to
>>probative rather than a joke, etc. The sort of things any police
>>officer would need to accept, for instance, to seek to prove
>>that a crime has been committed, then the only proper answer to
>>give to this question is not yes or no but maybe. The evidence,
>>quite simply, is not nil but is certainly inconclusive.

>In your opinion.  In a statement he made to the UFO history
>conference in Chicago this past May, historian of astronomy
>Steven Dick said something to the effect that science has no one
>definition of, or universal agreement to, what constitutes
>"evidence."  He cited the UFO controversy as one area where this
>issue is being played out.

>In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
>and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
>ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
>Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
>1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
>possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
>faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
>by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
>serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
>sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
>They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
>intrude on somebody's dreams?


Hi,

I thought you'd bring up Sydney. Not that I blame you. If the
positions were reversed I'd have done the same and I was not
seeking to igbore it. You could have, but didn't, so I will,
refer to the letter I sent you written on the plane to Cairns
after we parted in Sydney in which I said I was writing to you
to express my thoughts on the ETH before I chickened out.
Remember? I followed it up with my book 'Star Children' to put
in more tangible form this side of my thinking.  So I'm not
denying anything here, Jerry.

Regarding the ETH I have said, and still believe, that there is
some evidence (some quite persuasive but not probative) that
supports it. I do indeed consider it a plausible explanation for
some of the remaining cases. If you want me to say I regard the
theory as likely then I will. Although my real view is more
fairly somewhere between plausible and likely.

But we still lack anything akin to definitive proof because we
seek this in terms that may not be applicable to the phenomenon
we face. I don't think anything I said in yesterdays posting
contradicts that response. Yes, I have the opinion that this is
a reasonable way to explain the baffling cases. It would not
surprise me much at all if it proves correct. But I was asked to
state conclusively if an alien spacecraft had visited earth post
l947 and I don't think anyone can honestly state that. I
certainly could not.

So this was not a cop out or a change of approach (other than
slight emphasis maybe). It was a proper answer to the question
posed.

You are correct that my stats on the likelihood of alien contact were
'guesses'. But then even cosmologists are doing that.

There really isnt any other way to answer such questions because
its all a matter of making value judgements on how many planets
are out there, how many have life, how many races might visit
other star systems, etc etc. So guessing is all anyone can do. I
was merely trying to give a realistic answer to the question I
was asked. Nothing sinister.

If these things above translate to the 'sin' of changing my
mind, fair enough. I own up. But I really don't perceive it that
way.

Read my first book (UFOs: A British Viewpoint) written l976-8
and published in l979. Here I argue that there are two essential
branches of UFO phenomena. One was physical and involved
tangible energy. The term UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric
Phenomena derived from this) - a series of probably natural,
scientifically novel and as yet unidentified atmospheric
processes. The other branch of ufology was less tangible and
occurred during an altered state of consciousness. At that time,
seeing in my early cases the overlap with psychic experiences
that (as you know) I still perceive as a key part of the close
encounter, I argued for some sort of quasi real but subjectively
originating experience.

Now I don't think my views are 'all over the map' as you put it.
My books since then show a gradation of ideas about the second
branch of ufology. But I have stood resolutely in every book I
have written behind the belief that most UFO sightings not IFOs
are in fact UAP. I  thought that then. I think it now. No change
there.

My ideas about close encounters have progressed to the
suggestion that an alien race was communing with our
consciousness (rather than via physical visits) (see my l988
book 'Abduction') and fairly similar, though ,more developed,
ideas that appear in 'Star Children' in l994 where I suggest the
contact is a lucid dream like experience that occurs because we
have an inability to grasp the ineffability of the alien nature
of the contact.  As such we need to probe behind the imagery
that we too often treat as the 'real alien contact' to the more
subtle, subjective, inner truth that they reflect. This is a
difference not in basic theory from l979 just in degree of
interpretation of the same key ideas.

So - in essence - I am still (and pretty consistently) saying
that 95% of cases are IFOs, most others are UAP and around 1%
appear to occur during an altered state where it may well be
that an alien contact impinges on our consciousness manifesting
in a way that is not completely tangible. Anyone who was at my
DC lecture would probably say this was more or less just what I
argued then.

So, my views have adapted but they have not - in my opinion -
fundamentally changed enough to be termed 'all over the map'.
Yes, I have toyed with other ideas as experiments (eg time
travel) (such mind stretching thinking around the subject is
useful in my experience as it prevents stagnation). But in
essence my principle philosophy on UFOs is much as it was 20
years ago.

Of course, I have learnt a huge amount in that time and this has
inevitably effected my views. I would be worried if it had not
and I now argued precisely what I did 20 years ago. You don't do
that, Jerry, do you? You virtually disown what you wrote in the
l970's, which is fair enough. Your views have progressed via
experience and evidence. Is it so odd that mine have too?

I do go where the data leads and sometimes thats a little
further from the mean than others. I also spend time delving
into certain phenomena at the expense of others (eg my l998 book
on UAP that were involved in mid-air encounters). But just
because I research and write such a book does not mean this is
all that I believe is happening. It just means I am at that
point in time focusing on that area of study. I don't see this
as a failing, but as an advantage.

It is worth noting that I am not - absolutely not - saying there
are no alien spacecraft. I am not - absolutely not - saying
there is only slim possibility that ufology has an alien
component.

In truth I am far less convinced there are alien spacecraft
coming here in some space armada than I am that an alien
intelligence is in communication with us at a more subtle level.
I see these as separate issues that require different degrees of
evidence to support. Which is why I am cautious, because I see
evidence backing one option but not the other quite so much.  I
don't think many sceptics would go that far.

I also noted in yesterday's posting that I am more persuaded of
the alien possibility now than I was a few years ago, due to the
accumulation of circumstancial evidence. Again I don't see how
this contradicts my basic stance.

Yes, of course, I am warmer towards the prospect some days than
others. I doubt anyone short of being a 100% certain alien
contact witness could feel any other way about the changing face
of this confusing subject. If you know the truth and are
unswayed by circumstance, then good on you. But I cannot behave
like that. Sorry. A modicum of indecision is something I
treasure, because it allows me to go with the flow of evidence
and not sit there waiting for a case to come along that proves I
was right all along.

Committment to one scenario is all very well but it isnt how I
am built to think and I fear that it has the risk of evidential
myopia - to which we are all prone, but the committed (be they
outright sceptics or fervent ETH supporters) more so than most.

I have always been a rationalist (I am not a sceptic or a
neo-sceptic as you term it). Thats surely obvious from the fact I
solve more cases than I think are left unsolved. But the
difference is also evident. A sceptic does not believe in UFOs
and seeks to prove there are no such things, all be it hopefully
objectively. (A debunker is a blinkered, biased sceptic). A
rationalist, as  I trust I am, accepts the realities of ufology
and lives by these sometimes sobering facts of life and rules of
evidence. Most UFOs are explainable. Some cases that seem
inexplicable can ultimately be resolved. It is possible (but not
in my view at all likely) that every case could crumble. So you
work on that basis and look for the cases that do stand the test
and challenge any reasonable prospect of being solved. Yes,
there are some. I have never suggested otherwise.

I don't agree with James Easton's interesting theory on Ken
Arnold, by the way. But I also don't think the Arnold case is a
good UFO. Its at best a currently unsolved  case that has always
been likely to have a solution. Its importance for ufology is
social and never has had much to do with its status as a
solved/unsolved sighting.

Although you imply I am James' friend, as if this is a crime of
sorts, the truth is I don't think we have ever met. Correct me
if I'm wrong James? I like his approach to the field quite often
and support some of his arguments (but by no means all). ufology
needs this sort of hard headed realism as much as it needs
committed, objective supporters of the ETH. I have always
regarded you - Jerry - as an excellent researcher with one of
the most perceptive defences of the alien nature of UFOs that I
have known. As such I have enormous respect for your work and
regard you as one of the most significant ufologists we have.
But surely we don't need to agree on everything, even every
major thing, to share a similar approach to this subject?
ufology, in fact, would be the poorer if we did.

You ask which cases have 'crumbled' to cause some recent
disquiet on my part? I personally believe Roswell to be one. The
Williamette Pass photo (that I regarded favourably pre Irwin
Weider) is another. My investigations into Lakenheath/Bentwaters
l956 (one of the UKs best cases in many peoples opinions - until
recently) seem to be casting at least some doubts about that
diagnosis; although it is not a solved case, as such. Rendlesham
Forest, whilst again in my view not solved, is without doubt
beset with some problems. There are others from my first hand
involvement (eg a movie film case that was solved conclusively
after more than 20 years). These add up and have to effect your
thinking.

None of this persuades me that there is no ufology and that all
cases will fall or makes me want to saddle up to the sceptics
for the ride. I still believe there are unsolved and unsolvable
cases - at least via our present perspective on science. I
remain (whilst not convinced) pretty amenable to the prospect
that in a few cases alien contact may be occurring - but
certainly it is not the cause of the vast majority of sightings.
The facts state that pretty unequivocally in my opinion.

This is my honest view of what I think ufology reflects. But its
my opinion, just as you have yours. I am well aware I could be
wrong and I do pay heed to seemingly significant new cases that
challenge my ideas (like the Kelly Cahill or Peter Khourey
stories  - that impress me a good deal). I think I would have a
problem if when faced with such an incident I shrugged and said,
so what, or I fell back on the last defence of the moribund
thinker - it is clearly just a hoax. The day ufology stops
causing me to ponder that big question - have I got this
completely and utterly wrong? - is probably a good day to
retire.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:18:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@GlobalServe.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT

>In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
>and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
>ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
>Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
>1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
>possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
>faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
>by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
>serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
>sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
>They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
>intrude on somebody's dreams?
>
>Jerry Clark

Hello Jerry,

I'd like to step in here to second your last two sentences
above, and to say that it seems more than just "possible" that
future science will make this judgment. It's a virtual
certainty, judging from the number of firm unexplainable UFO
reports.

As a corollary, it will very likely be similarly decided that
the figure one often hears, that 90% or 95% of all UFO reports
have prosaic explanations, was part of the dream. It has never
been good science for a ufologist to claim an IFO solution to a
UFO report on the basis that it *might possibly* have been
Venus, a weather balloon, aircraft, etc., over and against the
objections of witnesses who claim to know better. However, this
tactic made the dream easier to maintain, and made it easier for
the one-way "skeptics" to claim that if 95% of the cases can be
explained away, then surely the other 5% can be also. I suspect
the true percentage of IFOs lies somewhere between 50% and 75%.

Jim Deardorff





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                          Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?

From: Thierry Wathelet <ufocom@skynet.be>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:33:28 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:20:48 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?


>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:42:49 -0400
>From: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO Over Rome, Italy?
>Sender: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>

>Hi List Members,

>I found a short notice in a German newspaper, today, about a
>'UFO' over Rome, Italy. Hundreds saw a mysterious light-object
>over the city. It was possibly a meteor.

>Does anyone more information about this matter?

>Werner Walter


Dear Werner,

Here is a news from the AFP (French Press Agency). I hope it can
help.

I18-19990719-ROME, ITALY: An image taken from an amateur video
spotting a luminous flying object, possibly a meteorite,
crossing the sky over Rome in the early hours of Monday 19 July
1999. Many Romans, several hundreds according to Italian media,
rushed to phone the police and the fire brigade to report the
sighting, while an astrophysicist said in an interview with RAI
state television today that the object was a big meteorite. EPA
PHOTO/ANSA AFP/-/pal-so/sb

Regards,

Thierry
UFOCOM





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:35:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:23:45 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:48:28 -0700
>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>Dear Gildas:

>I understand completely.

>Hopefully, they will allow a summary of their conclusions, which
>might not infringe upon their copyright.

As I said in answer to another post  of  Henny van der Pluijm, I
hope that an agreement will be made to put a translation on the
internet, once VSD has sold its stock, which should not take
very long, apparently.

FUFOR intends to translate and it would be fine if they reach
such an agreement. The person to contact is Bernard Thouanel, to
whom I send a copy of this.

>I hope they do not depend on the Roswell incident too heavily;
>this case is highly controversial here. Some people contend
that >Roswell has been shot to pieces, and I must say they put
up a >good argument.

I am a bit surprised by your reaction here. In my opinion,
nobody has shot Roswell to pieces, especially not the Air Force,
not the autopsy footage, and not kent Jeffrey!

Apparently, the French military may have some good information
on that ...

Best regards





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 20

                              Re: IHEDN Report

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:35:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:26:08 -0400
Subject: Re: IHEDN Report


>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:50:52 +0200 (MET DST)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: IHEDN Report

>Dear Gildas,

>With the utmost respect for the group of French top army officials
>that created the report, I don't think they understand much about
>the internet or about selling hard copy for that matter. If they
>want to sell the report the best thing for them to do is to produce
>a copy of the report themselves and post it on the internet. Along
>with a guideline of how to order the full text.

I hope that, once VSD will have sold most of its stock (I
gathered that they printed 70,000 copies, and it is selling very
well now in France in spite of utter mediatic silence), they
will decide on some way to put it on the Internet. I suggest
here that, if FUFOR translates it, they make an agreement with
the author's group COMETA and the publisher VSD, tu put it on
the Net.

As for the summary I intend to write, I know I don't need an
authorization for that, but I agree to  submit it for approval
(actually I proposed that !) in order to give it more weight.

This being said, I want to warn that many people may be
disapointed by the contents if they are hoping for sensational
revelations. On the contrary, it is classical study, which does
bring information on the organization of UFO studies in France.
The big point is who signed it : "top brass" as you say !

Best regards
Gildas Bourdais





Since they are not doing that the UFO community, and any other
interested group for that matter, will for the most part rely on
second hand accounts of the content of this report and on
summaries made by persons not belonging to the group. Especially
econd hand accounts could easily give a distorted image of the
content of the text.

For your information, a text can be copyrighted by the
author(s), but a summary of the same text made by other persons
is not covered by that copyright. In other words, you are free
to post your own summary of the text without permission from
COMETA. This is covered by the right of freedom of publication.
They can sue whatever they like, but their demands will not hold
up in court.

The reason that I am advising you about this is that I find it
important that the main ingredients of the text come available
to a large public.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                          Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:19:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:46:33 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?


>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:42:49 -0400
>From: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO Over Rome, Italy?
>Sender: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Hello, Werner, List


>Hi List Members,

>I found a short notice in a German newspaper, today, about a
>'UFO' over Rome, Italy. Hundreds saw a mysterious light-object
>over the city. It was possibly a meteor.

>Does anyone more information about this matter?

>Werner Walter

Try Reuters, also there is a Prophetic Christian site called
weekend news today (they think we are in the millenium weekend)
try: weekend@upway.com

Being a Christian of the non-rapture kind ,I dissagree with
their overall philosophy, but they have an excellent "newswire"
type service - gathering unfiltered news from around the world
from various news wires.

Anyway the "meteor" was one of them slow movin' kind leaving a
smokey trail as it apparently lethargically moved across the
Roman sky.

Reminds me of a short story many years ago (can't remember the
author) about an alien race who conquered interstellar travel
with Steam. Yes, coal-fired saucers.

Who knows?

-GT McCoy





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                            Lou Dobbs' space.com

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 05:18:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:49:04 -0400
Subject: Lou Dobbs' space.com

Hi everyone,


Those who watch CNN International's Moneyline wille have noticed
that anchorman Lou Dobbs has made a career change. He is now CEO
of space.com, a website devoted entirely to space, which
according to him is 'the next big thing'.

Upon checking out their site I encountered a section called
'Area 51'. It really isn't about that base. It's about UFOs.

See:

http://www.space.com/area51/index.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:04:54 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:54:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:13 -0500
>From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:31:19 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
>>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:22:47 -0300
>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:46:01 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

>>>I wouldn't get too excited about some target showing up on ATC's
>>>screens then disappearing, it happens all of the time. Light
>>>aircraft out in the areas not regarded as control zones might
>>>show up briefly when they get above the "grass" so that radar
>>>can see them. Primary radar doesn't know the height, just the
>>>direction. The "target" could look like it's right in the path
>>>of Gore's aircraft but actually several thousands of feet below it.

>>>AF 2 would have received a radio call from Flight Following
>>>telling him that an aircraft, type and altitude unknown, was in
>>>its line of flight. It was prudent for the pilot to avoid the area.

>>Don Ledger's non-UFO explanation is:

>>1.  Well-informed

>>2.  Rational

>>3.  Logical

>>4.  Plausible

>>5.  Never uses the word "pelican"

>>Sounds like a winner to me.

>>David Rudiak

>One problem:

>I take it that Air Force 2 was enroute when the incident
>occurred.  That means that he was in controlled air space and
>probably above 30,000 feet in altitude.  Not very many small,
>uncontrolled aircraft at that altitude or that would even appear
>to be at that altitude.  In fact, I think the FAA gives you a
>"ticket" for being in controlled airspace and not talking to an
>air traffic control center.

More like shoot you dead right on the spot when you land, Loy.
They get real testy about that.

>I also beg to differ with the statement that "it happens all the
>time".  It might during an approach to an airfield or during the
>climb to altitude but it certainly doesn't happen very often
>elsewhere.

That's the problem. It doesn't state where this happened. But
even so in an aircraft even 30,40 or 50 miles out, the target
will show up as a blip without the controller having any idea
what the type and altitude is. Unless it was transponder/Mode -
C equipped which obviously this UFO wasn't.

 As for happening all of the time, at our field we have a winch
launch glider operation, and on a good [thermalling] day these
things get up to 10,000 feet or more.Radar at Halifax
international picks them up all of the time. No transponders.
Since they're NOTAMed, Terminal and the tower knows about them
and at times has to vector the heavies around them. Our power
a/c are picked up all of the time and we [our airfield] are on
the 315 radial out of Hfx. at a distance of 25 miles. We have a
ceiling of 1,700 feet we have to observe-unlike the gliders
[which go figure]-but I quite often hear TCU advising traffic
inbound at 3-10,000 feet [Dash-8s like to show off their steep
descent rates] and maybe 30 miles back from the airport, that
they have traffic-type and altitude unknown on their track.

Don't forget, you can still fly up to 12,500 feet before you get
into high level airspace.

Hey it's still a UFO until it's not. Don't they call them RIs
[radar intercepts] or something now?

FWIW,

Don Ledger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                          Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:43:55 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:57:53 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Rome, Italy?


>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:42:49 -0400
>From: Werner Walter <113236.1604@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO Over Rome, Italy?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>I found a short notice in a German newspaper, today, about a
>'UFO' over Rome, Italy. Hundreds saw a mysterious light-object
>over the city. It was possibly a meteor.

>Does anyone more information about this matter?

Hello Werner!

A bright bolide crossed the Italian sky at 2.45 a.m. on Monday,
July 19th, and was seen by hundreds of people as west as
Cagliari (Sardegna), as east as Bari, as north as Rome and as
south as Palermo (Sicily), according to the first data we have
been collecting until now.

It was videotaped by at least two people at Turi (Bari) and
Palermo: we are trying to get copies of the videos (the first
one was shown at Channel TV news yesterday evening and we taped
it).

Alien spaceships, comets, meteors and... the falling down
Russian MIR were blamed by media and astronomers.

I was interviewed by national daily "La Repubblica" for today's
edition, and our phone number was reporter asking for witnesses
to step forward: that will be the only useful consequence of the
event.

Best regards


Edoardo Russo                             Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici
CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino - tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033
http://www.arpnet.it/ufo          e-mail: edoardo.russo@torino.alpcom.it





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:23:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:33:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100

 >To me ufology is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact
 >and evidence.>

Hi Again JR,

So in the last 25yrs of UFO research carried out by yourself and
after having given extensive lectures, and many books and
articles you still say that you have not seen enough evidence to
state whether or not that in your own mind ETs have visited this
planet at least once?

So where does that leave us if people in the field of UFO
research can research the subject for 25yrs and come out with no
conclusive result of Alien contact?

Did Allen. J. Hynek have a huge change of heart on the UFO
research that he was presented with whilst involved with Blue
Book? Did he not state later his resolve that some of the UFO's
seen in our skies were of Alien origin?

You see, I ask this question of a lot of people who have
researched this for years, some are more forthcoming and will
tell me a straight Y/N. This is after years of studying the UFO
enigma, I just think it's about time those researchers who have
been in the field long enough, should now be telling us what
their conclusions are. Is ET coming here Y/N  or do we have to
wait another 25yrs for an answer?

And if you are presented with hard evidence of ET don't you then
have to believe it or not?


Sincere wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                                     Re:

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:50:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re:


 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >Hello Jerry,

 >I'd like to step in here to second your last two sentences
 >above, and to say that it seems more than just "possible" that
 >future science will make this judgment. It's a virtual
 >certainty, judging from the number of firm unexplainable UFO
 >reports.

 >As a corollary, it will very likely be similarly decided that
 >the figure one often hears, that 90% or 95% of all UFO reports
 >have prosaic explanations, was part of the dream. It has never
 >been good science for a ufologist to claim an IFO solution to a
 >UFO report on the basis that it *might possibly* have been
 >Venus, a weather balloon, aircraft, etc., over and against the
 >objections of witnesses who claim to know better. However, this
 >tactic made the dream easier to maintain, and made it easier for
 >the one-way "skeptics" to claim that if 95% of the cases can be
 >explained away, then surely the other 5% can be also. I suspect
 >the true percentage of IFOs lies somewhere between 50% and 75%.

 >Jim Deardorff

Hi,

I can see your argument, Jim, but I cannot agree with it. I
certainly don't work that way.

I have been investigating UFO sightings first hand for 25 years
as both a local researcher (who gets cases channeled regularly
from Jodrell Bank to 'trouble shoot' for them) and as a
corrdinator of national UFO teams. At the start I estimated
maybe 90% were solvable. I have raised my estimate to 95% as a
direct result of experience across several hundreds of cases
(probably in fact well into four figures by now).

You are right that at times there is a conflict between what a
witness thinks happened and what you believe was the cause. I
can also see the merit in the 'they were there, you were not'
approach. With close encounters I tend to give that benefit of
doubt. But the simple truth is that 99% of UFO sightings are not
a close encounter. They are LITS and other poorly observed
events. In that case years of experience by any invesrigator
doing their job gives them an edge over a witness. We know how
perception works. We know how many phenomena can be mistaken for
UFOs. We can make a reasoned deduction.

You are right that in maybe only 60% of cases can we do more
than provide reasonable certainty that a UFO is really an IFO.
But this is no attempt to make it easy or seek a cosy solution,
as you suggest. It is a factor of how UFO investigation takes
time, money and cooperation from sources like the police,
airports, weather stations etc. In ufology, very often, most or
all of those things don't exist. Our investigators are doing this
work in their spare time at their expense often with the
ridicule of the public or at best cursory assistance. It simply
isnt practical to investigate every case to the point where a
verdict between proven IFO and 'still unsolved' is conclusively
possible. Moreover, investigators should (and at my suggestion
always would) focus their limited resources now on cases that
are likely to be IFOs (as most certainly are) but on the few
that offer some real prospect of not being. This inevitably
reduces the opportunity to be certain about many of the rest.
But its a fact of UFO life.

However, I do not regard it as bad science to adopt a probable
solution that makes sense when it stretches no evidence to be
able to do so. I'd love to know why you think it is - since
science, in my experience, properly accepts the most feasible
solution to a problem unless and until it is contradicted by
strong observational data.

If someone, for instance (A real recent case) sees a high
flying, slow moving, amorphous jellyfish like shape in the sky
is that a UFO or IFO? I believe, based on the physical
parameters of the case, that the witness saw a partly deflated
weather balloon.  I base this verdict on previous cases that
were proven to be such a thing and the degree of consistency
between this sighting and these other cases. I made efforts to
find a candidate balloon, but this was not possible and its
origin could have been from hundreds ir thousands of miles away
so is essentially untracable. As such we are left with this
choice. Do we tell the witness, in my experience this was a
weather balloon? Or do we say it was a UFO, implying as that
will some extraordinary origin? The witness has never seen a
weather balloon (or a UFO) and so they cannot honestly decide.
You have at least seen how weather balloons behave and can
reasonably argue this was probably one of them. In my view the
decision is easy. You tell the witness the facts. I did. I don't
know if they will now regard what they saw as a balloon or a
jellyfish design spaceship. Thats up to them. But I do know that
I consider it better science to trust my judgement here and say
this case is probably solved as a balloon than to work by the
(not impossible but rather less likely) judgement that it is
unsolved.

Technically, you are right. This case is unsolved. Very few
cases are proven beyond doubt. And it is appropriate not to
forget that we do do this assignment of probabilities much of
the time. But practically speaking, I believe it is best to err
on the side of caution with such cases. After all we are seeking
to persuade science and you don't do that by leaps of faith. You
did it by good evidence. A case that looks like a weather
balloon, acts like a weather balloon, but yuou cannot prove was
one, is not good evidence even if there is a chance it was a
UFO.

Now had this witness said that the UFO was a disk, with windows,
thart swooped down, hovered and sped off again, whilst I know
witness misperception can still be a factor, I would have been
quite unjustified in assigning a weather balloon explanation
here and I would not have done it.

To me this differentiates the ufologist from the sceptic - how
willing you are to regard cases as unsolved. I am perfectly
willing and regard it as wrong to disregard evidence for that
purpose just to make a solution easier. In my opinion, sceptics
often don't have that problem. Rendlesham Forest is an example.
Here, you could, by disregarding a relatively small part of the
testimony (the close encounter phase with physical effects)
reasonably argue the whole thing is explained away. I can see
that which is why I have never ignored the possibility. Sceptics
don't merely not ignore it. They embrace it and are willing to
call it the answer by disregarding the uncomfortable bits. I m
not, because I find it improper research and bad science to wish
away even a small (but essential part) of the evidence because
it happens to sit uncomfortably with the most feasible
conclusion otherwise available.

But I am not saying this approach is right and the sceotics are
wrong. Often truth about a case emerges somewhere between the
rock of scepticism  and the hard place of good ufology crunching
up against one another.

This is never an easy area and we are making judgements with
cases all the time. But I assure you I don't just conjure stats
out of thin air in some attempt to evade the issues.  Apologies
if that was not what you were implying.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                            French COMETA Report

From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:39:56 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:09:17 -0400
Subject: French COMETA Report


The COMETA Report

We announced in a recent press release the publication of a
report which was to be an assessment of the French UFO situation
by former junior officials from the french Institute for High
Defence Studies (Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defence National
- IHEDN). This report was published as a special issue of the
weekly VSD and is said to have been distributed with a
circulation of 70,000 copies throughout newstands in France, on
July 17th.

Bernard Thouanel, editor of this issue of VSD �Hors Serie� must
be praised for his role in bringing the report to the public as
it was first intended to circulate mainly within the official
military or political spheres. As Bernard Thouanel seems to have
decided to make no comment or statement on the report over the
net, and that much has already been said, although with little
informative value, by enthusiastic French ufologists, we have
decided to bring to your attention an �assessment of the
assessment� so to speak, so that colleagues from abroad know
where to stand with this report. The following only expresses
views from the French group SOS OVNI.

Titled Les OVNI et la Defence (UFO�s and Defence), the 90 page
long issue is sub-titled A quoi doit-on se preparer ? (What
should we prepare for ?). The issue, although published by �VSD
Hors Serie� is signed by the acronym �COMETA�, initials which
are not explained through the text other than that they belong
to a non-profit organization which one understands draws it�s
members from the Association of Former Junior Officials of the
Institute for High Defence Studies.

The report is split into four very unequal parts titled :

1. Facts and testimony
2. An assessment of what we know
3. UFOs and Defence
4. Conclusion and proposals

It goes without saying that the report is unofficial since it is
published by a private non-profit organization which only
reflects the views of it�s members. Confusion is nevertheless
skillfully kept over whether the report should be considered
official or not. In his introductory note for instance,
General Bernard Norlain, former head of IHEDN says:

"I hope that the proposals from COMETA, inspired by good sense,
will be examined and carried out by authorities from this
country. The first report from the Association of former Junior
Officials had helped create, within the French Space Center, the
only civil office in the world dedicated to the study of UFOs.
May this new more complete assessment give a fresh impetus to
our nation�s efforts as well as to an essential international
cooperation. The Institute for High Defence Studies would have
then well served the country and even, maybe, the whole of
humanity ".

The report was obviously prepared so that French political
authorities may reconsider their position towards the study of
unidentified aerial phenomena in general, and, more
particularly, the funding of SEPRA (Service d�Expertise de
Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique - Service for the Study of
Reentry Phenomena) headed by Jean-Jacques Velasco. Unlike the
first report in 1977, it�s goals where not to sum up the current
state of ufological affairs on a global scale, where private
research would have been scanned. One then wonders on which
basis cases where selected by and for the military. For
instance, Lakenheath (1956), the RB-47 case (1957) or Teheran
(1976) are mentionned while there is not a word on the  Belgian
sightings flap (1989-1991), a situation which has led to much
speculation in France and Belgium.

Contrarily to what has been said, although members of COMETA may
be considered couragous to have come forward, there has been no
threat to their careers as most, if not all, are formerly from
the military or from civil service.

But their assessment of the situation is more than questionable,
at least in the last part of the report which, although
unsigned, bears the marks of industry with close ties to the
military and research facilities whose names have already been
cited in relation with GEPAN�s, then SEPRA�s long history.

Unless these people have insider information, which would have
yet to be revealed, their leaning toward the more paranod
trends of ufology is more than alarming. They consider for
instance Corso�s assertions to be possibly reliable much as they
do with Nick Pope�s views. Roswell is taken for granted and
North America is portrayed as the �Big Black Wolf� who�s
debunking scheme, especially (but not only) over Roswell would
seem logical if we are to believe they have aquired otherworldly
objects. In one of the unsigned annexes, titled �The Roswell
Affair - Disinformation�, one can read the following statement:

"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
�Independance Day�, at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

Considering the final destination of the report, which is said
on the front cover, to have been President Jacques Chirac and
Prime minister Lionel Jospin, and the rank of the people
involved, one can only be very alarmed by such statements which
will no doubt go against the goals COMETA wished to serve. One
understands, why other suggestions like the creation of a
gouvernmental office (yet another...) which would go hand in
hand with SEPRA, or re-funding of the latter will probably go
unaddressed.

We sincerely hope we are wrong but if we are not, this report
will jeopardize any serious or official interest on the UFO
phenomenon in France for years to come.

Perry Petrakis
Editor Phenomena
http://www.sosovni.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:13:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@GlobalServe.net>
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT

 >>In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
 >>and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
 >>ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
 >>Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
 >>1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
 >>possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
 >>faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
 >>by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
 >>serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
 >>sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
 >>They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
 >>intrude on somebody's dreams?


 >I'd like to step in here to second your last two sentences
 >above, and to say that it seems more than just "possible" that
 >future science will make this judgment. It's a virtual
 >certainty, judging from the number of firm unexplainable UFO
 >reports.

 >As a corollary, it will very likely be similarly decided that
 >the figure one often hears, that 90% or 95% of all UFO reports
 >have prosaic explanations, was part of the dream. It has never
 >been good science for a ufologist to claim an IFO solution to a
 >UFO report on the basis that it *might possibly* have been
 >Venus, a weather balloon, aircraft, etc., over and against the
 >objections of witnesses who claim to know better. However, this
 >tactic made the dream easier to maintain, and made it easier for
 >the one-way "skeptics" to claim that if 95% of the cases can be
 >explained away, then surely the other 5% can be also. I suspect
 >the true percentage of IFOs lies somewhere between 50% and 75%.


We can play with statistics as long as we like. I could argue
that if Jim Deardorff is only able to explain 50% to 75% of the
UFO reports he comes across then he's not doing his job
properly! Other investigators find they can explain 95%. Maybe
they're being over-zealous in explaining cases, maybe they're
just more thorough in getting the facts. Whatever the percentage
there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the puzzling cases -
and even a one-way skeptic like me admits that there are some
(Travis Walton, for instance) - represent "visitation by ET
intelligence".

The only dreams and leaps of faith here are from those who think
that, to misquote someone-or-other, "absence of evidence is
evidence of ET".

--

John Rimmer Magonia Magazine: a division of the P.L.A.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:25:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:17:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:04:54 -0300
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:13 -0500
 >>From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


<snip>

 >>One problem:

 >>I take it that Air Force 2 was enroute when the incident
 >>occurred.  That means that he was in controlled air space and
 >>probably above 30,000 feet in altitude.  Not very many small,
 >>uncontrolled aircraft at that altitude or that would even appear
 >>to be at that altitude.  In fact, I think the FAA gives you a
 >>"ticket" for being in controlled airspace and not talking to an
 >>air traffic control center.

 >More like shoot you dead right on the spot when you land, Loy.
 >They get real testy about that.

Yep.  I was trying to be tactful about it.  I think you can loose
your license very quickly for that.

 >>I also beg to differ with the statement that "it happens all the
 >>time".  It might during an approach to an airfield or during the
 >>climb to altitude but it certainly doesn't happen very often
 >>elsewhere.

 >That's the problem. It doesn't state where this happened. But
 >even so in an aircraft even 30,40 or 50 miles out, the target
 >will show up as a blip without the controller having any idea
 >what the type and altitude is. Unless it was transponder/Mode -
 >C equipped which obviously this UFO wasn't.

Show my age...it was Mode IV for altitude readout when I was
doing it.

If it occurred in a terminal area and AF 2 was not at enroute
altitude I would say it is a lot more likely that it was a small
aircraft.  If AF 2 was at enroute altitude for a 747 with
priority flight following I think it was a lot more likely that
the other "object" was anomalous.  Even without altitude readout
on the controller's scope, the controller would have been able
to easily compute the speed of the anomalous blip.  The higher
up you go the faster you must travel to maintain altitude.  The
difference between the speed of traffic at an enroute altitude
and the speed of a small plane at a much lower altitude would
have been readily apparent to the controller, i.e., say 100-200
knots versus 350-450 knots or higher.  If, in fact, AF 2 was
enroute, I think the controller would have said something to
that effect and it would not have necessitated such a drastic 60
degree turn.

If, however, AF 2 was ascending or descending, all bets are off.

 > As for happening all of the time, at our field we have a winch
 >launch glider operation, and on a good [thermalling] day these
 >things get up to 10,000 feet or more.Radar at Halifax
 >international picks them up all of the time. No transponders.
 >Since they're NOTAMed, Terminal and the tower knows about them
 >and at times has to vector the heavies around them. Our power
 >a/c are picked up all of the time and we [our airfield] are on
 >the 315 radial out of Hfx. at a distance of 25 miles. We have a
 >ceiling of 1,700 feet we have to observe-unlike the gliders
 >[which go figure]-but I quite often hear TCU advising traffic
 >inbound at 3-10,000 feet [Dash-8s like to show off their steep
 >descent rates] and maybe 30 miles back from the airport, that
 >they have traffic-type and altitude unknown on their track.

Agreed!  But you don't normally get those kinds of advisories if
you're enroute.

 >Hey it's still a UFO until it's not. Don't they call them RIs
 >[radar intercepts] or something now?

I don't know.  I've been out of it for so long I don't know the
current terminology.

One of the things that bothers me about this instance is the lack
of publicity about it.  Usually, if Air Force Whatever has to
divert from its path for any reason, it is all over the news.
Not this time.  I would think that if it was a "normal" event
involving a lite plane or unauthorized access to controlled
airspace or something like that, the authorities wouldn't rest
until they had found whoever did it.  I've heard very little, if
anything, about this incident, which makes me believe that there
is something out of the ordinary about it.  Doesn't have to be a
UFO in the classic sense.  Could be something relatively normal.

Loy





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 21

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:45:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:23:09 +0100

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100

 >>>To me ufology is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact
 >>>and evidence.>

 >Hi Again JR,

 >So in the last 25yrs of UFO research carried out by yourself and
 >after having given extensive lectures, and many books and
 >articles you still say that you have not seen enough evidence to
 >state whether or not that in your own mind ETs have visited this
 >planet at least once?

 >So where does that leave us if people in the field of UFO
 >research can research the subject for 25yrs and come out with no
 >conclusive result of Alien contact?

 >Did Allen. J. Hynek have a huge change of heart on the UFO
 >research that he was presented with whilst involved with Blue
 >Book? Did he not state later his resolve that some of the UFO's
 >seen in our skies were of Alien origin?

 >You see, I ask this question of a lot of people who have
 >researched this for years, some are more forthcoming and will
 >tell me a straight Y/N. This is after years of studying the UFO
 >enigma, I just think it's about time those researchers who have
 >been in the field long enough, should now be telling us what
 >their conclusions are. Is ET coming here Y/N  or do we have to
 >wait another 25yrs for an answer?

 >And if you are presented with hard evidence of ET don't you then
 >have to believe it or not?


Some of us are very forthcoming . This has been a very strange
sequence. What is this nonsense about 1% UNKNOWNS?

A.Some facts:

l. 20% of 3201 sightings investigated by Battelle Memorial
Institute as reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14
could NOT be identified and were separate from the 10% for which
there was insufficient Information.

2. 30% f the 117 cases investigated by the Condon Committee
could not be identified according to the UFO subcommittee of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

3. 746 of the 4500 cases reported in The UFO Evidence could not be
identified.

Where does 1% come from? Research by proclamation.....

B.It is certainly a fact that fewer than 1% of people are 7'
tall, that fewer than 1 in 1000 people have hemophilia. that
fewer than 1% of isotopes. are fissionable. These facts
certainly don't mean that nobody is 7'tall, that nobody has
hemophilia, that no isotopes  are fissionable.

C. I for one have started just about all my 700 lectures "Flying
Saucers ARE Real" presented at over 600 colleges and lots of
professional groups in 50 states, 9 provinces a dozen cities
each in Australia and England and in 11 other countries with a
flat out statement that after 41 years of study and
investigation, the evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is
being visited by Intelligently controlled ET spacecraft;: in
other words SOME UFOs are of alien origin. Most are not; I don't
care about them "

I have had all of 11 hecklers of which 2 were drunk. No eggs .No
tomatoes.Of course the question I focus on is NOT " what are
UFOs?" It is "Are any UFOs alien spacecraft?" That most are not
is of no significance at all Just as the number of midgets is
not of much interest to a basketball coach. I think we should
not  be apologist ufologists. The polls show believers outnumber
non believers, and the greater the education the more likely to
accept some UFOs as of alien origin. we are with the cream of
the crop. Not at the bottom of the barrel.

Let's get with it people.

Stan Friedman





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                                Re: Gore UFO?

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:33:50 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:42:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Gore UFO?


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:25:24 -0500
 >From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:04:54 -0300
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

 >>>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:13 -0500
 >>>From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO?

<snip>

 >Show my age...it was Mode IV for altitude readout when I was
 >doing it.

Actually they use something called Mode M. Everything but the
pilots's shoe size shows up on the scope.

 >If it occurred in a terminal area and AF 2 was not at enroute
 >altitude I would say it is a lot more likely that it was a small
 >aircraft.  If AF 2 was at enroute altitude for a 747 with
 >priority flight following I think it was a lot more likely that
 >the other "object" was anomalous.  Even without altitude readout
 >on the controller's scope, the controller would have been able
 >to easily compute the speed of the anomalous blip.  The higher
 >up you go the faster you must travel to maintain altitude.  The
 >difference between the speed of traffic at an enroute altitude
 >and the speed of a small plane at a much lower altitude would
 >have been readily apparent to the controller, i.e., say 100-200
 >knots versus 350-450 knots or higher.  If, in fact, AF 2 was
 >enroute, I think the controller would have said something to
 >that effect and it would not have necessitated such a drastic 60
 >degree turn.

 >If, however, AF 2 was ascending or descending, all bets are off.

<snip>

 >Agreed!  But you don't normally get those kinds of advisories if
 >you're enroute.

 >>Hey it's still a UFO until it's not. Don't they call them RIs
 >>[radar intercepts] or something now?

 >I don't know.  I've been out of it for so long I don't know the
 >current terminology.

 >One of the things that bothers me about this instance is the lack
 >of publicity about it.  Usually, if Air Force Whatever has to
 >divert from its path for any reason, it is all over the news.
 >Not this time.  I would think that if it was a "normal" event
 >involving a lite plane or unauthorized access to controlled
 >airspace or something like that, the authorities wouldn't rest
 >until they had found whoever did it.  I've heard very little, if
 >anything, about this incident, which makes me believe that there
 >is something out of the ordinary about it.  Doesn't have to be a
 >UFO in the classic sense.  Could be something relatively normal.

Actually you bring up a good point here which as a private pilot
myself I'm surprised I didn't think of, and that's the usual
automatic jump to the "light aircraft is in the wrong" scenario.
If it had been a light plane for instance the FAA would have
been all over it, likewise the press. If not a UFO then maybe
something more embarrassing like an AF jet in the wrong place
might fit the bill. The press in their usual ignorance about
anything to do with flight-witness the JFK jr.thing-would have
had the pilot of any light plane, hung out to dry by now.

As for your concern about it's being a non-event, I've certainly
seen nothing about it up here. Of course the screen has been
full of the Saratoga crash.

Don Ledger





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                    IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:48:14 -0400
Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:50:26 +0100

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>...As a corollary, it will very likely be similarly decided that
 >>the figure one often hears, that 90% or 95% of all UFO reports
 >>have prosaic explanations, was part of the dream. It has never
 >>been good science for a ufologist to claim an IFO solution to a
 >>UFO report on the basis that it *might possibly* have been
 >>Venus, a weather balloon, aircraft, etc., over and against the
 >>objections of witnesses who claim to know better. However, this
 >>tactic made the dream easier to maintain, and made it easier for
 >>the one-way "skeptics" to claim that if 95% of the cases can be
 >>explained away, then surely the other 5% can be also. I suspect
 >>the true percentage of IFOs lies somewhere between 50% and 75%.

 >I can see your argument, Jim, but I cannot agree with it. I
 >certainly don't work that way.

 >I have been investigating UFO sightings first hand for 25 years
 >as both a local researcher (who gets cases channeled regularly
 >from Jodrell Bank to 'trouble shoot' for them) and as a
 >corrdinator of national UFO teams. At the start I estimated
 >maybe 90% were solvable. I have raised my estimate to 95% as a
 >direct result of experience across several hundreds of cases
 >(probably in fact well into four figures by now).

 >...
 >You are right that in maybe only 60% of cases can we do more
 >than provide reasonable certainty that a UFO is really an IFO.

Hi Jenny,

That was really my point, that the other 35% which you might
conclude were possibly IFOs should not be considered actual IFOs
if that identification goes against important details provided
by the witnesses.

 >However, I do not regard it as bad science to adopt a probable
 >solution that makes sense when it stretches no evidence to be
 >able to do so. I'd love to know why you think it is - since
 >science, in my experience, properly accepts the most feasible
 >solution to a problem unless and until it is contradicted by
 >strong observational data.

If, in reaching an IFO conclusion, certain important elements of
the witness's report are dismissed or ignored, that's what I
would call improper stretching of the "evidence". In your
"jelly-fish" case, I'd of course want to know more about the
details of the sighting, a sketch, the duration, etc. before
concluding anything:

 >If someone, for instance (A real recent case) sees a high
 >flying, slow moving, amorphous jellyfish like shape in the sky
 >is that a UFO or IFO? I believe, based on the physical
 >parameters of the case, that the witness saw a partly deflated
 >weather balloon.  I base this verdict on previous cases that
 >were proven to be such a thing and the degree of consistency
 >between this sighting and these other cases.

A partially deflated weather balloon is still vertically
elongated, narrowest at the bottom, with dangling instrument
package attached below, while most of the jelly fish I'm aware
of aren't this way, and may have outer tendrils all around. If
it were a descending "popped" weather balloon, then it might
look somewhat amorphous, but quite possibly not in the manner of
the thing that was witnessed.

There have actually been large numbers, I believe, of UFOs that
have been passed off as aircraft because they resembled aircraft
in certain respects, but they were not because other aspects of
them did not resemble aircraft. One of my own sightings could
illustrate this. It was rather like a medium sized aircraft 1 to
2 miles away, just moving along steadily. However, it was
cylindrical shaped (horizontally oriented), without any tail
section and no wings either (which I intensively looked for).
And it made no noise, though small planes at a comparable
distance can definitely be heard in my neighborhood. And this
object had a single vertical stripe around its middle, rather as
a capsule is sometimes divided into two halves. Now, some
ufologists would simply say: It acted like an airplane, it might
have been too far away to hear, and you just couldn't see the
wings and tail; so since it can't be proven otherwise, we must
call it an IFO -- and airplane. But that would ignore the fact
that its wings and tail would indeed have been visible if it had
been a plane, and an airplane would not have had only a single
pronounced marking on it of a stripe around its cylindrical
middle. A few weeks later Peter Davenport received another, qite
independent report, of a UFO of the same description just 20
miles north of where I live in western Oregon.

But my point here is that this UFO "tactic" has been known since
Stan Gordon first wrote about it -- how some UFOs can take on
the appearance of natural or man-made phenomena/objects, and in
my opinion and experience this is very correct. Bruce Cornet is
one who demonstrated many years ago how certain UFOs can take on
the appearance of airplanes at night, but they give themselves
away by their odd-ball lighting or other characteristics.
Unmarked black helicopters flying too low and making no noise,
with base and pilot never identified, are another example.
Another example is the UFO that looks just like a star until it
suddenly moves around relative to the other stars, and then
retreats or moves somewhere else and is then stationary there
and looks like a star again (someone else on this list can
perhaps recall the name of the midwestern US astronomer who
investigated this with some of his students). This is a whole
class of UFO sightings that the unaware ufologist would likely
assign as IFOs rather than run the risk of receiving ridicule
from other ufologists who would not want to allow that UFO
intelligences would or could play tricks on us.

You probably saw Stan Friedman's e-mail on this. So you can see
that the opinions vary alot on this question of IFO percentage.
For one more opinion, here's what Bill Hamilton sent me on this
topic:

 >It has been my experience when
 >investigating a reported sighting and hearing the details that
 >I could identify or probably identify the object approximately
 >50% of the time.  Of my own sightings, this figure drops to about
 >only 10 - 20%.  I have concluded that the IFO figures given by
 >various individuals quoting 95 - 99% of sightings having prosaic
 >explanations is a myth.  I have seen no such study supporting
 >this. Even the Bluebook Report 14 attempts to explain only 79%
 >stating that the remainder are unidentified or unknown.  This
 >would indicate we have more unknown aerial objects flying our
 >skies than the skeptics are willing to concede and this gives them
 >a problem.

So that's how it looks from my vantage point -- a matter we'll
have to agree to disagree on.

Jim Deardorff





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                    IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:48:32 -0400
Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >We can play with statistics as long as we like. I could argue
 >that if Jim Deardorff is only able to explain 50% to 75% of the
 >UFO reports he comes across then he's not doing his job
 >properly! Other investigators find they can explain 95%. Maybe
 >they're being over-zealous in explaining cases, maybe they're
 >just more thorough in getting the facts.

I lean heavily towards your over-zealous explanation. If John Q,
a (fictitious) MUFON investigator, has learned that others will
say he's not doing his job properly if he can only explain 50 to
75& of his UFO reports, he is likely to "explain away" a
considerably higher percentage, thereby being more likely to
receive kudos from certain colleagues for being a hard-nosed,
"scientific" skeptic.

 >Whatever the percentage
 >there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the puzzling cases -
 >and even a one-way skeptic like me admits that there are some
 >(Travis Walton, for instance) - represent "visitation by ET
 >intelligence".

Call it UFO intelligence, then. If they can show themselves to
us in scores of thousands of screened cases over a 50 year
period but yet never once stay around long enough in the right
place for the news media to converge on it and show it to the
worldwide public, and never leave quite enough evidence behind
to satisfy the skeptic, this is intelligence in action. Think of
it, not once in over 100,000 cases leaving sufficient evidence





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:57:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:51:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

<snip>

 >Whatever the percentage
 >there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the puzzling cases -
 >and even a one-way skeptic like me admits that there are some
 >(Travis Walton, for instance) - represent "visitation by ET
 >intelligence".

 >The only dreams and leaps of faith here are from those who think
 >that, to misquote someone-or-other, "absence of evidence is
 >evidence of ET".

PIZZA

If I understand English correctly - a leap of faith from my part
- you might write this in the following way:

"Whatever I see, whatever I know, I'll never admit ET an H.,
because I freaking believe ET is inadmissible."

Let's call this the pepperoni principal.

Last time I had an argument with a one-way skeptic (let's be
polite here), we were, the believer and the scientific - I let
you wonder who's who - in front of a pizza.  I pointed to the
pizza:

- What?

- The pepperoni, man.

- What about the pepperoni?

- Who makes it?

- Uh?

- Who makes the pepperoni?

- Some people, of course.

- Prove it.

- Uh?

- I don't believe anybody makes the pepperoni. There is no proof
of that.

- You must be crazy.

- Hey.  Never saw the doods.  Did you?

- Not exactly.

- My point exactly.

- You must be crazy.

- My point exactly.

We went on with that for a while.  Enough to have the believer
doubt that there was anyone truly running the pizzeria.

Got any evidence on who runs pizzerias?

Prove it.

I won't believe you.

Whatever you come up with.

This is crazy, man.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                              Re: COMETA Report

From: Perry Petrakis- SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:49:09 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:59:15 -0400
Subject: Re: COMETA Report

 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:39:56 +0200
 >From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: French COMETA Report

<snip>

 >But their assessment of the situation is more than questionable,
 >at least in the last part of the report which, although
 >unsigned, bears the marks of industry with close ties to the
 >military and research facilities whose names have already been
 >cited in relation with GEPAN�s, then SEPRA�s long history.


Dear Mr Knapp,

In our original text, could yous please change the word
'Industry' to 'industrials' (meaning people), otherwise the
sentence is difficult to understand.

Thanking you very much






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                       UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey

From: Fred R. Saluga <FSaluga@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:41:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:05:24 -0400
Subject: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey


I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My
name is Fred R. Saluga. I am an ex-law enforcement officer and
chief of police. I am presently employed with the State of
Florida and I am a MUFON State Section Director and a Licensed
Private Investigator in the State of Florida.

I am presently conducting extensive research on UFOs and the Law
Enforcement Response to the Phenomena and have developed a
survey that I would like to be answered by persons involved in
the UFO Community to get their views on this subject and law
enforcement investigating UFOs in general. I would also
appreciate if you could answer the  questions with you opinions
and not just a yes an no answer.

The Survey is as follows:

A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

B. In your opinion, should law enforcement take a more active
role in the investigation of UFOs and UFO related incidents?
Please explain.

C. Have you ever consulted or been consulted by a law
enforcement officer or law enforcement agency on a UFO related
incident? Please explain and also how were you treated?

D. Do you have knowledge of a law enforcement officer or law
enforcement agency that has investigated an UFO incident and
filed an official law enforcement report on the incident?

E. In your opinion, what types of investigations do you feel
that law enforcement should investiate in regards to UFOs and
UFO incidents? Also, what types of evidence do you fill that law
enforcement should collect in regards to the investigation of
UFO incidents?

F. In your opinion, should law enforcement set up a national
data base to identify, collect, and document information
pertaining to UFOs such as: size, shape, color, frequency of
sightings, abductions, and all other incidents relating to UFOs
and UFO incidents?

G. In your opinion, do you feel that UFO related incidents could
pose a threat to the law enforcement community. If so, please
explain?

H. In your opinion, do you feel that law enforcement should
establish a national crime lab to work with other investigators
to advocate the use of crime scene techniques and the collection
of forensic evidence in the investigation of UFO incidents?

I. In your opinion, why are law enforcement officers reluctant
to express their views on UFOs and UFO related incidents?

J. In your opinion, do you feel that local law enforcement would
participate in a cover-up, if so ordered to do so by the federal
government?


I would also appreciate any other information, suggestions
and or other materials that you could forward me, concerning
this survey.

I would like to thank you in advance for your time and
cooperation regarding this survey and all information that is
forwarded will be deeply appreciated and assist me in conducting





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                   'Alienable Rights' Vancouver! Magazine

From: Moderator UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:49:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:49:35 -0400
Subject: 'Alienable Rights' Vancouver! Magazine




VANCOUVER! Magazine

Summer 1999

page 12


Alienable Rights

Regular washing of bed linen will prevent bugs, and a discreet
display of natural fibres will scare off suitors who secretly
like hanging out at the Roxy, but what are you going to do about
those other unwanted bedroom visitors? That�s right: aliens.

According to Michael Strainic, the B.C. president of the Mutual
UFO Network, alien abduction claims in the Vancouver area are
"way off the scale," with at least 300 people claiming to have
been spirited away. Well, now there's help.

The Vancouver Public Library has recently received Ann Druffel�s
1998 book How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction, which
lists nine methods used by 'resisters' to fend off 'greys', the
short, big-eyed aliens most active in human abductions. (Urgent
warning: these strategies are not necessarily effective against
the 'reptilian' and 'Nordic' types, which are becoming more
aggressive.)

Unlike the demanding and long-term approach touted in Michelle
LaVigne�s inferior 1995 manual The Alien Abduction Survival
Guide, which requires that you learn to accept such facts of
abductee life as having your lungs taken out on a regular basis,
Druffel�s book suggests simple, common-sense techniques. Druffel
also suggests that you assert your, er, inalienable rights. .

For abductees who have a hard time finding this part of the
Constitution, there is the more traditional approach of
repellents no need to go full-on pepper spray: simple herbs and
flower essences will work. Pennyroyal, for instance, hampers
alien materialisation and strengthens your astral body while
clearing up your acne. It also induces abortion, however, so
pregnant 'experiencers' should stick to putting a ring of salt
around their beds. This will also keep away slugs.

Druffel�s goal is to bring some order to the mushrooming
abduction phenomenon, which is hijacking the extraterrestrial
field and draining the resources of serious ufologists. Strainic
shares Druffel�s sentiment. He already has his hands full with
two sightings and considers the abduction claims largely
irrelevant, since, as he points out, "in many abductions there
is no UFO; the person is just taken through the wall."

Conversely, with most local sightings there is no alien: the
UFOs around here tend to be amorphous balls of light rather
than solid flying objects, which supports a 1992 finding that
geo-magnetic disturbances can create light phenomena above
stress fractures in the earth. In other words, not ET, but San
Andreas.

With its "step_by_step instructions on what to do if aliens come
knocking at your door" and its tantalising implication that
citronella could repel Jehovah�s Witnesses, 'How to Defend
Yourself Against Alien Abduction' may succeed only too well.
Druffel has already taken a lot of heat for the book, says
Strainic, "Everybody�s going, You shouldn't tell people how to
stop these things. How else are we going to study them?�"

--Pamela Swanigan






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:45:29 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


Hi,

There have been some curious responses to my posting in reply to
the question asked about whether - in my 25 years experience -
one alien spacecraft had conclusively been seen. I thought I
answered it fully and properly. Evidently not. It seems that for
some of you unless I can be bullied into saying - yes, sure,
they are here I admit it, then it isn't good enough.

Well, sorry, I cannot honestly do that . I am afraid this
attitude is, in my view, a large part of what is wrong with
ufology. The plea - do we have to wait another 25 years for an
answer - seems to be saying, go on, say they are here, I don't
want to keep waiting to hear you say what I want you to say. I
reckon we do have a good part of the answer. I understand what's
going on far more than when I started. Its just that you don't
seem to like what I say I have found. Problem is if you stand 25
years at a bus stop waiting for a train it won't show up.

As for Stanton's facts and figures. Some of them need to be
interpreted. Yes, Condon found a third unsolved. But so would I
if I selected the 60 best cases from the past year rather than
studied the 6000 or whatever total sightings that have happened.

I cannot change the results of what I find to make people happy.
As I replied (and sorry its going to sound repetitive but as
some of you don't seem to grasp what I am saying its necessary)
here is what I actually find. And so, by the way, do a lot of
other ufologists beyond the US. Many researchers in the US seem
unaware that there is a ufology beyond the East Coast or the
West Coast. But there is and when you add it up its actually
bigger and very different from whats in the US as well. Note I
did not say better. That is not my argument.

In the UK in an average year we get say 300 sightings. Of thise
we can pretty conclusively explain around 180 (60%). I don't
think there are too many disputes so far. Of the rest I contend,
from my experience, that another 30 - 35% (it does vary - and
thats maybe another 100 cases) are probably explainable. You
cannot ever say for sure because the data to prove them is not
there. But they are LITS or low definition incidents where it is
best to err on the side of caution. For instance, witness A sees
a blinking red light in the sky. You cannot find any aircraft
supposed to be up there. Now, sure, of course, the blinking
light could be a UFO disguised as a navigation beacon. But in my
estimation it would be more sensibler to say that the blinking
light was probably an aircraft and move on. Thats why I do and I
wont apologise for doing it.  Frankly, I don't regard it as good
ufology or good science to do anything else.

Now, if said light, did a right angled turn, or flew over
streetlamps and they suddenly went off, or anything that is
logically inconsistent with an an aircraft I would not determine
it was a probable aircraft and in my opinion it would not be
good science or ufology to do so.

Yes, there are cases where we may judge something an IFO when in
truth it probably is unexplained. But there are also cases that
are presumed to be unsolved that turn out, years later, to be an
IFO. I have encountered many and indeed the book Andy, Dave and
I have written ('The UFOs that never were') is full of them.

I am not sure why these figures are creating such a stir,
because to me they are what you find - nothing more, nothing
less. If others find different results then there could be many
reasons. These range from I am overly pessimistic and rate far
too many cases as IFOs to you are far too optimistic and term as
UFOs cases that really don't deserve it.

But what we are all agreed upon is that there are unsolved,
currently unexplainable cases. I say 5%, someone else might say
10%. I really don't think we can justify much more as there are
not more than 10% cases that are of any reasonable definition
and to term a LITS as a UFO is normally I believe unduly risky.

So, those cases (in my view no more than 20 cases per year in
the UK - but still enough to prove to my complete satisfaction
that there is a real UFO m ystery) need to be interpreted.

It is possible that every one of them is an alien spacecraft. Of
course it is. But is that what you are saying? I doubt it. Any
investigator who has been out there in the field year after year
and is actually investigating cases knows that in many instances
we are dealing with reports as follows.

Witness B sees a glow through trees. Going to investigate they
find a fiery orange mass with a centre that looks like the
embers of a fire. A faint whiff of ozone emerges and the object
rises, perhaps with a humming noise, and the witness reports
that their skin felt prickly as it climbed into clouds, causing
them to apparently part slightly as it did so.

In my experience that is a fairly good, but not atypical
unsolved case. Now, yes, of course it might be a spaceship. I
cant prove it wasnt and you cannot prove it was. We are in the
field of probabilities here. When you match hundreds of cases of
this type you find patterns, consistencies, that stand out. We
can make deductions from them. The UFO, for instance, is
ionizing the atmosphere (cloud parting, ozone smell, tingling
sensations, etc).The glow changes colour according to the state
of the atmosphere and chemical changes resulting. There are
genuine, physical properties that emerge and they imply a
physically real, but quite possibly natural, origin.

So where do we stand? We can, of course, decide that here the
ionization results from a propulsion system on a spacecraft. But
in case after case like this one thats an inference that whilst
not impossible is unsupported by real facts. On the other hand,
we know from atmospheric physics and from the history of para
science that reports like this have long occurred and they even
tend to recur in certain places and at certain times. They obey
rules. The consensus from this, in my view quite reasonably, is
that the more likely answer for such reports is that we are
dealing with some sort of unidentified atmospheric phenomenon -
a UAP. It will expand our knowledge to understand it, but the
presumption of alien intelligence behind such cases is neither
necessary here nor evidenced by the facts. This does not mean it
isnt so. It just means, as I look at things, that it is the
option best taken only after others (such as UAP) are proven
untenable. Thats how we work, by taking the simplest answer,
showing it doesnt fit, finding the next possibility, eliminating
that, and being dragged kicking and screaming (but willing  to
go there if necessary) to the most extreme view that an alien
craft was witnessed.

My argument is that in most cases a UAP works. So I currently
accept that this is what we are dealing with much of the time.
Sure, its a judgement call, but not one I made up for fun or one
that has anything to do with the loopy tales people invent to
try to justify to themselves why I say this. Its not because the
government pay me to say so. Its not because I am terrified of
accepting alien contact. I wish the government would pay me to
study UFOs (I could use the money as writing books that don't
proclaim the aliens have landed is no way to get rich quick, I
promise you). I would be as excited, delighted and vindicated as
anyone if the aliens were coming here because it would be such a
huge event and much of my life has been spent contemplating the
possibility. So nothing would be of more fascination to me. The
truth is that I make my judgement call on the balance of the
evidence and that call is that most unsolved cases are UAP.
Sorry if that offends you or it isnt what you want to hear. You
are totally free to believe otherwise (and I am in no way saying
I am right and you cannot be). You are equally free to try to
persuade me through evidence - and I'll listen (as I always
have). But I  cannot deny what my present experience tells me.

Now, as I also said, there remain cases (and I reckon 1% but it
could be up to 2%) (so maybe 4 or 5 per annum in the UK) that
defy any reasonable attempt to force fit an IFO or UAP solution.
So I don't do that. I regard them as unsolved and in those cases
regard the possibility that another intelligence is behind them
as both reasonable and a theory worth exploring. I cannot say
that there is certainty here - as asked.  Thats because even
good cases do crumble and because there may always be factors we
havent thought of yet or phenomena and science that we have not
caught up with. 1999 is not the summit of the learning curve and
to reject a case as not possibly being some unrecognised
phenomenon because we don't yet know of a phenomenon that behaves
this way is as wrong as the argument often used by ETHers. They
say, sceptics foolishly deny alien presence on the grounds that
we cannot do it yet. But one day we might. So UFOs could be more
advanced craft flown by people who can do it. Absolutely. No
dispute from me on that. But equally, the things we regard of as
craft could be non alien phenomena emerging from an
understanding of science we don't yet have. So we have to let
that caveat work both ways.

On balance, I don't think these last unsolved cases will be
natural phenomena as the hints of intelligence are quite strong.
But I cant prove it. I do think there is a reasonable chance
they might be contact with another intelligence. But I cannot
prove that either and hard evidence is undeniably in short
supply. Sufficiently so to take seriously workable alternative
possibilities, such as Persinger's, and recognise that we cannot
say with assurance as I am being asked to do here that aliens
have landed in spacecraft.

In my view, there may well be an 'alien' contact afoot in a few
cases. But most of ufology is not it. Even with the few puzzle
cases where it is a realistic option the usual ET interpretation
is but one evaluation. Alien contact may be happening on a mind
to mind, consciousness basis. So there could be alien imagery
without alien artefacts. Maybe in space you cross the light
years via virtual reality mentality. I see the argument here as
grounded in proper evidence. We have theories but no proof that
alien star travel in craft can happen. We have evidence (enough
in my view to accept) that mind to mind contact that by passes
the normal rules of time and space does exist. Hence, why assume
(as most of ufology does) that an advanced civilisation would
build a photon rocket (or whatever) and come here? Why assume
(as most of science does) that ET would phone home using a radio
set. Its a useless piece of technology with which to contact
another star system. You ring home and tell mum to put the tea
on and when she gets the message 50 years later you are all
dead. I don't find it at all improbable that other, better
methods may be discovered soon (in the galactic time scale) and
that aliens would laugh at our idea that they talk to each other
using radio waves as we might smile at the islanders of Hawaii
trying to get hold of San Francisco using two tin cans and a
(very) long piece of string. Of course, if they are 100 years
more advanced in understanding the how and why of consciousness
alien  contact that way could be happening all the time. If so
who on earth would know about it? Professor Big Bucks tuning his
1000 foot radio dish skyward? Nope. But sensitive, artistic,
apparently psychically atuned witnesses who might catch and
decode the attempts to say 'hello earth'. Oddly these just
happen to be the very people who are the ones having alien
contact experiences. That coincidence is enough to make me sit
up and take notice. But not many others in ufology it seems, to
whom this idea is garbage because it dispenses with their
apparent desire to have real spaceships coming here. And of
course they may be. Again no argument there. But equally, as I
have just shown, they may not. Which is what I said in my
posting yesterday.

Moreover, even if another intelligence is visiting us in craft
(a prospect I am less convinced by than that alien contact is
going on I might add) then we should not conclude that it comes
from zeta reticuli just because it says so. There are good
arguments you can make for various other origins. To cite three
- from inter-dimensional reality inter-penetrating briefly
through our own. Or as the true primary denizens of earth, not
usually perceived by most of us because (as a lower life form)
our senses are not generally equipped to detect them (but some,
quite sensitive souls sometimes can). We are like ants trying to
perceive humans. Or maybe visitors from our own future (the
argument several abductees have told me that visitors have
shared with them) - on the premise that if time travel ever
becomes possible in the future history of earth our descendants
could come here, study us and may deliberately play to the
gallery to disguise their activities. In fact some of the
evidence is better interpreted as a result of time travellers as
it is in terms of ET spacecraft.

Jerry Clark tells me this is changing my mind and that my views
are 'all over the map'. Perhaps. But I don't think it improper to
consider viable options. ET spacecraft is clearly  one - and a
not unreasonable one - for a few cases, but not the only one.

Hope this helps to clarify things. By the way - has that train
arrived yet?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                       Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:53:08 -0400
Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


In response to various comments concerning the recently
published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, was
resolved.


The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
help matters that both accounts seem to be significantly
different.

Established is that Arnold was flying from Chehalis to Yakima, a
journey which took him across the Cascade mountains and
specifically, near Mt. Rainier. There was a five thousand dollar
reward for the finder of a missing C-46 Marine transporter,
presumed crashed in the locale and it was common practice for
private pilots to take advantage of any opportunity to search
for it.

In his letter, Arnold states:

"I had made one sweep of this high plateau to the westward,
searching all of the various ridges for this marine ship and
flew to the west down and near the ridge side of the canyon
where Ashford, Washington, is located.

Unable to see anything that looked like the lost ship, I made a
360 degree turn to the right and above the little city of
Mineral, starting again toward Rainer. I climbed back up to an
altitude of about 9,200 ft.

The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, I trimmed out my airplane in the
direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain.

The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown more
than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash light
reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I was too
close to some other aircraft".


The anomaly with Arnold's affidavit that it clearly implies he
was heading in the direction of Yakima, his ultimate
destination, when the sighting occurred.

As I've previously emphasised, it doesn't make obvious sense
that Arnold made "a 360 degree turn to the right and above the
little city of Mineral, starting again toward Rainer", in a
continued search for the C-46 and was then travelling towards
Yakima.

Mt. Rainier is North-east of Mineral and Yakima was to the south
of due east.

It could be that at the time of writing, Arnold had somehow
confused when his brief sighting transpired, placing the
incident at a time after he had abandoned his search and was on
course for Yakima.

The account in his later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers',
makes no mention that he was on route to Yakima when the
spectacle began, Arnold stating, "It was during this search and
while making a turn of 180 degrees over Mineral, Washington, at
approximately 9200 feet altitude" when events began to unfold.


A further source is the first radio interview he gave, to KWRC
in Pendleton, Oregon on June 26, 1947, in which Arnold
explained:

"I had made one sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of
the canyons and was dragging it for any types of objects that
might prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I come out of the
canyon there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28
miles from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I
noticed to the left of me a chain which looked to me like the
tail of a Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific
speed across the face of Mt. Rainier. I, at first, thought they
were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast
that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of
new jet planes in formation".

It's trustworthy, as an audio of the interview still exists and
a copy can be downloaded from my web site at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/arnold2.htm


According to this early, detailed narrative - original witness
statements often proving to be more reliable - the first thing
which Arnold noticed was a chain of objects that flew like geese
and were crossing the face of Mt. Rainier.

Further documented at the time, were the following:

"Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday
toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front
of him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude".

Source: Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian - June 26, 1947


"Arnold said the strange aircraft were skittering across the
southwest slope of Mount Rainier when he first sighted them".

Source: Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947


"Arnold, general manager and owner of the Great Western Fire
Control Company, said he first saw the objects when they flashed
in the sun low over the slopes of Mt. Rainier.

'Then I saw them, weaving and ducking in and out as they came
south not more than 500 feet over the plateau'".

Source: Oregon Journal - June 27, 1947


There's no evidence here that Arnold saw the objects before they
were crossing Mt. Rainier.

However, in his letter, he continued, "I looked every place in
the sky and couldn't find where the reflection has come from
until I looked to the left and north of Mt. Rainier where I
observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft flying from
north to south at approximately 9500 foot elevation and going,
seemingly, in a definite direction of about 170 degrees".

These claims were further elaborated in 'The Coming of the
Saucers':

"It was during this search and while making a turn of 180
degrees over Mineral, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet
altitude, that a tremendously bright flash lit up the surfaces
of my aircraft. I was startled. I thought I was very close to
collision with some other aircraft whose approach I had not
noted. I spent the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently
searching the sky all around--to the sides, above and below
me-in an attempt to determine where the flash of light had come
from.

[...]

Before I had time to collect my thoughts or to find any close
aircraft, the flash happened again. This time I caught the
direction from which it had come. I observed, far to my left and
to the north, a formation of very bright objects coming from the
vicinity of Mount Baker, flying very close to the mountain
topics and travelling at tremendous speed.

At first I couldn't make out their shapes as they were still at
a distance of over a hundred miles".

In this final account, Arnold submits:

1. A "tremendously bright flash lit up the surfaces of my
aircraft".

2. He spent, "the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently
searching the sky all around".

3. There was a further flash.

4. He next (more seconds ticking away) observed, "a formation of
very bright objects coming from the vicinity of Mount Baker",
which was to the north of Mt. Rainier.

5. Even then, the objects were "still at a distance of over a
hundred miles".


If the objects were travelling at Arnold's estimated speed of
around 1,500 mph, then in the 30 or so seconds which had elapsed
since that initial 'flash', they would have been even further
north and Arnold is making an astonishing claim that the
reflection from an object well in excess of 100 miles away "lit
up the surfaces" of his aircraft.

Perhaps an understatement to say this doesn't seem probable.


It's also a sentiment which can be applied to a further
aberration resulting from the book's claims.

Arnold maintained that the objects took one minute and forty two
seconds to travel the approximate fifty miles between Mt.
Rainier and Mt. Adams, therefore, they should have taken about
twice as long to first of all reach Mt. Rainier from their
starting position 100 miles northwards and he should have had
the objects in view for around three minutes before they even
arrived at Mt Rainier.

Now we know that simply isn't correct, Arnold previously having
clarified in his letter to the Air Force that the total duration
of his sighting only lasted for, "around two and one half or
three minutes".

A further uncertainty is that in the early radio interview, he
stated differently: "the whole observation of these particular
ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes".

Worse still, in one of the first newspaper reports, the 'Chicago
Daily Tribune' of 25 June, quoted Arnold as confirming he
"checked off one minutes and forty two seconds from the time
they passed Mount Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount
Adams" and that, "All told the objects remained in view slightly
less than two minutes from the time I first noticed them".

There seems no doubt that Arnold did observe bright flashes from
the objects, although whether they were so brilliant as his
evident elaborations, is questionable. There's sufficient
documented evidence to accept some innocent exaggerations along
the way, as we might expect.

That may be acceptable in other circumstances, but not when we
are dealing with purported evidence of objects which could be
extraterrestrial spacecraft. Arnold leaves us with so much
ambiguity and assertions which are contradictory.


Speed and distance estimates are dependent on his situation in
relation to the objects and their respective trajectories.

Although we can't say for certain where Arnold or the nine,
undulating objects were, it is proven that Arnold was mistaken
in his perception of the objects' altitude.

It's an aspect which conveniently leads us to Martin Kottmeyer's
past research into this case.

In his article 'Resolving Arnold', Kottmeyer hypothesised why
Arnold's nine objects were possibly birds:

"The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses
near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the
event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. A critical
look at the distance estimate is both warranted and necessary".

"What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has
been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having
"swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem
to put a lower limit to the distance if one could first
determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad
enough to have a transit time to regard the observation as
secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings
of the event. In The Coming of the Saucers he said they
momentarily disappeared "behind a jagged peak that juts out from
Mount Rainier proper. In his memoir for the First International
UFO Congress he says, "When they turned length-wise or flat-wise
to me they were very thin and they actually disappeared from
sight behind a projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield.
These are not exactly the same thing, but they give a fair
indication of what to look for on the geological survey maps.

Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet
plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some
feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat
little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier
and Mount Adams.

The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak which stands
only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's base. There is
a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma which sticks out
around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the wrong side of the
mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path. It would be badly
stretching things to suggest he got either his position or
altitude that far wrong.

Normally one prefers early accounts to later ones, but the
Congress memoir may provide the clue to what happened here. When
the object turned flatwise, the optical thickness likely dropped
below the half minute resolution limit and briefly dropped from
sight. The rough surface of the mountain provided opportunities
for an illusory correlation of the disappearance to some feature
of the mountain. The disappearance seemed to be caused by an
intervening feature where none in fact existed. With no firm
lower distance estimate, the way is opened for the objects being
closer to Arnold than he had surmised".


Kottmeyer's suggestion that Swans were a probability is the
forerunner of my own proposal that there's a more suitable
candidate.

On hearing the conclusions of my ensuing research, Kottmeyer
wrote:

"James Easton's thought that pelicans might be a better guess
than swans sounds plausible to me at first blush and no
objections come to mind. I guessed swans primarily on the points
that I knew they flew high enough and were larger, whiter,
faster, and rarer than geese. If pelicans match the flight
characteristics better as claimed - cool, I like it".

This was remarked before either of us had seen the recently re-
discovered newspaper report from 12 July, 1947, confirming that
nine 'discs' sighted in the same area by an airline pilot,
proved to be nine White Pelicans.

Martin Kottmeyer's full article can be seen at:

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n06/resolving-arnold-part-
1.html

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n07/resolving-arnold-part-
2.html


Relative speed and distance is greatly compounded by Arnold's
comments that at some point he turned his airplane around and
opened the window - accepted this would be his left-hand side
window - to get a better look at the departing objects.

When this action occurred is absolutely crucial and we simply
don't know as he never explained it in context. Is there maybe a
clue when he did this?

Unfortunately, the only references seem to be:

"Well, uh, I uh, it was about one minute to three when I started
clocking them on my sweep second hand clock, and as I kept
looking at them, I kept looking for their tails, and they didn't
have any tail. I thought, well, maybe something's wrong with my
eyes and I turned the plane around and opened the window, and
looked out the window, and sure enough, I couldn't find any
tails on 'em".

Source: Radio interview.

"I observed these objects not only through the glass of my
airplane but turned my airplane sideways where I could open my
window and observe them with a completely unobstructed view.
(Without sun glasses.)"

Source: Letter to the Air Force.

However, both indicate that Arnold recognised his observational
difficulties before too long and not in the latter stages.

Pointedly, in his letter to the Air Force, Arnold strives to
affirm that he had the objects in sight for some time after
having altered course for a clearer view.

Theorising the probabilities with Arnold's exact location and
direction, the nine objects' initial location and direction,
plus when Arnold changed course, is like a game of chess, when
each side has only three equitable pieces left on the board. You
can move them around continually without ever reaching a
resolution.


It was Kenneth Arnold's description of the objects' distinctive
flight attributes which I suspected might be the key to any
explanation. A detailed summary of how there was found to be
such a notable consistency with a formation of White Pelicans,
can be read on my web site at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/saucers.txt


I would only add a mention of the November 1943, National
Geographical article, 'Pelican Profiles', which I recently
located. A wonderful historical insight, the author recalls...

"...the day in the early thirties when a companion and I, sight-
seeing among the bubbling mud geysers on the eastern side of the
[Salton] sea, observed a hundred white birds manoeuvring
majestically in the sky. They played follow the leader.

Then they soared into the blue until only the sun, glinting on
white feathers, flashed their location".

As I've said, this is proof these birds were reflective from a
considerable distance, even 'out of sight'.

Perhaps how they 'flashed their location' is comparative to
Arnold's comments, from the early radio interview:

"I could see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier
and against the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing".

"They seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror"

"I could see them only plainly when they seemed to tip their
wing, or whatever it was, and the sun flashed on them".


Notably, the 1943 article records how, "Descending, they
'snapped the whip' and performed other acrobatic feats".

It further corroborates that these massive birds were seen to be
flying in formation similar to how a whip would uncoil, or
comparatively, as Arnold described, "a chain, which looked to me
like the tail of a Chinese kite".

"The white pelican is a giant seaplane of the bird world ...it
is a master of graceful formation flying".

Documented in the early 1940s, it confirms what I had been
emphasising - that these birds are rarely recognised as being
majestic formation flyers - Arnold's nine enigmatic objects also
"flying diagonally in echelon formation".


The point about Pelicans... is that they are unlike other birds
and when migrating have a long, motionless gliding action,
interspersed with 'flapping.'

To an unfamiliar observer, these bat-like, tail-less birds, if
first seen gliding at speed, could appear to be 'aircraft'.

If this is what Kenneth Arnold briefly observed, there should
naturally be some clues and he did describe how the nine
objects, "fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately
and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their
surfaces".

Arguably conclusive, it's a description which features in
Arnold's subsequent encounter a few weeks later, as he relates
in 'The Coming of the Saucers':

"I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five
minutes to seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and
straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of
about twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects that looked
like ducks.

They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific
rate of speed.

The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were
coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on
my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As the group of
objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away
from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and
fluttering and flashing a dull amber color.

They appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a
dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be
absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly.
I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared
to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane. I knew they
were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast".

Arnold noted, "I was a little bit shocked and exited when I
realized they had the same flight characteristics of the large
objects I had observed on June 24".

In total, during his flying days, Kenneth Arnold claimed to have
had some eight encounters with 'UFOs'.


The more we understand about Arnold's pivotal 'UFO' sighting,
the more we realise can never be understood.

We don't know Arnold's position, the exact direction in which he
was travelling, his speed, the trajectory of the objects, where
they actually were when he first observed them, when he turned
his plane around and significantly, what exactly he meant by
'around' and in which direction he was then heading, plus how
fast.

Any one of these is a critical factor and if all of them are
open to interpretation, then there will be naturally be
different interpretations of how it was possible for Arnold to
be deceived by birds, or conversely why that couldn't have
happened.

As I emphasised when first raising the prospect that Arnold's
nine objects might have been Pelicans in formation, we will
never know what he witnessed.

My contention was that in perspective, there were sufficient
indications that these objects could have been White Pelicans
and that Arnold had demonstrated a capability for errors of
judgement.

Of course, the recent highlighting of a newspaper report, dated
12 July, 1947 and which confirms how an airline pilot's
investigation of nine 'discs' in the same area found then to be
White Pelicans, was unimaginable corroboration of the likely
explanation proposed.


Consider if the dates of these two incidents were reversed.

An airline pilot reports that nine 'disc-like' objects were, on
further investigation, discovered to be nine White Pelicans.

Subsequently, a pilot encounters nine unfamiliar objects in that
region and which have the distinctive characteristics of those
same birds.

What are the probabilities that those 'objects' were also White
Pelicans, or, nine small, thin, 'bat-like spacecraft' from
another planet which somehow made their way here.

Reason would conclude without much, if any, hesitation that the
former explanation was infinitely more likely, increasingly so
with over 50 YEARS hindsight and no tangible evidence of ET
visitations.

The only barrier is Kenneth Arnold's testimony and we already
know that his perceptions of the nine objects' distance, their
altitude and how they interacted with surrounding peaks have
been factually challenged.

That barrier crumbles completely when confronted by Arnold's
subsequent tale of how those twenty-five, small, brass coloured
objects, which flew like ducks, also "fluttered" and "had the
same flight characteristics" of the larger objects previously
encountered.

It seems impossible why Arnold couldn't rationalise that these
were in fact ducks - the area of his second 'encounter' being
prime duck country.

The claim that he, "attempted to make a turn and follow them but
they disappeared to the east at a speed far in excess of my
airplane", can only be deduced as incredulous.


Furthermore, Arnold's location was an inadequate position to
make any judgement of how long it took the objects to travel
between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams.

Wherever he was exactly, it was relatively much closer to Mt.
Rainier, with Mt. Adams being some 40 to 50 miles southwards.

According to the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' of June 26,
1947, Arnold acknowledged as much, the newspaper reporting, "Mr.
Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed the objects would
make difficult precise estimation of their speed, but insisted
any error would not be grave "for that speed"'.

If the oblique viewing angle was problematic, it's not
necessarily a sensible inference that errors would have been
insignificant. They could, and arguably would, have been of
immense relevance.

This estimation was, after all, the entire basis of the apparent
enigma.


Arnold's 'bat-like' alien craft failed to become symbolic of UFO
lore and instead, his misinterpreted comment of how they flew
"like a saucer would if you skipped it across water", became
synonymous with 'flying saucers'.

His account may be a 'classic' - THE classic - yet, as others
have surmised, the belief, sometimes a fanatical religious
devotion, that subsequent reports of 'flying saucer' shaped
objects were 'ships from outer space' couldn't be based on a
more specious foundation.

It should be stressed though that there are many 'UFO' cases,
notably those not involving 'saucer-shaped' objects, which have
no obvious resolution and conceivably merit some kind of formal,
recognised study.


Perhaps Arnold's bat-like 'UFOs' truly were nine alien
spacecraft, performing death defying stunts by weaving in and
out of mountain tops and canyons at 1,500 miles per hour.

For reasons best known to themselves.

Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.



(C) James Easton





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                 Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:25:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:54:49 -0400
Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum


'New Westminster British Columbian' Saturday, July 12, 1947

'SAYS FLYING SAUCERS ARE PELICANS'

Spokane, Wash., July 12 (BUP).

A veteran Northwest Airlines pilot who has flown over the
Pacific northwest's "flying saucer" country for 15 years today
took all the glamor out of the mystery of the flying discs.

All that people have been seeing, he said, are pelicans. Or
maybe geese or swans.

Capt. Gordon Moore disclosed that he and his co-pilot, Vern
Kesler were saucer-hunting last Wednesday on a regular flight
between here and Portland, Ore. Kesler was sure he had seen some
flying saucers on July 2, and the pilots were armed with movie
cameras and binoculars for another encounter.

"Suddenly we spotted nine big round disks weaving northward two
thousand feet below us," Moore related.

"We investigated and found they were real all right --- real
pelicans."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:07:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:57:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:23:09 +0100

 >So where does that leave us if people in the field of UFO
 >research can research the subject for 25yrs and come out with no
 >conclusive result of Alien contact?

 >You see, I ask this question of a lot of people who have
 >researched this for years, some are more forthcoming and will
 >tell me a straight Y/N. This is after years of studying the UFO
 >enigma, I just think it's about time those researchers who have
 >been in the field long enough, should now be telling us what
 >their conclusions are. Is ET coming here Y/N  or do we have to
 >wait another 25yrs for an answer?

Hows about - just for fun y'understand - we find out who thinks
what. I'll happily set the ball rolling by saying that I've been
involved in UFO research for almost twenty years now, at the
sharp end, and I have not found one single case which indicates
ET has been here.

 >And if you are presented with hard evidence of ET don't you then
 >have to believe it or not?

I would happily do so if there were any.

Stanton Friedman wrote:

 >The polls show believers outnumber
 >non believers, and the greater the education the more likely to
 >accept some UFOs as of alien origin. we are with the cream of
 >the crop. Not at the bottom of the barrel.

What the polls show, or the level of education of those polled,
is completely irrelevant. Whether we can 'accept that some UFOs
are of alien origin' hardly matters. What does matter is what
the evidence shows and, from my point of view, what the cases
which were once UFOs but are now IFOs shows.

Happy Trails






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:54:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:00:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:17:35 +0100

 >>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:52:13 +0100

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100

 >>>MAM TOR HUNT AFTER "AIR CRASH"

 >>>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
 >>>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
 >>>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
 >>>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
 >>>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
 >>>April 1997

<snip>

 >Hi
 >The drug running idea was seriously considered by the police
 >during the l997 incident. It remains an option for the untraced
 >light aircraft, I believe.

 >Some of the mystery helicopters connected with the l973 - 75
 >Pennine/Peak District wave (ressurected by Nick Redfern -
 >somewhat bizarely in his new tome 'Cosmic Farces' - ooops,
 >Freudian slip there, 'Cosmic Crashes' - as possible intelligence
 >agency vehicles tied to UFO crashes) were at the time blamed on
 >drug smuggling by the police (as well as ferrying illegal
 >immigrants and even a home-made helicopter illegally flown from
 >someones garage)!

 >In fact many of these 'helicopters' were merely LITS and the
 >term helicopter was applied by police who pursued them due to
 >apparent manoueverablity. As an investigator just starting out
 >then I learned this from Oldham police one night when told - 'we
 >chase these buggers over't hills and they just fly off. I'm
 >damned if any aircraft can do that. So we reckon it must be a
 >'elicopter'

 >Hardly anyone actually saw what clearly was a helicopter. But
 >the name stuck.

 >As for last week's escapade - my main reason to doubt this idea
 >that it was a drug run is simple. A flight in the dark over the
 >fairly remote moors west of Sheffield (as in l997) is fair
 >enough. A flight in broad daylight literally following the path
 >of the A 6 - chock-a-block at this time of year with holiday
 >traffic and at that time of day with commuters to and from
 >Buxton would be just plain daft. Maybe Del Boy (note for non UK
 >readers - a slightly dodgy dealing, but incompetent TV character
 >in Britain's top rating sit com) was flying it, but I can't see
 >any half-sensible drug runner choosing such a time and locale to
 >sneak through (if sensible drug running is not a contradiction
 >in terms).

It was Frank Herbert who wrote in Dune, "If wishes were fishes,
we'd all cast nets..."

Dear Jenny and all the ships at sea, which by the by recently
eliminated CW (international Morse code) from their repertoire.
Yet another treasure gone to that graveyard in the sky.

Jennifer,  (may I call you that?) it is with deep regret that I
must agree with some of your post.  I (gulp) agree that it was
not likely a drug run.  However I must inform that it was an
illegal run of another sort.  Our Gripple runs have switched
from marked Gripple dispensing trucks, to SR149's, which is the
latest in Americanski secret government technology.  The people
at Groom gave us two to sort of, sort out.  Saved our precious
tax payers a good load of cash in test pilot training, salary,
insurance and support.  Saved a whole lot of UFO sightings over
Groom and Area 51, by those curious bastards constantly taunting
our armed Federally paid Gestapo, saved tremendous money of
fuel, as Gripple is used to power these craft.

The down side is the side effects of breathing the fumes created
by the SR 199's.  People are dropping over there, like flies.
Oh the humanity!  But alas, you people did try to colonialize us
some years back.  And we never did get back at you for that,
other than winning the Revolutionary War.

And there are at least three people now serving on Majestic
Thirteen who are super duper patriots and still hold a grudge.
Oh, sorry, there are now 13 members of Majestic.  Gesundt became
a Made Member quite recently. And he shocked everyone in the





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                     Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:41:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:05:32 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey


 >From: Fred R. Saluga <FSaluga@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:41:45 EDT
 >Subject: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My
 >name is Fred R. Saluga. I am an ex-law enforcement officer and
 >chief of police. I am presently employed with the State of
 >Florida and I am a MUFON State Section Director and a Licensed
 >Private Investigator in the State of Florida.

 >I am presently conducting extensive research on UFOs and the Law
 >Enforcement Response to the Phenomena and have developed a
 >survey that I would like to be answered by persons involved in
 >the UFO Community to get their views on this subject and law
 >enforcement investigating UFOs in general. I would also
 >appreciate if you could answer the  questions with you opinions
 >and not just a yes an no answer.

 >The Survey is as follows:

 >A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
 >had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
 >police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
 >unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
 >related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

Commonly they do not get involved. Although they often assist
serious investigations if you approach them rationally.

 >B. In your opinion, should law enforcement take a more active
 >role in the investigation of UFOs and UFO related incidents?
 >Please explain.

Probably not, unless physical traces are involved or other
situations that might be a threat to the public. Most sightings
are trivial and solvable. Police would gain advantage from
strong local ties with a serious UFO investigator to channel
witnesses through to them.

 >C. Have you ever consulted or been consulted by a law
 >enforcement officer or law enforcement agency on a UFO related
 >incident? Please explain and also how were you treated?

Rarely, I have been asked for advice. I am on the contact list
of the local police. If you talk reasonably to police they
respond accordingly.

 >D. Do you have knowledge of a law enforcement officer or law
 >enforcement agency that has investigated an UFO incident and
 >filed an official law enforcement report on the incident?

Yes, on numerous occasions.

 >E. In your opinion, what types of investigations do you feel
 >that law enforcement should investiate in regards to UFOs and
 >UFO incidents? Also, what types of evidence do you fill that law
 >enforcement should collect in regards to the investigation of
 >UFO incidents?

As noted physical evidence, landing cases but not mundane
sightings.

 >F. In your opinion, should law enforcement set up a national
 >data base to identify, collect, and document information
 >pertaining to UFOs such as: size, shape, color, frequency of
 >sightings, abductions, and all other incidents relating to UFOs
 >and UFO incidents?

I doubt they would consider this profitable use of resources.

 >G. In your opinion, do you feel that UFO related incidents could
 >pose a threat to the law enforcement community. If so, please
 >explain?

No more so than other people out at night where UFOs are most
prominent. Advice on what to do if a close encounter occurs
would be a sensible precaution.

 >H. In your opinion, do you feel that law enforcement should
 >establish a national crime lab to work with other investigators
 >to advocate the use of crime scene techniques and the collection
 >of forensic evidence in the investigation of UFO incidents?

It would be excellent if they would, but given the wild
differences in opinion, quality and credibility and the total
lack of self policing in ufology it would be hard to do this on
a professional basis.

 >I. In your opinion, why are law enforcement officers reluctant
 >to express their views on UFOs and UFO related incidents?

Yes, like all who have a career status to lose. But this is
mostly due to misconceptions and public stigma based upon them.

 >J. In your opinion, do you feel that local law enforcement would
 >participate in a cover-up, if so ordered to do so by the federal
 >government?

At a high level, probably. But you could not maintain this
through the ranks. As such I doubt it happens very often -
except where national security could be compromised.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                       X-PPAC Press Release - 7/21/99

From: Stephen Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:26:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:08:39 -0400
Subject: X-PPAC Press Release - 7/21/99

X-PPAC

For Immediate Release

July 21, 1999

The first political action committee in history to directly
target the politics of UFO/ET phenomena will be announced by
executive director Stephen Bassett Wednesday night on Art Bell's
Coast to Coast, the largest late night talk show in America.
Funding of the PAC will center on its website at www.X-PPAC.org
and national radio appearances by Bassett throughout the year.

The Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee,
X-PPAC, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
as an independent PAC on February 13, 1999.  It will be based in
the Washington, DC metro area.

The primary mission of X-PPAC is to end the government embargo
of facts confirming the presence of extraterrestrial life forms
in our world and to form a partnership between the government
and the American people to create policy dealing with this fact.

Secondary targets include reforming the massive secrecy
infrastructure built up in the U.S. since 1947, and freeing up
technology currently sequestered behind the National Security
Act curtain which could impact the escalating destruction of the
global environment.

X-PPAC will seek to assist a full range of pending political
activities such as: the UFO State Ballot Initiative, national
Open Congressional Hearing Petition, direct lobbying, newspaper
and television ads, direct contributions to candidates, grass
roots education, and more.  X-PPAC will also be in a position to
reach out to established environmental and secrecy reform groups
to define common interests. Citizens would have a long needed
vehicle to direct their concerns to government in unambiguous,
unavoidable terms regarding the cover-up of UFO/ET evidence and
policy.

As a champion of secrecy reform and open government, it is
appropriate that X-PPAC will exceed minimum disclosure
requirements.  All financial transactions, including bulk
deposits and itemized expenditures, will be posted to the X-PPAC
website within 48 hours.  This will allow contributors and the
interested public to follow X-PPAC activities in real-time.
This extraordinary openness coupled with the required FEC
financial filings will ensure that operations will be above
reproach.

For additional information contact:

Stephen Bassett, Executive Director
Email: ExPPAC@aol.com
Address:  4938 Hampden Lane, #161





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                          Re: French COMETA Report

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:00:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:22:22 -0400
Subject: Re: French COMETA Report


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:39:56 +0200
 >From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: French COMETA Report

Perry Petrakis, of the French group "SOS OVNI", and director of
the French review "Phenomena", has made an "assessment" of the
"COMETA" report (wrongly called IHEDN report), in the name of
SOS OVNI. He claims this assessment to be much needed in order
to counterbalance information "of little informative value"
already given by "enthusiastic French ufologists".

I have some questions and comments to make on this "assessment".

 >We announced in a recent press release the publication of a
 >report which was to be an assessment of the French UFO situation
 >by former junior officials from the french Institute for High
 >Defence Studies (Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defence National
 >- IHEDN).

Why "junior"?  All these people are senior military and civilian
officers four generals, an admiral, a general former director of
IHEDN, etc.

The report refers several times to  the "Association des
auditeurs de l'IHEDN (AA). It never mentions "junior". The fact
that this an Institute of Higher studies implies of course that
auditors were still young officers when they participated, but
this mention "junior", when talking of senior officers, does not
make any sense except that Mr Perry Petrakis labors at reducing
the status of the committee.

 >Bernard Thouanel, editor of this issue of VSD 'Hors Serie' must
 >be praised for his role in bringing the report to the public as
 >it was first intended to circulate mainly within the official
 >military or political spheres. As Bernard Thouanel seems to have
 >decided to make no comment or statement on the report over the
 >net, and that much has already been said, although with little
 >informative value, by enthusiastic French ufologists, we have
 >decided to bring to your attention an ‘assessment of the
 >assessment’ so to speak, so that colleagues from abroad know
 >where to stand with this report. The following only expresses
 >views from the French group SOS OVNI.

First, on what grounds Petrakis can he present a collective
view? How did he manage to get a collective approval, in such a
short time, of his very critical view on an important document
of that kind? I understand that members of SOS OVNI, the most
numerous French organization, are scattered over all the French
territory. Should we rather assume that he is expressing his own
views, hoping that other folks will follow him? Or are the
members such a disciplined block that he does not have to worry
about that? Well, I suppose he can reassure us easily on this
question.

Now about low quality information given by "enthusiastic
ufologists". So far, I know of only two favorable opinions
already expressed on the internet : by Thierry Wathelet, who
Belgian, and myself. That makes only one "enthusiastic French
ufologist", and it's me! Or then, who are the other
enthusiasts??

One point point is true here: I have given little information so
far because I am still preparing an English summary, on which I
hope to have the approval of a representative of COMETA.

 >Titled Les OVNI et la Defence (UFO's and Defence), the 90 page
 >long issue is sub-titled A quoi doit-on se preparer? (What
 >should we prepare for?). The issue, although published by 'VSD
 >Hors Serie' is signed by the acronym 'COMETA', initials which
 >are not explained through the text other than that they belong
 >to a non-profit organization which one understands draws it’s
 >members from the Association of Former Junior Officials of the
 >Institute for High Defence Studies.

The meaning of the acronym COMETA does not seem to be an
important matter to me. According to Thierry Wathelet it means
"Comité d'études approfondies", but, who cares?
And,again, "junior", applied to a very senior group!

<snip>

 >published by a private non-profit organization which only
 >reflects the views of it’s members. Confusion is nevertheless
 >skillfully kept over whether the report should be considered
 >official or not. In his introductory note for instance,
 >General Bernard Norlain, former head of IHEDN says:

 >"I hope that the proposals from COMETA, inspired by good sense,
 >will be examined and carried out by authorities from this
 >country. The first report from the Association of former Junior
 >Officials had helped create, within the French Space Center, the
 >only civil office in the world dedicated to the study of UFOs.
 >May this new more complete assessment give a fresh impetus to
 >our nation's efforts as well as to an essential international
 >cooperation. The Institute for High Defence Studies would have
 >then well served the country and even, maybe, the whole of
 >humanity".

What is the simple truth in this petty quarrel? General Norlain
explains very clearly that General Letty came to see him in
1995, when he was at the head of IHEDN, to get his support in
the creation of an independant group od study of UFOs. Norlain
encouraged him and addressed him to the Association of Auditors
(AA), which in turn gave its support to the project. Several
members of AA participated to the group. So, yes, COMETA is very
close to IHEDN. The last sentence of General Norlain does not
seem inappropriate to me since many members of COMETA  come from
IHEDN. There is no big fuss here, and no dishonesty, as hinted
wrongly by Mr Perry Petrakis.


 >The report was obviously prepared so that French political
 >authorities may reconsider their position towards the study of
 >unidentified aerial phenomena in general, and, more
 >particularly, the funding of SEPRA (Service d’Expertise de
 >Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique - Service for the Study of
 >Reentry Phenomena) headed by Jean-Jacques Velasco.

This seems to be a correct assessment. And I think it's a good
move!

<snip>

 >Unlike the first report in 1977, it's goals where not to sum
 >up the current state of ufological affairs on a global scale,
 >where private basis cases where selected by and for the
 >military. For instance, Lakenheath (1956), the RB-47 case
 >(1957) or Teheran (1976) are mentionned while there is not a
 >word on the  Belgian sightings flap (1989-1991), a situation
 >which has led to much speculation in France and Belgium.

This is an irrelevant critique. They have selected a few very
good cases: fine! They may have avoided the Belgian wave because
it is a very complex case. Even among ufologists, there is not
100 % agreement on everything. Professor Auguste Meessen, for
instance, leaves the door open to a natural explanation for F-16
radar returns. But he affirms very firmly that there was a UFO
wave. By the way, Petrakis mentioned in his review (N° 33) a
most ridiculous explanation of the Belgian wave - the "LowFlyte
- at a time when it had been already fully exposed by Thierry
Wathelet as pure garbage: a small scale prototype was presented
to the press in 1996!

However, Petrakis  just commented in his review :
"It seems improbable that the craft could be at the origin ot the
observations in belgium, etc..).
Improbable, indeed!

 >Contrarily to what has been said, although members of COMETA may
 >be considered couragous to have come forward, there has been no
 >threat to their careers as most, if not all, are formerly from
 >the military or from civil service.

Who said that??

 >But their assessment of the situation is more than questionable,
 >at least in the last part of the report which, although
 >unsigned, bears the marks of industry with close ties to the
 >military and research facilities whose names have already been
 >cited in relation with GEPAN’s, then SEPRA's long history.

There is an unpleasant insinuation here, if I read correctly
between the lines : that this report if the voice of the French
military-industrial complex. Maybe they are after some
juicy research contracts : is this what you imply  here?


 >Unless these people have insider information, which would have
 >trends of ufology is more than alarming. They consider for
 >instance Corso's assertions to be possibly reliable much as they
 >do with Nick Pope's views. Roswell is taken for granted and
 >North America is portrayed as the 'Big Black Wolf' whose
 >debunking scheme, especially (but not only) over Roswell would
 >seem logical if we are to believe they have aquired otherworldly
 >objects.

Now we hit at a speculative part of the report, the Annex 5 on
Roswell. No, they don't take Roswell for granted", but yes they
point to some undisputable facts ("faits indiscutables"). For
instance, that the GAO did not accept the balloon explanation
(contrary to what was written in the French press at the time,
notably by sociologist Pierre Lagrange : this parenthesis is
mine). Apart from that, no, this report does not present North
America as the "Big Black Wolf"! We fall in caricature here.


They quote two opinions on Roswell, one of which is presented here
wrongly by Petrakis as being their opinion :

 >In one of the unsigned annexes, titled ‘The Roswell
 >Affair - Disinformation’, one can read the following statement:

 >"It seems the crash at Roswell happened on the 4th of July,
 >'Independance Day', at around 11h30 pm. The date and place
 >symbolise the power of America, henceforth the question: if the
 >crash is that of an extraterrestrial craft, could it really be
 >considered an accident or could it possibly be deliberate, thus
 >being some sort of a message and/or authenticating it?".

This is by no means presented as the definite opinion of the
COMETA. Interesting hypothesis, though.

On the other hand, yes, COMETA points to evidence of US Air
Force disinformation on Roswell, and cites Lagrange as a
"victim" of it!

<snip>

  We sincerely hope we are wrong but if we are not, this report
  will jeopardize any serious or official interest on the UFO
  phenomenon in France for years to come.
  >>

One general remark here. What is the true mediatic and
governmental situation in France? One of deep skepticism on the
mere existence of UFOs. What about government and political
circles? Just one exemple. Claude Allegre, who is a scientist,
and is the French ministry of National Education,  is known to
be of the old socialist/rationalist school. These people will
not admit UFOs until they see one in their garden, and I am not
even sure of that. My guess is that COMETA decided to publish
their report in an attempt to circumvent that obstacle.

The French UFO press consists merely of small two periodicals
available in newsstands (the others being confidential
bulletins): "Anomalies", directed by Pierre Lagrange, and
"Phenomena", directed by Pery Petrakis. We have just seen how
Petrakis treats information. From Lagrange, we just had
yesterday a full page article in one of the three major national
daily papers, "Liberation". (date July 21, page 5). Let's just
quote the subtitle : "Between "X Files" and "Independance Day",
the report of "experts" published by "VSD" feeds disinformation
of ufos by ridiculing the subject".

Explication: they dare to talk about Roswell : that can only be
disinformation, just like sinister conspirationist theories!
This accusation is totally ridiculous. Actually, the report
clearly denounces that kind of disinformation, which they call
"amplifying disinformation on UFOs". What a mess!

Regards to all
Gildas Bourdais







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 22

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:29:05 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:10:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:23:09 +0100

 >>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:48 +0100

 >>To me ufology is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact
 >>and evidence.>

 >Hi Again JR,

 >So in the last 25yrs of UFO research carried out by yourself and
 >after having given extensive lectures, and many books and
 >articles you still say that you have not seen enough evidence to
 >state whether or not that in your own mind ETs have visited this
 >planet at least once?

 >So where does that leave us if people in the field of UFO
 >research can research the subject for 25yrs and come out with no
 >conclusive result of Alien contact?

 >Did Allen. J. Hynek have a huge change of heart on the UFO
 >research that he was presented with whilst involved with Blue
 >Book? Did he not state later his resolve that some of the UFO's
 >seen in our skies were of Alien origin?

 >You see, I ask this question of a lot of people who have
 >researched this for years, some are more forthcoming and will
 >tell me a straight Y/N. This is after years of studying the UFO
 >enigma, I just think it's about time those researchers who have
 >been in the field long enough, should now be telling us what
 >their conclusions are. Is ET coming here Y/N  or do we have to
 >wait another 25yrs for an answer?

 >And if you are presented with hard evidence of ET don't you then
 >have to believe it or not?


Dear Roy,

You are quite correct.  No one whose opinion is valued, has ever
come to the conclusion that ET's have visited, nor has anyone
of the opposing opinion and whose opinion is valued, come to
the conclusion that ET has not visited.

Which leaves those whose opinions take the opposite leaning,
meaning, (wow, that rhymes!) that the opinions of those who
have stated that ET has visited and those who have stated that
ET had not visited, are all not valued.  Not only that, but there
are so many people who have investigated these phenomena,
this phenomenon, these pheramones, have waffled on their
conclusions too.....

Uh, have I got that right?

Well, let me end these arguments right here and now!

First, I have not been a researcher for very long.  Therefore, I
do not fit your profile in that way.  Right?  Okey dokey...
then, addictively, uh, I mean additive-ly,  I am not waffling. I
hate waffels.  I prefer flap jacks.  Underdone.  I like that
heavey feeling.  Sops up a lotta grape juice, eh?

So, here it comes, over the teeth and through the gums...
ET's may be here.  It depends.  ET's may not be here, altho
they may have been here.  It is possible that they are here, but
have not been here before.  That could be.

Then there is the theory that a wet bird never flies at night.

We concur with all of the above.

Probably.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 23

                  PRG: Important Programming Notice 7/20/99

From: ParadigmRG@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:21:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:51:21 -0400
Subject: PRG: Important Programming Notice 7/20/99

Paradigm Research Group

Programming Notice - July 20, 1999

Two significant announcements, one an historical first will be
made on Bell's program.  National press releases go out on
7/21/99.

Program: Coast to Coast with Art Bell

http://www.artbell.com

Guest: Stephen Bassett - lobbyist, consultant, founder
        of PRG, author of the

http://www.paradigmclock.com

        website

Date:  Wednesday/Thursday,  July 21-22
Time:  10:00 pm PST, 11 pm EST
Topic: Two significant announcements
Links: For links to the program website and the Netcast go to:






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:32:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300


 >Some of us are very forthcoming . This has been a very strange
 >sequence. What is this nonsense about 1% UNKNOWNS?

 >A.Some facts:

 >l. 20% of 3201 sightings investigated by Battelle Memorial
 >Institute as reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14
 >could NOT be identified and were separate from the 10% for which
 >there was insufficient Information.

 >2. 30% f the 117 cases investigated by the Condon Committee
 >could not be identified according to the UFO subcommittee of the
 >American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

 >3. 746 of the 4500 cases reported in The UFO Evidence could not be
 >identified.

 >Where does 1% come from? Research by proclamation.....
<snip>

 >Let's get with it people.

Hi Stan,

Always nice to read your mails.

After reading your percentages I would be interested to know
what your percentage is for confirmed alien contact. Apparently
you have had 41 years of study, Jenny has had 25, personally I
have had more than 30. I notice there is a large percentage of
IFOs and a small percentage of unknowns, in which category do
you place the alien spacecraft? if it's in the IFO then surely
we would see the IFO's as weather balloons/abnormal weather
conditions/bin bag blowing in the wind/alien spacecraft from the
planet Draconia. You couldn't possibly put 'alien spacecraft' in
the unknown category since it has been identified as an alien
spacecraft.

It is a fact that a 747 lands at London airport every 20 minutes
or so, if you don't believe me just walk out on the tarmac and
touch the vehicle.

When have we ever had _that_ kind of physical evidence?

In the words of Carl Sagan 'bring me a piece of a flying
saucer'.

As far as the polls are concerned how many people were asked if
they believed in Angels? The result was rather high again.

Roy's original question was:

 >Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
in >the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
least >one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
craft?

That is a very good question and since there are so many
'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
(what I perceive to be) simple question.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                 7/22: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN

From: Diana Botsford <Diana_Botsford@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:54:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:40:24 -0400
Subject: 7/22: This Week on the UFO Community on MSN


The UFO Community on MSN is available at
http://communities.msn.com/ufo/. All chats are accessible by
using either our built in chat page, MS Chat or any IRC client.
The chat server name is irc.msn.com and the channel/room name is
#briefing.

========================================
***Abductions: Beyond Threats
Chat with Abductions Researcher David Jacobs. Join this well
known abduction researcher for a special chat on Saturday, 7pm,
PT.

========================================
***Book Review: The Threat

Jacob's best selling book is now out in paperback.  If you
haven't had a chance to read it yet, Abductions Section Leader
Bill Stockstill will tell you why you should in this review.

========================================
***This Week in UFO History

Washington, DC in the summer of 1952 was very busy.  Read
Historian Cliff Caper's review of the UFO Flap that wouldn't
quit.

========================================
***SPSR Chat Transcript Now Available

Did you miss the chat this past Tuesday?  Visit our watchfire
newsgroup and catch up on some very important dialogue regarding
artificiality on Mars, planetary science and the future of NASA.

========================================
***The Politics of UFOs
Chat with UFO Lobbyist and Activist Stephen Bassett
Sunday, 6pm, PT

TOPIC: Stephen Bassett has created the first political action
committee in history to directly target the politics of UFO/ET
phenomena.

Funding of the PAC will center on its website at www.X-PPAC.org
and national radio appearances by Bassett throughout the year.

The Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee,
X-PPAC, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
as an independent PAC on February 13, 1999.  It will be based in
the Washington, DC metro area. The primary mission of X-PPAC is
to end the government embargo of facts confirming the presence
of extraterrestrial life forms in our world and to form a
partnership between the government and the American people to
create policy dealing with this fact.

Secondary targets include reforming the massive secrecy
infrastructure built up in the U.S. since 1947, and freeing up
technology currently sequestered behind the National Security
Act curtain which could impact the escalating destruction of the
global environment.

X-PPAC will seek to assist a full range of pending political
activities such as: the UFO State Ballot Initiative, national
Open Congressional Hearing Petition, direct lobbying, newspaper
and television ads, direct contributions to candidates, grass
roots education, and more.  X-PPAC will also be in a position to
reach out to established environmental and secrecy reform groups
to define common interests. Citizens would have a long needed
vehicle to direct their concerns to government in unambiguous,
unavoidable terms regarding the cover-up of UFO/ET evidence and
policy.

As a champion of secrecy reform and open government, it is
appropriate that X-PPAC will exceed minimum disclosure
requirements.  All financial transactions, including bulk
deposits and itemized expenditures, will be posted to the X-PPAC
website within 48 hours.  This will allow contributors and the
interested public to follow X-PPAC activities in real-time.

This extraordinary openness coupled with the required FEC
financial filings will ensure that operations will be above
reproach.

Join Politics Section Leader Rebecca Fouche in chat this Sunday
at 6pm, PT to find out what Stephen Bassett and X-PPAC have
planned for the future.


========================================
Chats This Week at the UFO Community on MSN:

SUNDAYS - The Politics of UFOs - 6pm, PT
TUESDAYS - This Week in the News - 6pm, PT
WEDNESDAYS - Ancient Connections- 7pm, PT
THURSDAYS - UFO Skeptics - 7pm, PT
FRIDAYS - The Science of UFOs - 8pm, PT
SATURDAYS - Abductions - 1pm, PT - 9pm, GMT
SATURDAYS - General Discussion - 6pm, PT

Our chat room is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for
discussion relating to any UFO issues.

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


We look forward to seeing you online.

Diana Botsford
Publisher/Forum Manager
UFO Community on MSN
http://communities.msn.com/UFO

- - - - - -
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought . . .
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
Tennyson's Ulysses



************************
The ufo listserv is a free service of MSN's UFO Forum.
To subscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net
In the body of the message write: subscribe ufo

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@Majordomo.net





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                     Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:00:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:46:23 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:41:28 +0100

 >>From: Fred R. Saluga <FSaluga@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:41:45 EDT
 >>Subject: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My
 >>name is Fred R. Saluga. I am an ex-law enforcement officer and
 >>chief of police. I am presently employed with the State of
 >>Florida and I am a MUFON State Section Director and a Licensed
 >>Private Investigator in the State of Florida.

 >>I am presently conducting extensive research on UFOs and the Law
 >>Enforcement Response to the Phenomena and have developed a
 >>survey that I would like to be answered by persons involved in
 >>the UFO Community to get their views on this subject and law
 >>enforcement investigating UFOs in general. I would also
 >>appreciate if you could answer the  questions with you opinions
 >>and not just a yes an no answer.
 >
 >>The Survey is as follows:
 >
 >>A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
 >>had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
 >>police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
 >>unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
 >>related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

 >Commonly they do not get involved Although they often assist
 >serious investigations if you approach them rationally.

<snip>

Dear and gentle listfolk.... I submitted the following to Mr.
Saluga. The reason for showing it here, is to respectfully
demonstrate our irreconcilable differences, Jenny.  This
marriage is just not gonna work.  Have your lawyer call my
lawyer.  And where we agree, it's because you really do still
love me.  So go ahead and admit it and please, easy on the
alimony, eh?


 >A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
 >had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
 >police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
 >unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
 >related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

I agree, having had the opportunity of making reports to local,
county and state (of New York) police of my sighting (and
other's) of a huge triangular object in the Hudson Valley of
lower New York State (Westchester County) in September of 1998.
I subsequently determined that reports were not filed (my
telephone calls) as well as the calls of about 30 other
witnesses widely disbursed in the county.

 >B. In your opinion, should law enforcement take a more active
 >role in the investigation of UFOs and UFO related incidents?
 >Please explain.

Of course.  And I would respectfully submit, that the more local
the law enforcement agency doing the investigation, the less
trust by the masses of citizenry, however the plus side is that
these local agencies are the farthest removed from Federal
jurisdiction.  In light of the smoke of conspiracy, even if it
is swamp smoke, this might be essential to overall
trustworthiness of the investigation.  (Sort of a catch 22, JSM)

 >C. Have you ever consulted or been consulted by a law
 >enforcement officer or law enforcement agency on a UFO related
 >incident? Please explain and also how were you treated?

Yes, without respect for either me or the facts.  And I am
retired, and a member of the FOP, Memorial Lodge 100, NY State
Police Auxiliary and NY State Police Alumni, Shields, NYS COP,
and other orgs.  Imagine someone NOT having been on the job,
making the same report!  (Note: I have been a consultant to Law
Enforcement for more than 20 years and an auxiliary officer in
NYC and the State of NY, JSM)

 >D. Do you have knowledge of a law enforcement officer or law
 >enforcement agency that has investigated an UFO incident and
 >filed an official law enforcement report on the incident?

None!  Never. Twenty years!

 >E. In your opinion, what types of investigations do you feel
 >that law enforcement should investiate in regards to UFOs and
 >UFO incidents? Also, what types of evidence do you fill that law
 >enforcement should collect in regards to the investigation of
 >UFO incidents?

Any incidents with multiple witnesses should be investigated,
and especially those involving incidents in multiple
jurisdictions in given nearby county and state areas.

Any evidence extant should be collected.  Evidence includes the
testimony of credible witnesses.  Although hard evidence is rare
or otherwise non existent, often testimony alone, which is
corroborated, is (sic, should be) sufficient.  Evidence may
include images taken (photographs, Videos, etc.) of the object
or impressions made (ostensibly) by the object. Anecdotal
evidence which can be corroborated should be considered
evidence, as it usually is in a court of law.  Except maybe in
cases involving ex-football players or other wealthy male
persons who may have knocked off their wives.

Further, appropriate levels of trust and cooperation should and
must be developed between local law enforcement at least to the
county and/or sheriff's levels, and the State MUFON or similar
civilian group conducting research.  Since law enforcement is
often suffering from insufficient staff or other resources, the
actual research and data management may be done by the civilian
group with whom there exists a growing relationship.  Sharing of
data by both groups should be ongoing.  Analysis of data and
concurrent conclusions must be supported by law enforcement and
the civilian agency.

 >F. In your opinion, should law enforcement set up a national
 >data base to identify, collect, and document information
 >pertaining to UFOs such as: size, shape, color, frequency of
 >sightings, abductions, and all other incidents relating to UFOs
 >and UFO incidents?

Yes

 >G. In your opinion, do you feel that UFO related incidents could
 >pose a threat to the law enforcement community. If so, please
 >explain?

Not likely.  Not in terms of an actual physical threat.  The
only possible threat may be to credibility, and this can be
easily managed. (Note: Much of my work has been in creative
image management and/or creating new images - i.e., turnaround
and startup.  JSM)

 >H. In your opinion, do you feel that law enforcement should
 >establish a national crime lab to work with other investigators
 >to advocate the use of crime scene techniques and the collection
 >of forensic evidence in the investigation of UFO incidents?

Yes.. but this is something which will NOT happen until they
land here... it is not realistic, neither is my answer to the last
question.  However, you are ASKING for our opinions.

 >I. In your opinion, why are law enforcement officers reluctant
 >to express their views on UFOs and UFO related incidents?

1) It may adversely affect their career advancement
2) It may reflect negatively on their psychological profile
3) Fear, whether real or imagined, of ridicule is the order of
    the day.

 >J. In your opinion, do you feel that local law enforcement
 >would participate in a cover-up, if so ordered to do so by the
 >federal 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                      Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:17:20 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:49:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil



On July 13rd, Lus Messano,a teacher and owner of a farm in the
city of Lavrinhas, said that around 08:00 Pm, a flight of UFOs
hovered over the cities of Lavrinhas and Cachoeira Paulista, in
So Paulo.

Two of these objects were bigger, the size of the full moon, and
from them other samller objects left, around 10 of them. The
event took 3 hours and some others people saw it as well.

On July 22nd, Mr. Messano, told that the same event happened
again, and that 5 jet-fighters went to intercept them.

We are still looking for more informations.


THIAGO LUIZ TICCHETTI Diretor Do Departamento de Publicao e
Traduo Especializadas ( DEPTE - EBE-ET / Brasilia-Brasil)
Director of the Publication Department and Specialized
Translation ICQ - 35119615
http://www.ufomind.com/people/t/ticchetti/ ********** I LOVE MY
COUNTRY, I LOVE BRAZIL**************





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:09:04 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:56:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

 >In response to various comments concerning the recently
 >published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
 >'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, was
 >resolved.

<snip>


 >Perhaps Arnold's bat-like 'UFOs' truly were nine alien
 >spacecraft, performing death defying stunts by weaving in and
 >out of mountain tops and canyons at 1,500 miles per hour.

 >For reasons best known to themselves.

 >Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.

It fits alright James like a size ten foot fits into a size six
shoe.

For those of you not aware, James has been toting this nonsense
around on other lists as well, but so far there does not appear
to be any takers.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

               Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:16:14 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:58:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:25:14 -0400
 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' - addendum
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

 >'New Westminster British Columbian' Saturday, July 12, 1947

 >'SAYS FLYING SAUCERS ARE PELICANS'

 >Spokane, Wash., July 12 (BUP).

 >A veteran Northwest Airlines pilot who has flown over the
 >Pacific northwest's "flying saucer" country for 15 years today
 >took all the glamor out of the mystery of the flying discs.

 >All that people have been seeing, he said, are pelicans. Or
 >maybe geese or swans.

 >Capt. Gordon Moore disclosed that he and his co-pilot, Vern
 >Kesler were saucer-hunting last Wednesday on a regular flight
 >between here and Portland, Ore. Kesler was sure he had seen some
 >flying saucers on July 2, and the pilots were armed with movie
 >cameras and binoculars for another encounter.

 >"Suddenly we spotted nine big round disks weaving northward two
 >thousand feet below us," Moore related.

 >"We investigated and found they were real all right --- real
 >pelicans."

 >[End]

The reader can see the holes in this story from some distance
away. One has to ask oneself how big round disks form two
thousand feet away, suddenly turn into little pelicans up close.

This looks to me as if a couple of pilots decided to try a
little UFO bait on the press and see what kind of a sucker they
could pull in. 52 years is a long time to wait to hook the big
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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:30:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:08:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

 >In response to various comments concerning the recently
 >published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
 >'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, was
 >resolved.


 >The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
 >were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
 >his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
 >help matters that both accounts seem to be significantly
 >different.


<snip>

..........Dear Jim,

We've heard all this before. Nice that you are now very
confident that the Pelican Theory is not for the birds.

Do us a favor, Jim.

Draw a map showing how pelicans can explain the sighting so we,
too, can be confident that the sighting is explained.

Shouldn't be too hard.... pick starting locations for Arnold and
the pelicans. We don't know exactly where they were so you have
lots of freedom. Allow Arnold to be flying a slowly as 100 mph
if you like, although 110, 120 mph would be more likely. Allow
pelicans to be flying as fast as 50 mph. Demonstrate that they
could _appear_ to come from a location north of Rainier and last
be seen _appearing_ to pass by Mt. Adams (be in the same
direction as Mt. Adams) while not getting so close to Arnold's
plane that he would recognize them. Explain wat he meant by
turning and opening the window to get an unobstructed view.
Specify which window he opened and which way he turned the
plane.

This is a challenge you should _accept_ and _answer_ publicly if
you expect to maintain your own credibility.

You wrote:

 >If the objects were travelling at Arnold's estimated speed of
 >around 1,500 mph, then in the 30 or so seconds which had elapsed
 >since that initial 'flash', they would have been even further
 >north and Arnold is making an astonishing claim that the
 >reflection from an object well in excess of 100 miles away "lit
 >up the surfaces" of his aircraft.

 >Perhaps an understatement to say this doesn't seem probable.

 >It's also a sentiment which can be applied to a further
 >aberration resulting from the book's claims.

 >Arnold maintained that the objects took one minute and forty two
 >seconds to travel the approximate fifty miles between Mt. Rainier
 >and Mt. Adams, therefore, they should have taken about twice as
 >long to first of all reach Mt. Rainier from their starting
 >position 100 miles northwards and he should have had the objects
 >in view for around three minutes before they even arrived at Mt
 >Rainier.

 >Now we know that simply isn't correct, Arnold previously having
 >clarified in his letter to the Air Force that the total duration
 >of his sighting only lasted for, "around two and one half or
 >three minutes".

 >A further uncertainty is that in the early radio interview, he
 >stated differently: "the whole observation of these particular
 >ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes".>

 >Worse still, in one of the first newspaper reports, the 'Chicago
 >Daily Tribune' of 25 June, quoted Arnold as confirming he
 >"checked off one minutes and forty two seconds from the time they
 >passed Mount Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount Adams"
 >and that, "All told the objects remained in view slightly less
 >t>han two minutes from the time I first noticed them".

 From Arnold's statements one gets the definite impression that
the sighting lasted about 2.5 -3 minutes. So, how do we handle
his statment that he first saw them almost 100 miles north near
Mt. Baker? What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

Interesting that if you take a 170 degree azimuth path that
passes close to Mt. Rainier, and you project it northward, and
then start at an estimated initial location of Arnold's plane
and draw a line toward Mt. Baker, then Arnold's sighting line
crosses the 170 azimuth path (of the objects) about 50-60 miles
from his plane. Still a large distance, but not 100 miles. The
distance of this sighting line crossover point is about 50 miles
from Rainier. If the initial sighting line were north of te
direction to rainier but also south of the direction to Mt.
Baker, the initial distance from Rainier would be less. For
example, assume the initial distance was 40 m from Rainier, with
the objects traveling southward at 1700 mph (0.47 miles per
second). The objects would pass Rainier about would 85 seconds
after Arnold's initial observation. Now add this to 102 seconds
Arnold measured as the time until they disappeared near Mt.
Adams and get 187 seconds....or a little over 3 minutes. This
time can be further shortened by assuming that the objects were
even closer to Rainier, and closer to Arnold, at the beginning
of the sighting.


 >The more we understand about Arnold's pivotal 'UFO' sighting, the
 >more we realise can never be understood.

Yes, but the more we understand about Arnold's sighting the more
we understand than the bird/swan/pelican hypothesis is, shall we
say, strained?

 >We don't know Arnold's position, the exact direction in which he
 >was travelling, his speed, the trajectory of the objects, where
 >they actually were when he first observed them, when he turned
 >his plane around and significantly, what exactly he meant by
 >'around' and in which direction he was then heading, plus how
 >fast.

Oddly enough, the exact values of these quantities are not
needed to test the pelican hypothesis. Draw A Map!

At the same time, the key observations Arnold made of the
objects passing Rainier, seeing the apparent shape, traveling in
and out of the mountain peaks, timing the flight, turning the
airplane to fly parallel, are reasonably independent of his
exact initial position (within a few miles is good enough), the
exact direction h was traveling (roughly eastward), his speed
(certainly over 80 mph, probably over 100 mph), the trajectory
of the objects (roughly southward), where they were when he
first saw them (what really counts is where they were when they
passed Rainier; estimate of the initial position is based on a
possible initial direction.... whereever that may have been
north of Rainier) when he turned his plane "around" (which does
not mean 360 degrees or even 180; pilot's refer to bringing the
plane "around" onto a new heading); how much he turned his plane
(understood to be about 90 degrees to the right since his window
is on the left side of the plane)

 >Any one of these is a critical factor and if all of them are open
 >to interpretation, then there will be naturally be different
 >interpretations of how it was possible for Arnold to be deceived
 >by birds, or conversely why that couldn't have happened.

Each of these can have a certain amount of "slop" and not negate
the sighting. At the same time, each of these is well enouh
known to test the Pelican hypothesis. DRAW A MAP.


 >As I emphasised when first raising the prospect that Arnold's
 >nine objects might have been Pelicans in formation, we will never
 >know what he witnessed.

Perhaps not. But was can decide with reasonable confidence what
he did not see. Draw A Map.

 >My contention was that in perspective, there were sufficient
 >indications that these objects could have been White Pelicans and
 >that Arnold had demonstrated a capability for errors of
 >judgement.

Fine. Prove pelicans are a logical explanation. DRAW A MAP

 >Of course, the recent highlighting of a newspaper report, dated
 >12 July, 1947 and which confirms how an airline pilot's
 >investigation of nine 'discs' in the same area found then to be
 >White Pelicans, was unimaginable corroboration of the likely
 >explanation proposed.

Yeah, the pelicans were going so slowly compared to him he was
able to get very close for identification. Arnold should have
been able to do the same. Draw A Map.

 >Consider if the dates of these two incidents were reversed.

 >An airline pilot reports that nine 'disc-like' objects were, on
 >further investigation, discovered to be nine White Pelicans.

 >Subsequently, a pilot encounters nine unfamiliar objects in that
 >region and which have the distinctive characteristics of those
 >same birds.

Based on the reflective properties and speed if nothing else
Arnold likely would have detected no similarities to pelicans.

 >What are the probabilities that those 'objects' were also White
 >Pelicans, or, nine small, thin, 'bat-like spacecraft' from
 >another planet which somehow made their way here.

 >Reason would conclude without much, if any, hesitation that the
 >former explanation was infinitely more likely, increasingly so
 >with over 50 YEARS hindsight and no tangible evidence of ET
 >visitations.

Says who? You?

 >The only barrier is Kenneth Arnold's testimony and we already
 >know that his perceptions of the nine objects' distance, their
 >altitude and how they interacted with surrounding peaks have been
 >factually challenged.

 >That barrier crumbles completely when confronted by Arnold's
 >subsequent tale of how those twenty-five, small, brass coloured
 >objects, which flew like ducks, also "fluttered" and "had the
 >same flight characteristics" of the larger objects previously
 >encountered.

 >It seems impossible why Arnold couldn't rationalise that these
 >were in fact ducks - the area of his second 'encounter' being
 >prime duck country.

 >The claim that he, "attempted to make a turn and follow them but
 >they disappeared to the east at a speed far in excess of my
 >airplane", can only be deduced as incredulous.

And your analysis as credulous?

 >Furthermore, Arnold's location was an inadequate position to make
 >any judgement of how long it took the objects to travel between
 >Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams.>

Wrong. His position was quite good for estimating when the
objects passed Rainier (went between him and Rainier) and then
Adams. Certainly his position was not as good for estimating how
close they got to Mt. Adams.... but so..... maybe they didn't
travel all of 47 miles in 102 seconds. Maybe they were only
going 1200 mph as Arnold publicly stated to be on the "safe
side."

 >Wherever he was exactly, it was relatively much closer to Mt.
 >Rainier, with Mt. Adams being some 40 to 50 miles southwards.

 >According to the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' of June 26,
 >1947, Arnold acknowledged as much, the newspaper reporting, "Mr.
 >Arnold admitted the angle from which he viewed the objects would
 >make difficult precise estimation of their speed, but insisted
 >any error would not be grave "for that speed"'.>

Arnold was correct. By comparison, he would have to make BIG
errors to mistake the speed of pelicans for 1200 mph objects a
long distance away.

 >If the oblique viewing angle was problematic, it's not
 >necessarily a sensible inference that errors would have been
 >insignificant. They could, and arguably would, have been of
 >immense relevance.

Even more immense for pelicans.

 >This estimation was, after all, the entire basis of the apparent
 >enigma.


 >Arnold's 'bat-like' alien craft failed to become symbolic of UFO
 >lore and instead, his misinterpreted comment of how they flew
 >"like a saucer would if you skipped it across water", became
 >synonymous with 'flying saucers'.

 >His account may be a 'classic' - THE classic - yet, as others
 >have surmised, the belief, sometimes a fanatical religious
 >devotion, that subsequent reports of 'flying saucer' shaped
 >objects were 'ships from outer space' couldn't be based on a more
 >specious foundation.

 >It should be stressed though that there are many 'UFO' cases,
 >notably those not involving 'saucer-shaped' objects, which have
 >no obvious resolution and conceivably merit some kind of formal,
 >recognised study.

Can you name one such case with "no obvious resolution"?

 >Perhaps Arnold's bat-like 'UFOs' truly were nine alien
 >spacecraft, performing death defying stunts by weaving in and out
o>f mountain tops and canyons at 1,500 miles per hour.

 >For reasons best known to themselves.

 >Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.
 >(C) James Easton
 >22 July, 1999.

Well, it's nice to be satisfied.

I won't be satisfied (and perhaps a chorus in the wings could
speak up at this point) until you prove pelicans could at least
marginally explain the sighting by Drawing A Map.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                          Re: French COMETA Report

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:28:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: French COMETA Report


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:00:32 EDT
 >Subject: Re: French COMETA Report
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:39:56 +0200
 >>From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: French COMETA Report

<snip>

 >>For instance, Lakenheath (1956), the RB-47 case
 >>(1957) or Teheran (1976) are mentionned while there is not a
 >>word on the  Belgian sightings flap (1989-1991), a situation
 >>which has led to much speculation in France and Belgium.

 >This is an irrelevant critique. They have selected a few very
 >good cases: fine! They may have avoided the Belgian wave because
 >it is a very complex case. Even among ufologists, there is not
 >100 % agreement on everything.


Hi,

There is a good test of the objectivity of the COMETA report
noted above that perhaps those who have read it (as I have not)
can comment upon.

In reviewing the 1956 Lakenheath/Bentwaters case as a good case
what data did they use? The Condon report? The Jim McDonald
assessment? Nick Pope's theories?

It is important because I too believed this case from older
sources to be highly important. It is still an interesting case
and I dont pretend it is solved, but I can tell you that the
sources that report it to so far have got it fundamentally
wrong.

How do I know? In l996 I was asked to research, write and
present a documentary on UFOs and the British government for BBC
television. As part of my six months working at the BBC I was
able to use their resources to do some things I never had the
chance (or money) to do before. One included tracking down and
interviewing the RAF crew involved in that 1956 intercept case.
To my amazement I learned that many of the preconceptions about
this case were wrong.

All the reports have the wrong kind of aircraft, the wrong
number of crew, the wrong take-off and landing details (we
retrieved log books) and most importantly significant
differences in nearly every aspect of the intercept story as
reported by Condon.

Many have assumed he got thisversion pretty well  right as he
was working from USAF records. Although is there a Blue Book
file on this case? But by going back to source as I did (and
Condon and others clearly did not) (admittedly mostly because
they did not have the opportunity to do so) they committed
lasting errors in the understanding of this case.

So, the question is - as nobody at COMETA asked me for copies of
the filmed interviews I made with the now elderly air crew - did
they find them by some other way? Or did they base their report
on the now somewhat dubious earlier sources?

The answer will help tell us if they genuinely did have high
level contacts to establish a good assessment of the evidence or
whether they are really doing what anybody else could do and
comment upon pre-published information? If that is so then,
okay, but it indicates the limitations of the project.

The key is their discussion of the actual intercept between RAF
planes and the UFO in 1956. If the report says there was a
visual encounter with radar lock on and the UFO flew from in
front and to behind the jet very rapidly, then it is bad news
for COMETA fans. Thats the traditional (and incorrect) version
in all prior reports. What the aircrew report first hand is that
they saw _nothing_ visually and that the radar contact was
stationary. At no time did it fly around them. If COMETA has
that version it has clearly done its homework and should be
judged accordingly.

Can Perry or others comment on this, perhaps?

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                              UFO Organizations

From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:19:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: UFO Organizations


Dear Errol and List Members,

I have recently had an e-mail from Mary Kubac <kubac@digisys.net>
asking if there are any UFO Organizations in Montana and wonder
if anyone can assist her?

Also while looking at the error logs for the UFINFO site I found
people looking for UFO Organizations in the following states:

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin

If anyone has details of organizations in the above states I
would be interested in obtaining the information for inclusion
on the site.

Details of organizations elsewhere who are not already listed
are welcome.

Regards,

John Hayes

ufoinfo@ukgateway.net
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Archives for UFO Roundup/Filer's Files/UK UFO Network Bulletin/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                          Filer's Files #29 --1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:26:35 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #29 --1999


Filer's Files #29 --1999, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 23, 1999,  Majorstar@aol.com (609) 654-0020

APOLLO 8 was the first manned spacecraft to leave Earth orbit
and explore a different heavenly body, our moon. Astronaut's
Frank Borman, James Lovell and Bill Anders made the first
circumlunar flight and took the first photos of Earth from orbit
around the moon 238,000 miles away. These astronauts were the
first humans to see the entire Earth from space. As the world
waited and watched for a spectacular message from our
astronauts, they each read part of the following message as the
world watched on December 25, 1968:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And
the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep: and the Spirit of God was moving over the
surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and
there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God
separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light
day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening
and there was morning , the first day. Then God said, "Let
there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it
separate the water from the water."

  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the
expanse from the water above it. An it was so. God called the
expanse "sky." And there was evening and morning the second day.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one
place, and let dry ground appear. "And it was so. God called the
dry ground "land" and the gathered waters he called "seas." And
God saw that it was good." "Genesis 1-10." The astronauts felt
these passages written three thousand years ago best described
what they were seeing from their unique vantage point further
from Earth than any humans had ever traveled. Now NASA is
talking about engineering a Martian atmosphere.

NORTHERN OHIO UFO

SANDUSKY COUNTY -- The Fremont News-Messenger carried a UFO
sighting story located just south of the Lake Erie shore. On
July 7, 1999, Terry Fox saw a round metallic object in the sky
along East Ohio Highway 101 near the town of Clyde at 10:30 PM.
It moved back and forth, right to left and back over a period of
some 45 minutes. Terry used binoculars to determine that the UFO
had "six lights or windows with stripes or bars on the windows."
There were also "unexplained red lights near the ground." Kenny
Young points out that numerous UFO sightings have been reported
in the same area since March 11, and the known sightings were
called into the police by concerned residents. Thanks to Kenny
Young ufo@fuse.net, See http://home.fuse.net/ufo/ for further
details.

MINNESOTA

LAKE MILACS -- William McNeff reports a witness had three
separate UFO sightings over the 4th of July weekend. While
working the late shift on July 3, 1999, near Barnacle Bill's the
witness and several friends saw a point source of light,
whitish-orange in color. It looked like a satellite was moving
slowly toward the north, when it changed direction toward the
west. It underwent two accelerations, then began to move around
the sky making loops past the Big Dipper. The object emitted
four strobe lights "out the back." It was moving at such a high
speed that" it could have gone from horizon to horizon in two
seconds." It made 90 degree turns and hovered at times from
11:30 PM until dawn. On July 4, a glowing orange sphere was in
and out of sight all night. The witness and his neighbor
estimated that it came to within 100 feet, but was partly
obscured by a row of trees that were 65 feet away. This close
approach only lasted for a second at about 3:45 AM. The
witnesses ran around the trees to try to catch sight of the
object, but it disappeared. The object was estimated to be 5
feet in diameter with sharp edges. At times it moved up into the
clouds and illuminated them. SAINT PAUL - On July 5, 1999, the
witness was leaving for work at 9:50 PM when he again caught
sight of the objects on the East side of the city. They were
metallic or gray spheres that got whiter as they watched. There
was an unnatural haze around the objects. They were slowly
gained altitude when a plane flew above the sphere. The spheres
continued "hovering below the plane." Their size was somewhat
smaller than the full moon. He watched them for two minutes,
then got his roommate to watch. They drove to his parents house
and called them out to see the wildly moving objects. Thanks to
W. McNeff mcneff@worldnet.att.net

OKLAHOMA

YUKON -- S. Ritter writes that on July 10,1999, my husband, our
two youngest children and I went out to stargaze. We were 2.5
miles northwest of Yukon on Foreman Road at 11:00 PM. We saw two
interesting objects. First we saw a satellite move across the
night sky. After observing further, we noticed that this
so-called satellite was not traveling at a constant rate of
speed. I would accelerate and then slow down. It was traveling
in a south to north direction. It was the size of a BB held up
at arm's length. We watched for at least 5 minutes, then it
disappeared. Forty minutes later two Bb's size lights moved
south in a straight line. They were about one foot apart from
each other at arm's length. Thanks to S. Ritter Bbbritter

SPECTACULAR FRENCH MILITARY REPORT ON UFOs RELEASED

A committee from the Association of Former Junior Officials from
the French Institute for Higher Defense Studies [IHEDN] has
released a report claiming UFOs are real and funds should be
appropriated for further research. Two years of private hearings
were held with  military personnel. The title is "UFOs and
Defense" --"What can we do to prepare?" The title infers the
UFOs present a security problem to the nation. It contains a
preface by French Air Force General Bernard Norlain, the former
director. The report does not have official status, but is
signed by the association of former executives of IHEDN. It may
be unofficial to keep the US and UK governments from protesting.
The report is 90 pages long and has been sent to the highest
political leaders. Researcher Bob Durant says, "I think these
names and titles alone say it all." Chapters: 1. Testimony of
French pilots, 2. Worldwide UFO sightings by pilots, 3.
Sightings from ground observers, 4. Close encounters in France,
5. Examples of explained cases, 6. Organization of UFO research
in France, 7. Methods and results of GEPAN and SEPRA, 8.
Hypotheses for UFOs, tests and modeling, 9. Organization of
international research, 10. Strategic prospects, 11.
Aeronautical implications, 12. Scientific and technical
implications, 13. Political and religious implications, 14.
Public relations implications. Appendices: 1. Radar detection in
France, 2. Observations by astronomers, 3. Life in the universe,
4. The colonization of space, 5. The Roswell Incident -
disinformation, 6. History of the UFO phenomenon, 7. Remarks
about various psychological, sociological and political aspects
of the UFO phenomenon. The report was published in a magazine
called VDS on July 17. The document recommends an
intensification of UFO investigations by SEPRA, France's
official UFO investigative organization headed by scientist
Jean-Jacques Velesco. To some the report is disappointing
because it fails to mention 1989 Belgian sightings. However,
sections covered military sightings at Lakenheath, Teheran and
the US. It also backs Lt. Co. Phillip Corso's statements. Thanks
to Bob Durant and Perry Petrakis.

POSSIBLE LANDING SITE IN EGYPT

GIZA -- John and Mariola Carlo just returned from their studies
in Egypt as layperson Egyptologists. John called to tell me that
last month they saw lights over the desert on several occasions
that perked their interest in UFOs. John spoke with some Nazlet
El Sammon Bedouins who regularly see the UFO lights. These
people are very superstitious and are afraid of the lights. They
told John about a possible landing site and to keep their
distance because the lights are thought to be black magic.
During their most recent visit the Carlo's saw UFOs during a
Light and Sound show at Saquarra. The craft were flying north
towards the Pyramids at Giza. They came into view south of
Menkaure and zipped quickly across the sky. John and Mariola saw
them three times but they moved too fast to get a videotape of
their movements. They seem to hover over the area just south of
Giza. This fit with the stories they had heard. So they drove to
the desert about a mile south of the Cheops Pyramid and found
dark blue burnt areas the size of two football fields. The sand
had turned to glass apparently due to extreme heat possibly from
the UFO propulsion systems. They gathered blue rocks and sand
from inside the apparent landing area. Many of the circles were
4 to 5 feet in diameter. The circles were symmetrical and showed
a pattern that could be the tripods of large craft.  We hope to
have the rocks analyzed. Thanks to John and Mariola Carlo See
photos at: http://www.contrailconnection.com/njmufon, (Worldwide
Sightings)

DISCS REPORTED IN AUSTRALIA

CAPE HAWKE, FOSTER -- Steven Gammage, his wife, sister, mother
and father observed a disc shaped object moving very fast from
the north moving south on July 10, 1999. The disc was seen north
of Newcastle, New South Wales at 6:00 PM from an elevated
viewing platform. Steve and his father were looking at Venus to
the northwest that was very bright. Suddenly low down on the
horizon a fast moving disc stopped and hovered at an increased
elevation.  This object was followed by another similar object
but less bright. The colors were red-orange. The second object
moved to a position over the first object and they both hovered
together. At this point the rest of the family came out to view
the objects and Steve brought out his reflector Telescope (114mm
diameter and 900mm). He was able to view the first bright object
and noted that it was disc shaped with a row of white lights
across the middle of the disc. The disc was rotating but not so
fast that he could not pick out the individual lights. He & his
family watched the two objects for about 5 minutes. Both objects
then shot off north at very high speeds and disappeared. About
half an hour later a single object similar to the first two
appeared from the north, hovered and then disappeared north
again. Thanks to Peter Turner and Diane Harrison(UFO Research
NSW) BUNDABERG, QUEENSLAND -- Further north along the coast,
Ross Dowe of the Australian National UFO Reporting Center
writes, a witness reported a daylight sighting of a domed disc
on July 14, 1999. The witness wrote: "Myself and two others
observed what appeared to be a disc hovering in the sky at 10:15
AM. It quickly became apparent to us that it was not a plane. As
we watched, the object slowly began to glow very brightly, so
bright that it seemed to grow to about 4 times its original
size, then returned to 'normal' in about 2 to 3 seconds. This
glowing was repeated every 4 to-5 seconds for the duration of
the event. First, a small glow was followed by a bright one
alternately, making the object appear to be slowly pulsating. "I
would estimate the object to have been 1-1/2 to 2 miles away,
judging by the level of atmospheric distortion. It was about the
size of two jumbo jets viewed at the same distance. "As we
watched, the object slowly began to move away until it was about
a quarter its original size. It then abruptly disappeared. The
whole sequence took about 3 to 4 minutes. The object appeared to
my eye as being about the size of a 5 cent piece held at arm's
length, slowly getting smaller as it moved away. The object was
disc shaped with a slight bulge at the center top and bottom. It
had a metallic in color, no visible wings or means of
propulsion, nor vapor trails. It was silent, and hovered for at
least two minutes before moving at all. This was like nothing I
have ever seen." Thanks to Ross Dowe (ippoz@eisa.net.au)

STARSHINE SATELLITE

The new Starshine satellite is reminiscent of a 1970's disco
ball and twinkles as it travels through space. It can be seen by
observers on the ground with the naked eye. Starshine is an
educational satellite that has a series of mirrors that reflect
the suns rays. The project's director is Gil Moore of Utah State
University who claims the satellite will remain in orbit until
at least January of 2000. The 19 inch satellite flashes as it
moves along its path. Its covered with 878 small, circular
mirrors that were polished by school children. More than 25,000
students around the world will track the beautiful sparkling
satellite over the next 7 months that help will determine the
density of the atmosphere. The satellite was launched June 6,
1999, and is likely to cause some UFO reports. Thanks to Evelyn
Gaulson.

DEFENSE SUPPORT SATELLITE HAS TRACKED UFOs

Ron Regehr and Phil Klass have provided arguments to last weeks
article. Both these gentleman are distinguished engineers with
knowledge of our satellites that can provide the final proof for
or against UFOs. Phil Klass' comments are in lower case while
Ron Regehr's comments are [UPPER CASE AND IN BRACKETS] Phil
writes, "This is in response to Ron Regehr's criticism of the
item in the July issue of my Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN #58)
about the Defense Support Satellite (DSP). Because Regehr
formerly was employed by Aerojet's ElectroSystems division,
which produces the sensor subsystem for our DSP satellites, his
knowledge of its latest design should be superior to mine.[THANK
YOU, PHIL.] Regehr challenges the accuracy of SUN's statement
that "most of DSP's infrared sensors look down from its 22,000
mile high altitude." Regehr states that "all of the DSP infrared
sensors look down..." (Emphasis added.) My information came from
a report prepared by Aerojet Electrosystems, titled "DSP Sensor
Evolutionary Development," which stated that 5,568 of DSP's
infrared sensors "looked" below the horizon, i.e., toward the
Earth, while 768 of the infrared sensors looked above the
horizon, i.e., out into space. The report said that this system
was designed to replace the sensor system "presently in
operation" on DSP satellites [INTERESTING. PHIL PROBABLY DOES
NOT KNOW IT WAS I WHO WROTE THAT REPORT MANY YEARS AGO WHEN
AEROJET WAS BRIEFING USAF "BLUE SHIRTS" ON THEIR NEW
SYSTEM�SENSOR EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN, OR SED FOR SHORT. THE
SED�SERIES OF SENSORS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, INCLUDED A FEW
DETECTORS DESIGNED TO DETECT EVENTS IMMEDIATELY OVER THE
HORIZON, UNLIKE THE CURRENT DETECTOR ARRAY WHICH DETECTED EVENTS
RIGHT UP TO THE HORIZON. BECAUSE OF AEROJET'S DESIRE NOT TO OPEN
UP DSP FOR COMPETITIVE BIDS, WE MARKETED AN "EVOLUTIONARY"
DESIGN IN LIEU OF A "REVOLUTIONARY" DESIGN; HENCE THE TERM
"SENSOR EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT" OR "SED" AS IT WAS KNOWN
INTERNALLY. I MUST NOT HAVE DONE TOO GOOD A JOB DESCRIBING THE
"NEW" ARRAY, WHICH WAS CONTIGUOUS TO THE BASIC ARRAY BUT
CONTAINED FAR FEWER DETECTORS, HAVING DIFFERENT SENSITIVITIES
AND A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT "FREQUENCY." HOWEVER, LET ME ASSURE THE
READERS THAT THE ATH (ABOVE-THE-HORIZON) ARRAY DID LOOK
DOWN--NOT UP, NOT SIDEWAYS, NOT ASKEW, AND NOT CROSS-EYED,�BUT
DOWN. FROM GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT, THE DIFFERENCE IN LOOK ANGLE
BETWEEN THE "HORIZON-EVENT" DETECTORS AND THE ATH DETECTORS IS
MOOT�THEY�RE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL. ONE OTHER DIFFERENCE IS THEIR
"CENTER FREQUENCY." BRIEFLY, THE DETECTOR ARRAY STARTS WITH THE
SLOWEST FREQUENCY DETECTORS AT ONE END OF THE ARRAY; THE "PIVOT
POINT" IF YOU WILL, ABOUT WHICH THE ENTIRE ARRAY REVOLVES. (WE
HAVE A REVOLVING ARRAY, NOT A STARING ARRAY). WHY A SLOW
FREQUENCY? IMAGINE A GROUP OF SOLDIERS, MARCHING IN A WHEEL. THE
CENTER-MOST SOLDIER WOULD HARDLY MOVE AT ALL, WHEREAS THE
OUTER-MOST SOLDIER WOULD BE AT A NEAR RUN, WITH THE INTERMEDIATE
SOLDIERS INCREASING THEIR SPEED FROM "HUB TO RIM." NOW
EXTRAPOLATE THAT TO THE DETECTOR ARRAY. THE INNERMOST (NADIR)
DETECTORS "MARCH" VERY SLOWLY, WHEREAS THE OUTERMOST ARE
"MARCHING" MUCH FASTER. WHEN WE ADDED ANOTHER ROW ABOVE THOSE
DESIGNED TO DETECT HORIZON EVENTS (HENCE THE TERM, "ABOVE THE
HORIZON") WE HAD TO INCREASE THEIR FREQUENCY EVEN MORE. THE
MISTAKE KLASS MAKES IS TO CHARACTERIZE THEM AS LOOKING "OUT INTO
SPACE." IN FACT, THEY POINT VIRTUALLY STRAIGHT DOWN AS DO ALL
THE OTHER DETECTORS ON THE ARRAY.] DSP satellites originally
were developed to detect the launch of long-range ballistic
missiles (ICBMs). More recently their mission has expanded to
detect the launch of shorter-range SCUD-type missiles, such as
those launched by Iraq against Israel during the Desert Storm
conflict. [WHEREAS IT IS TRUE THE PRIMARY USAF DESIGN
REQUIREMENT WAS THE DETECTION OF ICBM LAUNCHES, USAF TEAM
MEMBERS AND AEROJET DESIGNERS WORKED DILIGENTLY FROM THE
EARLIEST PRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGES TO ENSURE THE DETECTOR DESIGN
WOULD BE AS SENSITIVE AS POSSIBLE. AS IT TURNS OUT, WE
(FORTUNATELY FOR THE GROUND POUNDERS) MADE THEM SUFFICIENTLY
SENSITIVE TO DETECT MANY TARGETS OF SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER
INTENSITY. THE FACT THAT WE DETECTED EVERY LOW-INTENSITY SCUD
LAUNCH DURING THE GULF WAR IS TESTIMONY TO THAT REMARKABLE
EFFORT ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY
AGO.]

The portion of the infrared spectrum in which rocket engines
emit their most intense infared [SIC] radiation depends on the
type of fuel used. Liquid-fueled missiles radiate their most
intense infrared energy at wavelengths of about 2.4 to 2.8
microns. In this band, the IR radiation from surface and
near-surface objects is heavily attenuated by the earth's
atmosphere--with attenuation decreasing with target's altitude.
[ KLASS IS PARTIALLY CORRECT, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASON. ASK
YOURSELF, WHY WOULD WE RESTRICT DESIGN TO LIQUID-FUELED
MISSILES? ALL THE ADVERSARY WOULD NEED IS TO EQUIP THEIR FLEET
WITH SOLIDS AND WE WOULD BE "BLIND." NO, KLASS, WE PICKED THAT
PORTION OF THE BANDWIDTH BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC
TRANSMISSION OF IR�NOT THE LEAST! KLASS IS CORRECT IN HIS
STATEMENT ABOUT ATTENUATION DECREASING WITH TARGET�S ALTITUDE.
THE MORE ALTITUDE THE TARGET GAINS, THE LESS ATMOSPHERIC
ATTENUATION. JUST AS ONE CAN LOOK AT THE SETTING SUN AND NOT BE
BLINDED BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY, ANY TARGET
SIGNATURE IS ATTENUATED BY ATMOSPHERE. HOWEVER, AS I STATED
EARLIER, THE SENSITIVITY BANDWIDTH WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE IT WAS
MORE TRANSPARENT TO IR THAN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE SPECTRUM--JUST
THE OPPOSITE OF KLASS' CLAIM.] In the early days of DSP--before
the availability of high-speed computers on a
microchip--atmospheric attenuation was considered a benefit
because it helped filter out spurious/false targets, [SIC] such
as oil well fires and low-flying jet aircraft. In the
quarter-century since DSP was developed, there have been major
advances not only in microchip computers but also in infrared
sensors. These have been incorporated into DSP to enable it to
better detect targets of interest and discriminate them from
spurious objects, such as meteor-fireballs and space debris.
[AEROJET DESIGNERS STROVE--FROM THE ONSET--TO MAKE THE DSP
DETECTOR ARRAY AS SENSITIVE AS POSSIBLE. TARGET
CHARACTERISTIC/IDENTIFICATION WAS/AND IS, A TASK RESERVED TO THE
SOFTWARE (I ALSO WROTE THOSE SPECIFICATIONS). FROM THE OUTSET WE
USED IBM 360/75 MAINFRAME COMPUTERS, LATER SWITCHING TO IBM
3033N8 PROCESSORS. HOWEVER THE SOFTWARE EVOLVED TO FACILITATE
TARGET CHARACTERIZATION. THE ONLY "ON BOARD" PROCESSING IS TO
INCREASE THE SPEED OF THE SEVERELY LIMITED DOWNLINK--NOT TO
FILTER OUT OR DISCRIMINATE TARGETS--AGAIN, THESE FEATURES ARE
STILL THE DOMAIN OF THE GROUND-BASED SOFTWARE. THE ON-BOARD
DETECTORS ARE VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED--IF ANYTHING, THE "NEW"
MERCURY-CADMIUM-TELLURIDE DETECTORS ARE EVEN MORE SENSITIVE, AND
AGAIN, HAVE NO "ON-BOARD" PROCESSING CAPABILITY.] In Regehr's
recent comments in Filer's Files, he challenged my statement
that if DSP's infrared sensors are to be able to detect ET
craft, that their propulsion systems would need to operate at
"high temperatures." But in Regehr's own 1998 report, titled
"How To Build a $125 Million UFO Detector," he wrote: "Infrared
detectors should be quite capable of detecting UFOs, as long as
either the UFO's hull temperature or [engine] exhaust is hot
enough." (Emphasis added.) [GEEZ, I WISH I HAD A WAY TO
"EMPHASIS ADD." THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "HOT
ENOUGH" AND "HIGH TEMPERATURES" AS I AM CERTAIN KLASS REALIZES.
THE FIRST, HOT ENOUGH, IS A RELATIVE TERM, DEPENDING UPON MANY
VARIABLES. IN MY BOOK, I OFFER MATHEMATICAL PROOF THE DSP WAS
CAPABLE OF DETECTING THE IRANIAN UFO. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS
"HOT ENOUGH" TO BE DETECTED. DID ITS PROPULSION SYSTEM OPERATE
AT "HIGH TEMPERATURES" AS KLASS� SCENARIO DEMANDS? WHO KNOWS. I
DO KNOW IT WAS "HOT ENOUGH" BECAUSE WE DETECTED IT. IF KLASS
KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE ET CRAFT�S PROPULSION SYSTEM.]

In this same Regehr report, he claimed that the National
Security Agency (NSA) "is certainly involved in the study of
UFOs, for two reasons: military security and abductions. Hence I
[Regehr] believe that, "NSA was created for the express purpose
of monitoring UFO activity and of citizens who may have been
involved (either directly or indirectly) in the phenomenon."
Regehr's claim is sharply challenged by Tom Deuley, long-time
Ufologist. Deuley spent several years working at NSA. In his
paper presented at MUFON's conference in Washington D.C. in
1987, Deuley said that although he had reported his UFO
interests and activities to NSA officials when employed there,
he had never seen any indication of NSA's interest in UFOs.
[EVER HEAR OF "COMPARTMENTALIZATION"? I'LL WAGER DEULEY WOULD
NOT CLAIM HE WAS PRIVY TO ALL NSA ACTIVITIES.] Thanks to RON
REGEHR and Phil Klass for an interesting discussion of satellite
data on UFOs.

VIRTUAL REALITY -- Skywatch International and UfoChat.com have
joined forces, and want to announce a new Virtual UFO Community
with Online conferences, Panels, Lectures, Research Groups, etc.
formed by members working as teams and overseen by expert
researchers in real time visual environments. The UFOCHAT.COM
will open July 22nd, with special guest Derrel Sims. July 29th
with Jim Hickman, and August 4th, with George Filer.

FREE SHARES OF STOCK -- A company called Popular Link is
planning to go public. To enhance its visibility, it's giving
away free company shares. 100% Free! These offers are completely
free --- you pay nothing, zero, zilch. They require absolutely
no further action on your part. I checked out the site
-"PopularLink.com". It's a real great company that offers real
products and doing real e-commerce. Please use my e-mail as the
reference, you can get five free shares right away and then one
more for each person who uses you as the reference. Go to
http://www.popularlink.com and click on the "Become a co-owner".
. After submitting your e-mail address, you will receive an
e-mail with a PIN code. Follow the instruction and enter my
e-mail address (Majorstar@aol.com) as the referring e-mail.
Sincerely, George

KECKSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA TAPE -- UFO crash/retrieval Video
Documentary  Most readers of this column are familiar with the
Roswell event, but many are unaware that a similar incident
occurred in Pennsylvania in 1965, near a small rural community
called Kecksburg. Veteran UFO researcher Stan Gordon, has been
gathering information on this case for many years, and has
produced a studio made 92 minute video called "Kecksburg The
Untold Story." This production recently won the 1998 EBE film
award for the Best Historical UFO Documentary. The video
contains interviews with many people who have information about
the case including witnesses who saw the object in the sky, and
those who say they came across a large metallic acorn shaped
object with strange markings, partially buried in the ground,
before the military arrived on the scene. Among those
interviewed are reporters who were on location that night. A
witness says he saw the odd acorn shaped object on the back of
an army flatbed tractor trailer truck. Civilians claim they were
confronted by armed military personnel. For the first time
witnesses speak out on camera discussing information which
suggests that there could have been a cover-up. A startling
revelation is revealed here from a witness, who says he saw a
body in the same building with the Kecksburg object at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base only days after it was delivered
there. Also contained in the documentary are some of the actual
audio excerpts from the WHJB radio special called "Object in the
woods." It was broadcast soon after the incident in a "cut and
edited version." To order your copy of "Kecksburg The Untold
Story" send a check or money order to: Stan Gordon Productions,
P.O. Box 936, Greensburg, PA 15601. Attention: Dept. GF. The
cost of the tape including shipping and handling is $35.90. For
PA residents the cost including tax, S&H is $38.05. For more
information, check out Stan's updated website at
www.westol.com/~paufo

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com. Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved. Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared. Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com. If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:06:24 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:53:08 -0400

 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >In response to various comments concerning the recently
 >published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
 >'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, wasresolved.
 >The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
 >were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
 >his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
 >help matters that both accounts seem to be significantlydifferent.

<snip>

 >Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.

 >(C) James Easton22 July, 1999.

James & List,

Is it possible to show any real in-flight photos of these White
Pelicans, included in a mail on this List? Or, maybe some video
film?


Regards,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                  Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:51:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >Call it UFO intelligence, then. If they can show themselves to
 >us in scores of thousands of screened cases over a 50 year
 >period but yet never once stay around long enough in the right
 >place for the news media to converge on it and show it to the
 >worldwide public, and never leave quite enough evidence behind
 >to satisfy the skeptic, this is intelligence in action. Think of
 >it, not once in over 100,000 cases leaving sufficient evidence
 >behind, yet over and over leaving almost enough evidence behind.

 >   Jim Deardorff

Hang on a minute, have I got this right? You're saying that
because over a 50 year period there is no evidence that UFO
intelligences have visited the earth, this just shows how clever
they are?

Couldn't it be that there's no evidence because they're just not there?
Or is that to difficult a concept to grasp.

On the other hand, perhaps this is irony, and we all know how
difficult it is for English people to understand irony

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:03:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:07:31 -0400
 >From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Stanton Friedman wrote:

 >>The polls show believers outnumber
 >>non believers, and the greater the education the more likely to
 >>accept some UFOs as of alien origin. we are with the cream of
 >>the crop. Not at the bottom of the barrel.

Stanton Friedman is always shouting about "research by
proclamation". Is this research by referendum?

-- John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                  Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon"

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:34:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon"


Enclosed below is a re-typed 1965 newspaper article. There are
portions of the article which is simply not legible. These
portions are noted, as I could not 'make the connections' by
presuming to insert what was not readable.

The article, written by Cincinnati Post columnist [for 36-years]
Mary Wood, quotes WLWT Channel-5 meteorologist Frank Pierce, who
recounts some odd comments allegedly made by Carl Sagan
concerning UFOs. Pierce was chief meteorologist for WLWT Channel
5 [NBC] in Cincinnati for many years. Wood also adds that Pierce
was involved at the first Air Force office in the Pentagon
during the '47 & '48 time-period.

I once tried to locate Pierce to inquire further about this
issue, but could not locate him. There are two obituary items
for a Frank Pierce found in an index of Cincinnati newspapers,
so it may be likely that he has passed away.

It doesn't seem likely that such a comment ever came from Sagan
but through private discussion, as I have not heard of anything
like this from him [publicly, that is] before. Would anyone have
any information that Pierce was an associate or shared
correspondence with Sagan?

-- KY

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

"Frank Edwards Convinces Mary UFOs Do Exist"
The Cincinnati Post
Wednesday, February 15, 1965

By Mary Wood

Frank Edwards, whose new book "Flying Saucers - A Serious
Business" is a bestseller, has been in town all week appearing
on Ch. 5 shows to talk about UFOs. Since I recently read
Edwards' book and was immediately converted from being a skeptic
about Flying Saucers into a firm believer, I was anxious to meet
Frank.

Actually, it was Ch. 5's weatherman, Frank Pierce, who first
stimulated my interest in UFOs when he talked about them during
an interview we had several months ago. Pierce is a pure
scientist and the last man to ever go off on flights of fancy.
He was also in the first Air Force office at the Pentagon in
1947 and '48, which was set up to handle UFO information. Frank
is a believer and insists that about three percent of all UFO
sightings cannot be identified by anyone.

"The government admits that they are there, but can't explain
them," said Pierce. "Anybody connected with UFO investigation
knows that there are unexplained objects."

I had lunch with the two Franks -Pierce and Edwards- this week
and listened avidly to their discussion.

'That three percent that the Air Force admits to does not
include 700 UFO sightings that I know they have reports on, but
which they haven't revealed," argued Edwards. "Why should we
assume that somewhere in our galaxy there does not exist a
civilization far in advance of ours? Only eight years ago, we
couldn't get a four-pound satellite off the launching pad at
Cape Canaveral, but today we have conquered space.

Frank Pierce [text illegible] a bit of news about [illegible]
UFO investigations.

"From now  on, [illegible] investigation will [illegible] away
from the [illegible] he told me. [illegible] will be divided
into sectors, with [illegible] scientists [illegible]

I asked why the Government had taken such a hush-hush approach
to UFOs in the past.

"It's very simple," Edwards explained. "In July, 1952, when UFOs
swarmed over Washington, D.C., the Air Force either had to admit
they were there and couldn't do anything about them, or deny
that they were there. They chose to deny."

I wondered if either Pierce or Edwards had any inkling from
which planet the Flying Saucers originated? They both said they
didn't nor did anyone else.

"But Dr. Carl Sagan, adviser on Extra-Terrestrial life for the
Armed Services, said we must assume that they have bases on the
other said of the Moon," said Pierce.

"We should also assume that our life span may not be as long as
the life span on other planets," added Edwards.

Frank Pierce says he is skeptical about humanoids manning UFOs-
"Before I will believe there are humanoids I'll have to see on,"
said Pierce. Frank Edwards, on the other hand, is convinced that
humanoids exist and have been seen.

"Too many credible witnesses in all parts of the world have seen
them and describe the same people," said Edwards. "According to
scientists that I know, we will make contact with The Humanoids
within three years."

End of article
--
UFO Research





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                    Whats On In Brisbane, Qld, Australia

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@fan.net.au>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:50:33 +1000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:45 -0400
Subject: Whats On In Brisbane, Qld, Australia

________________________________________________

WHATS ON IN BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA
Saturday JULY 31st & Sunday 1st AUGUST

The Australian UFO Research Network

Presenting a lecture by

Mr. Robert Marx

Robert Marx a professional hypnotherapists and long standing
UFO researcher and a current co-ordinator of "Australia UFO
Encounters", a group of scientists, psychologists,
hypnotherapists and researchers who are concentrating on the
UFO abduction phenomenon. They have opened up some of their
files in the hope that more UFO abductees come forward and
be helped.

Robert currently resides in Sydney and will be coming
to Brisbane next weekend  31st  July 1999

While researching the UFO abduction phenomena Robert
has made contact with many Queensland contactees and
due to his remote location he has not been able to meet
the people of QLD he helps via media such as, E-mail
snail mail and Telephone.

This will be a great opportunity for anyone interested in
the UFO abduction phenomena to come listen and talk to
Robert in person.

While in Brisbane Robert will be a guest on "FM 101"
our local Radio Station, so tune in on Friday night and find
out more.

If you would like to meet Robert he will be lecturing
at the.

SPRINGWOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE
CORNER OF CINDERELLA DRIVE & VANESSA BLVD.

Saturday 31st July 1999
Start time 7.30pm

Cost $25.00

Sunday workshop 1st August 1999
Start time 7.30pm
To attend the workshop booking are essential

Cost $15.00

Included: A light Supper Tea & Coffee.

_______________________________________________

All money raised will go to the running of the
Australian UFO Research Network Hotline Number

1800 77 22 88  Free Call Any State Any Time

For More Details E-mail
Diane Harrison tkbnetw@fan.net.au
Robert Frola ufologist@powerup.com.au
OR Call Tel 07 38088567 or 07 55477933

CHECK Your
Nexus Magazine
http://www.peg.apc.org/%7Enexus/welcome.html

OR  The one and only all Australian UFO Magazine
The Australasian Ufologist Magazine
http://enterprise.powerup.com.au/~ufologist/

Sponsor's of
The Australian UFO Research Network Hotline number
1800 77 22 88
____________________________________________

The Australian UFO Research Network is a non profit
organization

Postal Address
Po Box 805 Springwood QLD
Australia 4127
_____________________________________________

Regards Diane Harrison

Co Director of The Australian UFO Research Network
Founder of The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
http://www.fan.net.au/~tkbnetw/new
E-Mail  tkbnetw@fan.net.au
_____________________________________________






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 24

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:07:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:30:16 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
 >>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>In response to various comments concerning the recently
 >>published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
 >>'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, was
 >>resolved.

 >>The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
 >>were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
 >>his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
 >>help matters that both accounts seem to be significantly
 >>different.

 ><snip>

 >..........Dear Jim,

 >We've heard all this before. Nice that you are now very
 >confident that the Pelican Theory is not for the birds.

 >Do us a favor, Jim.

 >Draw a map showing how pelicans can explain the sighting so we,
 >too, can be confident that the sighting is explained.

 >Shouldn't be too hard.... pick starting locations for Arnold and
 >the pelicans. We don't know exactly where they were so you have
 >lots of freedom. Allow Arnold to be flying a slowly as 100 mph
 >if you like, although 110, 120 mph would be more likely. Allow
 >pelicans to be flying as fast as 50 mph. Demonstrate that they
 >could _appear_ to come from a location north of Rainier and last
 >be seen _appearing_ to pass by Mt. Adams (be in the same
 >direction as Mt. Adams) while not getting so close to Arnold's
 >plane that he would recognize them. Explain wat he meant by
 >turning and opening the window to get an unobstructed view.
 >Specify which window he opened and which way he turned the
 >plane.

<snip>

 >>Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >>various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >>claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >>overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >>Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >>Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.
 >>(C) James Easton
 >>22 July, 1999.

 >Well, it's nice to be satisfied.

 >I won't be satisfied (and perhaps a chorus in the wings could
 >speak up at this point) until you prove pelicans could at least
 >marginally explain the sighting by Drawing A Map.

Dear sirs:

Draw a map! Don't just go take a nap, go ahead and take
a ____ if need be, but please, please draw a nice map!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:07:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:38:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>Some of us are very forthcoming. This has been a very strange
 >>sequence. What is this nonsense about 1% UNKNOWNS?

<snip>

Dear Dave, Stan and Roy:

For me, the percentage of unknowns is purely semantic.

Percentage of what? Of a filtered database like mine? .. or
perhaps a percentage of every night light on the internet?

My gut feeling is that a very very small percentage of raw
unfiltered UFO reports result from something truly anomalous.

A far far higher number are still technically "UFOs" in that
they are not, and probably never will be explained. I am
implying that the vast majority would indeed be mundane, ( but
not all!) if we only had the methods and means to track them all
down.


 >Roy's original question was:

 >>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >craft?

 >That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >Dave Bowden.

2) The question, whether this or that person "believes" that
genuine alien spacecraft have visited Earth in the last so many
decades, is better posed in a religious forum.

Most of us, hopefully, try to adopt a rational and scientific
method, even if we are not all scientists ourselves.

Does a true scientist "believe" in evolution, continental drift,
quark theory, superstring theory, cold fusion [ ... ] ??

NO! They assign probabilities, based on the evidence they can
muster. "Belief" is the province of those who have surrendered
their most precious and critical faculties, in return for moral,
ethical or philosophical certitude.

If I were a biologist for example, I personally would assign a
99.99% probability on the theory of evolution, and perhaps
lesser probabilities to some of the other choices above.

I think there is an 80% chance that interstellar probes ( at
least ) have visited this planet in the last half century or so.

I gotta say that I picked the 80% figure right out of the air,
halfway down a bottle of Spaten Pils from Munich (on sale at
$1.69 per 25 oz. bottle. Good stuff that.)

I think it is somewhat less likely that there were any
home-grown "aliens" aboard, and much less likely that thousands
or especially millions of humans are abducted by grey aliens
every year.

My gut assessment (or belief quotient if you must) goes up and
down with the tides, the apparent evidence, and the better
arguments on this and other lists. I am not about to climb the
mount and proclaim the "truth" because I simply do not have it.

If you want to call that a "belief", go ahead. I think its more
like assessing the horses at Bay Meadows racetrack.

Very best wishes, and no offense intended.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:17:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>Some of us are very forthcoming . This has been a very strange
 >>sequence. What is this nonsense about 1% UNKNOWNS?

 >>A.Some facts:

 >>l. 20% of 3201 sightings investigated by Battelle Memorial
 >>Institute as reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14
 >>could NOT be identified and were separate from the 10% for which
 >>there was insufficient Information.

 >>2. 30% f the 117 cases investigated by the Condon Committee
 >>could not be identified according to the UFO subcommittee of the
 >>American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

 >>3. 746 of the 4500 cases reported in The UFO Evidence could not be
 >>identified.

 >>Where does 1% come from? Research by proclamation.....
 ><snip>

 >>Let's get with it people.

 >Hi Stan,

 >Always nice to read your mails.

 >After reading your percentages I would be interested to know
 >what your percentage is for confirmed alien contact.

There is a serious semantic difficulty here. I have no idea what
is meant here by "confirmed alien contact" or why it would be
required. Does this mean a BBC reporter taking down name and
address of visiting aliens? An appearance on the Larry King show
by an alien showng his driver's license?.

I speak of evidence. Science is a way of answering questions.
Sometimes one can conduct totally controllable, reproducible
experiments in a lab Sometimes one has to deal with predictable
events that can't be controlled, but can be predicted and, if
conditions are right, observed such as an eclipse. Because
eclipses do occur certainly doesn't mean that I can cause them
to occur and be seen when and where I would like.

There is a third kind of event unpredictable and uncontrollable
that one can be ready to observe such as solar storms,
earthquakes.

Finally there are events involving the world of intelligent
beings such as murder, automobile and airplane crashes, rapes
etc. That they will occur is certain. That we cannot predict
when or where or have cameras at all possible locations is
certainly true. We do the best we can. Every criminal court
judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
available.

As I wrote I am convinced that _some_ so called UFOs, after
careful investigation, can rationally be judged to be
intelligently controlled ET spacecraft. That doesn't answer such
questions as the names and origins of the occupants, the mode of
propulsion, the motivaton of the pilots, etc. The appearance
says they are manufactured. The combination of behavior and
appearance says they originate elsewhere. Since the obvious most
important aspect to governments re flying saucers is their
technology useful for military applications,the craft observed
did not originate here on Earth.

 >Apparently
 >you have had 41 years of study, Jenny has had 25, personally I
 >have had more than 30. I notice there is a large percentage of
 >IFOs and a small percentage of unknowns, in which category do
 >you place the alien spacecraft? if it's in the IFO then surely
 >we would see the IFO's as weather balloons/abnormal weather
 >conditions/bin bag blowing in the wind/alien spacecraft from the
 >planet Draconia. You couldn't possibly put 'alien spacecraft' in
 >the unknown category since it has been identified as an alien
 >spacecraft.


This is frankly silly. The BBSR 14 definition of 'unknown' "was
assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description
of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the
pattern of any known object or phenomenon". There was no
category for ET spacecraft.


 >It is a fact that a 747 lands at London airport every 20 minutes
 >or so, if you don't believe me just walk out on the tarmac and
 >touch the vehicle.

 >When have we ever had _that_ kind of physical evidence?

Why would one expect to? Obviously the pilots are interested in
doing other things. Ted Phillips has, on the other hand,
collected more than 5000 physical trace cases from 65 countries
with more than 1000 involving observations of unusual beings in
association with the unusual craft landing in unusual places and
also being able to take off from those same places. These cases
involve evidence as do the many pilot cases (Dr. Richard Haines
has collected more than 3500) and the many radar visual cases...
and also in abduction cases. One makes do with the evidence that
is available even if it doesn't include a craft in the middle of
the world series. I would certainly be pleased if the US
government would relase pieces of the Roswell wreckage.. I don't
expect that to happen any more than I expect them to auction off
atomic bombs to the highest bidder . Though admittedly I really
believe they have such bombs, despite one not being where I can
touch it.


 >In the words of Carl Sagan 'bring me a piece of a flying
 >saucer'.

As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers, Carl
Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things about flying
saucers. This is one. Should I demand a piece of a black hole in
order to believe that they exist?

Should a woman who has been raped have to provide an ID card for
the rapist?

 >As far as the polls are concerned how many people were asked if
 >they believed in Angels? The result was rather high again.

This silly.

 >Roy's original question was:

 >>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>craft?

 >That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >(what I perceive to be) simple question.

I answered it in my posting. I believe the evidence is
overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently
controlled ET spacecraft:Some so-called UFOs are alien vehicles.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:24:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:02:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:17:35 +0100

 >>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:52:13 +0100

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:48 +0100

 >>>-----Forwarded Message-----

 >>>MAM TOR HUNT AFTER "AIR CRASH"

 >>>The above totally matches Mike France's statement to myself
 >>>during the investigation of "The Sheffield Incident" that "it is
 >>>a regular occurrence...people mistake aeroplanes taking off and
 >>>landing at Manchester airport or they mis-judge the height of an
 >>>aircraft when infact it is at a safe height."  Mike France 20th
 >>>April 1997

 >>It's just a thought, but low-flying small aircraft without
 >>recognised flight-plans suggest an illicit operation. As
 >>Manchester is one of the main centres of the drugs business,
 >>could it be a drugs runner dodging radar?


 >The drug running idea was seriously considered by the police
 >during the l997 incident. It remains an option for the untraced
 >light aircraft, I believe.

 >As for last week's escapade - my main reason to doubt this idea
 >that it was a drug run is simple. A flight in the dark over the
 >fairly remote moors west of Sheffield (as in l997) is fair
 >enough. A flight in broad daylight literally following the path
 >of the A 6 - chock-a-block at this time of year with holiday
 >traffic and at that time of day with commuters to and from
 >Buxton would be just plain daft.

I'd agree with you that it's daft, but it happens all the time,
because small aircraft flying at night stand out as unusual, but
not during the day. A lot of drug flights do happen during the
day, and they often follow roads, because it makes navigation
easier.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #309

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:47:41 +500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:06:25 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #309


Apology to MW #309 (For July 24, 1999)

I'm "tacky" to one so contentious, so abruptly cruel,
pretentious -- one that has his dead lock nut on *truths* that
show he has no guts!! Reality distracted from, or near the
message will he come -- is quick dismissal as a screed the words
without . . . he'd cease to be! Existing on creative coattails,
blown around by other's main sails, he dissolves and melts away
those prices fixed that others pay. These that _won't_ create
are *critics*, axes grinding out *specifics* they have
rationalized correct -- but only APEING circumspect. They have a
special axe to grind to cushion senses they can find to justify
unbrave intentions -- but they won't *see*. They _are_
contentious.

UFOs have peppered history. They EXIST! This is no mystery!
Leaping in the sky's are _flown_ the enigmatic lights we're
shown. Distracted by the skep-ti-bunkies, fanned up,   murky,
hazy -- funky, they will hoot, pronounce their *phacts*, and
from some truth, perhaps, detract.  All, perhaps, to keep one
working, making babies, crying -- hurting. But it's REAL, and
would upset the apple cart they own, as yet. We would _have_ the
truth; we own it! Please, don't pretend concern -- you've blown
it. At issue is the profiteering you enjoy while proudly
sneering.


Don't _think_ that you provide a service. Don't _think_ that you
provide for calm -- you're nervous. Don't pretend that fear's
deterred in blandishments you purr -- absurd. Don't assume that
you're correct -- you've been remiss you would detect if you
kept courage uncontrived, made progress, mattered -- even tried.
Don't profess the rational, don't contend professional. Do not
think your *earned* degrees can bring you off your callused
knees! Don't presume to know the truth and sneer or gloat --
remain aloof.  I refute your bland announcements, and subsume
your proud pronouncements.  You've betrayed our education --
warmed yourself in its ablation. You don't rate a second look.
Your fire is out, and you can't cook.

Look around, you're plainly comic! See beyond the pale -- it's
cosmic! Witness all the games you play to keep the real deal at
bay. Admit that time and space are one, and both are endless
(awesome!) -- *fun*. Admit that it has happened here, and there
is near to what you fear. Space enough for it to happen -- good
or bad, past understandin'. We would have it more forthcoming --
so we could plan, get well, or something! Dismiss this as a
nonplussed screed! Still and all it's what you _need_ -- you
have nothing; you've no creation. You're just a hollowed out
deflation.

In the years preceding Christ, a couple past a thousand
(thrice?), mere *humans* wrote of asteroid belts twixt Mars and
Jupiter, I will tell!! Still, and in this far-flung time, they
knew the colors, mass -- made rhyme of Neptune and his twin
Uranus . . . how they knew we can't explain it. The Dogon's have
a star they worship, Sirius, her seed in kinship -- she that
follows on the heels of he that made us what we feel. And how
they _knew_ (?) the Earth's precession fuels our justified
obsession with enigma we don't cop to, investigate, or put a
stop to!

Deny denial if it's there, and cop to ethics; look and stare!
Don't pretend there's nothing to it! Mere science, all alone,
won't do it! What we've seen defines new ages, we can read
forbidden pages. We can see the moving finger! Writing on the
wall it lingers, pointing out the enigmatic for the _not_ so
autocratic.  It's bigger than you're giving credit. It worries
one when one will let it. And it should scare _you_ a little,
make you blow your lunch -- get brittle. Make you see the bigger
picture -- grasp the time and space far richer for the _efforts_
you have made for work you've DONE, for what you've PAID!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

OK. He's well enough to stand trial! So where's the trial?

Restore John Ford!


Lehmberg@snowhill.com
--
  Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
  View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
  Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
  See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
  Take a ride in the Teleporter.

  Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

  http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
  <Updated 17 July>

  John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
  money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
  (cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
  304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
  $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

  "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from  afar,
I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at the  fundamentalist's stake.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:48:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:10:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:09:04 -0300
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
Hello List ,Don,James.

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:07:00 -0400
 >>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>In response to various comments concerning the recently
 >>published proposal that Kenneth Arnold's celebrated, inaugural
 >>'UFO' (not 'flying saucer') sighting of 24 June, 1947, was
 >>resolved.

Only if you Believe in supersonic pelicans.

 >>Perhaps Arnold's bat-like 'UFOs' truly were nine alien
 >>spacecraft, performing death defying stunts by weaving in and
 >>out of mountain tops and canyons at 1,500 miles per hour.

 >>For reasons best known to themselves.

Just for a bit of hoo-rah suppose they were Alien spacecraft or
even the dreaded  captured Krauten er, Horten flying wings.

Alien spacecraft in particular just might have the ability to
not, say, hit Mount Rainier as in ah, a form of terrain
following Radar?

 >>Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >>various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >>claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >>overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >>Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >>Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.

 >It fits alright James like a size ten foot fits into a size six
 >shoe.


More like a size 6 in a size 12 - lots of air.

 >For those of you not aware, James has been toting this nonsense
 >around on other lists as well, but so far there does not appear
 >to be any takers.

Certainly not from me,I have flown aircraft simular to Arnold's
over the same Mountains for 20 some Odd years, along with other
types Day, Night Insturments (Including a couple of very wild
rides in the teeth of a Pacific Cold Front.)

I also learned to fly at the tail end of the era of radio
ranges and airway beacons.

Timing was important - Life and Death - this is why I believe
Arnold's timing was accurate.

(Now good navigation is when you set the Auto Pilot, set there
and drool,watching the little numbers and letters change in the
GPS until you get there.) This is central to why I think the
Pelican Theroy is so much ah, Kraut - I have Kraut on the mind
along with Barbequed Bratwurst and a fine pilsner, which I will
enjoy after work.

-GT McCoy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:22:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


Dave Bowden writes in response to Stan Friedman ...

 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >Roy's original question was:

 >>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>craft?

 >That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >(what I perceive to be) simple question.

The simple problem with that simple question is the simple word
"believe".  I assume for example you aren't looking for
religious zealots.  Rather I assume you expect reasoned belief
based on acceptable evidence.  And as this list demonstrates
over and over again, one person's acceptable evidence is another
person's hoax/BS/etc.

A "No" answer here is easy; after all no evidence need be
provided then.  Advantage skeptics.

But the only reasonable "yes" response is to toss out a a
supporting set of examples, at which folks can then take pot
shots.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Yes, I'm of the opinion that we've been visited in the
last 25 years.

One example which I think supports this viewpoint is the
Travis Walton case.  The case impresses me almost as much
as the extraordinary attacks on it (unsuccessful in my
opinion) by skeptics like Klass.  Walton goes into some
detail in his book responding to Klass's attacks; its
an interesting read.  (the book: Fire In the Sky/
The Walton Experience)

Now watch what happens; meanwhile I'll head for cover :-)

In this weedy field, the questions may be simple, but the
answers seldom are.

Now as to whether I can be considered a 'ufologist' qualified to
answer your query - that's another matter.  Unfortunately I
inadvertently tossed out my ufologist card with the cereal box
it came in.  But I've accumulated and read a lot, and I've
followed both this list and UFO Updates for over 2 years now.
And I did work with Jan to create the cdrom archive of Barry
Greenwood's work, if that's worth anything.  A Jenny Randles,
Stan Friedman or Jan Aldrich I'm most definitely not, however.

-Brian

PS.  I guess you might call me a "ufologist" instead of a
"Ufologist".  It strikes me we really do need a professional
exam for this field.  Perhaps Klass could suggest some of the
questions to go on it?





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:35:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:35:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:30:16 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:08:03 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

Previously, James had written:

<snip>

 >>The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
 >>were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
 >>his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
 >>help matters that both accounts seem to be significantly
 >>different.

<snip>

 >>Arnold maintained that the objects took one minute and forty two
 >>seconds to travel the approximate fifty miles between Mt. Rainier
 >>and Mt. Adams, therefore, they should have taken about twice as
 >>long to first of all reach Mt. Rainier from their starting
 >>position 100 miles northwards and he should have had the objects
 >>in view for around three minutes before they even arrived at Mt
 >>Rainier.

 >>Now we know that simply isn't correct, Arnold previously having
 >>clarified in his letter to the Air Force that the total duration
 >>of his sighting only lasted for, "around two and one half or
 >>three minutes".

 >>A further uncertainty is that in the early radio interview, he
 >>stated differently: "the whole observation of these particular
 >>ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes".>

 >>Worse still, in one of the first newspaper reports, the 'Chicago
 >>Daily Tribune' of 25 June, quoted Arnold as confirming he
 >>"checked off one minutes and forty two seconds from the time they
 >>passed Mount Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount Adams"
 >>and that, "All told the objects remained in view slightly less
 >>t>han two minutes from the time I first noticed them".

Bruce replied:

 >From Arnold's statements one gets the definite impression that
 >the sighting lasted about 2.5 -3 minutes. So, how do we handle
 >his statment that he first saw them almost 100 miles north near
 >Mt. Baker? What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

Hi, Bruce.

I've always had a great deal of respect for your posts. However,
I really feel that Mr. Easton brings up some valid points; most
importantly that Arnold's version of events changed from one
interview to the next. I've been reading the list over the last
week or so and everyone seems to be dragging Easton over the
coals about his "Pelican Theory". Granted, his theory only works
if a specific version of Arnold's story is applied and not all
versions. Granted, it only works if you fill in the "blanks"
with some practical logic about what else could account for the
mystery objects. And it only works if you make some assumptions
that Arnold was wrong about some of his "facts".

However, considering your statement above, it would appear that
you are not only being selective about which of Arnold's
versions is the "truth"; but you are also making an assumption
that a part of his statement is "incorrect" because it doesn't
jive with the outcome you'd like to believe. In fact, your own
theory seems to be that you don't know what the objects were;
but that they were not, and could not be, Pelicans.

I mean no disrespect, Bruce, but isn't that what everyone is
bitching about Easton doing?  I'm not saying that the objects in
question were Pelicans. However, your applied logic seems to
dictate that we should also selectively view some of Arnold's
statements as "wrong" in order to disprove Easton's theory in
favor of your own.

Why?

I still have the greatest respect for your work. But I must say
that I admire Mr. Easton for standing by his theory. I feel that
he put a great deal of thought and effort into it and is sincere
in his belief. I don't understand the reaction from the UFO
community on this issue, at all. I'm mean, let's face it;
Arnold's stories were so inconsistent that just about anything
could fit the mold, even, I'm sorry to say, Pelicans.

Take care,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                      Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:15:04 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:38:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Sighting in Lavrinhas, Brazil
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:17:20 -0300

 >On July 13rd, Lus Messano,a teacher and owner of a farm in the
 >city of Lavrinhas, said that around 08:00 Pm, a flight of UFOs
 >hovered over the cities of Lavrinhas and Cachoeira Paulista, in
 >So Paulo.

 >Two of these objects were bigger, the size of the full moon, and
 >from them other samller objects left, around 10 of them. The
 >event took 3 hours and some others people saw it as well.

Hi Thiago...


Hey if these events lasted up to 3 hours, did anyone get any
video of the even?  Photos with long range lens on a 35 MM
camera?

I enjoy reading of these events, but I wish they could be
documented as well.  It would help greatly, as you well know.

 >On July 22nd, Mr. Messano, told that the same event happened
 >again, and that 5 jet-fighters went to intercept them.

 >We are still looking for more informations.

So, on the July 13th event there were no Jet-fighters seen in
the area.

Have you been able to determine where the Jets origionated? Were
they Brazilian Military aircraft?  American aircraft? What type
of Jets were they?  Did they appear to be armed with Rockets and
Missils?

What about Helocopters?   Were any of them seen in the days
prior to after the sightings?  If so, what type?  Black? Army
Green?  etc..etc...

Have any "investigators" appeared in the area, from the military
or from the private sector?

I realize this is more or less a constant experience down there,
but at some point, you would think someone would want to
interfere with these things appearing to the general population
at regular intervals...

Take care.  Hope we can chat on ICQ in the near future.

REgards, Mike

  Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
  ICQ#:7508455
  BBS: (270) 683-3026
  Fax: (270) 686-7394
  Home: (270) 683-6811





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:16:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:41:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:09:04 -0300
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

<snip>

 >>Perhaps Arnold's bat-like 'UFOs' truly were nine alien
 >>spacecraft, performing death defying stunts by weaving in and
 >>out of mountain tops and canyons at 1,500 miles per hour.>

 >>For reasons best known to themselves.

 >>Alternatively, having looked at the full picture of Arnold's
 >>various reports, inconsistencies and proclivity to make some
 >>claims which at times bordered on the absurd, I'm satisfied that
 >>overall there's sufficient evidence why a formation of White
 >>Pelicans is demonstrably the 'best fit' by a long way for
 >>Arnold's nine, perplexing, 'flying discs'.>

 >It fits alright James like a size ten foot fits into a size six
 >shoe.

 >For those of you not aware, James has been toting this nonsense
 >around on other lists as well, but so far there does not appear
 >to be any takers.

Gee, I wonder why? It seems so _logical_!





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                  Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:59:29 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:51:28 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >>Call it UFO intelligence, then. If they can show themselves to
 >>us in scores of thousands of screened cases over a 50 year
 >>period but yet never once stay around long enough in the right
 >>place for the news media to converge on it and show it to the
 >>worldwide public, and never leave quite enough evidence behind
 >>to satisfy the skeptic, this is intelligence in action. Think of
 >>it, not once in over 100,000 cases leaving sufficient evidence
 >>behind, yet over and over leaving almost enough evidence behind.

 >>  Jim Deardorff

 >Hang on a minute, have I got this right? You're saying that
 >because over a 50 year period there is no evidence that UFO
 >intelligences have visited the earth, this just shows how clever
 >they are?

That's not quite what I said. There has been evidence, but it is
not as solid as the negative skeptic insists upon, since "they"
have not stayed around long enough for us to capture them.
Correction: One must allow for the likely multiple exceptions
where the military of various countries have captured some of
them but kept it covered up as best they could so as not to
upset too badly those who would insist that humans are the most
clever creatures in our corner of the galaxy.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                   PRG Programming Announcement - 7/24/99

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 03:01:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:04:25 -0400
Subject: PRG Programming Announcement - 7/24/99

PRG Programming Announcement - 7/24/99

Guest:     Stephen Bassett
            Paradigm Research Group/ X-PPAC

Program:   Wake up Arizona w/ Ed Walsh & Stan Barnes
Topics:    X-PPAC, UFO State Ballot Initiative
Where:     KFYI   AM  910 - Phoenix
                  Internet Cast on Real Audio

When:      Monday, July 26
            8:40 am EST

Program:   Good Day USA's "American Reality Check"  w/ Doug
            Stephan & White House Correspondent Ellen Ratner

Topics:    X-PPAC, UFO State Ballot Initiative

Where:     National: Talk News Radio Service
                  Internet Cast on Real Audio

When:      Wednesday, July 28
            9:06 am EST

Links:  For links to the shows and the Netcast go to:

www.paradigmclock.com/speaking&eventschedule.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:13:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300


 >Roy's original question was:

 >>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >in >the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >least >one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >craft?

 >That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >Dave Bowden.


Hi,

Good points. But I did answer this specific question - twice -
in detail. Check back through updates last week. The statistics
argument grew from that.

But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
probably) landed in their estimation.

Best wishes,







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                           Re: Green/Blue Fireball

From: Arthur Rudd <arthur_bit@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu Jul 15 07:09:46 1999
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:19:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Green/Blue Fireball

[Non-Subscriber Post]

Dear Group,

My name is Arthur Rudd and I live in a small village in the UK
called Passfield, Nr Liphook in Hants, last night (14 - July -
99) at 9:45ish I happened to look up into the South Sky to see a
Green and Blue like commet moving quite fast, it was in clear
sky for about 2 - 3 seconds and then gone.

I watch for many hours later with no sight of any more....

For more info if interested please mail to
arthur_bit@compuserve.com or arthur@bit.co.uk






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                      Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage

From: Dan Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:04:42 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:28:17 -0400
Subject: Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>
 >Subject: ISSO Update

 >Hello all,

 >It gives me great pleasure to announce that on July 28, 1999,
 >the International Space Sciences Organization will officially be
 >launched. I'll be giving the launch presentation through a
 >national radio broadcast from 8 pm to 10 pm Pacific, as a guest
 >of Jeff Rense's Sightings program. Please plan on visiting the
 >ISSO web site at www.ISSO.org on that date for further details.
 >Station listings by city will be provided, and the transmission
 >will also be available on Broadcast.com.

 >Also, I'd like to bring your attention to two outstanding books
 >recently published.

<snip>


 >Best regards,

 >Joe Firmage

Joe

Haven't you noticed that so many people are refereing to you as
all show and no go ? Will you ever provide anything of substance
or just continue to flaunt your wild ideas, and continue to
dillute an already stressed field of research.

I challenge you to provide substance or stiffle it Edith THanxz

Dan



UFO Folklore !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/framemst.html

Dan's Magic in Michigan !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/magician

WetSet Diving Vacations !
http://www.wetset.com

Czars Nightclub !
http://www.czars.com

Dantronix !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/testwave.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                      Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:11:21 +500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:07:20 -0400
Subject: Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>
 >Subject: ISSO Update

 >Hello all,

 >It gives me great pleasure to announce that on July 28, 1999,
 >the International Space Sciences Organization will officially be
 >launched.

<snipped>

It suddenly occurred to me that Mr. Firmage was looking for an
artist with honesty, an appropriate attitude, aptitude -- an
artist with a lack of ufological ineptitude . . . to reflect the
spirit of his new initiative.

It may be that I am that artist.

Samples of my work can be seen on my site -- hundreds in the
Dreamland portion of Renseworld. Please go to coordinates 9n
57w, spend a reflective moment in a grove of Poet Trees, then
take the warp to the sky gallery. Follow the directions of the
uniformed attendants (touch them with your cursor).

My work is unlike the usual, and certainly precludes the short
reach of stark photorealism of ANY competency. If Mr. Firmage is
interested in an artist with more reach (imagination) and less
dependence on the limitations of tradition, the celebration of
the individual as individual -- if he's looking for something
with *there* there. . .

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

--
  Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
  View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
  Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
  See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
  Take a ride in the Teleporter.

  Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

  http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
  <Updated 17 July>

  John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
  money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
  (cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
  304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
  $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

  "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar,
I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at the fundamentalist's stake





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                            Re: UFO Organizations

From: Scott Caput <scaput@shadow.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:23:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:12:59 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Organizations


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:19:49 +0100
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
 >Subject: UFO Organizations

 >I have recently had an e-mail from Mary Kubac <kubac@digisys.net>
 >asking if there are any UFO Organizations in Montana and wonder
 >if anyone can assist her?

 >Also while looking at the error logs for the UFINFO site I found
 >people looking for UFO Organizations in the following states:

 >Alabama
 >Arkansas
 >Florida
 >Iowa
 >Kansas
 >Louisiana
 >Maine
 >Montana
 >Nebraska
 >Nevada
 >North Dakota
 >Oklahoma
 >South Carolina
 >Virginia
 >Wisconsin

Here is the URL for the Miami MUFON website:

http://home.gzinc.com/mmz/skyscan.htm

Scott

--
Scott R. Caput

The brain is by far the most complexly organized piece of matter
we know. It is enormously more complicated in structure than a
star is, for instance, which is why astronomers know so much
about stars, and psychologists know so little about brains.

                        Isaac Asimov






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:29:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:44:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>>A.Some facts:

 >>>l. 20% of 3201 sightings investigated by Battelle Memorial
 >>>Institute as reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14
 >>>could NOT be identified and were separate from the 10% for which
 >>>there was insufficient Information.

Fact: There was insufficient information to identify _not one
report_ as an extraterretrial spacecraft, yet we are led to
believe by Stanton Friedman that PBBSR 14 statistically supports
his notion that "some" UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Also, what Stanton Friedman, as well as others that like to
mention BBSR 14 as supportive of their notions, neglects to
always tell his audience is that the Battelle Memorial study
only read the reports given it by the Air Force. Battelle never
conducted any investigation --- they simply tried to interpret
whatever pieces of papers (reports) they got from the Air Force.
They _never investigated_ the actual reports for the validity of
the anecdotal information provided in them and therefore could
never pass judgement as to the accuracy of the anectotal
documentation contained in the reports. As a consequence,
reports containing anecdotal mis-observations, anecdotal
mis-quotations/mis-identifications, conflicting anecdotal
observations, etc. would of necessity be included in the so much
quoted "10% unknown" category because they were not identifiable
to a specific category, i.e. balloons, etc. and did in fact
contain unverified anecdotal evidence that the actual report
could not be identified to a specific cause, i.e. balloons, etc.

 >>After reading your percentages I would be interested to know
 >>what your percentage is for confirmed alien contact.
 >>There is a serious semantic difficulty here. I have no idea
 >>whatis meant here by "confirmed alien contact" or why it would
 >>be required.

Stanton Friedman all of a sudden seems to have difficulty in
answering a simple question. I will provide Dave Bowden an
answer backed-up by statistical evidence which is verifiable by
anyone so wishing to do so. I compiled the comprehensive indexes
to the FLYING SAUCER REVIEW from 1955-1994 and the combined
MUFON UFO JOURNAL/SKYLOOK from 1967-1996. During that time there
were 6,859 articles and entries in FSR/FSR Case Histories/FSR
Special Issues and 9,231 articles and entries in the
SKYLOOK/MUFON Journal/MUFON Proceedings --- all are cross
indexed by author, subject category, volume and issue, providing
the reader/researcher with over 48,000 entries.

These 16,090 articles and reports are representative of the best
ufological research and reporting of the UFO phenomenon over the
past five decades. The percentage for confirmed alien contact is
_zero_. Stanton Friedman calls it "a serious semantic
difficulty". When asked to produce a single case Friedman, as
well as others holding similar viewpoints, refuse to do so
stating that the evidence that some UFOs are extraterrestrial
spacecraft is in the aggregate, not in any single case.

Yet, the 16,090 MUFON and FSR articles that have reported on
ufological cases, offered here as evidence in the aggregate,
fail to substantiate Friedman's contention and belief that "some
UFOs" are extraterrestrial spacecraft. Instead, they are
introduced here as compelling evidence that the percentage of
"confirmed alien contact" in the published UFO literature as of
today is _zero_!

<snip>

 >This is frankly silly. The BBSR 14 definition of 'unknown' "was
 >assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description
 >of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the
 >pattern of any known object or phenomenon". There was no
 >category for ET spacecraft.

Since there was no investigation by Battelle for the accuracy
and veracity of the reports, the anecdotal information had to be
taken literally. That would included any misquotes,
mis-reporting, mis-identifications, and conflicting anecdotes.
Difficult of the job as it was, the Battelle staff were still
able to categorise all the reports but a mere 10%.

<snip>

 >As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers, Carl
 >Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things about flying
 >saucers.

As I have documented in the past on this very same mailing list,
Friedman's _Top Secret/Majic_ is riddled with errors, historical
innacuracies, misrepresentation of people's quotes and
positions, faulty logic, and unsupported substantiations in the
presentation of his beliefs. The above is a matter or record.
Check the archival record of this mailing list for past
discussions on MJ-12 for specific examples.

 >>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>>craft?

 >>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >I answered it in my posting. I believe the evidence is
 >overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by
intelligently >controlled ET spacecraft:Some so-called UFOs are
alien vehicles. >I should think that is very straight forward
and unambiguous.

 >Stan Friedman

Unfortunately, it is not supported by anything ever published in
the FSR and MUFON literature which I have indexed and made those
indexes available. I am also in the process of indexing the
NICAP, APRO, and CIS literature to be available in the next
century. Overwhelming evidence for extraterrestrial spacecraft
has yet to show up, contrary to Stanton Friedman's contention
and positional statements on his world-wide tours.

Ed Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something         |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
    Going On!       ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo  ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:45:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:46:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >Finally there are events involving the world of intelligent
 >beings such as murder, automobile and airplane crashes, rapes
 >etc. That they will occur is certain. That we cannot predict
 >when or where or have cameras at all possible locations is
 >certainly true. We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >available.

Does this indicate that you classify yourself the judge and jury
on whether a UFO is a ET craft or not?

Bearing in mind we have no ET craft to plead guilty to visiting
Earth, where do we start to find the jury? If we were to take
the general public, I sincerely doubt they would agree with you
the 'judge'. If we were to take those with a lower 'standard of
evidence' such as Roy Hale & Co.  then you may get a result, but
this does nothing to prove that ET's are visiting

Earth, only a gathering of the same opinion. The truth is no-one
can say that any UFO is or has been an ET visiting Earth, this
type of belief is opinion unless proof is forthcoming.

 >As I wrote I am convinced that _some_ so called UFOs, after
 >careful investigation, can rationally be judged to be
 >intelligently controlled ET spacecraft.

Which particular rationality do you use to determine whether a
UFO is an 'intelligently controlled ET spacecraft'?

In fact when can anyone state that a UFO is an ET craft? I'm
aware there is a difference in the standard of evidence required
by each individual to accept that any ET is or has visited
Earth, but what evidence is required? For example, if a
structured intelligentlly controlled flying saucer landed on the
White House lawn, then took off at speed, where is the evidence
that the craft and occupants originated from another planet?
Again, it's down to belief and opinion.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 25

                'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stephen G.

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:53:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:53:29 -0400
Subject: 'Strange Days...Indeed' - Tonight: Stephen G.




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

On 'Strange Days... Indeed' tonight, Stephen G. Bassett of
The Paradigm Research Group.

Join co-host Jonn Kares and I on 'Strange Days...Indeed' as we
discuss with Steve this past weeks announcement of X-PPAC -
The Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee.

X-PPAC is the first political action committee in history to
directly target the politics of UFO/ET phenomena.


The program starts at 11:00pm EST on

1010 CFRB AM - 50,000 watts 'Clear-Channel'

6070khz Shortwave

and you can listen via Media Player at:

www.cfrb.com/

You'll need to access the site using Internet Explorer since
Media Player seems to choke using any version of Netscape -
thanks Mr. Bill!


To call the program 'live', dial:

On-Air    416-872-1010
           1-800-561-CFRB [all over North America]
           *TALK [local mobiles]


ebk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                    UK.UFO.NW - IRC Guest - Jenny Randles

From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:57:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:01:55 -0400
Subject: UK.UFO.NW - IRC Guest - Jenny Randles

United Kingdom UFO Network

UK.UFO.NW proudly announce that Jenny Randles one the UK's
foremost UFO investigators will be our special IRC guest on
Saturday 31st July 1999 starting at midnight UK time. Jenny will
be answering questions from visitors to the channel.

For the equivelant time in your part of the world go to
uk.ufo.nw home page and click on [world times].

www.holodeck.demon.co.uk

Connection Information
----------------------

For those of you using IRC software you will find us on the

Chatnet

servers in channel

#ufo

For those of you wishing to join using your java compatible web
browser (this includes most browsers these days) we have found a
new java applet that will allow Windows 95 & 98 users to join
the meetings just using their web browsers. Go to the following
url:

http://irc.ircweb.com/javairc/

A web page will appear, then after some seconds (be patient) a
java window will open. It will ask you for a:

Nickname - Username - E-mail address

Enter these details and click 'Connect'

Shortly a screen full of text will scroll up the window. At the
bottom of the window type:

/join #ufo

You are now connected to the uk.ufo.nw IRC channel. Down the
right-hand side of the screen you will see yourself (nickname)
and any other people on the channel. The main window on the left
is where the conversation text appears. The window at the bottom
is where you type what you want to say, remembering to press
return at the end.

The window is fully resizable so if you want it to fill the
entire screen it can. Give it a go. It is very easy, very
enjoyable and that is what it's all about. You will be made most
welcome on the channel.

--------------------------
United Kingdom UFO Network
ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk
www.holodeck.demon.co.uk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:27:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:04:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >PS.  I guess you might call me a "ufologist" instead of a
 >"Ufologist".  It strikes me we really do need a professional
 >exam for this field.  Perhaps Klass could suggest some of the
 >questions to go on it?


Hi,


When I was BUFORA Director of Investigations (before they kicked
me out in l994) I developed both a seven month training course
for investigators taken by post and a written exam. It was case
based, of course, not a UFO qualification. But those who passed
got a certificate and some evidence of a degree of
professionalism.

I retained the copyright as my own (not BUFORAs) and have since
made the course and test freely available to several other
groups to use.

In the UK right now a gang of rebels (alright, Dr Dave Clarke,
Gloria Dixon - who holds the record score in the test by the way
- Tim Matthews, Robert Moore, Andy Roberts and myself for now)
(but we're growing!) have been discussing such issues as
professionalism in UFOlogy. It is a good idea to have something
to add to the self policing that we do. But finding the right
balance is not easy.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:34:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:05:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 > >>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
 > >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 > >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 > >>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:52:13 +0100

 >I'd agree with you that it's daft, but it happens all the time,
 >because small aircraft flying at night stand out as unusual, but
 >not during the day. A lot of drug flights do happen during the
 >day, and they often follow roads, because it makes navigation
 >easier.

Hi,

Thanks for that. I bow to your evidently superior knowledge of
drug running. Mine is limited to getting a packet of paracetamol
out of the High Peak pharmacy without dropping the carrier bag.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: BWW Media Alert 19990725

From: Bufo Calvin <BufoCalvin@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:21:22 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:13:33 -0400
Subject: Re: BWW Media Alert 19990725



Bufo Calvin
P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com
Website: <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin">http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin<;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/bwnl">Bufo's WEIRD NEWS LINKS</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bufosweirdworld">Link
to Amazon.com</A>
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD provided that attribution is made to
http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with
strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make
sure it is clear that you are forwarding it).

July 25, 1999

Good week!  CONFIRMATION on NBC tonight, 48 HOURS doing a paranormal episode
(next week), a mini-marathon of X-CREATURES on the Discovery Channel...and
lots more!

Speaking of lots, if you haven't subscribed to Bufo's WEIRD NEWS LINKS yet,
you might be surprised at how many stories there are.  In the last month or
so, for example, there have been black big cat sightings from around the
globe, including England, the U.S., and New Zealand.  Click on the link in
the heading if you are interested in this free list.

As usual, let me know what you think at <A HREF="mailto:
bufocalvin@aol.com">BufoCalvin@aol.com</A>.

On to the listings: Times are generally Pacific.

LIVE EVENTS (lectures, conferences, etc.)

When: Thursday, July 29, 7:30 PM
What: Lecture by John Remington, clinical psychology doctoral student doing
his dissertation on alien abduction cases
Where: Redwood City Woman's Club, 149 Clinton Street, Redwood City California
How much: $8 at the door
Contact information: Charles, 650-343-5202; e-mail charles@shiftreality.com;
website: http://www.shiftreality.com

When: Saturday, July 31, 7:30 PM (local time)
What: lecture by Robert Marx, hypnotherapist and ufologist
Where: Springwood Community Centre, Brisbane, Australia
How much: $25
Contact information: Diane Harrison tkbnetw@fan.net.au or Robert Frola
ufologist@powerup.com.au
Tel 07 38088567 or 07 55477933
Or check your Nexus Magazine or http://www.peg.apc.org/%7Enexus/welcome.html
The Australasian Ufologist Magazine
http://enterprise.powerup.com.au/~ufologist/

RADIO

Eddie Middleton's very popular show in the South, Nightsearch, has a website
at <A HREF="http://listen.to/nightsearch">http://listen.to/nightsearch<;/A>.
Starting soon, the new website at <A
HREF="http://www.nightsearch.net/">http://www.nightsearch.net/<;/A>.
Unfortunately, no streaming audio. Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM (Pacific).
The call-in line is 901-365-1430.

Sunday, July 18, 2:00 PM, apparently, the scheduled guests were called away
for an emergency exorcism. I should be on at about 2:00 PM for about ten
minutes.

Don Ecker, of UFO MAGAZINE, hosts STRANGE DAZE on the Liberty Works. It can
be heard on streaming Real Audio at <A
HREF="http://www.broadcast.com/radio/talk/lwrn">http://www.broadcast.com/radio
/talk/lwrn</A>.

Ken Dashow, THE EDGE OF REALITY, Sundays at 9:00 PM, Fridays at 5:00 PM.
Dashow is known for his sarcastic wit. <A
HREF="http://www.talkamerica.com/dashow.html">http://www.talkamerica.com/dasho
w.html</A> and <A
HREF="http://www.dashow.com/edge.html">http://www.dashow.com/edge.html<;/A>.
There is some dispute on these times. A correspondent tells me (thanks! If
you'd like to be acknowledged on the list, let me know) that it runs from
5:00 PM to 8:00 PM (Pacific...that's how times are generally listed here),
with a repeat from 8:00 PM to 11:00 PM on Saturdays.

Mike Jarmus, REALITY AND BEYOND, 7:00 PM Sundays, <A
HREF="http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram">http://spectrum.orn.com/omega.ram<;/A>
. Streaming audio available

Art Bell - DREAMLAND
Currently, the most popular talk show on this area. <A
HREF="http://www.artbell.com/">http://www.artbell.com/<;/A>. Live streaming
audio (and video) available.

Jeff Rense - SIGHTINGS
Jeff is well-versed on the topics, but likes to let the guests speak,
resulting in one of the best radio shows on these topics. You can hear Real
Audio of the show, and there are archives as well. Go to <A
HREF="http://www.sightings.com/">http://www.sightings.com/<;/A> for more
information. The show is on at 7:00 PM Pacific Monday through Friday, and
8:00 PM Pacific on Sunday. You can hear it anywhere through your computer.
Please note that Jeff also often covers topics which I do not consider
relevant to this list. To subscribe to the Jeff Rense Weekly E-news (which
includes articles and a complete guest listing), e-mail (subject: Subscribe)
<A HREF="mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net">mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net</A>.

Sunday, July 25, 8:00 PM, Tony Dodd on British police UFO involvement
Tuesday, July 27, 7:00 PM, Graham Conway of UFO BC on Canadian UFO reports
Wednesday, July 28, 7:00 PM, Michael Lindemann, Weekly UFO/World report; Joe
Firmage, "UFO CEO"
Thursday, July 29, 7:00 PM, Col. John Alexander
Friday, July 30, 7:00 PM, Tim Rifat, British remote viewing

Paul Williams and Scott Carr: UFO DESK
This New York show has been around for years, but is now available on
streaming audio. The website is <A
HREF="http://www.escape.com/~paulw/ufodesk.html">http://www.escape.com/~paulw/
ufodesk.html</A>. It runs at 8:00 PM (Pacific) on Sundays.

Jeff Mishlove AND THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
Webcast every weekday at 8:00 PM for two hours, with a repeat at 10:00 PM.
Webcast at <A
HREF="http://www.wisdomradio.com/">http://www.wisdomradio.com/<;/A>.

ERSKINE OVERNIGHT
Webcast 9:00 PM to Midnight with an immediate repeat at <A
HREF="http://www.talkamerica.com/">Talkamerica.com</A>.

Stephen Bassett of the Paradigm Research Group is making a couple of
appearances on webcast radio shows this week. For more information, access <A
HREF="http://www.paradigmclock.com/speaking&eventschedule.html">http://www.par
adigmclock.com/speaking&eventschedule.html</A>

TELEVISION

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (Europe)

Monday, July 26, 10:25 AM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD:
ANCIENT WISDOM (includes crystal skull)
Monday, July 26, 11:45 AM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE: A
CROP OF CIRCLES
Monday, July 26, 12:15 AM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE:
CRACKING CODES (the Vinland map and the Kensington Runestone)
Monday, July 27, 10:25 AM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD:
MISSING APEMAN (Yeti)
Tuesday, July 28, 10:25 AM (GMT+1), ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD:
GIANTS FOR THE GODS? (Peruvian Nazca lines)

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (USA)

Sunday, July 25, 8:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: BIG CAT AND THYLACINE (the Big Cat
is the British beast of Exmoor)
Sunday, July 25, 9:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: GIANT SQUID AND LOCH NESS MONSTER
Sunday, July 25, 10:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: BIGFOOT AND YETI
Monday, July 26, 12:00 AM, THE X-CREATURES: BIG CAT AND THYLACINE (the Big
Cat is the British beast of Exmoor)
Monday, July 26, 1:00 AM, THE X-CREATURES: GIANT SQUID AND LOCH NESS MONSTER
Monday, July 26, 2:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: BIGFOOT AND YETI
Thursday, July 29, 9:00 PM, INSIDE AREA 51
Thursday, July 29, 10:00 PM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: ANCIENT PUZZLES
Friday, July 30, 12:00 AM, INSIDE AREA 51
Friday, July 30, 1:00 AM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: ANCIENT PUZZLES
Saturday, July 31, 5:00 PM, INSIDE AREA 51
Saturday, July 31, 2:00 PM, INTO THE UNKNOWN: ANCIENT PUZZLES
Next Sunday, August 1, 5:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: BIG CAT AND THYLACINE
Next Sunday, August 1, 6:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: GIANT SQUID AND LOCH NESS
MONSTER
Next Sunday, August 1, 7:00 PM, THE X-CREATURES: BIGFOOT AND YETI
Next Monday, August 2, 10:00 PM, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?: CASTLES, TOMBS AND
LEONARDO (includes U.K. haunting)
Next Tuesday, August 3, 1:00 AM, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?: CASTLES, TOMBS AND
LEONARDO (includes U.K. haunting)
Next Thursday, August 5, 10:00 PM, MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED: SACRED
PLACES AND MYSTIC SPIRITS (near-death experiences; hauntings; Chillingham
castle)
Next Friday, August 6, 1:00 AM, MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED: SACRED PLACES
AND MYSTIC SPIRITS (near-death experiences; hauntings; Chillingham castle)

E!
Next Thursday, August 5, 7:00 PM, FASHION EMERGENCY: includes psychic
Next Friday, August 6, 8:30 AM, FASHION EMERGENCY: includes psychic
Next Friday, August 6, 1:30 PM, FASHION EMERGENCY: includes psychic

FOX SOAP TALK (Australia)
Thursday, July 29, 10:30 PM (Time Zone Unknown), THE UNEXPLAINED: UFO CULTS
Friday, July 30, 2:30 AM (Time Zone Unknown), THE UNEXPLAINED: UFO CULTS

HGTV (USA)

Thursday, July 29, 6:30 PM, KITCHEN DESIGN: HAUNTED KITCHEN (may or may not
deal with a "real haunting")
Thursday, July 30, 9:30 PM, KITCHEN DESIGN: HAUNTED KITCHEN (may or may not
deal with a "real haunting")

THE HISTORY CHANNEL (USA)

Next Tuesday, August 3, 11:00 AM, 20TH CENTURY WITH MIKE WALLACE: ARE WE
ALONE? (UFOs)
Next Tuesday, August 3, 4:00 PM, 20TH CENTURY WITH MIKE WALLACE: ARE WE
ALONE? (UFOs)

NBC (USA)

Sunday, July 25, 7:00 PM, CONFIRMATION: THE HARD EVIDENCE OF ALIENS AMONG US?
(Not to be missed...what happens when believers produce a network show?)
Next Thursday, August 5, 10:00 PM, 48 HOURS: PUTTING PARANORMAL TO THE TEST

ODYSSEY (Australia)

Friday, July 30, 6:30 PM (Time Zone Unknown), HAUNTED HISTORY (episode 5)

THE SCIENCE CHANNEL

New schedule again, since March 29, 1999.
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE (don't know
which one)
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays, 10:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:00 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Tuesday and Saturday, 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Weekdays,6:00 PM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:00 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Every day but Monday and Sunday, 1:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Tuesdays through Saturdays, 2:00 AM, STRANGE BUT TRUE?
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S
MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
Saturdays, OUT OF THIS WORLD all day long

THE SCI-FI CHANNEL (US Feed)

Monday, July 26, 11:00 AM: SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #5053 (disappearance; aliens in
Brazil; moon colony; websites; voices of the dead)
Tuesday, July 27, 11:00 AM: SIGHTINGS, EPISODE #5054 (aircraft carrier
haunting; Edgar Mitchell; Roswell; psychic research; past lives; crop circles)
Wednesday, July 28, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS: EPISODE #5055 (UFO causes airplane
crash; hacienda haunting; prophecies of Hawaii; Martian life)
Thursday, July 29, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS: EPISODE #5057 (alien autopsy hoax;
English haunting; UFOs and cattle mutilations in Colorado; bigfoot website;
psychic detective; Dalai Lama)
Friday, July 30, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS: EPISODE #5056 (UK MOD UFO (ABC, DEF,
GHI...) expert Nick Pope; hotel haunting
Next Tuesday, August 3, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (Gulf Breeze UFOs; communication
before birth; Texas ghost lights; Chillingham castle haunting; precognition)
Next Wednesday, August 4, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (MJ-12; haunting in Sao Paolo;
life on Saturn; wooly mammoth cloning; the Sphinx; cattle mutilations)
Next Thursday, August 5, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS (haunting in the House of
Plenty; Stonehenge on the web; abductees; 1947; healing music; Holy Land UFOs)
Next Friday, August 6, 11:00 AM, SIGHTINGS: (Argentinean UFO near miss;
cancer-sniffing dogs; ghostly Internet; anti-gravity; House of Plenty
haunting; UFO documents)



___________________________

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!"
____________________________

You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly
redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by
e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's
WEIRD WORLD Media Alert the same way. Also, please let me know if there is
something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the
week before.
_____________________________


--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ONElist users:  YOU can win a $100 gift certificate to Amazon.com.
http://www.onelist.com
Check out the FRIENDS & FAMILY program to find out how.  See homepage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************
SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC.
(A Non-Profit Organization)
Skywatch International Inc. and this list service are not responsible for conten
t or authenticity of posts.

Skywatch International, Inc. endorses no political candidate for office due to
the organization's status as a non-profit corporation."

"What could be stranger than the truth?"

To post your message sent it to: Skyopen@onelist.com or Skywatch@itlnet.net

Please visit the Skywatch International Inc. website at
http://www.skywatch-international.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                   Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update

From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:49:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:12:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update


PUBLIC RELEASE:

On June 27, 1999  Wendy Connors, Project SIGN Research Center
and Michael David Hall, Project Blue Book Research Center,
obtained a never publicly known 114 page history of Air Materiel
Command's T-2 Intelligence. This Historical Study was prepared
by Air Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio  and
released in August 1948. This history was classified SECRET and
first xeroxed in 1965. It has been declassified. The report was
prepared from over 678 pages of supplemental sources. The
supplemental pages detail the information that is contained
within this Historical Study.

The history was obtained from various sources within the War
Department and through personal interviews with personnel
involved in A-2 Intelligence at both the Pentagon and those at
T-2 Technical Intelligence at what used to be Wright Field.

Reviewing of this history shows the following major headings:

1. List of Illustrations
2. List of Charts
3. Glossary of Abbreviations
4. Chapter One: European Background of T-2 Techncial
    Intelligence
5. Chapter Two: Forerunners and Initial Organization of T-2.
6. Chapter Three: Accomplishments of T-2 (Collection Division,
    Analysis Division, Air Documents Division, Photographic
    Division and the Historical Office.
7. Bibliography
8. Index

This history is a rich background detailing the processes T-2
Intelligence used, the personnel involved as well as the
accomplishments of such areas as Operation Lusty and Paperclip
among others. It should be considered the beginning point of how
T-2 conducted its affairs and organization, which would
eventually involve the first official investigation of flying
discs under Project SIGN in 1948.

On the Project SIGN Research Center website, www.projectsign.com
has been posted two photos and an audio clip. The two photos
consist of Colonel Howard McCoy, T-2 Intelligence Commanding
General in 1947 and in charge of Project Blue Book and the first
known photo of the Project SIGN team around the conference table
at T-2 Intelligence at W.P.A.F.B. in 1948. The audio clip is of
Colonel Howard McCoy detailing his views on "space people."

Both Mike and I are proud to have brought this information to
the field of ufological study as it sheds much important light
on how the entire organizational process worked during the early
months of Project SIGN and fills many gaps in current ufological
knowledge.

Wendy Connors and Michael 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                    The MUFON Connecticut Site Has Moved

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:36:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:15:51 -0400
Subject: The MUFON Connecticut Site Has Moved


The web site for the Mutual UFO Network Of CT has been moved to

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/index.htm

from

http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/9047/index.htm

and

http://www.geocities.com/~mufonct/index.htm

(the above are actually the same address).

Please revise your links accordingly. The old site address will
be removed by the end of the month, so please act quickly.

Thanks in advance.

------
Mark Cashman
Assistant State Director
Mutual UFO Network of CT
mcashman@ix.netcom.com
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/index.htm







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:35:20 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:30:16 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:08:03 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >Previously, James had written:

<snip>

 >>>The two main accounts which Arnold gave of the entire incident
 >>>were in a letter he subsequently sent to the US Air Force and in
 >>>his much later book, 'The Coming of the Saucers'. It doesn't
 >>>help matters that both accounts seem to be significantly
 >>>different.

<snip>

 >>>Arnold maintained that the objects took one minute and forty two
 >>>seconds to travel the approximate fifty miles between Mt. Rainier
 >>>and Mt. Adams, therefore, they should have taken about twice as
 >>>long to first of all reach Mt. Rainier from their starting
 >>>position 100 miles northwards and he should have had the objects
 >>>in view for around three minutes before they even arrived at Mt
 >>>Rainier.>

 >>>Now we know that simply isn't correct, Arnold previously having
 >>>clarified in his letter to the Air Force that the total duration
 >>>of his sighting only lasted for, "around two and one half or
 >>>three minutes".>

 >>>A further uncertainty is that in the early radio interview, he
 >>>stated differently: "the whole observation of these particular
 >>>ships didn't last more than about two and a half minutes".>>

 >>>Worse still, in one of the first newspaper reports, the 'Chicago
 >>>Daily Tribune' of 25 June, quoted Arnold as confirming he
 >>>"checked off one minutes and forty two seconds from the time they
 >>>passed Mount Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount Adams"
 >>>and that, "All told the objects remained in view slightly less
 >>>t>han two minutes from the time I first noticed them".>>

 >Bruce replied:

 >>From Arnold's statements one gets the definite impression that
 >>the sighting lasted about 2.5 -3 minutes. So, how do we handle
 >>his statment that he first saw them almost 100 miles north near
 >>Mt. Baker? What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >>estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >>wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.>

 >Hi, Bruce.

 >I've always had a great deal of respect for your posts. However,
 >I really feel that Mr. Easton brings up some valid points; most
i>mportantly that Arnold's version of events changed from one
i>nterview to the next. I've been reading the list over the last
 >week or so

Note: this discussion centering on birds, whether pelicans or
swans or something else, has been going on for months; a
competing explanation put forth by a  credible (?) science
writer, Keay Davidson, is that Arnold saw a group of meteors..
So... take your pick. (these are recent explanations,. There
were plenty of earlier ones.)

 > and everyone seems to be dragging Easton over the
 >coals about his "Pelican Theory". Granted, his theory only works
 >if a specific version of Arnold's story is applied and not all
 >versions. Granted, it only works if you fill in the "blanks"
 >with some practical logic about what else could account for the
 >mystery objects. And it only works if you make some assumptions
t>hat Arnold was wrong about some of his "facts".>

And it only works if Easton can prove it with a "map" as defined
in numerous earlier posts.

 >However, considering your statement above, it would appear that
 >you are not only being selective about which of Arnold's
 >versions is the "truth"; but you are also making an assumption
 >that a part of his statement is "incorrect" because it doesn't
 >jive with the outcome you'd like to believe. In fact, your own
 >theory seems to be that you don't know what the objects were;
 >but that they were not, and could not be, Pelicans.

Yes, I would say they cannot be pelicans (nor meteors, nor
mirages,  motes in the eye, orographic clouds, clouds of
billowing snow,  reflections from a haze layer, and wave clouds
in motion, nor hoax, nor fast fighter aircraft 6 miles
away.....). Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
accept ("believe") in the accuracy of  certain values of
quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses.  The
descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
correct." Now, the Air Force, in 1948-49, decided that Arnold's
story was so full of holes it wasn't worth analyzing (so why
don't we all just accept the Air Force rejection of the sighting
and shut up?). Why did they say this?  Because the first
"analyzer," Dr. J. Allen Hynek, could not accept one of the
implcations of Arnold's statement, namely that the objects would
have been VERY LARGE, hundreds of feet in length, to be seen
with any details at a distance of 20 miles or so. Arnold had
claimed they were about 50 ft long. Hynek argued that if only 50
ft long they would have been too small to see.  Conversely, if
Arnold could see details of shape of objects 20 miles away they
would have to be huge.. (You would have to read my paper on
Arnold to get the details.)  Hence Hynek decided that the
objects probably were about 50 ft long, fast fighter aircraft ,
in which case they were not 20 miles away but only 6 miles away,
and traveling not 1,200 or 1,700 mph, but about 400 mph.  Hence
there was a big contradiction between Arnold's size estimate and
Hynek's size "estimate" (really a "preferred size") and so the
Air FOrce took this as indication that Arnold's report was so
full of contradictions and errors that it didn't merit further
attention.  Incidently, the official AF explanation has nothing
to do with  Hynek's analysis.  According to Project Blue Book
files Arnold saw a "mirage!" Now there's a rock-solid bit of
logic for you.

Returning to the main discussion, yes, I have chosen to assume
his initial distance estimate was wrong. There is no way he
could have known exactly how far away they were when he first
saw them unless they in some way "interacted with" a landform at
a known distance. This is exactly what happened AFTER they flew
south of Mt. Rainier, according to Arnold, who reported that
they flew "in and out of the mountain peaks" south of Rainier.
Obviously Easton has to reject this claim by Arnold if he is to
accept pelicans, which couldn't have been more than 2 miles from
the Arnold when at their closest (and probably well within a
mile.... herein lies the importance of a MAP!).


 >I mean no disrespect, Bruce, but isn't that what everyone is
 >bitching about Easton doing?  I'm not saying that the objects in
 >question were Pelicans. However, your applied logic seems to
 >ictate that we should also selectively view some of Arnold's
 >statements as "wrong" in order to disprove Easton's theory in
 >favor of your own.

EVERYONE is "guilty" of picking and choosing the "data"
(descriptions).... When it comes to analysis of a UFO sighting
we are given the testimony of the witness (no photos, etc. in
this case) and we have to make the most of it. Witnesses will
sometimes say things that seemingly could not be. I'm not
talking about the UFO itself (which :"cannot be" according to
conventional thinking). A witness might say he saw a light in a
certain direction and you go there and find there is a huge wall
of a building that would have blocked the view. What do you do
then?  Reject the statement, or try to accomodate some modified
version? Here Arnold said he saw the objects flying in and out
of the mountain peaks....they "swerved in and out of the high
mountain peaks.." If Easton is correct, then Arnold said
something that could not be true.  If Easton is correct, why in
the world would Arnold think that the objects had traveled on
the opposite side of a mountain peak (or mountain peaks)? But
Arnold said it.   Is there any reason to doubt Arnold's
statement?  The only reason offered goes like this :  (a) Arnold
claimed the objects were at about on his horizon ("I would
estimate their elevation could have varies by a thousand feet
one way or another up or down, but they were pretty much on the
horizon to me which would indicate that they were nea the same
elevation to me"..from his letter to the Air Force).  Since he
believed (Arnold was a beliver!) that his plane was at 9,200 ft,
he assigned an altitude of 9,500 ft to the objects. However (b)
the mountain peaks south of Rainier (which is 14,400 ft high)
are lower than about 7,000 ft, and the only peaks which the
objects could have disappeared behind are 5-6000 ft high. .
Hence (c) Arnold was wrong either in his altitude estimate  or
in his claim that the objects flew in and out of the mountain
peaks.

Without trying to put words in Jim Easton's' mouth, I believe
(I, too, am a "believer")he would resolve this "dilemma" as
follows: occasionally the (nearby) pelicans would seem to
disappear from view as they flew along and, inasmuch as they
were silhoutted against the mountain peaks, Arnold attributed
this momentary disappearance to swerving "in and out of the high
mountain peaks." (OK so far; now explain the temporary
disappearances of the pelicans.)

My resolution of the dilemma: Arnold based his altitude estimate
on his observation that the objects were on his horizon...i.e.,
at about his altitude. However, it is difficult to estimate the
exact horizontal from an airplane (the horizon is always at a
slight depression angle, and horizontal is above the true
horizon). It turns out that the depression angle of a 5500 ft
mountain 20 miles away, observed from 9,200 ft, is about 2
degrees. Such a small angle of depression could APPEAR as
horizontal. ....very hard to distinguish exact horizontal from 2
degrees below horizontal. Therefore Arnold be reporting
accurately his impression of seeing the objects "at his
altitude" whereas they were actually below his altitude by
several thousand feet, and, hence, they could, in principle,
have been flying "in and out of the high mountain peaks. Is this
being "selective" of the data? Sure.  But it is backed up by
some analysis. There are other details, too, such as the
flashing reported by Arnold.  Clearly pelicans, no matter how
white, do not flash in the sun like a mirror. And relative to
flashing, here, is a new (previously unpublished anywhere) type
of analysis or discussion of the flashing vs pelicans. Arnold
says explicitly that he was able to detect these objects when
they were too far away to see their shapes ("At first I couldn't
make out their shapes as they were still at a distance of a
hundred miles"... from the book he wrote.... but he was able to
see the flashes at the initial distance; "...by the time they
had reached Mt. Adams they were out of my range of vision as far
as determining shape or form"....from the AF letter) Arnold's
initial distance estimate might have been wrong (but see below),
but the idea is clear: he could see the locations of these
objects by the flashes over greater distances than he coul see
the objects themselves (shapes, size). description the idea that
he was able to THIS MAKES SENSE from the atmospheric optics
point of view. Apparently when the  objects were NOT oriented so
as to create mirror like flashes in the direction of Arnold's
plane they could NOT be seen through the atmospheric haze
(despite the good visibility that day) and HE WOULDN'T HAVE
NOTICED THEM except for the flashing. When not oriented for
flashing the objects could only be seen by way of non-specular,
diffuse reflection of sunlight which is always a much dimmer
sort of reflection than a specular reflection (when directed
toward the observer). Hence they would have to be at some
distance (say, 20 miles in UFOs,  or less than 2 miles if
Pelications) ) to be seen by non-specular (non-mirror-;like)
reflection. BUT, when oriented to flash like a mirror they could
be seen a lot farther.

Compare this with the situation of pelicans.  PELICANS can ONLY
be seen by diffuse reflection of sunlight.

Hence if Arnold had seen pelicans one would expect that when he
first detected their presence against the bright sky background
they would have looked like whitish dots barely visible in th
haze, not bright flashes clearly visible against the bright sky.

(Or, perhaps, dark dots, depending  upon whether they were seen
against a white haze, blue sky or ground/trees) . In other
words, he would NOT have said that he could see them by the
flashes before he could see their bodies or that he could follow
them by their flashes after they got too far away to see their
bodies.

So, to make the pelican hypothesis stick, Easton has to modify
OUR interpretation of what Arnold said (it is, after all, our
interpretation that counts, right?).  Easton has to downplay the
brightness. He has done that. But he has not explained how
pelicans could be detected at a great distance before they were
close enough to appear as white (or dark dots against the sky.
(Probably he hasn't explained it because he never thought of it.
But, that's science,.  You come up with a hypothesis and then
you push it to the brink of disaster...and perhaps over the
brink.

NOTE well Macc Abee's first law of UFO explanation: a
explanation must be based on known phenomena and hence must obey
known laws of physics.)

Mentioned above is the initial distance estimate, which was the
"bone of contention" that started this particular discussion.
Easton's rejection of an initial 100 miles distance estimate in
order to make the UFO "explanation" reasonable is based on the
assumption that the objects traveled always at the speed Arnold
got for their trip south of Rainier.  This is, of course, an
unfounded assumption. One can make it, but also one cannot rule
out the possiblity that the UFOs traveled more rapidly toward
Mt. Raininer tan they did south of Rainier (they might have
slowed to have a joyride in and out of the moutain peaks). Thus
one _could_ accept Arnold's claim of the initial distance being
100 miles (or more; Mt. Baker wsas about 130 miles north of him)
but then one would have to explain seeing flashes from such a
great distances. Impossible?  no.

As for myself, I _have_ assumed a constant speed and concluded
thatth initial sighting location was abou 40-60 miles north of
Arnold. In EITHER case, the initial sighting line was
considerably north of the direction from him to Mt. Rainier.


 >I still have the greatest respect for your work. But I must say
 >that I admire Mr. Easton for standing by his theory. I feel that
 >he put a great deal of thought and effort into it and is sincere
 >in his belief. I don't understand the reaction from the UFO
 >community on this issue, at all. I'm mean, let's face it;
 >Arnold's stories were so inconsistent that just about anything
 >could fit the mold, even, I'm sorry to say, Pelicans.>

 >Take care,

 >Roger Evans


Mr. Easton can stand by any theory he wants. But he's going to
have to do a lot better to convince me that pelicans "fit" the
major details of Arnold's sighting.

Also, I have ignored the dynamics of the situation in the
discussion above. However, any pelican enthusiast should draw
himself/herself a map to prove that Arnold wouldn't have left
the pelicans in the dust during the 2.5-3 minute sighting.

(You see I _did_ draw a map..... yet another crucial test of the P
hypothesis)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                Re: Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon"

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:08:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:20:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon"


 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:34:39 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Frank Pierce: "Sagan said UFOs from Moon"


 >Enclosed below is a re-typed 1965 newspaper article. There are
 >portions of the article which is simply not legible. These
 >portions are noted, as I could not 'make the connections' by
 >presuming to insert what was not readable.

 >The article, written by Cincinnati Post columnist [for 36-years]
 >Mary Wood, quotes WLWT Channel-5 meteorologist Frank Pierce, who
 >recounts some odd comments allegedly made by Carl Sagan
 >concerning UFOs. Pierce was chief meteorologist for WLWT Channel
 >5 [NBC] in Cincinnati for many years. Wood also adds that Pierce
 >was involved at the first Air Force office in the Pentagon
 >during the '47 & '48 time-period.

 >I once tried to locate Pierce to inquire further about this
 >issue, but could not locate him. There are two obituary items
 >for a Frank Pierce found in an index of Cincinnati newspapers,
 >so it may be likely that he has passed away.

<snip>

 >"Frank Edwards Convinces Mary UFOs Do Exist"
 >The Cincinnati Post
 >Wednesday, February 15, 1965

 >By Mary Wood

 >Frank Edwards, whose new book "Flying Saucers - A Serious
 >Business" is a bestseller, has been in town all week appearing
 >on Ch. 5 shows to talk about UFOs. Since I recently read
 >Edwards' book and was immediately converted from being a skeptic
 >about Flying Saucers into a firm believer, I was anxious to meet
 >Frank.

 >Actually, it was Ch. 5's weatherman, Frank Pierce, who first
 >stimulated my interest in UFOs when he talked about them during
 >an interview we had several months ago. Pierce is a pure
 >scientist and the last man to ever go off on flights of fancy.
 >He was also in the first Air Force office at the Pentagon in
 >1947 and '48, which was set up to handle UFO information. Frank
i>s a believer and insists that about three percent of all UFO
 >sightings cannot be identified by anyone.>

 >"The government admits that they are there, but can't explain
t>hem," said Pierce. "Anybody connected with UFO investigation
 >knows that there are unexplained objects."

That Mr. Pierce would say (a) that he was one of the first AF
people involved UFO investigation ('47-'48) and that three
percent could not be explained is very interesting from the
historical standpoint and confirms a statement made to the
FBI(!).

On July 29, 1952, General John Samford, Director of Air Force
Intelligence held a press conference to explain the Washington
DC sightings as temperature inversions (wrong!) and to explain
all other sightings as natural phenomena (I suppose correct if
you stretch "natural" to mean NHI- non-human intelligence that
is part of nature!.

On that same day, Commander Randall Boyd, Navy officer evidently
on detail to AF intel, told an FBI liaison agent that 3% of the
sightings could not be explained.

And now we have a statement from one of the early people "in the
know", said statement made abou 13 years after Boyd's statement
to the FBI.

More evidence that the Air Force had the proof... with or
without Roswell...but wouldn't make that fact public (tried to
cover it up).





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:14:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:45:27 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >Bearing in mind we have no ET craft to plead guilty to visiting
 >Earth, where do we start to find the jury? If we were to take
 >the general public, I sincerely doubt they would agree with you
 >the 'judge'. If we were to take those with a lower 'standard of
 >evidence' such as Roy Hale & Co.  then you may get a result, but
 >this does nothing to prove that ET's are visiting


Dear Tony,

Having been on the odd skywatch with Roy Hale, where sightings
have been made & video evidence taken, I would hardly describe
it as 'a lower standard of evidence'.

Best Wishes,

Marc Bell





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Henny van der Pluijm ><hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:46:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:28:54 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >That's not quite what I said. There has been evidence, but it is
 >not as solid as the negative skeptic insists upon, since "they"
 >have not stayed around long enough for us to capture them.


Hi Jim,

I beg to differ here. It is my view that there is simply a
psychological processs at work involving the negative skeptic.
The evidence is never as solid as the negative skeptic insists
on because the negative skeptic is negative. He changes his
criteria for what represents solid evidence depending on the
quality of the evidence. The higher the quality of the evidence
the longer the yardstick against which it is measured.

The outcome of that process is always that the evidence is not
solid enough.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:24:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:30:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:45:27 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

 >If we were to take those with a lower 'standard of
 >evidence' such as Roy Hale & Co.  then you may get a result,
 >but this does nothing to prove that ET's are visiting


Hi All,

Well what a personal attack this is' care to name the & Co.?

Who in your group has been remote viewing craft and talking to
their ET occupants? <Sorry they could be angels, goblins, demons
anything>

Roy..





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:53:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:33:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>Roy's original question was:

 >>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>in >the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>least >one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>craft?

 >>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >Good points. But I did answer this specific question - twice -
 >in detail. Check back through updates last week. The statistics
 >argument grew from that.

 >But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >probably) landed in their estimation.


Dear Ms Randles et Al....

Very curious as to your reason for this "stat?" Personally I am
neither a proponent nor opponent of that view. I would frankly
doubt it, as both France and Russia, to name two countries,
appear to me to have a strong Ufological following and both
appear NOT to have the degree of skepticism seen in England and
the United States. But that's just a guess by someone who drinks
a great deal of vin ordinaire...

And is yous a "stat" or a "bet?"

That's my excuse, what is your reasoning?





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                      MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 17

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:18:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:43:33 -0400
Subject: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 17


MAGONIA Monthly Supplement

Interpreting contemporary vision and belief

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


Editor: JOHN HARNEY

No. 17, July 1999
=======================================================

EDITORIAL

Some readers evidently think that Magonia and its Monthly
Supplement are far too sceptical. Such readers should be
reminded that whereas we have occasionally made the mistake of
being too credulous we have never, ever, had to make any kind of
apology or correction for being too sceptical.

________________________________________________________________

OPEN AND CLOSED MINDS

Nigel Watson

"UFO hunter at MoD "kidnapped by aliens"" screamed the page 3
headline of the 7 February 1999 edition of The Sunday Times. I
suppose it was bound to happen. Nick Pope "claims" he was
abducted whilst driving along a Florida road with his
girlfriend. I put "claims" in quotes because the report goes on
to say that he does not deny or confirm this story because he
has broken up with his girlfriend and does not want to involve
her. How gentlemanly of him, how polite, how bloody convenient!

Here we have the author of Open Skies, Closed Minds slamming the
door on a potentially valuable case. Besides the possibility of
embarrassing a former girlfriend he had a couple of other
reasons why he kept silent; one was because he was uncertain
about what happened to him, and secondly, as an employee of the
Ministry of Defence he did not want to be regarded as a crank.
Oh dear, what a sensitive soul our man at the ministry is! Of
course it could not have crossed his mind that writing UFO
books, being interviewed in UFO magazines of dubious character,
and coming out as a UFO believer would make the MoD regard him
as at least moderately cranky if not exactly barking mad.

For the curious, his encounter story is that of "Peter and
Jenny" which is disclosed in his book, The Uninvited. The couple
were driving along when they suddenly seemed several miles
closer to their destination. A whole section of their journey
was missing from their memory, and it was only under hypnosis
that Peter/Nick recalled being lifted into a spaceship. As this
publication has noted before, getting hold of corroborative
evidence for abductions always seems to hit a brick wall. In
cases that have more than one abductee the other person either
cannot be traced, does not recollect much, seems totally
indifferent to the incident, goes missing - you name it.

Nick Pope's coyness about his own experience is more closed
minded and censorial than the ignoring of, or censorship of, UFO
reports. Having come this far he should not be allowed to get
away with merely saying this was "some truly bizarre
experience". This just titillates the UFO believers and for the
rest of us it hangs around like a rancid red herring.

________________________________________________________________

LITERARY CRITICISM

Nicholas Redfern. Cosmic Crashes: The Incredible Story of the
UFOs that Fell to Earth, Simon & Schuster, 1999. �16.99

If you wrote a book which you wanted to be taken seriously,
would you begin Chapter 1 like this? "When I began conducting
research into the crash of an alien spacecraft somewhere in the
United Kingdom during World War Two, not for one moment did I
expect that I would ultimately become embroiled in an
investigation that encompassed the deaths of the actress Marilyn
Monroe and US President John F. Kennedy."

Of course, as everyone knows, Kennedy and Monroe - and several
other prominent Americans - were killed because they knew too
much about the saucers and were about to reveal their secrets,
and this could not be allowed to happen. If you tend to believe
this kind of story then you will enjoy this book. As we have
come to expect from Redfern, we have in his latest work a
mixture of solid and painstaking research into official
documents and the procedures of government departments, and
fantastic yarns told by dubious characters and several
notoriously unreliable UFO researchers.

Redfern's attitude to research seems to be to regard one source
as being just as good as another, particularly when what he is
told is capable of being interpreted as evidence for the ETH.
When mundane explanations of apparent UFO incidents are offered
to him, he brushes them aside. In his account of the Berwyn
Mountain case he relies on the stories told to him by Margaret
Fry and Tony Dodd, and others who have an interest in making
this case the British Roswell. He dismisses the suggestion that
strange lights seen on the mountain were wielded by men out hare
hunting as "a fantastically original theory". He also appears to
take seriously the absurd story told to Tony Dodd by a man
claiming to have been a soldier who helped to transport the
bodies of dead aliens from the area to Porton Down.

However, in an interview published in the latest issue of UFO
Magazine (July/August 1999) he already seems to be backtracking
a little, if only to grudgingly acknowledge the work of Andy
Roberts in providing "a down to earth explanation for the Berwyn
incident". This brings us to perhaps the most important case
discussed in the book, because he links it with an alleged
incident on Cannock Chase which is said to have occurred on a
night in January 1974.

This story came from a man who said he was a member of a
television outside broadcast team who had received a tip-off
about the incident. He said that when they arrived at the site
of the incident the Army and the police were already there.
Apparently two men in a car had seen what looked like a fireball
coming down. They thought it was an aircraft crashing. One of
the men, named Brummel, got out and went into the field. When he
returned he said it was not an aircraft. He is alleged to have
told the TV crew that it was a flying saucer.

Now we come to the important part of this story. It is alleged
that when they were interviewing the man he was obviously ill,
and he was eventually taken to Cotteridge General Hospital, near
Wolverhampton, in an Army ambulance, where he died the next
morning of radiation burns. Redfern makes no mention of checking
that such a death occurred at the date and place stated. If it
really happened it would make this the most sensational UFO
story yet. Fatalities are occasionally reported in connection
with UFO incidents, but they usually seem to occur in
conveniently remote villages in South America. However, in his
UFO Magazine interview, Redfern says: "Now, I've been looking
into the allegations concerning where he was taken, where he
died and so on, and have literally hit a brick wall. Not because
I can't track people down, but everyone I have tracked down has
really clamped up, almost to a level of fear being expressed."

Note the implication here. He fails to find any evidence of a
death caused by severe radiation burns at the time and place in
question, so instead of saying the story is almost certainly
false he hints at a coverup. Of course, many readers find this
approach preferable to that of more sceptical ufologists who are
acutely aware that memories often become distorted with the
passage of time, and that some people are pathological liars.

Redfern has often consulted Nick Pope in his researches, but he
seems unwilling to accept his advice, based largely on his
official investigations. Pope, who can hardly be regarded as a
sceptic, told him: "I do not believe there is any evidence to
support the crash of any extraterrestrial craft in Britain."

Yet Redfern persists in raking over old reports and trying to
present them in a form which seems to suggest that they might be
UFO crashes. For example, he devotes a chapter to the reports of
mysterious craters which gained much publicity in the 1960s.
Because of his habit of not consulting sceptics, or of ignoring
or brushing aside their advice and information, he seems unaware
that convincing natural explanations for these reports were
provided within a few years of their occurrence.

The most notorious incident was the Charlton crater of July
1963. This gained enormous publicity, and questions about it
were asked in the House of Commons. The usual cranks came out of
the woodwork to get publicity for their batty theories, but the
mystery was solved by Alan Sharp who gave his explanation in a
review of Leonard Cramp's book Piece for a Jig-Saw (MUFORG
Bulletin, February 1967).

Sharp explained it as being a classic example of a crater caused
by a lightning strike on open ground. "It displays radiating
surface marks, removal of material and a central hole. It was
preceded by a violent thunderstorm accompanied by strong winds
and was in an area of considerable storm damage to crops."
(Further information about these craters is available in the
archives section of the Magonia web site -
www.magonia.demon.co.uk.)

Many of the other incidents described in this book would have
had their true explanations revealed to Redfern if he had paid
more attention to sceptical and cautious investigators, rather
than those who apparently see the function of ufology as being
to provide entertainment for the masses.


Jack Finney. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Prion Books, 1999,
�5.99

Originally published in 1954 as a three-part series in Collier's
Magazine, titled "The Body Snatchers", this gripping story of
alien possession has served as the direct inspiration for three
Hollywood movies.

It was first published in book form in 1955 with the more
familiar "Invasion of . . . " prefix, but Don Siegel's film
version, which appeared in 1956, set new standards in science
fiction cinema and Cold War paranoia. Going back to the original
book, which has not been available in the UK for the past 20
years, you can appreciate the snappy dialogue and the laughable
pulp-fiction earnestness of the characters. Philip Kaufman's
1978 film version is faithful to the book in its references to
weird/Fortean news clippings. One of the characters, Jack
Belicecs, says he has clipped "a couple hundred queer little
happenings" and the book itself ends: "You read these occasional
queer little stories, humorously written, tongue-in-cheek, most
of the time; or you hear vague distorted rumours of them. And
this much I know. Some of them - some of them - are quite true."

This queer story of aliens replicating and replacing humans is
the stuff of nightmares. Film experts and SF fans have noted how
this taking-over of human minds and bodies is a great metaphor
for Communism, and/or the numbing and dumbing effects of modern
technological society. In the sectors of ufology where people
actually claim to represent aliens, or that their actions are
controlled by them, this story is virtually a documentary for
their own tortured lives.

Strangely enough the blurb on the book does not mention Abel
Ferrara's 1993 release, Body Snatchers. At the time, I wrote
that this film "neatly articulates the fear of beings out there
that are cold, methodical, emotionless, who by sheer weight of
numbers infiltrate and take us over" (Strange Magazine, No. 14).
In this version the invaders are more clearly metaphors for our
growing indifference and fear of our neighbours, the threat of
ecological doom and the spread of AIDS.

This book is a key text on the fear of alien invasion and the
loss of human identity, and deserves to be on all ufologists'
shelves. More importantly it warns us what one too many news
clippings can do to us. Nigel Watson
________________________________________________________________


LETTER

Karl Pflock, in addressing your remarks about there being no
cases with multiple independent witnesses "which cannot be
explained with reference to sightings of aircraft or natural
phenomena" gives three quality UFO cases which he rates as his
favourites (MMS, No. 16). Of these three, one can definitely be
cast by the wayside and at least one other is of dubious value.
The Rapid City, South Dakota radar-visual multiple witness case
was rated very highly by Ruppelt, it is true. He described it as
the best unknown in the Blue Book files up to that point (August
1953). He says it was "thoroughly investigated" but that Blue
Book were left with nothing but a big question mark over it.

Not so with Donald Menzel and Lyle Boyd, who adequately dispose
of it in their book The World of Flying Saucers (1963), pp.
167-171. And if you don't like Menzel's treatment then Gordon D.
Thayer, for the Condon Committee, convincingly disposes of it in
similar terms on pp. 132-136 of the Condon Report (Scientific
Investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects, Chapter 5,
"Optical and Radar Analyses of Field Cases"). So much for
Ruppelt's investigation, which clearly was not as thorough as he
claimed. Ruppelt even got the date wrong. Just because one
investigator (even the official USAF one) finds a case
compelling in no way proves that it is compelling.

Karl's second case, the Vermillion case in Kansas in June 1950,
did not involve independent witnesses as they conferred with
each other at the time. The sighting looks good on the basis of
the descriptions given in Loren Gross's history of the events of
1950. However, there was no investigation of any kind so we have
only the raw data. The literature abounds with such cases. After
reading Allan Hendry's book would anyone take this case at face
value? I wouldn't. Rev. Vermillion was reluctant to call it a
"flying saucer" at all!

Karl's case 3, the RB-47 radar-visual of 17 July 1957, has been
dealt with by many writers, including the Condon Committee (this
time they got the date wrong), Menzel and Taves, Sagan and Page,
Klass, Brad Sparks, etc., etc. Naturally, their conclusions
differ according to which side of the fence they are on. I
prefer to suspend judgement on it. A difficult one yes, but
nowhere near good enough evidence for the ETH.

So, shall we say, out of Karl's top three UFOs, at least one and
a half belong in the IFO category. Which are your next three,
Karl? Christopher D. Allan, Stoke-on-Trent
________________________________________________________________


SPECIAL OFFER FOR MAGONIA READERS. Dean Conrad. Star Wars: The
Genesis of a Legend, Valis Books. A4 format paperback, 64 pages,
index, bibliography, references. ISBN 0-951 6251-6-0

Normal retail price �12.99. As a special Magonia offer it is now
available for �8.99, which includes postage and packing. Send a
cheque or money order to: Nigel Watson, 1 Orchard Cottages,
Colebrook, Plympton, Devon PL7 4AJ. The world has gone Star Wars
crazy again, with the release of the long-awaited prequel to the
original trilogy. The first Star Wars film was a turning point
in the production of blockbuster special effects-filled movies,
and for good or evil it is a milestone in Hollywood history. It
has also had an equally huge influence on how people conceive of
future space exploration and contact with aliens.

Yet in the beginning no one was more surprised than George and
Marcia Lucas at the phenomenal success of Star Wars. The film
was released on 25 May 1977, and it quickly became more than
just another movie. Within two months the film broke all box
office records and became the highest grossing film of all time
(this honour is currently held by Titanic).

Since 1977 the film has gathered a vast and constantly growing
fan following that believes in "the force" and embraces the
characters and narrative structure of this fictional universe.
Many of the fans claim the ideas and concepts in these films
have shaped their own lives more than anything else. The film
has had the same life-shattering impact as a UFO encounter.

Dean Conrad's book helps us understand why Star Wars is so
popular by surveying it in 8 chapters, which consist of:

1. A short biography of George Lucas and a chronicle of the Star
Wars success story
2. Literary influences on the characters in Star Wars
3. Filmic influences and myth making
4. Science fiction influences
5. How the plot of Star Wars uses cliff-hangers and climaxes
6. Comedy and casting
7. The special effects developed specially for Star Wars
8. Conclusion. Sequels to Star Wars and spin-offs.

As the publisher of this book I am obviously biased, so all I
can say is buy it, right now (please). Nigel Watson

________________________________________________________________

MAGONIA Monthly Supplement. Letters and short articles welcome.
Letters will be considered for publication unless otherwise
indicated. Please send all contributions to the Editor: John
Harney

Email: harney@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk
=======================================================
Mark Pilkington

"A heathen perhaps, but not, I hope, an unenlightened one."
Lord Summerisle
------------------------------------------------
Magonia 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                         Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:12:08 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:48:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:46:42 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:33:44 -0400
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:42:04 +0200
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:17:30 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold Sighting

 ><snip>

 >>- One of the planes were different from the others. Not much
 >>attention has been paid to this
 ><snip>

 >Hi List,

 >To pay some more attention to the above mentioned "problem",
 >and to get a clearer picture of this, I have tried to systemize a
 >little bit, and using some of the available info. on the Web.
 >Given that the transcriptions are correct (and not manipulated
 >with either), this is some of Arnold's _own words_ regarding his
 >sighting on 24 June 1947, taken from the following main, 3
 >various transcription sources on the Web:


<snip>

 >2:

 >http://www.geocities.com/~pjctsign/LagIV.htm

 >With the excerpt:

 >"_They_ look something like a _pie plate_ that was cut in half
 >with a sort of a _convex triangle_ in the rear. Now, I thought,
 >'well, that maybe they're jet planes with just the tail�the tail
 >painted green or brown or some'thin�and
 >didn't think too much of it, but kept on watching 'em."

<snip>

The transcriptions mentioned above, seem -- according to that
URL -- to be taken from some recordings of the radio interview
on 26 June 1947. Parts of these recordings are likely to be
heard on the following (scratchy) recordings, found on this URL:

http://www.chucara.com/dossiers/karnold/240647.htm

and when clicking on these three Annexes:

Propos de Kenneth Arnold Partie 1 (617 Ko) Propos de Kenneth
Arnold Partie 2 (495 Ko) Propos de Kenneth Arnold Partie 3 (630
Ko)

(These recordings seem to be provided by Mr. Laurent Thiebaud.)

In my opinion, according to these (alleged original) recordings,
Arnold -- nearly two days after the sighting -- sounds pretty
self confident and sure of what he's saying on the air. He
speeks fast, almost reading from a manuscript. But still
(according to the transcriptions) he doesn't mention one
important point that one of the aircraft -- according to
himself, and told  somewhat later -- was different, being "bat
shaped" (with a double curve at the rear -- or, crescent
shaped). Neither does he mention in these recordings that they
numbered nine.


<snip>

 >However, the drawing sent to the Commanding General
 >at Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio (US  Air Force), along
 >with his first report, is likely to be this one:

 >   http://services.csi.it/~ufo/arn_draw.jpg

 >I will call this shape and form a "scallop shape",
 >or just a"shell shape".

 >An alleged photo of a similar kind of aircraft, taken on
 >9 July 1947 in Phoenix, AZ,  is shown here:

 >   http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo/rhodes1.jpg

The Condon report, i.e.:

http://www.ncas.org/condon/index.html

has discussed this particular photo (taken on 7 or 9 July 1947),
showing an alleged aircraft bearing _some_ resemblance to
Arnold's 8 "scallop shaped", or pie pan-like, objects, and they
came up with the following conclusion:

http://www.ncas.org/condon/s5chap02.htm#s2

with the following excerpt:

"There are other undesirable aspects to this case. The
observer's character and business affiliations are presently
under investigation, the results of which are not yet known. Dr.
Irving Langmuir studied subject photographs, and after learning
of the prior passage of a thunderstorm, discounted the
photographed object as being merely paper swept up by the winds
(or, a kite? AWS).

AHC Opinion: In view of the apparent character of the witness,
the conclusion by Dr. Langmuir seems entirely probable."

<snip>

 >Further, no vapour trails (contrails) from the craft have ever
 >been mentioned anywhere by Arnold (indicating no jets?). Any
 >sonic booms (or any engine noise at all) were never reported
 >either, neither by e.g. Fred Johnson nor any other observers
 >on the ground, i.e.,

<snip>

Of course, there might be some explanations as to why any sonic
booms were not heard or reported by any observers on the ground,
specifically when the 9 aircraft were reported / calculated
flying at approx. 1200 mph.

The Condon report has discussed that subject matter:

http://www.ncas.org/condon/s6chap06.htm

and came up with the following generic explanations:

"More remarkable than any of the foregoing, however, are reports
that describe the UFO as moving at velocities far in excess of
the maximum speed of sound in the earth's atmosphere without
producing any noise or shock wave that would normally be
expected under such conditions of atmospheric displacement. No
characteristic "boom" is heard in these instances.

The absence of a sonic boom in these cases remains
a mystery. Possible explanations are that:

1. actual speed was overestimated;

2. a natural atmospheric effect that could suppress the sonic
boom was present; or

3. the object or phenomenon did not displace the atmospheric
gases through which it was passing at supersonic speeds."

Or, the observers on the ground were outside the "ground track"
of the aircraft's shockwaves, i.e., the area on the ground being
swept by these air shockwaves, created by the above-flying
aircraft at supersonic speed -- and thus, they didn't hear any
boom.


Regards,
Asgeir










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:17:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:52:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:50:26 +0100

 >But the simple truth is that 99% of UFO sightings are not
 >a close encounter. They are LITS and other poorly observed
 >events.

What I can't really understand, after 50 years of this, is
spending scarce investigative resources on LITS. I mean, sure, a
high angular size NL case can have some value, but distant
moving lights, triangular configurations with white tips and a
central red light, etc, all are likely to be misinterpreted
aircraft, and even if they are not, offer little or nothing to
ufology in terms of understanding the nature of the UFO, the
behavior of the UFO, or the source / intent of the UFO.

So while 95% of a completely undiscriminating set of
investigations may be IFOs, the problem I have is with having
spent any time investigating perhaps 85% of that.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:55:57 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >We can play with statistics as long as we like. I could argue
 >that if Jim Deardorff is only able to explain 50% to 75% of the
 >UFO reports he comes across then he's not doing his job
 >properly! Other investigators find they can explain 95%. Maybe
 >they're being over-zealous in explaining cases, maybe they're
 >just more thorough in getting the facts.

Or maybe the set of cases is not filtered toward paydirt cases,
but includes a lot of chaff like LITS, distant reflections, and
other small angular size, small strangeness events.

Investigative resources are scarce and should be spent on cases
likely to lead to advances, not on events which are likely to be
identifiable.

Let me put it this way. Suppose we have a disc shaped UFO
of complex external structure, at a distance of a hundred feet,
at night. Then, let's take that object, luminosity and
all, and move it to a distance of, say four miles. How much
data are we going to gain from the second observation
compared to the first? How many of the characteristics of
the first observation are going to be lost in the distance,
thus causing the appearance of the object in the second
observation to be closer to that of a simple landing light?

In short, even if a distant light isn't an IFO, it isn't very
interesting.

Let's look at it a different way.

If we have any initial report, the chances of misidentification
by the witness _must_ drop rapidly with increasing angular size,
and especially with occlusion of more distant objects by the
reported object, or with increased proximity to some known
reference point. Thus, some cases are intrinsically less likely
to be UFOs than others. Why would we study those which aren't
likely to be UFOs? If they are not identified, but the liklihood
of misidentification is high, then such a case merely clutters
up the database. If they are identified after man-hours of
labor, then that labor was wasted, since even if the case were
not identified, the result would provide a meager number of data
points.

As investigators, I believe that if we have a 95% IFO rate, then
it is more likely we are investigating the wrong cases, not that
we aren't looking hard enough for the answers.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:26:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:10:27 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >There have actually been large numbers, I believe, of UFOs that
 >have been passed off as aircraft because they resembled aircraft
 >in certain respects, but they were not because other aspects of
 >them did not resemble aircraft. One of my own sightings could
 >illustrate this. It was rather like a medium sized aircraft 1 to
 >2 miles away, just moving along steadily. However, it was
 >cylindrical shaped (horizontally oriented), without any tail
 >section and no wings either (which I intensively looked for).
 >And it made no noise, though small planes at a comparable
 >distance can definitely be heard in my neighborhood. And this
 >object had a single vertical stripe around its middle, rather as
 >a capsule is sometimes divided into two halves.

Hi, Jim!

I must point out that your description is a match to something I
see every day here near my local airport - a somewhat distant
jet aircraft, usually a DC9, a 727 or some other T-tail
configuration, whose features are largely obscured by distance
and haze. The "band" to which you refer is actually the haze
filled shadow on the underside of the wing. The shadow is
roughly sky color due to the haze or environmental reflection,
and only stands out where contrasted against the brightness of
the fuselage. The reflected light of the rudder usually
eliminates this contrast for the stabilizer.

I am always highly suspect of this description for that reason.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                     Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:50:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:24:18 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey


 >From: Fred R. Saluga <FSaluga@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:41:45 EDT
 >Subject: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
 >had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
 >police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
 >unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
 >related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

I have had two cases with police involvement. In one case, the
police were called by the witness mother, and started to laugh
off the case, but the witness' mother, who had seen how upset
her son was, emphasized the importance of this. The police then
sent someone to the site, contacted the local hospital for
flights of their helicopter, and reported the case to NUFORC who
reported it to us.

In the second case, the police spoke to the witness, took his
information, drove through the area on subsequent nights, and
otherwise seemed to take him seriously.

 >B. In your opinion, should law enforcement take a more active
 >role in the investigation of UFOs and UFO related incidents?
 >Please explain.

The only areas where I believe this is critical is in

a) Initial interviews - police getting the initial report can
obtain many details which will be lost to memory by the time the
first investigative team arrives. Specifically, documenting
times, durations, directions and locations of witnesses would be
a great help.

b) Physical trace cases - professional forensic involvement
could be invaluable.

 >C. Have you ever consulted or been consulted by a law
 >enforcement officer or law enforcement agency on a UFO related
 >incident? Please explain and also how were you treated?

No, only indirectly by law enforcement report to NUFORC.

 >D. Do you have knowledge of a law enforcement officer or law
 >enforcement agency that has investigated an UFO incident and
 >filed an official law enforcement report on the incident?

AFAIK all calls to which an officer is dispatched get at least a
token report. But probably little else is done.

 >E. In your opinion, what types of investigations do you feel
 >that law enforcement should investiate in regards to UFOs and
 >UFO incidents? Also, what types of evidence do you fill that law
 >enforcement should collect in regards to the investigation of
 >UFO incidents?

See B.

 >F. In your opinion, should law enforcement set up a national
 >data base to identify, collect, and document information
 >pertaining to UFOs such as: size, shape, color, frequency of
 >sightings, abductions, and all other incidents relating to UFOs
 >and UFO incidents?

No. This is the role of UFO organizations. Officers should be
trained to recognize common IFOs, however.

 >G. In your opinion, do you feel that UFO related incidents could
 >pose a threat to the law enforcement community. If so, please
 >explain?

No.

 >H. In your opinion, do you feel that law enforcement should
 >establish a national crime lab to work with other investigators
 >to advocate the use of crime scene techniques and the collection
 >of forensic evidence in the investigation of UFO incidents?

No, but I would like to see more involvement by forensic
scientists in the collection, documentation and analysis of
physical evidence. However, such cases are so infrequent that
it hardly justifies any sort of "national crime lab".

If police would provide on-occasion forensic assistance to
investigators working on physical trace cases, that would
be very useful.

 >I. In your opinion, why are law enforcement officers reluctant
 >to express their views on UFOs and UFO related incidents?

No.

 >J. In your opinion, do you feel that local law enforcement would
 >participate in a cover-up, if so ordered to do so by the federal
 >government?

No.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:02:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:26:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >It is a fact that a 747 lands at London airport every 20 minutes
 >or so, if you don't believe me just walk out on the tarmac and
 >touch the vehicle.

 >When have we ever had _that_ kind of physical evidence?

On the other hand, isolated South Sea islanders do not, as far
as I know, have any pieces of said 747, despite the fact that
those aircraft fly ovcr their territory all the time.

So this is something of a strawman. We don't have any evidence
for terrestrial "UFOports", where we could go "on the tarmac"
and touch one.

Still, Socorro and Delphos spring to mind as good physical
evidence cases. As does Trans-en-Province.

 >Roy's original question was:

 >>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>craft?

 >That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >(what I perceive to be) simple question.

As I've stated here many times, to answer this question, one
must define the discriminators for an extraterrestrial source
for a UFO. In my view there are several, which include:

1) Cases of measured speeds at or above escape velocity.

2) Association of non-humans with UFOs.

3) Detection of UFOs in interplanetary and interstellar
space.

Of these, (3) is most critical and has not yet occurred. Thus,
it cannot be stated unequivocally that UFOs represent an
extraterrestrially sourced phenomenon.

Nevertheless, there are many suggestive cases, and of these,
there are some which have been sufficiently well-investigated
and have stood the test of time to the extent that the objective
researcher must conclude there is something worth scientific
examination going on, and that it seems to be a physical
phenomenon as well.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:53:20 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:01:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:35:20 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

<snip>

 >Note: this discussion centering on birds, whether pelicans or
 >swans or something else, has been going on for months; a
 >competing explanation put forth by a  credible (?) science
 >writer, Keay Davidson, is that Arnold saw a group of meteors..
 >So... take your pick. (these are recent explanations,. There
 >were plenty of earlier ones.)

 >>and everyone seems to be dragging Easton over the
 >>coals about his "Pelican Theory". Granted, his theory only works
 >>if a specific version of Arnold's story is applied and not all
 >>versions. Granted, it only works if you fill in the "blanks"
 >>with some practical logic about what else could account for the
 >>mystery objects. And it only works if you make some assumptions
 >>that Arnold was wrong about some of his "facts".>

 >And it only works if Easton can prove it with a "map" as defined
 >in numerous earlier posts.

 >>However, considering your statement above, it would appear that
 >>you are not only being selective about which of Arnold's
 >>versions is the "truth"; but you are also making an assumption
 >>that a part of his statement is "incorrect" because it doesn't
 >>jive with the outcome you'd like to believe. In fact, your own
 >>theory seems to be that you don't know what the objects were;
 >>but that they were not, and could not be, Pelicans.

 >Yes, I would say they cannot be pelicans (nor meteors, nor
 >mirages,  motes in the eye, orographic clouds, clouds of
 >billowing snow,  reflections from a haze layer, and wave clouds
 >in motion, nor hoax, nor fast fighter aircraft 6 miles
 >away.....). Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
 >accept ("believe") in the accuracy of  certain values of
 >quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses.  The
 >descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
 >"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
 >correct." Now, the Air Force, in 1948-49, decided that Arnold's
 >story was so full of holes it wasn't worth analyzing (so why
 >don't we all just accept the Air Force rejection of the sighting
 >and shut up?). Why did they say this?  Because the first
 >"analyzer," Dr. J. Allen Hynek, could not accept one of the
 >implcations of Arnold's statement, namely that the objects would
 >have been VERY LARGE, hundreds of feet in length, to be seen
 >with any details at a distance of 20 miles or so. Arnold had
 >claimed they were about 50 ft long. Hynek argued that if only 50
 >ft long they would have been too small to see.  Conversely, if
 >Arnold could see details of shape of objects 20 miles away they
 >would have to be huge.. (You would have to read my paper on
 >Arnold to get the details.)  Hence Hynek decided that the
 >objects probably were about 50 ft long, fast fighter aircraft ,
 >in which case they were not 20 miles away but only 6 miles away,
 >and traveling not 1,200 or 1,700 mph, but about 400 mph.  Hence
 >there was a big contradiction between Arnold's size estimate and
 >Hynek's size "estimate" (really a "preferred size") and so the
 >Air FOrce took this as indication that Arnold's report was so
 >full of contradictions and errors that it didn't merit further
 >attention.  Incidently, the official AF explanation has nothing
 >to do with  Hynek's analysis.  According to Project Blue Book
 >files Arnold saw a "mirage!" Now there's a rock-solid bit of
 >logic for you.

 >Returning to the main discussion, yes, I have chosen to assume
 >his initial distance estimate was wrong. There is no way he
 >could have known exactly how far away they were when he first
 >saw them unless they in some way "interacted with" a landform at
 >a known distance. This is exactly what happened AFTER they flew
 >south of Mt. Rainier, according to Arnold, who reported that
 >they flew "in and out of the mountain peaks" south of Rainier.
 >Obviously Easton has to reject this claim by Arnold if he is to
 >accept pelicans, which couldn't have been more than 2 miles from
 >the Arnold when at their closest (and probably well within a
 >mile.... herein lies the importance of a MAP!).

 >>I mean no disrespect, Bruce, but isn't that what everyone is
 >>bitching about Easton doing?  I'm not saying that the objects in
 >>question were Pelicans. However, your applied logic seems to
 >>ictate that we should also selectively view some of Arnold's
 >>statements as "wrong" in order to disprove Easton's theory in
 >>favor of your own.

 >EVERYONE is "guilty" of picking and choosing the "data"
 >(descriptions).... When it comes to analysis of a UFO sighting
 >we are given the testimony of the witness (no photos, etc. in
 >this case) and we have to make the most of it. Witnesses will
 >sometimes say things that seemingly could not be. I'm not
 >talking about the UFO itself (which :"cannot be" according to
 >conventional thinking). A witness might say he saw a light in a
 >certain direction and you go there and find there is a huge wall
 >of a building that would have blocked the view. What do you do
 >then?  Reject the statement, or try to accomodate some modified
 >version? Here Arnold said he saw the objects flying in and out
 >of the mountain peaks....they "swerved in and out of the high
 >mountain peaks.." If Easton is correct, then Arnold said
 >something that could not be true.  If Easton is correct, why in
 >the world would Arnold think that the objects had traveled on
 >the opposite side of a mountain peak (or mountain peaks)? But
 >Arnold said it.   Is there any reason to doubt Arnold's
 >statement?  The only reason offered goes like this :  (a) Arnold
 >claimed the objects were at about on his horizon ("I would
 >estimate their elevation could have varies by a thousand feet
 >one way or another up or down, but they were pretty much on the
 >horizon to me which would indicate that they were nea the same
 >elevation to me"..from his letter to the Air Force).  Since he
 >believed (Arnold was a beliver!) that his plane was at 9,200 ft,
 >he assigned an altitude of 9,500 ft to the objects. However (b)
 >the mountain peaks south of Rainier (which is 14,400 ft high)
 >are lower than about 7,000 ft, and the only peaks which the
 >objects could have disappeared behind are 5-6000 ft high. .
 >Hence (c) Arnold was wrong either in his altitude estimate  or
 >in his claim that the objects flew in and out of the mountain
 >peaks.


Hi Bruce,

I snipped the last part of this but for once I'd like to get on
the record, something that I've mentioned before. This argument
over Arnold's actual estimate of his altitude and how he arrived
at the height of the mountains. There was no estimate, he looked
at his altimeter and saw his altitude. But was the altimeter
right?

First though, Bruce is right in bringing up the depression angle
to the horizon that pilots flying VFR use as a guide to straight
and level, but it is subjective to each pilot and the airplane.
You pick a spot on the windscreen or above the panel after you
have trimmed to level flight and then see where the horizon
is.You use that as a reference and use it most times when you
are flying the same aircraft.

Checking your altimeter, vertical speed indicator or your Gyro
Horizon will tell you if you are level.

Now about that altimeter. You set your altimeter at the field
you are taking off from, usually by bringing up the field
altitude. You dial that in. If you look at the inches of mercury
scale you will see what your barimetric pressure is. On a
standard day that's 29.92 inches of mercury.It's not often that
you see that. ONCE you leave that area however, all bets are
off, the pressure can change, up or down. Nowadays you can get
checks from the nearest airfild by radio and get the "station"
pressure for that area. Arnold couldn't do that because he
didn't have a radio.

BTW Greg Long, the reason why Arnold didn't have a radio was
because he had no electrical power in that machine, not because
he was reckless. Contrary to what you used to see in the movies
in those days, most light aircraft didn't have radios for three
main reasons. 1] No electrics [battery or generator], 2] they
were bloody expensive [they still are] and 3] the early radios
were very heavy. The radio plus the inverter to go from 12 volts
DC to 300 volts+ AC could run as much as 40 pounds. The light
aircraft engines of those days and now run off magnetos. You
hand propped the early light planes to get them started.

Anyway since Arnold could not check the station altimeter
pressure for the Mineral city area say, he had no way of really
knowing what his altitude was. It could have been out as much as
1,000+ feet either way.

My last word on that part of the subject.

Thanks

Don Ledger





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:37:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300


<snip>

 >We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >available.

Stanton's wiggly reasons to justify his belief (because that's
all it is) in extraterrestrials visiting Earth reach new levels.

Yes Stanton, criminal courts don't always have physical proof.
Well spotted. But there is one teensy flaw in your argument
here. Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
beings (dead or alive), whose physical existance is without
doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
whatsoever. Hence you analogy is useless. It doesn't matter what
you believe, what the statistics of belief show. All that
matters in the ET debate is hard, physical proof. And there
ain't any.

Happy Trails

Andy

'You may have observed when you walk into a wall you
get a certain sensation of reality.'
Robin Williamson
1969





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 12:22:14 PDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:40:03 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100


Hi, Jenny,

 >There have been some curious responses to my posting in reply to
 >the question asked about whether - in my 25 years experience -
 >one alien spacecraft had conclusively been seen. I thought I
 >answered it fully and properly. Evidently not. It seems that for
 >some of you unless I can be bullied into saying - yes, sure,
 >they are here I admit it, then it isn't good enough.

I think that when you get more used to what happens on this
list, you'll stop characterizing it as "bullying" and start
accepting it for what it is: the usual rough and tumble of
debate, from which nobody -- including someone so esteemed as
your own good self -- is immune.  You're still a neophite here.
You need to thicken your skin a little.

 >Well, sorry, I cannot honestly do that . I am afraid this
 >attitude is, in my view, a large part of what is wrong with
 >ufology. The plea - do we have to wait another 25 years for an
 >answer - seems to be saying, go on, say they are here, I don't
 >want to keep waiting to hear you say what I want you to say. I
 >reckon we do have a good part of the answer. I understand what's
 >going on far more than when I started. Its just that you don't
 >seem to like what I say I have found. Problem is if you stand 25
 >years at a bus stop waiting for a train it won't show up.

In your opinion. With all due respect, yours is an informed
view, but just one of a number, many of which disagree with
yours. As you're learning.

 >As for Stanton's facts and figures. Some of them need to be
 >interpreted. Yes, Condon found a third unsolved. But so would I
 >if I selected the 60 best cases from the past year rather than
 >studied the 6000 or whatever total sightings that have happened.

This misrepresents what happened with the Condon Committee.
Hynek and McDonald _wanted_ it to look at only the best cases.
Condon decided otherwise, no doubt because of his severe
antipathy to the UFO phenomenon, and the committee ended up
taking on whatever came its way, whatever the quality.  (At the
most absurd extreme this involved Condon's going to a spot where
a contactee had predicted a landing.)  Even so, about 30% of the
committee's cases ended up unexplained. According to several
reinvestigations (for example McDonald's) some of the explaineds
should in fact have been in the unexplained category. The great
irony, as Allen Hynek wrote in a piece on the Colorado Project
for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1969), was that
"the percentage of `unknowns' in the Condon report appears to be
even higher than in the Air Force investigation ... which led to
the Condon investigation in the first place."

 >I cannot change the results of what I find to make people happy.
 >As I replied (and sorry its going to sound repetitive but as
 >some of you don't seem to grasp what I am saying its necessary)
 >here is what I actually find. And so, by the way, do a lot of
 >other ufologists beyond the US. Many researchers in the US seem
 >unaware that there is a ufology beyond the East Coast or the
 >West Coast. But there is and when you add it up its actually
 >bigger and very different from whats in the US as well. Note I
 >did not say better. That is not my argument.

Oh, those US ufologists -- the root of all evil in the world.
Seriously, I detect a lot of provincialism (and, dare I say it,
a whiff of anti-Americanism - I am not referring to you, Jenny)
in non-US ufologists, too.  In truth, we all could learn from
each other. Instead, we are dowsed with gallons of rhetorical
dishwater in which "US ufology" becomes a synonym for "wrong
ufology." Sorry -- I don't buy it, and beyond that, I'm getting
bored with it.

 >In the UK in an average year we get say 300 sightings. Of thise
 >we can pretty conclusively explain around 180 (60%). I don't
 >think there are too many disputes so far. Of the rest I contend,
 >from my experience, that another 30 - 35% (it does vary - and
 >thats maybe another 100 cases) are probably explainable. You
 >cannot ever say for sure because the data to prove them is not
 >there. But they are LITS or low definition incidents where it is
 >best to err on the side of caution.

Explaining LITs is, for the most part, the functional equivalent
of shooting fish in a barrel.  I would hope that in the future
UK ufologists would invest their limited resources more wisely.

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 26

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Dave Bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:16:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:47:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

<snip>

 >>After reading your percentages I would be interested to know
 >>what your percentage is for confirmed alien contact.

 >There is a serious semantic difficulty here. I have no idea what
 >is meant here by "confirmed alien contact" or why it would be
 >required. Does this mean a BBC reporter taking down name and
 >address of visiting aliens? An appearance on the Larry King show
 >by an alien showng his driver's license?.

Oh yes big yuks, but if only that were true. If there were such
a thing as 'confirmed' alien contact I'm sure we all would
expect nothing less than the joke you have just put forward, or
even something beyond that, perhaps a spot on the Letterman
show.

 >I speak of evidence. Science is a way of answering questions.
 >Sometimes one can conduct totally controllable, reproducible
 >experiments in a lab Sometimes one has to deal with predictable
 >events that can't be controlled, but can be predicted and, if
 >conditions are right, observed such as an eclipse. Because
 >eclipses do occur certainly doesn't mean that I can cause them
 >to occur and be seen when and where I would like.

 >There is a third kind of event unpredictable and uncontrollable
 >that one can be ready to observe such as solar storms,
 >earthquakes.

 >Finally there are events involving the world of intelligent
 >beings such as murder, automobile and airplane crashes, rapes
 >etc.

Intelligent? you mean humans?? Dolphins are intelligent, they
don't drive cars, rape or murder or even fly air planes. But I'm
just being silly.

 >As I wrote I am convinced that _some_ so called UFOs, after
 >careful investigation, can rationally be judged to be
 >intelligently controlled ET spacecraft. That doesn't answer such
 >questions as the names and origins of the occupants, the mode of
 >propulsion, the motivaton of the pilots, etc. The appearance
 >says they are manufactured. The combination of behavior and
 >appearance says they originate elsewhere. Since the obvious most
 >important aspect to governments re flying saucers is their
 >technology useful for military applications,the craft observed
 >did not originate here on Earth.

In other words you are jumping to a conclusion based on
available info.

 >This is frankly silly. The BBSR 14 definition of 'unknown' "was
 >assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description
 >of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the
 >pattern of any known object or phenomenon". There was no
 >category for ET spacecraft.

This is not frankly silly, it's just frank. If one can
categories a true ET encounter then why not just say it?
Otherwise we're just left with a whole bunch of 'unknowns' which
translates as 'your guess is as good as mine'.

In other words the BBSR 14 definition of 'unknown' was.....
Your guess is as good as mine.

 >>It is a fact that a 747 lands at London airport every 20 minutes
 >>or so, if you don't believe me just walk out on the tarmac and
 >>touch the vehicle.

 >>When have we ever had _that_ kind of physical evidence?

 >Why would one expect to?

Well if one were looking for physical proof maybe?

 >Obviously the pilots are interested in
 >doing other things. Ted Phillips has, on the other hand,
 >collected more than 5000 physical trace cases from 65 countries
 >with more than 1000 involving observations of unusual beings in
 >association with the unusual craft landing in unusual places and
 >also being able to take off from those same places. These cases
 >involve evidence as do the many pilot cases (Dr. Richard Haines
 >has collected more than 3500) and the many radar visual cases...
 >and also in abduction cases. One makes do with the evidence that
 >is available even if it doesn't include a craft in the middle of
 >the world series. I would certainly be pleased if the US
 >government would relase pieces of the Roswell wreckage.. I don't
 >expect that to happen any more than I expect them to auction off
 >atomic bombs to the highest bidder . Though admittedly I really
 >believe they have such bombs, despite one not being where I can
 >touch it.

Which brings us back to the alien thing doesn't it.

I agree with you totally about the strange objects in our skies.
Yes the evidence is overwhelming, that there's something odd
occupying our airspace. My argument is where they originate
from. To say they are of alien origin is just anothers guess.

 >>In the words of Carl Sagan 'bring me a piece of a flying
 >>saucer'.

 >As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers, Carl
 >Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things about flying
 >saucers. This is one. Should I demand a piece of a black hole in
 >order to believe that they exist?

 >Should a woman who has been raped have to provide an ID card for
 >the rapist?

No of course not, but asking for a piece of flying saucer in the light
of your examples would seem quite small.

 >>As far as the polls are concerned how many people were asked if
 >>they believed in Angels? The result was rather high again.

 >This silly.

This is silly.

Why? check it out, the amount of people who believe in Angels is
also rather high. If a poll was conducted using humans aged no
more than 6, asked if they believed in Santa Claus the result
would be high yet again. Shall we all believe in Santa Claus
based on the result? Irrelevant.

 >>Roy's original question was:
 >
 >>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>>craft?

 >>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >I answered it in my posting. I believe the evidence is
 >overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently
 >controlled ET spacecraft:Some so-called UFOs are alien vehicles.
 >I should think that is very straight forward and unambiguous.

So basically the answer is _yes_ I believe. And YES there is
overwhelming evidence of something odd occupying our skies. But
NO there is no evidence of alien visitation.

Sorry to be a real PITA (figure it out for yourselves).





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                               Re: ISSO Update

From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:55:05 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:43:19 -0400
Subject: Re: ISSO Update


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:11:21 +500
 >Subject: Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>]

 >>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>
 >>Subject: ISSO Update


 >>It gives me great pleasure to announce that on July 28, 1999,
 >>the International Space Sciences Organization will officially be
 >>launched.

 ><snipped>

 >It suddenly occurred to me that Mr. Firmage was looking for an
 >artist with honesty, an appropriate attitude, aptitude -- an
 >artist with a lack of ufological ineptitude . . . to reflect the
 >spirit of his new initiative.

 >It may be that I am that artist.

 >Samples of my work can be seen on my site -- hundreds in the
 >Dreamland portion of Renseworld. Please go to coordinates 9n
 >57w, spend a reflective moment in a grove of Poet Trees, then
 >take the warp to the sky gallery. Follow the directions of the
 >uniformed attendants (touch them with your cursor).

 >My work is unlike the usual, and certainly precludes the short
 >reach of stark photorealism of ANY competency. If Mr. Firmage is
 >interested in an artist with more reach (imagination) and less
 >dependence on the limitations of tradition, the celebration of
 >the individual as individual -- if he's looking for something
 >with *there* there. . .


Or you could check my site at:

http://wkweb4.cableinet.co.uk/dbowden/

I do some pretty good stuff too.

Dave.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:54:20 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:51:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:29:17 -0700
 >From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>>>A. Some facts:

 >>>>l. 20% of 3201 sightings investigated by Battelle Memorial
 >>>>Institute as reported in Project Blue Book Special Report 14
 >>>>could NOT be identified and were separate from the 10% for which
 >>>>there was insufficient Information.

 >Fact: There was insufficient information to identify _not one
 >report_ as an extraterretrial spacecraft, yet we are led to
 >believe by Stanton Friedman that PBBSR 14 statistically supports
 >his notion that "some" UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.


The category ET Spacecraft was not one that could be used. So
Ed's statement makes no sense. I asked a simple question: what
is meant by " confirmed alien contact". Does this mean a report
from the Pope or the Queen or the UN? Confirmed how and by whom?
The testimony of thousands of witnesses certainly carries weight
in court as do radar measurements. Observations of objects
landing and taking off and leaving physical traces and in about
1/5 of the cases involving strange beings cannot be ignored even
if the Pope or Larry King or Ed Stewart wasn't there. The
testimony of abductees cannot be ignored even if the Queen
wasn't there. The % of UNKNOWNS was not 10% it was 20%. I gave
the definition they used. But Ed who apparently doesn't care
much for BBSR 14 conveniently negelcts to mention that no
sighting could be listed as an UNKOWN unless all 4 final report
evaluators agreed. Any 2 could list it in one of the other
categories which included aircraft, Balloon, astronomical,
psychological aberration, miscelaneous and Insufficent
Information. BMI did a quality evaluation of every report. They
found that the better the quality of the report the more likely
to be an UNKNOWN and the less likely to be listed as insufficent
information-- exactly what one would expect if the UNKNOWNS were
indeed different from the knowns. They did a chi-square
statistical comparison between the characteristics of the
UNKNOWNS and of the  KNOWNS; the probability that the UNKNOWNS
are just missed knowns is less than 1%.

 >Also, what Stanton Friedman, as well as others that like to
 >mention BBSR 14 as supportive of their notions, neglects to
 >always tell his audience is that the Battelle Memorial study
 >only read the reports given it by the Air Force. Battelle never
 >conducted any investigation --- they simply tried to interpret
 >whatever pieces of papers (reports) they got from the Air Force.
 >They _never investigated_ the actual reports for the validity of
 >the anecdotal information provided in them and therefore could
 >never pass judgement as to the accuracy of the anectotal
 >documentation contained in the reports. As a consequence,
 >reports containing anecdotal mis-observations, anecdotal
 >mis-quotations/mis-identifications, conflicting anecdotal
 >observations, etc. would of necessity be included in the so much
 >quoted "10% unknown" category because they were not identifiable


It is 20%  Ed  not 10%. Perhaps you ought to buy and read  a
copy of the 250 page report from UFORI, Complete with the
misleading press release and all tables, charts etc only $25.
including priority Postage.I will even throw in my  20 page"Case
for The ET Origin of Flying Saucers" (only $4.by itself) from
UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958. Or call Toll Free 877
457-0232. Visa or MC.

 >to a specific category, i.e. balloons, etc. and did in fact
 >contain unverified anecdotal evidence that the actual report
 >could not be identified to a specific cause, i.e. balloons, etc.

 >>>After reading your percentages I would be interested to know
 >>>what your percentage is for confirmed alien contact.
 >>>There is a serious semantic difficulty here. I have no idea
 >>>whatis meant here by "confirmed alien contact" or why it would
 >>>be required.

Again simple question what does the phrase "confirmed alien
contact" mean?

 >Stanton Friedman all of a sudden seems to have difficulty in
 >answering a simple question. I will provide Dave Bowden an
 >answer backed-up by statistical evidence which is verifiable by
 >anyone so wishing to do so. I compiled the comprehensive indexes
 >to the FLYING SAUCER REVIEW from 1955-1994 and the combined
 >MUFON UFO JOURNAL/SKYLOOK from 1967-1996. During that time there
 >were 6,859 articles and entries in FSR/FSR Case Histories/FSR
 >Special Issues and 9,231 articles and entries in the
 >SKYLOOK/MUFON Journal/MUFON Proceedings --- all are cross
 >indexed by author, subject category, volume and issue, providing
 >the reader/researcher with over 48,000 entries.

 >These 16,090 articles and reports are representative of the best
 >ufological research and reporting of the UFO phenomenon over the
 >past five decades. The percentage for confirmed alien contact is

Again what in the world is meant by "Confirmed alien contact",
by telephone, fax, Email?

A rubber stamp from Ed Stewart?

 >_zero_. Stanton Friedman calls it "a serious semantic
 >difficulty".

It is because it is undefined.SETI cultists talk about contact
from many light years away; is that what is meant? Or a
handshake or what?

 >When asked to produce a single case Friedman, as
 >well as others holding similar viewpoints, refuse to do so
 >stating that the evidence that some UFOs are extraterrestrial
 >spacecraft is in the aggregate, not in any single case.

Try RB 47, Hills, Salt Lake City.. etc etc. Try those in Jim
McDonald's congressional testimony though none have papal
imprimateur.

 >Yet, the 16,090 MUFON and FSR articles that have reported on
 >ufological cases, offered here as evidence in the aggregate,
 >fail to substantiate Friedman's contention and belief that "some
 >UFOs" are extraterrestrial spacecraft. Instead, they are
 >introduced here as compelling evidence that the percentage of
 >"confirmed alien contact" in the published UFO literature as of
 >today is _zero_!

You still haven't defined CAC.

 ><snip>

 >>This is frankly silly. The BBSR 14 definition of 'unknown' "was
 >>assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description
 >>of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the
 >>pattern of any known object or phenomenon". There was no
 >>category for ET spacecraft.

 >Since there was no investigation by Battelle for the accuracy
 >and veracity of the reports, the anecdotal information had to be
 >taken literally. That would included any misquotes,
 >mis-reporting, mis-identifications, and conflicting anecdotes.
 >Difficult of the job as it was, the Battelle staff were still
 >able to categorise all the reports but a mere 10%.

Again it was 20% Ed. That is much higher than the % of isotopes
that are fissionable or people who are 7' tall.

 ><snip>

 >>As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers, Carl
 >>Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things about flying
 >>saucers.

 >As I have documented in the past on this very same mailing list,
 >Friedman's _Top Secret/Majic_ is riddled with errors, historical
 >innacuracies, misrepresentation of people's quotes and
 >positions, faulty logic, and unsupported substantiations in the
 >presentation of his beliefs. The above is a matter or record.
 >Check the archival record of this mailing list for past
 >discussions on MJ-12 for specific examples.

Now I understand CAC.. approved by Ed Stewart. Sorry I don't
belong to that church.

 >>>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>>>in the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>>>least one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>>>craft?

 >>>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >>I answered it in my posting. I believe the evidence is
 >>overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by
 >>intelligently controlled ET spacecraft:Some so-called UFOs are
 >>alien vehicles. I should think that is very straight forward
 >>and unambiguous.

 >Unfortunately, it is not supported by anything ever published in
 >the FSR and MUFON literature which I have indexed and made those
 >indexes available. I am also in the process of indexing the
 >NICAP, APRO, and CIS literature to be available in the next
 >century. Overwhelming evidence for extraterrestrial spacecraft
 >has yet to show up, contrary to Stanton Friedman's contention
 >and positional statements on his world-wide tours.


Sounds like the green monster is  coming into play. Sorry Ed, I
don't need anybody to carry my luggage.

Stan Friedman





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:32:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:54:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

Previously, Bruce had offered:

 >>>What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >>>estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >>>wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

To which I had essentially questioned why it was okay for Bruce
or others to make assumtions about the validity and accuracy of
Arnold's statements to support their own theories; but not for
Easton to have the same right, regardless of what his theory
might be.

Bruce responded:

<much respected snip>

 >Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
 >accept ("believe") in the accuracy of  certain values of
 >quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses.  The
 >descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
 >"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
 >correct."

<snip>

 >Returning to the main discussion, yes, I have chosen to assume
 >his initial distance estimate was wrong. There is no way he
 >could have known exactly how far away they were when he first
 >saw them unless they in some way "interacted with" a landform at
 >a known distance.

<snip>

 >EVERYONE is "guilty" of picking and choosing the "data"
 >(descriptions).... When it comes to analysis of a UFO sighting
 >we are given the testimony of the witness (no photos, etc. in
 >this case) and we have to make the most of it. Witnesses will
 >sometimes say things that seemingly could not be.

<snip>

 >If Easton is correct, then Arnold said
 >something that could not be true.  If Easton is correct, why in
 >the world would Arnold think that the objects had traveled on
 >the opposite side of a mountain peak (or mountain peaks)? But
 >Arnold said it. Is there any reason to doubt Arnold's
 >statement?

<snip>

Come on, Bruce. Be fair, here. By your own admission, you have
chosen to believe some of Arnold's claims but not others. And
the fact is that he has given several versions  of the same
story. Which one do you believe is true and why?

Moving on, Bruce offered:

<snip>

 >Therefore Arnold could be reporting
 >accurately his impression of seeing the objects "at his
 >altitude" whereas they were actually below his altitude by
 >several thousand feet, and, hence, they could, in principle,
 >have been flying "in and out of the high mountain peaks. Is this
 >being "selective" of the data? Sure.  But it is backed up by
 >some analysis.

<snip>

 >As for myself, I _have_ assumed a constant speed and concluded
 >that the initial sighting location was abou 40-60 miles north of
 >Arnold.

I think you missed my point; or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

It is obvious that for your own theory to "work", it is
important to assume that some of Arnold's claims were either
untrue or incorrect. And let's not be vague about this; there is
a big difference between "interpreting" his information and
simply claiming Arnold was wrong or making something up. It is
also obvious from your previous statement that you feel free to
"fill in the blanks" about some things that you admit neither
you, nor anyone else, could possibly know. The justification you
give is that doing so "makes sense"...to you.

If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
why can't anyone else, including Easton?

For the record, I don't believe that what Arnold saw was
Pelicans. My own reasoning is less than scientific; I'd simply
like to believe what he was were UFO's. However, I offer this
info regarding the "dissapearance" of the pelicans behind
mountain peaks. I have some video that I shot of my relative's
kids playing frisbee. On more than one occasion, the frisbee
flatened out to the point that it "dissappeared" behind a tree
almost a hundred feet in the distance. The effect was quite
startling. I have no doubt this was the effect Easton was
talking about. Considering we lose our sense of three
dimensional perception beyond about 35 feet or so, it would be
easy to be fooled by this effect in mid air. Just a thought.

Later,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: Kathleen Anderson <KAnder6444@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:32:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:16:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: Roger Evans >moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:35:20 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >let's face it;
 >Arnold's stories were so inconsistent that just about anything
 >could fit the mold, even, I'm sorry to say, Pelicans.


Sorry, Rog, I feel like I could possibly get a brain hemmorage
over the pelican theory. I can't seem to get it across  that we
don't have pelicans in Washington state. Canadian Geese yes,
Pelicans no. But you did make a good point that there is some
Arnold points that don't fit.

To James Easton, perception is a major key with the Arnold case.
Its a hard thing to visualize when you are sitting in the UK. A
map will never take the place of being at the actual location. I
have read the coverage by Jenny Randles  and also Larry
Warren/Peter Robbins about Rendlesham Forest. I did not see a
forest. I saw a stand of skinny tall trees that looked more
sparse than most backyards in the Pacific Northwest. How can
anyone be "scared" in this little group of trees? I was puzzled.
Again it goes back to perception. What is it in comparison to.
How do we logically see and analyze something? By comparing it
to what we already know? If we have never been to a mountain, a
hill would seem very large. We we have never seen an ocean, a
lake would be huge.

I am off again this weekend to Mt. Rainier. I will take plenty
of video if anyone is interesting in seeing. Granted I am not
totally convinced Arnold had a good perspective of any object
near Mt. Baker over 60 miles to the north. It would have to be a
large object to see it. Much bigger than a 747!

No, I am not the expert here. But I have yet to come across many
other people who can  match my hours over the years of sitting,
hiking and sleeping on that mountain wondering what Kenneth
Arnold did actually see.

P.S. But of course I've really enjoyed the debate of it all!!!

Kathleen Andersen
MUFON State Section Director





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                   Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:54:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:26:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update


 >From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Project SIGN Research Center Update
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:49:30 -0600


 >PUBLIC RELEASE:

 >On June 27, 1999  Wendy Connors, Project SIGN Research Center
 >and Michael David Hall, Project Blue Book Research Center,
 >obtained a never publicly known 114 page history of Air Materiel
 >Command's T-2 Intelligence. This Historical Study was prepared
 >by Air Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio  and
 >released in August 1948. This history was classified SECRET and
 >first xeroxed in 1965. It has been declassified. The report was
 >prepared from over 678 pages of supplemental sources. The
 >supplemental pages detail the information that is contained
 >within this Historical Study.


Congratulations on getting another info release.

Does this document go into any detail on the UFO investigations?





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                      Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Organizations

From: Joel Henry <jhenry@visi.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:24:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:29:56 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Organizations


 >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:19:49 +0100
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
 >Subject: UFO Organizations


 >I have recently had an e-mail from Mary Kubac <kubac@digisys.net>
 >asking if there are any UFO Organizations in Montana and wonder
 >if anyone can assist her?

 >Also while looking at the error logs for the UFINFO site I found
 >people looking for UFO Organizations in the following states:

 >Alabama
 >Arkansas
 >Florida
 >Iowa
 >Kansas
 >Louisiana
 >Maine
 >Montana
 >Nebraska
 >Nevada
 >North Dakota
 >Oklahoma
 >South Carolina
 >Virginia
 >Wisconsin

 >If anyone has details of organizations in the above states I
 >would be interested in obtaining the information for inclusion
 >on the site.

 >Details of organizations elsewhere who are not already listed
 >are welcome.


I have 2 pages on my site listing contact info and web sites for
most of the MUFON state organisations.

see: http://www.visi.com/~jhenry/contact3.htm
and: http://www.visi.com/~jhenry/linkmuf.htm

Joel Henry
Minnesota MUFON

*****************************************************
Minnesota MUFON Webmaster
Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs

From: David Rudiak DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:04:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:33:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs

 >Now, the Air Force, in 1948-49, decided that Arnold's
 >story was so full of holes it wasn't worth analyzing (so why
 >don't we all just accept the Air Force rejection of the sighting
 >and shut up?). Why did they say this?  Because the first
 >"analyzer," Dr. J. Allen Hynek, could not accept one of the
 >implcations of Arnold's statement, namely that the objects would
 >have been VERY LARGE, hundreds of feet in length, to be seen
 >with any details at a distance of 20 miles or so. Arnold had
 >claimed they were about 50 ft long. Hynek argued that if only 50
 >ft long they would have been too small to see.  Conversely, if
 >Arnold could see details of shape of objects 20 miles away they
 >would have to be huge.. (You would have to read my paper on
 >Arnold to get the details.)  Hence Hynek decided that the
 >objects probably were about 50 ft long, fast fighter aircraft ,
 >in which case they were not 20 miles away but only 6 miles away,
 >and traveling not 1,200 or 1,700 mph, but about 400 mph.  Hence
 >there was a big contradiction between Arnold's size estimate and
 >Hynek's size "estimate" (really a "preferred size") and so the
 >Air FOrce took this as indication that Arnold's report was so
 >full of contradictions and errors that it didn't merit further
 >attention.  Incidently, the official AF explanation has nothing
 >to do with  Hynek's analysis.  According to Project Blue Book
 >files Arnold saw a "mirage!" Now there's a rock-solid bit of
 >logic for you.

Actually what was full of holes was Hynek's analysis, not
Arnold's report.  Hynek was an astronomer, which may have made
him an expert on the optics of telescopes and their resolution.
But he obviously knew nothing about measurement of human visual
acuity.

Hynek reasoned thusly.  Arnold reported that when the objects
flew past Mt. Rainier and when seen edge on, they nearly
disappeared from view, looking like a dark thin line against the
snow white background.  Furthermore, Arnold estimated their
length to thickness ratio at about 20 to 1.  And finally, Arnold
guesstimated their distance from a subpeak of Rainier which he
said they flew and disappeared behind.  That peak was about 23
miles from his position.

Well, says Hynek, humans can't see anything smaller than 3
minutes of arc (WRONG!!!), so when Arnold barely made out the
objects edge-on, the thickness couldn't have been less than 3
minarc, which translates to about 100 feet at 23 miles.

Furthermore, since Arnold estimated the objects to be 20 times
longer than thick, this would mean these craft would have been
100 feet thick and 2000 feet long.  That was preposterous, said
Hynek, so obviously Arnold screwed up.  Maybe they were jet
planes only 6 miles away and flying at conventional subsonic
aircraft speeds.

Thus Hynek dismissed Arnold's sighting with the wave of his
debunking hand.  Hynek never saw the error of his ways, because
he used the same argument in his "UFO believer" days 30 years
later.  (See, e.g., "The Hynek UFO Report, 1977)

Oddly, two seconds thought should have told Hynek his own
argument was nonsense.  E.g., how big would the "jet planes"
have to be, using Hynek's own numbers, if you scaled the
distance from 23 miles to 6 miles?  Why the dimensions would be
about one quarter of those numbers which he used to ridicule the
Arnold sighting.  Hynek's "jets" would have been over 500 feet
long!

Hynek's big screw-up was in his statement that humans can't see
anything smaller than 3 minutes of arc.  A 3 minarc test object
corresponds to 20/12 visual acuity.    On an eye chart, the test
target, say the letter 'E', would be 3 minutes of arc high, but
the lines and gaps making up the letter actually measure 1/5th
of this, or 0.6 minarc.  So 20/12 acuity says the person is just
able to resolve the white gaps between the dark lines that make
up the letter 'E', or is resolving 0.6 minarc, not 3 minarc.

But this still wasn't Arnold's resolution task, since Arnold
wasn't resolving two closely spaced parallel lines, but was
discerning an _isolated_ line against a contrasting background,
an even simpler acuity task.  It is possible, under controlled
conditions, for humans to just make out a highly contrasting
dark line against a light background, when the line subtends an
angle of only 2 _seconds_ of arc.

What really happens here is this.  Under ideal conditions, the
image of the line on the retina is smeared by pupillary
diffraction to a width of about 4 minarc, which also corresponds
to the width of the smallest photoreceptors in our retina (an
example of evolution converging to an optimal solution).  As
long as the smeared dark line on the retina is above some small
threshold of luminance difference with the surrounding light
background (typically about .5% luminance difference), one is
able to make out that a line is there, but no details.

If the dark line is near threshold in thinness, it appears to be
extremely faint.  As one thickens the angular size of the line
up to about 0.4 minarc threshold, the line appears no thicker,
but does get darker and much easier to detect.

What about Arnold's sighting?  Edge-on, the objects almost
seemed to disappear, looking like a _dark_ line.  Since Arnold
saw the line as dark and not faint, but still barely visible, it
suggests that the actual thickness was closer to about 0.4
minarc.

This is 7.5 times smaller than the bogus acuity number used by
Hynek.  Using Arnold's estimates of distance and length to
thickness, the craft would actually have been about 14 feet
thick, not 100, and 280 feet in length, not Hynek's hugely
inflated 2000.  So the craft in this analysis would have been
jumbo jet size, hardly preposterous at all.

According to Ed Ruppelt, somebody at Project Sign apparently did
a similar analysis to mine, and arrived at a figure of 210 to
280 feet in length.  This may explain why they went to mirages
to "explain" the Arnold sighting rather than use Hynek's bogus
debunking argument.  200+ feet was no longer an unreasonable
number for an aircraft.

One could easily imagine Arnold being in error about the
length/thickness ratio, which is very difficult to estimate
accurately when the ratio starts getting large.  E.g., his
drawing to the Air Force has the ratio at about 11 to 1, rather
than 20 to 1.  Using a smaller 10 to 1 ratio would bring the
length down to about 140 feet, or more like commuter jet size.

Arnold gave other details in his report that provide additional
clues to the angular dimension of the objects he saw.  Using a
cowling tool for a crude measuring device, he said that the
angular size of the objects was about the same as the distance
between the inner engines of a DC-4 which he saw off in the
distance.  He estimated the DC-4 to be about 15 miles away.

Since the distance between the engines is about 60 feet, and
scaling to Arnold's 23 miles, the objects would have been about
90 feet in length, which is less than arrived at above.
However, one can legitimately quibble as to the accuracy of
Arnold's estimates of plane distance and angular size of objects
to engine separation.  These were difficult perceptual tasks.
Possible errors of up to 30-40% seem reasonable here.  E.g., if
Arnold overestimated the distance to the plane by 20% (meaning
it was 12 miles instead of 15 miles away), and underestimated
the angular width of the unknowns by 20% compared to the DC-4
engine spacing, then one again arrives at a figure of about 140
feet in length for the unknown objects at a distance of 23
miles.

Skeptics may howl about my assumptions here, but they are
actually perfectly reasonable ones to make to resolve the
inconsistencies.  This sort of stuff is done all the time in the
sciences.  It's bracketing of values based on estimates of
error.    Arnold could be a little wrong here or there, but a
self-consistent model of true size can be derived by making some
assumptions of just how wrong Arnold might possibly be in one
detail or another.

This also makes Hynek's jet-planes explanation half-way
reasonable, at least in terms of size.  Hynek's numbers would
have made jet planes at 6 miles over 500 feet in length.  But
under the above assumptions they would have been more like 35
feet in length, which is just what you want for 1947 military
jet planes.  That's about how big they were back then.

Jet planes, however, do not explain the weird formation flying
Arnold reported.  Why the reverse-echelon formation?  How do jet
planes play "follow the leader" and weave like the tail of a
kite, or appear to snake around mountain peaks, and at high
speeds?  This is all rather difficult to explain.

And why couldn't Arnold make out details on such planes, such as
tails or wings or an exhaust trail?  Arnold said his initial
guess was that they might be a new kind of jet plane.  He kept
looking for tails, but couldn't make out any tails, a detail he
should have been able to discern, as Arnold well knew from
experience.

And whose jet planes?  It seems the Air Force could easily have
put the whole thing to rest by giving the identity of a flight
of their jet planes.  Didn't they know where their own planes
were?

So jet planes is a barely viable hypothesis in terms of size and
speed and bright flashing of light, but nothing else.  It's
still a much better hypothesis than "pelicans" or the latest
debunking monstrosity apparently coming down the pike --
meteors.


David Rudiak





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 27

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:23:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:41:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:24:01 +0100

 >Well what a personal attack this is' care to name the & Co.?

Personal attack? Stating that a childs balloon is a cloaked ET
craft gives me the distinct impression that your standards of
evidence are lower, so not a personal attack but a reality.

Talking of attacks, I heard all about your visit to Chris
Martin's, and the various conversations that went! Care to
comment?

 >Who in your group has been remote viewing craft and talking to
 >their ET occupants? (Sorry they could be angels, goblins,
 >demons anything)

Remote viewing is subjective and you're right, we are
investigating it's uses in the UFO phenomenon. In fact Sue is
the person who seems to be getting results, but to date we have
not established whether she is contacting anything other than
her imagination!

Tony





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:38:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:56:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>Roy's original question was:

 >>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>in >the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>least >one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>craft?

 >>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >>Dave Bowden.

 >Hi,

 >But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >probably) landed in their estimation.
 >Jenny Randles

I wouldn't describe myself as a ufologist, I'm just an ordinary
wage-slave who's interested in the field. I've seen a couple of
lights that weren't easily explicable, but probably weren't
spacecraft. But I'd like to add my views.

I've read lots of books and lots of web-pages. I've seen some
very strange videos. But the thing that makes me wonder the most
about what is going on is the attitude of the military to the
UFO phenomenon. The evasive answers and the denials of official
interest don't tally with documents coming out of the UK Public
Records office and FOIA docs in the States.

The one thing I wouldn't attempt to do, and I don't think anyone
else should do, is to put probabilities and percentages. What's
the universe you're studying? All UFO sightings? You can't know
them all, as I would think most are never reported. Then what
percentage are explained? Well, most explanations I see put
about are full of 'likely' and 'probable'.

Jenny asked what others think. I don't know quite what to think,
and I expect most people are the same. I admire the certainty of
the ETH people and the Brits who think they are all advanced
human aircraft. I don't see how anyone can know - the evidence
is too contradictory. I can summarise my views as:


a)    I think it's likely that some UFO sightings are caused by
technology that is far beyond what is generally accepted as
human knowledge. There must be 'secret' aircraft (like Aurora,
though I don't think we can describe it as secret anymore, can
we?), but not as advanced as some of the things people have seen.

b)    I think that if this technology had been developed on
Earth, the secret would be out - I've worked in both
the academic world and the defence contracts world, and there
are a lot of 'secrets' that everyone knows. Gossip would emerge.

c)    I think that cattle mutilations are connected in some way
with all of this, but I don't know how or why.

d)    I think abductions are mostly imagined.

I take most notice of expert witnesses - scientists, pilots,
etc. There are a hell of a lot of them seeing things they don't
understand. And when our British Chief of the Defence Staff,
Admiral hill-Norton, says these things aren't ours, I tend to
believe him - you don't get to be the man who presses the
nuclear button if you're flaky.

After spending 25 years reading everything I can, the UFOlogists
haven't managed to make me certain about much. In fact, as time
goes on I'm more confused. I expect this confusion will only
grow.

Martin Phillips





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:46:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:03:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:27:57 +0100

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>PS.  I guess you might call me a "ufologist" instead of a
 >>"Ufologist".  It strikes me we really do need a professional
 >>exam for this field.  Perhaps Klass could suggest some of the
 >>questions to go on it?


 >In the UK right now a gang of rebels (alright, Dr Dave Clarke,
 >Gloria Dixon - who holds the record score in the test by the way
 >- Tim Matthews, Robert Moore, Andy Roberts and myself for now)
 >(but we're growing!) have been discussing such issues as
 >professionalism in UFOlogy. It is a good idea to have something
 >to add to the self policing that we do. But finding the right
 >balance is not easy.


I agree that the field needs to be more professional, and have
higher standards, but I don't think it will happen. I've been
watching this list from the sidelines for a year, and I've seen
slanging matches worthy of 5 year-olds in the playground.
usually it's the ETH people and the 'they're all American'
people calling each other silly names and arguing over spurious
'facts'. Just look at the recent debate on statistics for
sightings, with people quoting percentages. They're guesses, but
people defend them as facts. The arguments for and against ETH
remind me of the debates in the Reformation about what happens
in the Communion.

For the field to become more professional, there will need to be
some big names who will have to change their approach, and stop
defending positions that they hold as certainties when there is
no conclusive proof.

Martin Phillips





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:43:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:13:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:14:13 +0100

 >Dear Tony,

 >Having been on the odd skywatch with Roy Hale, where sightings
 >have been made & video evidence taken, I would hardly describe
 >it as 'a lower standard of evidence'.


Hi Marc & All,

I think Chris Martin would not be impressed with such an attack,
only once again this Sunday, we had the chance to observe some
very strange objects in the sky. {Again being filmed}

There have been many people at the UFO Watch 2000 meetings, who
have come from all sides of the UFO debate and most have seen
things at those meetings, including yourself.

To start saying that this is a <a lower 'standard of  evidence'>
is quite incredible from a researcher who is also openly trying
to seek some kind of ET contact by whatever means, in fact I
would hope that those who attend such meetings would find the
remark highly offensive and was only said to cause trouble
nothing more.

So maybe Tony has real high UFO evidence that he is willing to
show to the masses out there will we see it?

I am sure that myself, Chris , Marc, Dave, Neil, James,
Jonathan, Richard, and many more would like to see it?

Also check out the Leeds Quest International UFO Conference
where you will be able to see an exclusive piece of film, taken
by Chris Martin {UFO Watch 2000} it is quite remarkable.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                Another Non-UFO Corporation Tries To Cash-In

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:59:47
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:19:01 -0400
Subject: Another Non-UFO Corporation Tries To Cash-In


Source: Press release from "avaterra.com",

http://www.worldsaway.com/press/july99press.html#july22

Stig

***

AVATERRA.COM LAUNCHES SCI-FI VIRTUAL ZONE

First Element Launches Today in Cooperation with TriWay Promotions

**

SANTA CLARA, Calif., July 22, 1999 -- The success of television
shows like the X-Files points to our insatiable appetite for
information about UFOs. Capitalizing on this interest,
Avaterra.com, Inc. (AVAR-OTC/BB), a provider of avatar-based
technologies and services for the next generation of Internet
communities, launched today its latest VirtualZone called
VZscifi -- an online community of UFO experts and enthusiasts at
www.avaterra.com/VZscifi. The Zone will kick off with a virtual
area called UFOchat, produced in cooperation with TriWay
Promotions of Los Angeles, which opens today at 6:00 p.m. PST.

VZscifi will feature a range of Sci-Fi, UFO and fantasy content,
with UFOchat focused on top UFO researchers, renowned authors,
military personnel and lecturers coming together to conduct
online lectures, workshops, seminars and interactive sharing of
research and knowledge in real time. All of these activities are
happening within Avaterra.com's graphically rich VirtualZones,
where visitors are represented on-screen as avatars -- or
customized graphical representations of themselves -- and can
see, talk and interact with other visitors.

"This launch marks another milestone in our strategy to build
commercially sponsored, targeted Internet communities based on
our VirtualZone concept," said David Andrews, president and CEO
of Avaterra.com. "UFOs and the paranormal are popular topics on
the Internet, so we expect to generate tremendous traffic to our
new VZscifi zone."

Marcia Pellitteri, CEO of TriWay Promotions, is credited with
booking the leading UFO experts who will be conducting daily
chats and events. Participants include Jim Hickman of SkyWatch
International, Derrel Sims, CM.Ht., R.H.A., former intelligence
staff for the C.I.A., popular author Dr. Roger Leir, retired Air
Force Major George Filer, John Carpenter, Joyce Murphy and many
others.

"We're providing a place where people from all over the world
can access the latest research information about UFOs,"
explained Pellitteri. "And by hosting this community inside
Avaterra.com's avatar-inhabited environment on the Internet,
we're able to have people interact in real time with
knowledgeable speakers and participate in interactive workshops
with leading researchers and celebrities in the UFO field."


About Avaterra.com, Inc.


Avaterra.com was formed in May 1999, when it acquired core
technologies from Fujitsu's WorldsAway Products and Services
Group, in order to develop its VirtualZone business model. The
company builds VirtualZone communities on the Internet where
consumers interact, play, shop, educate and socialize within a
graphical environment where they and other visitors are
represented as avatars (customized graphical representations of
themselves). VirtualZones are built around specific topics to
attracted targeted audiences, and they are commercially
sponsored by brand advertisers. Avaterra.com's two showcase
VirtualZones have been online for more than three years and
include members from around the world, meeting 24 hours a day.

Avaterra.com provides superior community-building technology
with features like customizable graphics, high subscriber
involvement, a working economy based on tokens, several
patent-pending tools for social order and management, and one of
the highest "stickiness" factors on the web (with an average
session length of 3.5 hours). The company derives revenue from
its unique advertising venues, fee-based membership, custom
virtual community development and software co-licensing.

Avaterra.com is publicly traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under
ticker symbol AVAR. For more investor information, please call
1-888-845-5853 or e-mail ir@avaterra.com, or visit the company
web site at http://www.avaterra.com.

In keeping with U.S. law, Avaterra.com, Inc. notes that this
press release includes forward-looking statements. Actual
results may vary significantly due to various risks and
uncertainties. Those include, but are not limited to, the risk
that new technologies are inherently subject to development,
timing and consumer acceptance risks.


All trademarks, trade names, registered trademarks, or
registered trade names are property of their respective holders.

CONTACT:
Mark X. Addison
Avaterra.com, Inc.
maddison@avaterra.com
408-845-9050, x316 Investor Relations
ir@avaterra.com
1-888-845-5853
www.avaterra.com

Copyright 1999 Avaterra.com, Inc.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                                  Dr. Beter

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:13:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:33:07 -0400
Subject: Dr. Beter


OK...here is an intro file to Dr. Beter's work.
This is all I am doing for those who appear to be
incapable of locating the information for themselves.

REgards, Mike, aka "Sorry"

  ICQ#:7508455
  BBS: (270) 683-3026
  Fax: (270) 686-7394
  Home: (270) 683-6811
         ---

_____________________________________

Source: the Patriot Archives ftp site at:

ftp://tezcat.com/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail
them to alex@spiral.org.

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


My guess is that most readers of this posting have no idea of
what the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R) is and why anyone would want
to distribute it. I will issue a posting soon covering this in
more detail, but for now I will try to answer these questions in
short form.

The Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R) was published in 1975-1982 by
Audio Books Inc. in conjunction with Dr. Peter D. Beter
(deceased 1987), an international financial and legal consultant
who first came to widespread public visibility in 1973 through
his   best-selling book "The Conspiracy Against the Dollar." It
consisted in its original form of 80 cassette tapes
approximately one hour in length, covering all kinds of inside
intelligence information on political, economic, and military
matters. Much   of this information, even 10 years later, has
never been documented in any other form on planet Earth, and
that not be- cause there was no use for it, but because the
major media in this country saw him as enough of a threat that
they would not   publish or carry his information ...not because
of too little evidence for what he was saying but because ofis
first. restricted to the time frame in which they were made;
they were frequently so far-reaching that one can from them
understand events   that happened a decade later, such as the
"collapse" of the Soviet Union (actually an economic
restructuring that had been planned for many years), the decline
of Bolshevism, the economic woes and industrial decline of the
U.S., the continuing   decline of the dollar on world markets,
and so on.

For health and other reasons, Dr. Beter stopped recording the
tapes in late 1982. Later, an open license to distribute the
tapes free of charges to Audio Books Inc. was issued in 1984.
Being a long-time subscriber of the AUDIO LETTER and aware of
its contents, I thought it would be a good idea for this
information to be released in computerized form so that it could
be distributed widely and cross-referenced at will. This was no
small project, however, and took me two years to do (the entire
database is about 4 Megabytes). It mostly consisted of OCR
scanning the AUDIO LETTERS, which had also been published by a
third party in a newspaper called the Wisconsin Report during
that time. To my knowledge, the AUDIO LETTERS have never before
been released in computerized form.

As alluded to above, I will shortly release another posting
entitled "An Intro and Bird's-Eye View of the Dr. Beter AUDIO
LETTER(R)", followed by postings of each of the 80 AUDIO LETTERS
in succession, with one exception. Because of the recent
upsurge in interest surrounding the assassination of JFK, I will
post AUDIO LETTER #3, recorded 8/21/75, out of its normal
sequence onto the alt. conspiracy and alt.conspiracy.jfk
newsgroups, in which Dr. Beter gives his con- clusions on what
happened, which I guarantee will be unique and shocking and
something you will never hear through normal media channels. So
anyway, stay tuned.


---------

Introduction to the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R)
Excerpted from the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R) REFERENCE DIGEST
Copyright (C) Audio Books Inc., 1983


    The AUDIO LETTER cassette tape reports were recorded over a
period from June, 1975, to November, 1982, by Dr. Peter Beter.
Each AUDIO LETTER tape report is approximately one hour in
length. The basic schedule of release was once a month, but the
exact date of release each month was flexible to accommodate
events. There were also two periods during which the AUDIO
LETTER reports were suspended temporarily. The first, which
extended from May to August 1977, separated AUDIO LETTER issues
#24 and #25, and took place due to an action campaign by Dr.
Beter with his listeners. The second suspension extended from
February to June 1980, and separated issues #54 and #55. It was
brought about by a major heart attack which Dr. Beter suffered
while in the midst of recording AUDIO LETTER #54.

    Dr. Beter terminated his AUDIO LETTER cassette tape report
series in November, 1982, after recording AUDIO LETTER #80.
Having fought heart-related ailments for years, his health was
declining. After conferring with doctors, he decided that the
time had come to discontinue recording the tapes.

    The Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER series grew out of Dr. Beter's
collaboration with supporters who first learned about Dr. Beter
by way of radio talk shows in 1974. At that time Dr. Beter was
in great demand to appear on talk shows nationwide, which he did
in most cases by long-distance telephone hookup from his
residence in suburban Washington, D.C. After many years as a
highly successful Washington attorney, government official and
international legal and financial consultant, Dr. Beter had
become famous in 1973 as the author of a best-selling book, The
Conspiracy Against the Dollar.

    In his talk shows Dr. Beter had a habit of saying things
which sounded preposterous at the time, but which were proven
correct later on. Early in 1973 he declared that Vice President
Spiro Agnew would be swept up in a sudden scandal beginning in
late summer that would lead quickly to his resignation. At the
time Agnew was flying high, and it sounded like an unlikely turn
of events. But it happened, right on schedule. In the spring of
1974, Dr. Beter described a sequence of events by which the
Watergate Scandal would make Richard Nixon the first U.S.
President in history to resign. At the time, Watergate seemed to
be running out of steam, and Nixon appeared to be "toughing it
out." Even less believably, Dr. Beter described a secret
agreement which he said existed by which then-Vice President
Gerald Ford would nominate Nelson Rockefeller to be his new Vice
President after Nixon resigned. In the spring of 1974 those
things sounded hard to believe indeed. But they took place.

    Dr. Beter claimed that events like these, while shocking to
the public, were planned far in advance. He said that they were
known within certain intelligence and even business circles here
in America and abroad. Drawing upon his extensive contacts with
these circles, Dr. Beter was making public what the privileged
few already knew.

    Having begun as skeptical listeners to Dr. Beter's radio
appearances, a small group of private citizens became
increasingly concerned as they saw Dr. Beter's revelations
proven correct, time after time. They decided to investigate
further, and finally contacted him. In September, 1974, Audio
Books, Inc., was founded by these supporters of Dr. Beter to
provide an avenue by which Dr. Beter could make his reports
public without censorship or cutoff by those who controlled the
radio waves. After several individual AUDIO BOOK(R) tapes, the
Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER series began in 1975.

About Dr. Beter [Note: born June 21, 1921; died March 14, 1987
(J.V.)]

    Dr. Peter Beter (yes, it rhymes) first came to widespread
popular attention in 1973, through his best-selling nonfiction
book, The Conspiracy Against the Dollar (George Braziller, Inc.,
N.Y.). It was a gripping tale of international economic intrigue
and monetary manipulation, carried out by the coordinated action
of multinational corporations grown more powerful than many of
their host countries. The objective: to deliberately undermine
and ultimately destroy the United States dollar, as a major tool
of political and economic conquest under the banner of a "new
imperialism." A crescendo of unhappy consequences were to be
expected: an accelerating economic "stagflation" (a now-popular
word coined years ago by Dr. Beter), deteriorating financial
status of municipal and state governments, deepening social
unrest, increasing tensions over the Panama Canal, and more.
Events during the past decade have followed to an astonishing
degree the blueprint which Dr. Beter revealed in his book.

    In September 1974 Dr. Beter acquired a new distinction as
"the man who opened Fort Knox." The previous  April Dr. Beter
had charged in congressional testimony that the legendary U.S.
Bullion Depository at Fort Knox had been looted of America's
monetary gold hoard allegedly stored there. He stood ready to
present evidence and witnesses to substantiate his charges. But
neither a grand jury nor a congressional inquiry into the matter
materialized...so Dr. Beter then took his case directly to the
public. Through lectures, radio talk shows, and publication of
his charges in a tabloid newspaper (National Tattler), he was
able to put such intense pressure on the federal government that
a completely unprecedented step was taken in order to still the
public outcry. The U.S. Treasury Department arranged a so-called
"gold inspection" visit for a few Congressmen and 100 invited
newsmen on September 23, 1974. Significantly, however, Dr. Beter
himself was not among those invited...nor was any other outside
expert on gold. The celebrated Fort Knox visit and the so-called
"gold audit" which followed contained many irregularities which
the Treasury Department has never explained.

    In AUDIO LETTER tapes #14 and #15 (July and August 1976), Dr.
Beter made public intelligence he had been given that the Soviet
Union was planting short-range underwater missiles in U.S.
territorial waters in preparation for a surprise nuclear attack.
In issue #15 he listed navigational coordinates for 64 missiles
which he said had been planted worldwide so far...urged his
listeners to pressure the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take
counteractive measures...and in effect dared the government to
prove him wrong. The resulting hue and cry from Dr. Beter's
listeners nationwide created shock waves within the U.S.
Government which were never reported by the major news media.

    In mid-September 1976, Dr. Beter and an associate met for
over an hour with General George S. Brown, Chairman of the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Gen. Brown's Pentagon office. Only two
weeks earlier, a letter over Gen. Brown's signature had been
sent to Dr. Beter (with photocopies to concerned citizens
nationwide), seeming to say that Dr. Beter's charges about
Soviet underwater missiles had been investigated and found
untrue. Yet when Dr. Beter then requested a meeting with Gen.
Brown to relay to him the locations of a second round of 48
newly-planted missiles, the meeting was granted without delay.
The Pentagon confirmed to the press that the meeting had taken
place*, but never explained this curious sequence of events.

    *See, e.g., Norfolk (Va.) Ledger-Star, Sept. 27, 1976, p. E8,
article by G. Bradshaw and J. Kestner. Or see Chicago Tribune,
Dec. 4, 1977, Section 2, "Special Report: Undersea Warfare."

Professional credentials: The things made public by Dr. Beter
are extraordinary--but so is the professional background which
preceded his public visibility. He practiced general law in
Washington, D.C., from 1951 to 1961, becoming a member of the
U.S. Court of Military Appeals in 1952 and the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1964. Many of his cases were against the federal
government, all of which he won--including one case in which he
caught none other than the U.S. Department of Justice burning
records in an attempt to defeat him. The resulting
decision--Farley vs. U.S., 131 C. Cls. 776 (1955), 127 F Supp.
562--made new law.

    In 1961 President John F. Kennedy appointed Dr. Beter Counsel
to the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the largest government-owned
bank in the Western world, where he served until 1967. After
leaving the Ex-Im Bank, Dr. Beter became an international
financial and legal consultant, as well as one of the chief
developers of private international business in the Republic of
Zaire. He is a member of the Judicature Society, the Bankers'
Club of America, the Royal Commonwealth Society of London, and
the United States Naval Institute. He is listed in biographical
reference works such as Who's Who in the East, the Blue Book of
London, and 2000 Men of Achievement (London).

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

A Bird's-Eye View of the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R)
Excerpted from the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R) REFERENCE DIGEST
Copyright (C) Audio Books Inc., 1983


Some General Remarks

    The 80 cassette tapes which make up the Dr. Beter AUDIO
LETTER series contain an enormous amount of information. It
would take the equivalent of two 40-hour work weeks just to
listen to the entire 80-tape set once through.

    In those two weeks the listener would see over seven years of
major current events come to life in a unique way. He would see
the unseen forces at work which make sense out of what otherwise
seem to be chaotic, irrational news events. And he would learn
many eye-opening historical background lessons which are little
known, yet which are vital to understanding how we got where we
are today.

    Unfortunately, though, it would be like taking a drink from a
fire hose. The listener would absorb a lot in a hurry--but also,
a lot more would get by him.

    At the opposite extreme, those who subscribed to the Dr.
Beter AUDIO LETTER tapes had the advantage of absorbing each
tape, one at a time, in context with then-current news events.
But the tapes were released over a period of over seven
years--from June 1975 through November 1982. It would be a rare
intellect that could keep all the salient details of all the
tapes in mind, meshing them together with each new tape, over
all that time. Dr. Beter tried to alleviate this problem by
summarizing past developments from time to time, but the basic
problem remains. And when it comes to a review, even the
long-time listener is faced with somewhat the same
drink-from-a-fire-hose problem posed by the 80-tape collection.

    For both the long-time subscriber and the newly acquainted
listener, a roadmap is needed. That is the purpose of the Audio
Letter REFERENCE DIGEST.

    In this "Bird's-Eye View" section, we will try to boil down
the broad insights of the 80-tape AUDIO LETTER report series as
concisely as possible. We will keep details to a minimum, aside
from examples to illustrate particular points. Given the broad
outlines of this section, we believe that all the details in
Section 2 and Section 3--not to mention in the tapes
themselves--will be easier to grasp and far more meaningful than
they would be if viewed in isolation.

    In the long term, it is this broader picture of the basic
forces behind current events which is the most important of all
to understand. Even though some of the developments discussed in
the tapes have run their course, the forces which brought them
about continue to operate today. Comprehending how those forces
led to yesterday's events is the key to seeing through countless
new events today and tomorrow.


Politics: The Three Rival Factions for World Power

    Decades ago Franklin D. Roosevelt said: "Nothing in politics
ever happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was
planned that way."

    Decades earlier Benjamin Disraeli, famed as the Victorian-era
Prime Minister of Britain, wrote: "The world is governed by
people far different from those imagined by the public."

    Taken together, these two statements illustrate the basic
premise which underlies all of the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER tape
reports. This premise is that major events in politics,
economics and international relations are the products of
deliberate moves by largely unseen power factions in the world.
All of these factions seek to increase their influence over us,
the general population of the world. Each one also wishes to
increase its own power at the expense of the other power
factions.

    Thus there is an ongoing power struggle of titanic dimensions
which constantly shapes the news, yet which is little
understood--indeed unsuspected--by most people. If these forces
are not recognized or understood, current events are inherently
baffling, no matter how diligently one may follow the news. This
leaves even the best-educated and most intelligent of persons
vulnerable to manipulation to suit the purposes of those who
pull the strings behind the scenes. By contrast, if the largely
unseen forces are known and understood, major events become far
more understandable and even, to some extent, predictable. Those
informed about these things become far less vulnerable and more
difficult to fool by manipulated news and news events.

    To choose just one of the many dramatic examples from the
AUDIO LETTER series, consider the Guyana Massacre at Jonestown
in November, 1978. From start to finish, the Guyana story was
filled with anomalies, unanswered questions, conflicting
government statements, and news reports that did not quite add
up. It began with the slaughter of a U.S. Congressman and
accompanying newsmen, yet there was never a subsequent
congressional investigation. The victims died of cyanide
poisoning, an excruciating death which leaves the face contorted
in agony, yet the victims were found arranged in neat,
peaceful-looking rows...face-down. A few days after the massive
infusion of American military teams supposedly for clean-up
operations, there were sudden huge jumps in body-bag counts.
Hurried explanations by Pentagon spokesmen were so incredible
that they were withdrawn and replaced by different stories.
These and many more oddities about the Guyana episode were never
resolved, but simply left to fade away from the public memory
with time. For those unaware of the behind-the-scenes forces at
work in the world, Guyana will remain forever unexplained...as
if events so bizarre, major and chilling can happen for no
reason at all.

    The key missing ingredient in all the news reports about
Guyana was the existence of a secret Soviet intermediate-range
missile base, not far from Jonestown. Dr. Beter had reported
publicly about the base on many occasions for over four years
prior to the sudden headlines from Guyana. He had also reported
on the collapse of a cooperative arrangement formerly in effect
between the true rulers of the United States and those of the
Soviet Union. These were the factors which led directly to the
Jonestown tragedy--a mass murder, staged as a cover to enable
covert military action against the Russian missile base. Within
days after the Jonestown tragedies, Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER #40
made public exactly what had taken place and why. In that tape
Dr. Beter answered in detail questions which otherwise remain
unanswered to this day.

    Over the course of the 80 AUDIO LETTER tape reports, Dr.
Beter reveals that three primary power factions are at work in
the world today:

    1. The Rockefeller Cartel
    2. The Bolshevik-Zionist Axis
    3. The New Kremlin Rulers

These factions as such have existed for the past century or so,
and their relationships with one another have been in a constant
state of flux. Their roots, however, are much older and can be
traced backward in time for many centuries.


    The Rockefeller Cartel

    The Rockefeller Cartel is the first of the three great power
factions to be dealt with extensively in the Dr. Beter AUDIO
LETTER reports, for at least two reasons. First, while its scope
is worldwide, it is headquartered in the United States. Second,
it was indisputably the most powerful of the three factions when
Dr. Beter began recording his AUDIO LETTER reports in 1975.
This situation changed dramatically later on.

    The Rockefeller Cartel today embraces several hundred of the
world's largest multinational corporations--big oil, big banking
and big business. It is a new kind of empire, with economic
assets so great as to be beyond effective control by mere
governments. Its headquarters are American, but its perspective
is global, with allegiance neither to the United States nor to
any other country. It is an empire unto itself.

    What is today the Rockefeller Cartel was started over a
century ago by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. By his well-known
cutthroat business tactics Rockefeller created the Standard Oil
trust and made himself America's first billionaire by the turn
of the century.

    Such blatantly unethical practices led to public opposition
which culminated in the Supreme Court decree of 1911 dissolving
the Standard Oil trust. By then, however, Rockefeller was
becoming more sophisticated, finding ways to hide the true
extent of his wealth and power while continuing to expand it.
The "trust-busting" era had little lasting effect: by the use of
nominees and other devices it was possible to retain effective
control and coordination of the superficially dismantled
Standard Oil empire.

    Throughout the Twentieth Century, from World War I onward,
Rockefeller economic power has translated increasingly into
Rockefeller political power. This, in turn, has been used to
increase Rockefeller economic power still further. For example,
oil has played a key role in all of America's major wars of this
century, with the Rockefeller oil interests profiting
handsomely. Yet this role has been generally obscured both in
current news accounts during each war and in historical accounts
written later on. The obscuring of key information of this type
is a symptom of Rockefeller power expansion into the realms of
journalism and teaching. Power is always most secure when it is
not recognized, so every effort is made to keep information
about it from becoming public.

    In a related vein, Rockefeller-style "public relations" has
been developed and refined since the turn of the century for
similarly deceptive purposes. It began when John D. Rockefeller,
Sr., famous primarily for his greed, started changing his image
by handing out dimes to people he chanced to meet on the street.
At the same time he also began making donations to charitable
causes, always with great fanfare and publicity, to curry public
favor as an alleged philanthropist. This led to the creation of
tax-exempt foundations: these enabled Rockefeller money to be
invested in organizations which looked philanthropic, yet which
were actually avenues for further expanding Rockefeller power.
The Rockefeller-controlled major foundations have been used to
transform American life and values in directions which make
America more susceptible to Rockefeller control. At the same
time, the foundations serve an invaluable purpose as a disguised
means for interlocking the various business interests which
constitute the Rockefeller Cartel.

    John D. Rockefeller, Sr., founded a true dynasty, passing on
his plans and programs to be carried on by succeeding
generations. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., carried forward the
Rockefeller program of ever-expanding power with particular
emphasis upon subverting the Christian faith which,
historically, is the foundation of basic American ideals. But it
was the Rockefeller "Third Generation" who expanded and
developed the Rockefeller Cartel to its zenith of power. Of the
six members of the Third Generation, sister Abby and brother
Winthrop did not much care for the grand plan (although
Winthrop did become Governor of Arkansas). But the other four
brothers--John D. 3rd, Nelson, Laurance and David--threw
themselves with crafty zest into the project of expanding the
Rockefeller empire. They carved up the world into spheres of
influence, each concentrating upon his own areas but
coordinating his actions with the others. They worked together
as a unit, and throughout his AUDIO LETTER tapes Dr. Beter often
refers to them simply as "the four Rockefeller brothers."

    From about World War II onward, it was the four Rockefeller
brothers who held the reins of what had become the worldwide
Rockefeller Empire. It was they who created the modern
multinational corporation, and used American taxpayer money
under the guise of "foreign aid" after World War Il to build up
their corporate empire worldwide. World War II had been fought
over Saudi Arabian oil, and it gave them an unprecedented
financial windfall. The Rockefeller oil companies obtained Saudi
oil at a net cost (after charge-backs and various devices) of
about 5 cents per barrel for nearly 30 years, until the Arab
oil embargo of 1973 finally put a halt to it. The awesome
profits generated by Saudi Arabian oil enabled the Rockefeller
brothers to buy up much of the industrial base of the United
States, Europe and Japan. At the same time Rockefeller power
throughout Latin America, which had been established by Nelson
Rockefeller during World War II, was expanded and  deepened
during the postwar years. John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, masterminded
the Rockefeller Cartel economic takeover of much of black
Africa: revolutions created black governments which, lacking
expertise, had to turn to Rockefeller multinational corporations
to "manage" their resources. Laurance Rockefeller busied himself
with control of America's aerospace and defense industry, major
airlines, and massaging the stock market. David, the youngest
but most powerful, became the kingpin of the Rockefeller
banking empire whose tentacles reach into business circles the
world over. He also specialized in intelligence matters,
although Nelson also was involved in this area.

    For decades the four Rockefeller brothers had things pretty
much their own way. They made plans, set up timetables, and
generally carried them out without a hitch. But by the time Dr.
Beter launched his AUDIO LETTER tape report series, the
Rockefeller brothers were beginning to show signs of slippage in
their power. They had made mistakes, and some of their
timetables were starting to slide. During 1974-75 they were
tripped up in certain plans by partial public exposure of
massive irregularities surrounding America's monetary gold
supply. Next during 1976-77 their long-standing secret alliance
with the Kremlin fell apart, as their former allies--the
Bolsheviks--were overthrown by a new ruling group in Russia. The
four Rockefeller brothers made the mistake of welcoming expelled
Bolsheviks from Russia into positions of power here in the
United States. This led by early 1979 to the overthrow of the
four Rockefeller brothers by the Bolsheviks here. First John D.
Rockefeller, 3rd, died in an alleged auto "accident" in July
1978. Then in late January 1979, Nelson Rockefeller was murdered
in the beginning of a full-fledged Bolshevik coup d'etat behind
the scenes.

    Today the Rockefeller Cartel is no longer under the direct
control of the Rockefeller family as it was under the four
Rockefeller brothers, but it remains a formidable force. As Dr.
Beter ended his AUDIO LETTER report series in November 1982, the
regrouped Rockefeller Cartel was gradually regaining some of its
lost power in a bitter struggle against the Bolsheviks here.


    The Bolshevik-Zionist Axis

    In 1917, during the height of World War I, two events took
place which were destined to shape much of the history of the
Twentieth Century. One was the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
The other was the Balfour Declaration, by which the government
of Britain threw its support behind the concept of creating a
Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    Both Bolshevism and the political force known as Zionism
have common roots which are not widely known. Both were created
by the Rothschild interests, whose support was also responsible
for the meteoric rise to riches of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., a
century ago. Bolshevism and Zionism also have common historical
roots in the so-called "Kingdom of the Jews" of a thousand
years ago. This kingdom was situated in what is now southern
Russia, between the Black and Caspian Seas. It consisted of a
people known as the Khazars of a Mongol-Turkic origin whose
leader officially adopted Judaism as the state religion. This
was done as a political ploy to enable Khazaria to maintain its
political independence of two powerful neighbors. These were
the super-powers of that day: the Moslem empire of the Caliphs
to the South and the Christian empire of Byzantium to the west.

    Prior to the official adoption of Judaism, the Khazars were
a brutal and warlike people. This did not change when they took
upon themselves the politically inspired title of "Jews." The
Khazar empire extended far northward into what, under Christian
Prince Vladimir, became known as Russia. The Khazar empire even
included the ancient Russian city of Kiev, where Vladimir
ruled.

    Khazar rule was brutal and oppressive, without any of the
compensating advantages offered by other empires, such as
protection against outside powers or improved civilization.
Finally the Christian forces of Prince Vladimir's Russia and
Byzantium combined to attack the Khazar "Kingdom of the Jews",
so-called, and utterly destroy it. The Khazar "Jews" were
driven out of their homeland between the seas, many of them into
eastern Europe. There they mingled to some extent with Jews of
the diaspora from Palestine, but they carried with them a
peculiar heritage. It was a heritage of bitter hatred for
Christianity in general and for Russian Christians in
particular.

    Down through the centuries, the "Khazar Jew" dream of
regaining their lost empire has been passed down from generation
to generation. This dream has developed into two branches. One
branch emphasizes restoration of power over Russia, and
crystallized into Bolshevism. The other branch, emphasizing the
old, falsely religious "Kingdom of the Jews" concept, emerged
as the political force known as Zionism. Both are aimed at world
power. Both are equally ruthless, devoid of regard for human
life. They differ only in geographic emphasis and in some
tactics. With their common roots and common basic objectives,
the Bolsheviks and Zionists work together hand in glove.

    When Bolshevism was injected into Christian Russia in 1917,
it was done with the help of the Rockefeller Cartel. From that
time onward there was a covert alliance between those who
controlled American policies behind the scenes (the Rockefeller
Cartel) and those who ran the Soviet Union (the Bolsheviks).
The Rockefeller Standard Oil interests were given control over
marketing of the oil from the giant Russian Baku oil fields in
1926. Over the years, the Rockefeller Cartel saw to it that the
Bolshevik regime in Russia was propped up in every way necessary
to keep it in power.

    While the United States and the Soviet Union pretended to be
at odds, they actually were involved in a pincers movement to
gobble up the entire world. The falsified animosity between
Washington and Moscow was staged in order to polarize the world
and cause nations to form up into two camps dominated by the two
super-powers. Those who chose to remain independent of both the
United States and the Soviet Union--the so-called "Third
World"--were targeted for brushfire wars and revolutions to
bring them to heel, one by one. Meanwhile the long-term goal
was--in the words of a secret White House directive--"to so
alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably
merged with life in the Soviet Union." In this way, an
all-powerful "one world" government would ultimately be
achieved. That was to be the fulfillment of a "commitment"
established early in the Twentieth Century by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace and allied foundations in the
Rockefeller orbit.

    In order to "merge" American life into the pattern of Soviet
life under the Bolsheviks, it was clear that the quality of
American life would have to be lowered a great deal. It required
subtle movement of the American political system in the
direction of dictatorship. It required weakening of America's
financial and monetary system. And to bring about the radical
changes desired, it meant wars with the United States carefully
maneuvered into a losing position. America's first no-win war
was the Korean War. A decade later, America became embroiled in
the losing Vietnam War, which was artificially dragged out with
all possibilities for military victory vetoed by the White
House.

    The final war was to be a carefully programmed "Nuclear War
I", fought primarily on American soil, between the United States
and the Soviet Union. Plans called for it to erupt in the late
1970's, but developments in Russia changed that. The Bolsheviks
who had run the Kremlin since 1917 were the targets of a
decades-long overthrow campaign by a tough sect of native
Russian Christians. Their power had begun to outweigh that of
the Bolsheviks in certain areas starting in 1953, when Stalin
died. This was the reason for Nikita Khruschev's famous
"de-Stalinization" campaign afterward. In the mid-1970's this
anti-Bolshevik sect finally reached such a level of power that
they completely overthrew and expelled the remaining Bolsheviks
in the Kremlin. There followed a heavy wave of expulsions of
Bolsheviks from positions of power in Russia, which was depicted
in the Western press as emigration.

    As the Bolsheviks were losing their grip on Russia,
so-called detente fell on hard times. The Rockefeller-Soviet
alliance had been based on Bolshevik control on the Soviet side,
and when that was terminated, so was the secret alliance. The
alliance was fractured by the still-secret Underwater Missile
Crisis of 1976; a year later it was broken completely by the
equally secret Battle of the Harvest Moon in space.

    At that point the four Rockefeller brothers made a fatal
mistake. Since their former secret allies in the Soviet Union
had been the Bolsheviks, they welcomed the expelled Bolsheviks
from Russia into positions of power here in the United States.
They reasoned that the expelled Bolsheviks would know the weak
spots of the upstart new group who had taken over the Kremlin
and could help the Rockefeller Cartel deal with them.

    What the Rockefeller brothers forgot is that the Bolsheviks
are incapable of sharing power with anyone. Worse yet, the
Bolsheviks are state socialists, who seek to concentrate all
power into the hands of a few (themselves) by way of government.
The Rockefeller Cartel, by contrast, represents corporate
socialism--the concentration of power into the hands of a few
by way of corporations, with minimum governmental interference.
Both seek the same goal, but by means which are diametrically
opposed. They cannot coexist within the same society.

    The Bolsheviks no sooner acquired positions of power here in
the United States than they began using it to topple the four
Rockefeller brothers. By mid-1978, Bolshevik influence within
the Pentagon was causing a radical shift of American strategic
policy onto a first-strike nuclear posture. Meanwhile in July
1978, the death of John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, took place,
weakening what had been the four-brother unit. In November 1978
the Guyana Massacre took place, as part of a military operation
masterminded by the Pentagon Bolsheviks and with crucial
participation by Israeli commandoes. Then in January 1979, the
all-out Bolshevik grab for power began with the murder of Nelson
Rockefeller.

    During the first few months of 1979, Rockefeller power over
the United States Government was shattered by the Bolsheviks
here. However, the Bolsheviks were stopped short of complete
success in their takeover bid by the intervention of Russia's
KGB. The new Kremlin rulers knew that a complete takeover by
the Bolsheviks here would lead quickly to nuclear war, and they
acted to prevent it. Even so, Bolshevik control over the
Pentagon has been strong ever since early 1979, onward through
the end of the AUDIO LETTER series in late 1982.

    A fierce power struggle is underway within the United States
Government between the now entrenched Bolsheviks and the
Rockefeller Cartel, which is trying to take back its former
power. In addition, a limited new quid pro quo against the
Bolsheviks was established by the Rockefeller Cartel and the
New Kremlin early in 1982. The Cartel and the Kremlin still have
some accounts to settle with each other, but both are deadly
enemies of the Bolsheviks. To destroy them, they have agreed to
work together in certain ways.

    The Bolsheviks here in the United States have as a major
goal a deliberate nuclear war by which to smash the Russia which
overthrew them. As an avenue toward that war, the Middle East is
critical. In that area, the Bolsheviks here are relying upon
their close allies, the Zionists, to pave the way for war.

    Just as most Americans are unaware of the Bolshevized nature
of their government, most Israeli citizens are unaware of the
true goals of their Zionist government. Americans and Israelis
alike scratch their heads with worry and puzzlement over actions
of their respective governments. While constantly talking peace,
both are systematically increasing the dangers of war.

    The radical Zionist regime in power in Israel from 1977
onward is headed by men who were terrorists in the 1940's.
Today, as heads of the world's third most powerful military
power, they continue to practice terrorism but on a grander
scale. Theirs is a doctrine of military terrorism, designed to
lead deliberately to new and wider conflicts as the map of
Israel grows steadily. The country which calls itself "Israel"
today bears little resemblance to the promises of the small but
vocal Zionist minority who brought about the Balfour Declaration
in 1917. The peaceful, tranquil haven for oppressed Jews does
not exist. Instead, the dire warnings published in 1919 by a
galaxy of prominent anti-Zionist American Jews have been
fulfilled in the bloody history of Zionist Israel.


    The New Kremlin Rulers

    Dr. Beter first revealed in late 1977 that a new,
non-Bolshevik ruling group had taken the reins of top power in
the Soviet Union. In the autumn of 1978, he devoted a complete
AUDIO LETTER tape (#38) to a special report on Russia and her
new rulers.

    To those who depend upon pronouncements of the United States
Government for their image of Russia, Dr. Beter's reports about
the New Kremlin tend to come as a distinct shock. Unlike the
atheistic, Satanic Bolsheviks recently overthrown, Russia's new
top rulers are members of a sect of native Russian Christians.
This sect is at least two centuries old, and at times had
considerable influence with the Czars.

    Dr. Beter cautions his listeners not to assume that the New
Kremlin rulers look at everything in the same way as Western
Christians might. For one thing, he points out that it required
a patient, arduous campaign of six decades for them to oust the
Bolsheviks from top power in Russia. That experience has left
them with very definite, vivid opinions about what does and
does not work when dealing with people like the Bolsheviks and
Zionists. They also know that rapid, radical change of any type
opens the door for revolution--and where there is revolution,
Bolshevik-Zionist agents will be there to exploit it. They are
introducing liberalizing changes in Russia gradually, one step
at a time. Having come this far, they are trying not to move too
fast and thereby risk allowing it all to be undone.

    Even so, visible changes are occurring. Early in 1979 the
first legal shipment of Bibles into Russia since the Bolshevik
Revolution took place. That Easter, Handel's Messiah was
performed in Russia for the first time since the Bolshevik
Revolution--and not in some out-of-the-way place, but at the
Moscow Conservatory. Churches are reopening, one by one, all
over the Soviet Union--and they are packed, as Dr. Billy Graham
told the world upon returning from a Moscow religious conference
in May 1982.

    For saying what he did about what he had seen of religion in
Russia, Dr. Graham ran into a hostile reception here in the
United States. The Satanic Bolsheviks who now dominate the
United States Government are doing everything in their power to
paint Russia as an enemy worthy of hate. Anything which
interferes with that image is suppressed. Because someday, the
Bolsheviks here want America to go to war against Russia.


Economics: The Manmade Causes of Worldwide Economic Disaster

    Centuries ago Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the
Rothschild Dynasty, said: "Give me the power to issue a nation's
money, and I care not who writes the laws."

    Money is a necessary ingredient in the advancement of
civilization itself. As a store of value and a medium of
exchange, money  is vastly more convenient and flexible than any
system of barter, which is the only alternative. Money
facilitates division of labor, specialization by individuals
according to their talents, and organization of human activity
into complex patterns necessary for advancement in virtually all
realms of endeavor. It even helps to make possible economies of
scale and other efficiencies which raise human productivity far
beyond the levels required for mere survival. This makes it
possible for a society to support artistic and other cultural
advancements by which a civilization becomes more refined and
rich.

    In short, money is the economic glue which holds a society
together. If it is honest, stable and unmanipulated, money plays
a neutral role which is equally beneficial to all members of
society. By working hard, for example, a person may earn more
than is needed immediately to pay for whatever he buys from
others. The excess can be saved, then spent whenever desired to
meet an extraordinary expense, buy something special, or retire
from work and live off the fruits of past labor. Money earned
reflects work which is valued by society and for which one is
paid.

    It is this role of money as the economic common denominator
of society that makes it such a tool of immense power--Satanic
power--in the wrong hands. He who issues a nation's money can
create out of thin air what all the rest of us have to earn by
honest labor. The issuer of money thus acquires unparalleled
power over other individuals, since at the stroke of a pen he
can make others wealthy who cooperate in advancing his
fraudulent schemes. In any society there are always more than
enough individuals available who are eager to be comfortably
corrupted in this way, and it is they who are helped into
positions of governmental power. That is what Rothschild meant
when he said, "I care not who writes the laws." The power to
issue money is the power to shape government to one's own ends.

    If one has the power to issue a nation's money, then he also
has the power to change its value. This changes the yardstick by
which every single economic transaction in a society is
measured, and is a way to steal from an entire society at once.
He who sets aside the excess fruits of his labor in the form of
money is robbed if, when he is ready to use it later, it is no
longer worth the same amount. That is happening today in the
United States, of course; it is called inflation.

    By the time of the American Revolution, Rothschild financial
power in Europe, and especially in Britain, was great. The Stamp
Tax and other oppressive measures which helped trigger the
Revolution bore the signature of King George, but they
originated in the House of Rothschild. The Revolution broke the
former colonies free of Rothschild money control.

    The framers of the United States Constitution well
understood the evils of corrupt, privately issued money.
Therefore they refused to countenance the creation of any type
of privately owned central bank. Instead, they gave the United
States Congress the constitutional duty to issue and regulate
the nation's money. The theory was that since Congress
represents all the people, congressional control of our money
should be the fairest and most equitable system possible.

    From then until the early Twentieth Century, there were
repeated attempts by the Rothschild interests to re-establish
their lost money power here, either directly or indirectly. One
example was the Bank of the United States, whose charter was
cancelled by President Andrew Jackson in 1832. Likewise the
Civil War involved, not just questions of slavery and states'
rights, but also a strong component of struggle over the
issuance of money. But once again the attempt failed, thanks
partly to intervention by the Russian Navy at a critical tide in
the war to prevent Britain and France from dismembering the
war-torn United States.

    For doing that, Russia was slated for destruction by the
Rothschild interests. It was also decided that the best way to
regain control over America's money was from within. To that end
the Rothschilds lent support to several promising groups within
the United States, spawning the era of the "robber barons." Out
of that group, the Rockefellers soon rose to the top. In 1913
the Rothschilds finally saw the creation of what they had
sought here in the United States: a privately owned central
banking system, called the Federal Reserve System. It was a
joint venture involving very heavy participation--in fact a lead
role--by the increasingly powerful Rockefeller interests. But
at least the Rothschilds at last had their foot back in the door
for control of America's currency. In 1917 the Rothschilds
accomplished their other goal, the destruction of Christian
Russia, by way of the Bolshevik Revolution. As in the case of
the Federal Reserve System, the basic concept was
Rothschild-inspired...but it was Rockefeller muscle that made
the plan a success. Having started out as Rothschild proteges,
the Rockefeller Cartel had risen already to the status of
partners. And during the decades that followed--especially after
World War II--the Rockefellers pulled ahead and eclipsed
Rothschild power on the world stage. That situation continued
until the end of the 1970's. Now, with the collapse of the
family Rockefeller Dynasty, the balance between the Rockefeller
and Rothschild factions is in a state of flux, with both
struggling for renewed supremacy.

    The Federal Reserve System was sold to the public as a
prescription for improved economic stability. But the record
shows that the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great
Depression were brought about in large part by deliberate
Federal Reserve actions. The Great Bull Market of the 1920's
was set in motion and sustained for most of a decade by means of
easy credit. By 1929 the towering stock market was resting upon
a huge, wobbly foundation of credit--that is, debt. The Federal
Reserve Board then destroyed that foundation over a matter of
mere months by severely contracting credit. The excuse given was
designed to sound good, namely a crackdown on harmful
speculation. But the real and predictable effect was to cause
masses of investors to be suddenly unable to cover their
"margin" stock-market purchases, forcing them to sell stock to
raise cash. The sell-off thus triggered fed upon itself, while
the Federal Reserve Board did nothing to halt the plunge. The
stock market crashed.

    Having set economic disaster in motion, the Federal Reserve
Board soon thereafter made sure that it would mushroom into an
all-out depression. This was brought about, not by the stock
market crash itself, but by the failure of the American banking
system afterward. A key purpose of the Federal Reserve System is
supposed to be the preservation of banking stability, by
stepping in as the lender of last resort (among other things) to
prevent a localized banking problem from spreading. But in the
early 1930's, a then-major bank--the United States Bank of New
York--collapsed while the Federal Reserve System steadfastly
refused to lift a finger to stop it. This created a chain
reaction which pulled down additional banks, which dragged down
still others, and so on. The Federal Reserve System, far from
stopping this process, had set it in motion and did not
intervene as it progressed. This plunged America and then the
entire world into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

    To most people a depression is an unmitigated disaster. It
is hard to imagine that anyone could benefit from it, much less
bring it about deliberately. But for the money controllers and
their wealthy allies, the Great Depression provided enormous
opportunities for increased wealth and power. Knowing what was
coming, they were able to avoid the crushing financial losses
which befell everyone else. Then during the depths of the
Depression, they were in a position to buy up companies, real
estate and other assets at a penny on the dollar. When the
economy revived later on, these  assets regained their value,
producing vast profits for their new owners.

    Ironically, by using their money control to plunge the
American economy into disaster, the moneychangers set the stage
for still greater expansion of their authority over America's
monetary system. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took
office in 1933, he launched a series of sweeping moves that
began with the declaration of a bank holiday.  The United States
was taken off the gold standard. Americans were required to turn
in all of their gold coins. Title to America's gold was then
handed over--as a gift!--to the Federal Reserve System. However,
the Federal Reserve System was relieved of any need to spend
time and money to take care of the gold which it now owned, as
the U.S. Treasury Department was made physical custodian of the
gold.

    The Federal Reserve System became freer than ever to tinker
with America's economy by printing paper and controlling credit.
The freedom grew steadily over the years as gold backing for the
dollar was decreased. In 1968 President Johnson signed into law
an act removing the final 25% gold backing requirement from the
dollar. In 1971 President Nixon closed the international gold
window, discontinuing settlement of international debts in gold.
This left the United States dollar purely a piece of paper,
totally divorced from gold or anything else of intrinsic value.
This is an ideal situation for the money controllers, made to
order for manipulation to enrich themselves at everyone else's
expense. Since the dollar has been a worldwide reserve currency
since 1944, this means that everyone on earth is victimized by
the dollar manipulation now underway in the U.S.

    From 1971 onward, inflation has been an ever-increasing
problem in the United States and therefore worldwide. Each time
it is damped down temporarily, it is slowed at the expense of
rising unemployment and slumping economic activity. When the
economy revives, inflation soon takes off again to new and
higher levels. The Federal Reserve Board, claiming (as in 1929)
to be looking out for our best interests, responds with crushing
new interest rates that reach new historical highs. Again
unemployment shoots up, without ever having quite recovered from
the previous cycle. Cycle after cycle, inflation and economic
stagnation both keep getting worse. The balance between the two
conditions keeps shifting back and forth, but both inflation and
stagnation are with us continually and simultaneously. We are
caught in the "stagflation" era foreseen by Dr. Beter in his
1973 book, The Conspiracy Against the Dollar.

    The crumbling of the once powerful United States economy is
a direct consequence, and an intended one, of the destruction of
the dollar itself which is underway. The time will come when the
dollar will collapse altogether, and with it the economy of the
United States and much of the world as we know it. At that point
the same thing will have to be done that has always been done
when other currencies have collapsed. There will have to be a
new currency--a new dollar--with something behind it to restore
confidence. The one commodity which has been a reliable,
universally accepted basis for monetary confidence for thousands
of years is gold. And so, gold will have to be used in setting
up a new system of stable international currencies, including a
new dollar.

    Meanwhile there will come a period of international monetary
turbulence during which only gold or strongly gold-backed
currencies will be trusted. During that period of time, assets
measured in dollars will shrivel--as they are already doing now,
at a less frantic pace. Those who have cornered the world's gold
supply will be in a perfect position to vastly expand their own
holdings and power. And so, contrary to the official books of
the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve System,
America's monetary gold hoard has been largely spirited away. It
began in 1961 under the London Gold Pool Agreement: for seven
years enormous loads of American monetary gold were hemorrhaged
out of Fort Knox and other depositories and sent overseas. In
addition there have been secret shipments of gold which are not
reflected in official records at all.

    Through their control and manipulation of
money--specifically the United States dollar--the moneychangers
are stealing vast amounts of what countless millions have worked
hard to produce. And just as they did in 1929 and afterward,
they are again positioning themselves to set off economic
disaster worldwide.


Military: The Secret Plans and Weapons for Armageddon

    To most people war is a supreme evil among human events, to
be avoided if at all possible...and yet, we go right on having
wars. To those who rule nations, war is a tool of power which is
used deliberately. War can be used for external reasons, such as
to increase the geographical extent of a nation's power. More
importantly, war provides the perfect excuse for a government
to impose increased controls on its own people. By citing
"national security" the government can persuade the people that
even highly dictatorial controls are for their own good.

    These principles are among those laid out centuries ago by
Machiavelli, who recommended to all rulers that they use wars
regularly as a tool of power. But early in the Twentieth
Century, the Carnegie, Rockefeller and allied interests of the
day dreamed of a world in which their power would be absolute,
and permanently assured. It would be a world at "peace"--the
peace of a world inescapably within their grip. They formed a
"commitment" to establish an eventual "one world" government.

    A leading institution which was created to coordinate this
one-world "commitment" was a tax-exempt foundation: the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. In order to bring about the
envisioned "peace" of a one-world government, it was clear that
vast changes would have to be wrought in the lives of Americans,
as well as of the other peoples of the world. Several years
before World War I the trustees spent an entire year debating
the question: "Is there any means known to man that is more
effective than war in changing the life of an entire nation?"
They concluded that the answer was: "No."

    And so, to start bringing about the changes needed under the
long-range commitment for a one-world government, somehow
America had to be gotten into war. The trustees debated how this
could be done and concluded that it would be necessary to
control the foreign policy machinery of the United States. That
implied, in turn, that control had to be established over the
State Department.

    Within a few years the fruits of these deliberations began
to be seen in U.S. actions. President Woodrow Wilson won
re-election in 1916 on the theme, "He kept us out of war", and
then promptly took the United States into World War I. On at
least one occasion the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment sent
a telegram to Wilson urging him not to let American involvement
in the war end too soon. The changes in American life which they
desired were beginning to take place.

    World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War all were
orchestrated in ways designed to serve the purposes of the
long-range one-world commitment. But during the decades
beginning with World War II, a factor unforeseen by the
initiators of the one-world commitment grew steadily in
importance. This factor was the ever-accelerating advancement of
weapons technology. Starting with the atomic bomb, weaponry has
advanced in ways not dreamed of in the early years of the
Twentieth Century. And these new technological capabilities
have played a role in the progressive collapse of the one-world
commitment as originally envisioned.

    In 1960 American scientists invented the laser--a device
which produces an intense, narrow beam of light. Early lasers
were crude and not very powerful, yet it was clear from
theoretical studies that someday laser beam weapons would be
possible. Other types of beam weapons were also foreseen which
were potentially even more devastating than lasers.

    Suddenly there was a fatal flaw in the "one world"
commitment. The flaw was that it envisioned only one world--the
Earth--as the entire arena of human activity. That was beginning
to change...because mankind was beginning the conquest of space.
In 1957, three years before the invention of the laser, the
world's first manmade earth satellite had been orbited by the
Soviet Union--Sputnik I. The honor of being the first nation in
history to do this had been handed to the Soviet Union, even
though the United States had been technically capable of doing
it first. The Soviet space program was far ahead of that of the
United States when, in 1960, the invention of the laser
suddenly added an urgent new dimension to the space race. The
beam from a laser or other beam weapon can travel through space
at the speed of light to strike a target a million miles away
within a matter of seconds. Suddenly the moon had become a prize
piece of military real estate: whoever controlled the moon
could someday use it as a base for beam weapons to control the
Earth.

    In 1961 the four Rockefeller brothers inaugurated an
elaborate, two-pronged program for world domination, with
seizure of the moon as its centerpiece. On one hand, the United
States would embark on a program of supposed disarmament,
whittling back the power of America's visible military forces.
But on the other hand, there would be increased emphasis upon
development of advanced new secret weapons, unknown to the
public and largely unknown even to Congress. And under the guise
of a great adventure, the moon would be seized for unadmitted
military purposes by way of the Apollo Project.

    The four Rockefeller brothers had in mind an eventual
double-cross of their secret ally, the Soviet Union, in the
programmed nuclear war to come. By seizing control of the moon
and installing devastating beam weapons there, they expected to
emerge as the final, absolute rulers of the entire world.

    In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced that the
United States would land a man on the moon and return him safely
to Earth before the end of the decade. Thus began a crash
program ten times bigger than the Manhattan Project to develop
the atomic bomb during World War II. It was too big to hide, so
instead its military nature was disguised by a constant glare
of publicity to portray it all as a lark to pick up some moon
rocks. And it succeeded.

    When Neil Armstrong planted man's first footprints on the
moon in July 1969, it was a sensational event the world over.
Little more than three years later, however, it was becoming
routine enough in the public eye for America's manned moon
program to be removed from public view. The final publicly
admitted moon flight was Apollo 17 in December 1972. Thereafter,
as the American public became increasingly absorbed in the
Watergate Scandal and other matters, the U.S. moon program
continued secretly from a new base: the island of Diego Garcia
in the Indian Ocean. Different launch techniques were used
there, involving the Skylab space station as a way station to
the moon.

    While all of this was going on, unexpected developments were
brewing in the Soviet Union: a progressive overthrow of the
Bolsheviks was steadily accelerating. By the mid-1960's the
emerging new Kremlin rulers had learned about the planned
Rockefeller double-cross in a programmed nuclear war to come.
They redoubled their efforts to complete their overthrow of the
Bolsheviks. They also began preparing to beat the Rockefeller
brothers to the punch with their own double-cross.

    By the mid-1970's, present-day trustees of the major
Rockefeller tax-exempt foundations were growing increasingly
worried. Signs were multiplying that the one-world commitment
formed two generations earlier had jumped the tracks. They were
right.

    In the summer of 1976 Dr. Beter reported on a major crisis
which, to this day, has never been made public officially. This
was the Underwater Missile Crisis, in which the Soviet Navy was
planting small underwater-launch, short-range missiles with
nuclear warheads inside American territorial waters. These were
planted close to their targets, able to be fired at a moment's
notice by satellite command. If fired, they would destroy
coastal target areas with essentially zero warning time--the
perfect "first strike." They were planted by means of small
sonar-absorbing, super-quiet minisubmarines, designed to move in
and out of American territorial waters without being detected
by coastal sonar defense nets.

    The limited exposure of this crisis by way of the Dr. Beter
AUDIO LETTER reports enabled the late General George S. Brown,
then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to take action. Over
protests by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General
Brown persuaded then-President Gerald Ford to give him the
go-ahead to order the U.S. Navy to remove the missiles. In
September 1976 Dr. Beter and an associate met with General Brown
in his Pentagon office to discuss the crisis. In that meeting,
Dr. Beter provided General Brown with the locations of a second
round of Soviet underwater missiles. This was information
General Brown did not have, thanks to an "intelligence gap"
created by Kissinger in context with the former
Rockefeller-Soviet alliance.

    Exposure of the Soviet missile-planting program took away
the crucial element of surprise and helped to avert war at that
time. Even so, General Brown was soon neutralized as part of a
hopeless Rockefeller attempt to restore the former
Rockefeller-Soviet alliance, and many Soviet missiles were
never removed from American waters.

    As the immediate crisis over the Soviet underwater missiles
died down, Dr. Beter learned that other missiles also were
planted under the sea. These had been planted earlier and were
not Soviet, but American. In violation of international
treaties, the United States had planted mammoth multi-warhead
missiles on the ocean floor in the Atlantic and Pacific,
targeted on the Soviet Union.

    The new Kremlin rulers bided their time, allowing the four
Rockefeller brothers to convince themselves that they were
succeeding in patching up the former alliance. But they were
routing the Bolsheviks out of the Kremlin and out of many other
high-level positions of power in Russia. At the same time they
were finalizing preparations for a surprise many times more
decisive than that of the Underwater Missile Crisis.

    As the autumn of 1977 approached, American beam weapons were
nearing operational status at a secret military base nestled in
Copernicus Crater on the moon. But on the night of the Harvest
Moon, September 27, 1977, the base was attacked and put out of
action by the Soviet Union. For ten years the Russians had been
involved in a crash program to develop a family of particle
beam weapons, which fire subatomic particles at a target at
virtually the speed of light. A neutron beam weapon, fired from
an orbiting, manned satellite, killed all the astronauts at the
American moon base. (The Russian satellite was partially
disabled during the encounter. This was the nuclear-powered
satellite, Cosmos 954, which four months later created a
worldwide sensation by coming to earth in northern Canada. It
was not a crash, but an emergency landing.)

    The silencing of the secret U.S. moon base was the beginning
of a lightning military takeover of space by the Soviet Union.
During the final months of 1977, the Soviet Union deployed a
"space triad" of manned strategic weapons, to which the United
States has no counterpart. First came the "cosmos interceptor"
killer satellites, which use particle beam weapons to blast
other satellites out of existence. These started hunting down
and destroying American spy and early-warning satellites, one by
one. Within about six months--by tbe spring of 1978--they
completed the job. Meanwhile Russia's new rulers were demanding
that the United States begin laying down its arms by way of SALT
II  or risk unspecified dire consequences. These circumstances
led to a desperate intelligence mission in April 1978, in which
a Korean airliner flew into the most sensitive military airspace
in the Soviet Union. Russian jet fighters forced the airliner
down, but only after special equipment mounted in the plane
radioed vital data on the Soviet military alert status to CIA
receivers.

    In addition to spy satellites, a Russian cosmos interceptor
also destroyed the Skylab space station in mid-October, 1977, in
order to block any American attempt to return to the moon.
Skylab died in a giant fireball seen over much of the United
States on October 18, 1977. NASA waited a week or so for all
the puzzled questions over the mystery giant fireball to die
away and then began a lengthy coverup project, saying Skylab was
sinking unexpectedly from orbit. This hoax was followed from
start to finish in the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER report series.

    The second leg of the Russian space triad was deployed and
initially tested during October and November of 1977. It is a
network of high-power particle beam weapons on the moon, aimed
at Earth. The first test of these in November 1977 was carried
out under cover of a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. The beam
weapons produced a gigantic double flash. Due apparently to an
aiming error in this first test shot, they also created a huge
tidal wave which came racing out of the cyclone without warning
to inundate large areas of the southeastern Indian coastline.
Since that time, the lunar beam weapons have been fired only at
target areas well out to sea, for weather modification
purposes.

    Dr. Beter first reported on the characteristic brilliant
double flash produced by the Russian lunar beam weapons in late
1977. Nearly two years later, an aging American Vela satellite
happened to detect one of these double flash episodes in the
South Atlantic. This led to dramatic rumors for awhile that
Israel had tested an atomic bomb in that area with the help of
South Africa, since nuclear weapons produce a somewhat similar
double flash. But nuclear weapons also produce several
additional kinds of radiation along with the double flash, none
of which were present in the South Atlantic episode. What the
satellite accidentally detected was a test of a new technique
for generating artificial storms, which Dr. Beter described in
detail in February 1980. Since then such artificial storms have
been used repeatedly as a weapon of weather warfare.

    The third leg of the Russian "space triad" is a fleet of
electrogravitic hovering platforms called "cosmospheres." These
could have been developed by the United States, and in the early
1960's the late General Thomas Power (then commander of the
Strategic Air Command) and others urged that this be done. But
instead, all of America's secret space eggs were put into the
basket of the Project Apollo moon program. Meanwhile the Soviet
Union went ahead with development of these platforms, and in
December 1977 their operational deployment began. For several
months they announced their presence in hair-raising fashion
along the U.S. East Coast and elsewhere by creating mysterious
giant air booms. They did this by firing their powerful charged
particle beam weapons into the atmosphere in a de-focused mode,
in effect causing the air itself to explode. The air booms were
an attempt at intimidation of the U.S. Government, but did not
accomplish much in that regard. After a few months, the air
booms were halted.

    Today Russian cosmospheres routinely patrol high above all
kinds of American strategic targets. They stand guard especially
over American ICBM bases, ready to use their beam weapons to
blast the missiles at the moment of launch in the event of war.

    The strategic weapons programs of the United States today
are designed, first and foremost, to try to counter the secret
"space triad" weapons of the Soviet Union. These weapons have
yet to be made public by Russia's new rulers, who are well aware
that it would precipitate a propaganda disaster for them if
they did so. Likewise, America's rulers dare not publicly admit
the existence of these weapons which Russia has but America does
not. They are afraid that the American public would react with
everything from panic, to anger over America's "space gap", to
rage at having been lied to up to now. Congress too, having been
largely manipulated and kept uninformed, could become unruly in
the extreme.

    And so, while crash secret weapons programs have been
underway in the United States since early 1978, they are kept
hidden or their true nature is disguised. A wide range of
weapons are involved, from high-power laser weapons with new
infrared targeting, to retrofitting of Titan II ICBM's for
fractional orbital bombardment with super-yield "doomsday"
cobalt-bomb warheads.

    It is not practical to review all of these developments
reported by Dr. Beter in this "Bird's-Eye View" section.
Instead, the basic situation can be illustrated by considering
just two weapons programs: the MX missile and the "stealth"
aircraft program. The official justifications for these
programs are always couched in terms of Russian weapons which
everyone knows about--primarily Russia's large missiles. These
explanations never quite add up, because they are not the truth.
As a result controversy and questions keep swirling around these
programs. As old rationales fray and fall apart, new ones are
devised which also don't quite add up. Only when the truth about
Russia's "space triad" is known do the American weapons programs
make sense. Not pleasant sense, but sense.

    In June, 1980, Dr. Beter described in detail what the MX
program is all about. The big MX missile itself is actually of
little importance--but the MX program is being used as an
umbrella under which another, completely secret, missile system
is being financed and deployed. Dr. Beter reported that the
controversy then raging over proposals for a "racetrack" mobile
basing system for the MX was only a lightning rod to draw
attention away from deployment of America's real mobile missile.
This is a much smaller missile, called the Minuteman TX. It was
developed virtually from off-the-shelf hardware, and is deployed
on America's railroads aboard special rail cars. Dr. Beter
described these unique rail cars, and later several listeners
spotted them and took photographs which were published in a
special bulletin for AUDIO LETTER listeners.

    In October, 1981, President Reagan shocked a lot of people
by announcing that the MX missile would not be made mobile after
all. The ridiculous "racetrack" scheme had served its purpose,
which was deception, and was dropped. The controversy has
continued, but the MX program has remained alive through it
all. Early in 1983, after the termination of the AUDIO LETTER
report series, the concept of a smaller mobile missile was the
key new ingredient in the public recommendations of the
Scowcroft Commission on strategic nuclear forces. Supposedly
such a small mobile missile, nicknamed "Midgetman", could not
be deployed until the early 1990's. But in actuality, that type
of missile is deployed already...the Minuteman TX. Its biggest
advantage has nothing to do with the alleged first-strike threat
of Russian ICBM's. Instead, the deployment of large numbers of
small Minuteman TX missiles is intended to make it impossible
for Russia's cosmosphere fleet to keep tabs on them all. And as
Dr. Beter detailed over the course of several AUDIO LETTER
reports, the mobile fleet of Minuteman TX missiles are not
designed merely to survive a Soviet nuclear first strike.
Instead, the Pentagon Bolsheviks intend to use them as the key
to an eventual U.S. first strike against Russia.

    The other example to consider is the "stealth" program. This
is a multi-faceted program, which actually involves not only
aircraft but also a highly secret category of naval warships
with their own special bases. Shortly after Dr. Beter reported
on the existence of these special bases in the spring of 1982,
they spawned naval warfare in the Southern Hemisphere. The
visible portion of that conflict was the Falklands War.

    Restricting attention to the stealth aircraft program, the
most radical and promising development is that of the "phantom
warplane." First revealed by Dr. Beter in the spring of 1982,
the phantom warplane is as radical an advance in this computer
age as the atomic bomb was in an age of adding machines and
slide rules. By using powerful computer techniques, Einstein's
semi-finished Unified Field Theory hasbeen used to design
superconducting electromagnetic field equipment which can bend
light waves. Built into an aircraft, this equipment creates a
zone around the aircraft which light cannot penetrate: instead,
it flows around and onward, like water around a boulder in a
stream. The result is that at a distance the airplane is
invisible, not only to radar, but even to the eye.

    Public comments about the stealth program refer only to
radar evasion, not to the far more startling capability of
optical invisibility. Once again, this is done in order to limit
discussion to a range of weaponry capabilities which will not
raise too many public eyebrows. If the full capabilities of the
phantom warplane were known, it would raise the question: why is
something so radical needed?

    The answer lies with Russia's still-secret beam weapons. The
most important fact about the invisibility field of a phantom
warplane is not the invisibility itself, but the protection
which the same field provides against all types of beam weapons.

    The Bolsheviks who now control the United States Pentagon
want to use all these weapons to crush the Soviet Union from
which they have been overthrown and expelled. They have devised
elaborate plans, detailed in the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER reports,
to set off a nuclear first strike by the United States against
Russia. Nuclear "false alarms", so-called, have been staged in
order to test their ability to trigger what will look afterward
like accidental nuclear war. American nuclear forces will be led
to believe that they are retaliating, instead of striking first.

    The United States remains locked out of any large-scale,
sustained military presence in space. Even so, a few key
reconnaissance and other military tasks must be carried out in
space in order to prepare for war. For that purpose the Space
Shuttle is being used in ways hidden from public view. The NASA
Space Shuttle program is nominally civilian, but after the first
Space Shuttle launch the civilian director of the program was
eased out. Today the Shuttle director is Air Force General James
Abrahamson.

    It is often said that the world today lives under the threat
of a Battle of Armageddon which, for the first time in history,
could conceivably live up its apocalyptic description in the
Bible. What is less well known is that certain Satanic forces
are actively planning for such a conflict and trying to bring
it about. And they are harnessing the ingenuity of man to create
Armageddon-style weapons about which the public is never
informed.


Summary

    In surveying the 80 cassette tapes of the AUDIO LETTER
report series, a single gigantic picture emerges. The most
striking thing about this picture is that countless seemingly
unrelated, chaotic-appearing news events turn out not to be
chaotic after all. Instead they are all tied together by a
limited number of forces at work behind the scenes. Once one
knows these forces, one becomes far better able to sort out the
true meaning of events.

    Three major power groups are struggling today for worldwide
influence and power. Like icebergs, they are partially visible
but mostly hidden. These groups are the Rockefeller Cartel of
big oil, big banking and big business; the Bolshevik-Zionist
Axis; and the New Kremlin rulers of Russia.

    The relationships among these groups have shifted radically
over the past decade or so. The Bolsheviks used to control the
Soviet Union, and while they did there was a secret alliance
between them and the Rockefeller Cartel. But they have been
overthrown and expelled from top levels of power in Russia by
the New Kremlin rulers, who are anti-Bolshevik and are, in fact,
a secret sect of native Russian Christians. During 1976 and 1977
Russia's new rulers unilaterally terminated the long-time
Rockefeller-Soviet alliance, together with its plans for
programmed nuclear war on the way to a "one world" government.
The four Rockefeller brothers, then in control of the
Rockefeller Cartel, welcomed the expelled Bolsheviks from Russia
into positions of power here in the United States. That was a
fatal mistake, which led to the overthrow of the four
Rockefeller brothers at Bolshevik hands from mid-1978 to early
1979. Since that time there has been a steadily intensifying
power struggle between the Bolsheviks here and the regrouped
Rockefeller Cartel for control over the U.S. Government.
Generally speaking, the Bolsheviks have been getting their way
in military affairs, while the Rockefeller Cartel has greater
power in the economic realm. Since early 1982, there has been a
limited quid pro quo between the Rockefeller Cartel and the New
Kremlin against their common bitter enemy, the Bolsheviks.
Meanwhile the strong links between the American Bolsheviks and
the Zionist rulers of Israel have been forged into a secret
joint military junta--the Bolshevik-Zionist Axis--bent on war.

    Politics, economics, and international relations (including
war) are constantly used by these world power factions as they
struggle with one another. Economic manipulations, covert
intelligence maneuvers and a proliferating array of secret
weapons are features of this struggle. But as made clear in many
of Dr. Beter's tapes, the basic struggle is a spiritual one.

    Dr. Beter terminated his AUDIO LETTER report series in
November 1982 due to declining health. Events which have taken
place since then are beyond the scope of this REFERENCE DIGEST.
Even so, peppered throughout the tapes are many discussions of
plans and events still in gestation, and knowing those plans
can help provide many clues to the meaning of events still to
come. Beyond that, the past is always prologue to the future.
By studying the many events which ran their course during the
seven-odd years of the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER series, one can
learn a great deal about the underlying forces still at work in
our world.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                         Beter's wife Lilly Website

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 23:43:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:38:29 -0400
Subject: Beter's wife Lilly Website


 >Hi Mike,

 >Hope all is well. Here's a link to Beter's wife Lilly
 >financial website.

 >From some of the information, it seems Beter had contacts
 >in financial circles and government.

 >Derrick

 >Go to Link:
 >http://www.lillybetercapitalgroup.com/main.html

 >Lilly Beter Capital Group, Ltd., provides professional financial
 >services globally, performing as an intermediary between clients
 >and investment banking houses. Our guiding philosophy is to
 >provide our clients with innovative, relationship-based services
 >of the highest quality.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Spacecraft To Crash On Moon, Searching For Water

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:11:57
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:42:16 -0400
Subject: Spacecraft To Crash On Moon, Searching For Water


Source: The Sacramento Bee via the Nando Times,

http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,74103-117124-830868-0,00.html

Stig

***

Project will try to crash spacecaft on moon, searching for water

Copyright �1999 Nando Media
Copyright �1999 Scripps McClatchy Western Service

By EDIE LAU

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Thirty years ago, humans landed on the moon
with bouncing steps. In a few days, humans will make contact
with the moon again, this time landing with a crash - and
possibly a kind of splash.

The unmanned American spacecraft Lunar Prospector, which has
been studying the moon from orbit for the past 18 months, will
end its mission Saturday by bashing into the cratered rock,
moving a mile a second.

Scientists working on the mission designed this odd mission to
try to raise water vapor from ice deposits they suspect are
hidden in a lunar south-pole crater never warmed by the sun.
Crashing the unmanned craft successfully is a long shot, they
acknowledge, but eminently worth trying.

"I'm an avid science fiction reader, and if there's water there,
I can see how that can (July 26, 1999 12:03 a.m. EDT
http://www.nandotimes.com) exploring the solar system and beyond
- for supplying rockets with fuel ... for a moon base," said
David Goldstein, a University of Texas engineering professor who
designed the smash landing. "I certainly do hope there's water
there."

Early in Lunar Prospector's life, the little orbiter shaped like
a soup can turned up compelling evidence of frozen water in
permanently shadowed craters at the moon's north and south
poles. Scientists on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration project said in March 1998 that the craft had
detected telling levels of hydrogen, the element that, with
oxygen, makes water. The water is thought to have been left by
past comet collisions.

While hydrogen is a strong sign of water, it's not proof
positive. Other, less likely, possibilities are that pure
hydrogen blew in on solar winds, or that hydrogen atoms alone
cling to grains of lunar soil, Goldstein said.

By dashing the 350-pound spacecraft into a target crater, the
scientists hope to detect water itself in the resulting spray of
dust and debris. And if not water, they hope to find a chemical
relative called hydroxyl, which is formed when ultraviolet
radiation disassembles a water molecule.

But signs of water vapor won't end all doubts. Two Stanford
University scientists say the elements of water could be locked
away in a cementlike paste. And a well-placed collision could
generate vapor from the paste, they argue.

"The attempt may provide, at best, ambiguous results," wrote Von
Eshleman and George Parks in a letter published Friday the
journal Science.

In an interview, Eshleman said it would be possible to extract
water from such paste, just as it is possible to bake water out
of pavement, given sufficient heat. "But it's not nearly as
convenient as if it's ice," he said.

Anyway, the likelihood of seeing water or hydroxyl is only 10
percent, by the reckoning of Goldstein and Alan Binder, Lunar
Prospector chief scientist. Odds are against smacking the moon
just right.

First, the spacecraft might lack the battery power or rocket
fuel to survive until the appointed day. Binder said the craft
was not designed to survive a partial lunar eclipse Wednesday,
when the orbiter's solar-powered instruments will be in darkness
for 3 1/2 hours, four times longer than usual.

The orbiter also may run out of hydrazine, the fuel that enables
operators to tweak the craft's position.

Assuming Lunar Prospector is still flying and communicating with
controllers at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, at
2:52 a.m. Saturday, the spacecraft will skirt the crater's rim,
rushing into a frigid blackness with the energy of a two-ton
pickup rolling at 1,100 mph.

Goldstein, who was 7 when astronauts stepped on the moon, has
taken a fair amount of ribbing for engineering a crash. "I've
been told that's every kid's dream: Let's take this expensive
$63 million rocket and pound it into the moon," he said.

Making it pound to produce water, though, is not kid's play. The
crater is 2 1/2 miles deep and 38 miles across, and the shadowed
zone less than 19 miles in diameter. "That means where we hit,
there could be no water," Binder said.

Too, the spacecraft will approach from a shallow angle of 6 1/2
degrees. A hefty rock in the way could send the craft skittering
in the wrong direction.

Whatever happens, telescopes in Hawaii, Texas and Arizona and in
space, including the Hubble, will be watching.

Scientists widely consider the feat worth trying. "It's a bold
experiment," said Bruce Murray, a planetary geologist at
California Institute of Technology. Murray was one of three
Caltech scientists who in 1961 first postulated that the moon
harbored water in ever- dark craters.

Launched in January 1998, Lunar Prospector is the first
spacecraft in 25 years to look solely at the moon. Besides
hunting for water, it has gathered information on gravity and
magnetic fields and on the quantity and distribution of elements
in the crust.

Binder said scientists may be interpreting the data for decades.
"Just like the Apollo rocks, that's been almost 30 years (since
they were collected) and people are still working on it," he
said.

Those famous rocks have inspired ideas about the way nature
works that no one could have predicted back then.

Paul Spudis, a planetary geologist who analyzed the lunar
samples, said some of the rocks are products of shock melting
and intense pressure caused by asteroid and meteorite
collisions, and possess high levels of iridium, an element
common in meteorites.

On Earth, iridium is rare except in the 65 million-year-old clay
that marks the end of the dinosaur age, called the Cretaceous.
Putting two and two together, some scientists offered what is
now a popular standing theory for dinosaur extinction: an
asteroid did it.

Eager to continue extracting knowledge from the moon, lunar
scientists speak hopefully about sending more explorers there.

Binder himself is raring to go. He's founded two organizations -
one the nonprofit Lunar Research Institute, the other a
spacecraft- making business called Lunar Exploration Inc. He
wants to go personally someday, and says he could be ready to
send an unmanned probe in three years, given the funding.

His goal is to fetch more rocks. "Remember, the moon's a big
place," Binder said. "There are NASA documents with 50 different
sampling sites to start off with. All this has been laid out for
25 years. I'm just ready to do it."


Edie Lau writes for the Sacramento Bee.

Copyright �1999 Nando Media








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

             BBC: The Microchip Invented By Uk Scientist In 1952

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:23:25
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:45:03 -0400
Subject: BBC: The Microchip Invented By Uk Scientist In 1952

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_403000/403690.stm

Stig

***

BBC News Online: Sci/Tech

Monday, July 26, 1999 Published at 06:28 GMT 07:28 UK

UK missed out on microchip

**

The microchip was invented by a UK Ministry of Defence
scientist, only for the patent to be registered seven years
later in the US, the BBC has learned.

Now the UK Government is planning to set up a special agency to
ensure such money-spinning commercial ideas are not lost in the
future.

Nowadays, the global microchip industry is worth billions of
pounds but it all began in the 1950s as a spin-off from World
War II.

Geoffrey Dummer and his small team of researchers, based at
Malvern, Worcestershire, were given the task of improving the
reliability of the Royal Air Force's radar equipment.


Silicon pioneer


Mr Dummer, now aged 90, has told BBC reporter David Gregory that
in 1952 he came up with the idea of putting an entire circuit on
a block of silicon half an inch square.

It was rudimentary but it was recognisable as an early
microchip.

But Mr Dummer said MoD mandarins were unimpressed after a
prototype failed and the idea went no further.

Seven years later a United States scientist, Jack St Claire
Kilby of Texas Instruments, filed a patent for an almost
identical device.

And the rest is history.

Now the UK Government is drawing up plans for a new agency that
would develop and market ideas which are thrown up by the MoD's
defence research wing Dera.


'Civilian applications'


Dera (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) has an annual
turnover of �1bn and Under-Secretary of State for Defence, John
Spellar, says: "We spend money on military research but very
often some of the discoveries that we make are very applicable
in the civilian market.

"What we've got to do is, rather than that being exploited by
the electronics industry of Japan, we want to see that being
developed in the UK."

Mr Dummer, who was awarded the MBE, says the new agency is 50
years too late.

"All these main ideas came out during the war years and had they
been commercialised in the UK we would have been in a very happy
state."


Relevant Stories:

*Army's hot new recruit  (26 Jul 99 | Sci/Tech)
*Ministers set out tanks-to-technology plans  (05 Nov 98 | UK Politics)
*MoD hit by Net porn scandal  (21 Jun 98 | UK)


Internet Links:

*Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
*Texas Instruments
*Computing chronology


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

�





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:07:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:52:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Andy wrote (snip):

 >...Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >beings (dead or alive), whose physical existence is without
 >doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >whatsoever.

Wrong. Read again my July 4 and July 19 postings to UFO Updates.

(clip from July 19th)..."I have conscious recall of how I got
those burns...from an errant laser beam attached to a
transporter, in my bedroom in 1961 with many "visitors" present.
Do I expect you to believe that? No. You weren't there.

(clip from July 4th posting).."I can tell you, that in 1961,
there was no government experimenting on children in their
bedrooms with 3-dimensional laser-built transporters that could
move into the 4th dimension (through walls). We could barely get
into orbit as I recall. Is that enough "proof" for others? I
don't know. It certainly is for me. Pain is a great reality
check."

Your argument doesn't hold up with the thousands of people who
have experienced such incidents, and have the proof of the scars
to prove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has conscious
recall of how they were used and abused.

Start looking for similar people, people.

Sue







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                      Re: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:09:21 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:54:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 ><snip>

 >>We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >>judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >>lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >>available.

 >Stanton's wiggly reasons to justify his belief (because that's
 >all it is) in extraterrestrials visiting Earth reach new levels.

 >Yes Stanton, criminal courts don't always have physical proof.
 >Well spotted. But there is one teensy flaw in your argument
 >here. Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >beings (dead or alive), whose physical existance is without
 >doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >whatsoever. Hence you analogy is useless. It doesn't matter what
 >you believe, what the statistics of belief show. All that
 >matters in the ET debate is hard, physical proof. And there
 >ain't any.


Witness testimony is the mainstay in court. Fingerprints and
footprints for example are physical evidence even if you don't
have the finger or the foot. Physical trace cases (5000 from 65
countries) involve physical evidence. Radar screens involve
physical evidence. But Testimony is evidence.. Ask the judge. I
don't have a saucer whose tires I can kick. It certainly appears
based on the testimony that the government does just as they
have nuclear weapons without making them available..

The true believers are the so called skeptics. They know there
is nothing to flying saucers and all who claim to have seen or
been on one are liars..Simple dogma. even if total nonsense.

Stan Friedman






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                           Nick Pope's Weird World

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:36 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:59:01 -0400
Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World


  July issue
NICK  POPE�S  WEIRD  WORLD

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

A New Beginning

First of all, news that this column is going to be moving in a
new direction.  Over the past few months I�d been becoming more
bullish in my response to certain people within ufology who�d
been sniping at me over the years.  Nobody likes criticism, and
I�d been getting a fair bit - little of it constructive in
nature.  If people were criticising my views on, say, Roswell,
then fine.  I wasn�t there, and so my view probably counts no
more or no less than anybody else who�s followed the case with a
reasonable degree of interest.  But it rankled when outsiders
who�d probably never even visited MOD Main Building started
casting doubts on my knowledge about - and access to -
government and military UFO files.  I�ve worked for the MOD for
over fourteen years now, and three of those were spent
researching and investigating UFO sightings, alien abductions,
crop circles, animal mutilations and any other weird and
wonderful reports that came my way.

This inside knowledge doesn�t give me a monopoly on the truth,
but it shouldn�t simply be waved away by people who find it
inconvenient, because it conflicts with their own beliefs.
Sadly, I�d fallen into the trap of responding to ill-informed
criticism, instead of ignoring it and not giving the critics the
oxygen of publicity.  I�d allowed myself to be overly
provocative in questioning certain people�s commitment to
ufology or to witness confidentiality, and had asked some
awkward questions about other researcher�s political
affiliations.  And in going on the offensive against what I call
the militant anorak tendency within ufology (whether sceptics or
believers), I found myself on the receiving end of a collective
world wide whinge unprecedented even in ufology.  What to do?
Well, the answer�s simple, and is a move which I�d like to see
copied in the wider world of ufology.  From now on, there will
be no personal attacks in this column, and personal attacks on
me will be ignored.  That�s not to say that there won�t be
attacks on people�s data, where I believe it�s justified.  And
I�ll be more than happy to respond to any constructive criticism
on my data.  Will my many critics be able to rise to this
challenge, and have the courage to respond in kind?  Only time
will tell.


Cosmic Crashes

There haven�t been many new UFO books from British authors so
far this year. We�ve had Tony Dodd�s Alien Investigator, which
was reviewed in a previous column, and we�ve also had the
paperback of Colin Wilson�s excellent and comprehensive Alien
Dawn, which has also been reviewed here.  Now there�s another
new book, penned by a rising star of British ufology, Nick
Redfern. Entitled Cosmic Crashes, Nick�s book highlights a
number of strange incidents from the UK, and suggests that
Britain might have had its own share of UFO crashes.
Personally, I�m extremely sceptical about this, but there�s no
getting away from the fact that Nick has amassed a wealth of
intriguing material, together with some new witnesses.  By the
sort of bizarre synchronicity that crops up in this subject all
the time, one of the most striking things about the book is that
the cover design is very similar to that of the hardback of Tim
Good�s last book, Alien Base.  And it�s even more similar to the
cover of Impact Earth, an excellent new book highlighting the
threat from comets and asteroids.  Spooky, eh?


KGB Remote Viewing Revelation

Much is known and has been written about official US remote
viewing programmes, such as GRILL FLAME, SUN STREAK and
STARGATE. But less is known about the work done in the former
Soviet Union.  Quite by chance, the other day, I stumbled across
an interesting nugget of information in an open source
publication.  I was reading Ken Alibek�s excellent and highly
disturbing book, Biohazard, in which the author described the
Soviet�s covert biological weapons programme (something he
should know about, because he was in charge of it).  And there,
on pages 143 and 144, Alibek describes how the KGB used a
psychic to try and track the location of a defector from the
biological warfare programme.  Now, Alibek admits that the KGB
officer who told him about this was probably trying to test his
reaction, to see if he�d known about the defection in advance.
Accordingly, it�s just possible that the story was invented by
the KGB as a way of hiding the fact that they had an asset who�d
passed on information about the defector�s location.  But that�s
not my reading of the situation, and taken at face value this
new and intriguing revelation suggests that remote viewing was
used, operationally, by the KGB.


Freedom of Information

The draft Freedom of Information Bill was published on 24 May,
and promises to revolutionise UFO research in this country.  It
will open up some of my X-Files, which (when I was working on
them) I�d naturally assumed would be covered by the Thirty Year
Rule, and wouldn�t see the light of day until at least 2021.
Anyway, the draft Bill is in the consultation stage, and lots of
people have asked me how to get hold of a copy, and contribute
to the consultation process.  Well, you can buy a copy at any
HMSO outlet, or go to www.homeoffice.gov.uk/foi if you have
Internet access.  Government files - the truth is in there.


Blood on the Mountain

I�ve been sent a fascinating new book to review. Blood on the
Mountain  is written by Richard Andrews (co-author of The Tomb
of God), and deals with the intriguing subject of the Temple
Mount in Jerusalem.  Woven throughout the story is the recurring
theme of the Ark of the Covenant - the most sacred relic in the
Jewish Faith.  What was the Ark?  Does it still exist, and if
so, where is it?  These are some of the questions explored in a
book that also contains information about the Freemasons and the
mysterious Knights Templar.  As we approach the new Millennium,
Jerusalem will become a major focus of world attention - this
fascinating book is an essential guide to this city and it�s
mysteries.   The book is published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
It�s expensive, costing �20, but is meticulously referenced, and
contains a comprehensive index and bibliography.
Well-researched, easy to read and interesting, this book is
highly recommended.


Operation Lightning Strike

Regular readers will know that my novel Operation Thunder Child
will be published on 4 October by Simon & Schuster.  It�s a
technothriller with an alien theme, combining my officially
gained knowledge of UFOs and alien abductions with my experience
of crisis management, gained during the Gulf War.  Now, I can
exclusively reveal that the sequel will be entitled Operation
Lightning Strike.  This, too, is to be published by Simon &
Schuster, and will be available in October 2000.  You heard it
here first.


New CIA Blunder

In an amusing mistake on the CIA�s Internet site, British
parliamentary democracy was wiped out in the stroke of a
keyboard.  Their kids� page stated, in its information on the
United Kingdom, �Elections: None�.  Then again, maybe they know
something we don�t?!


NIDS Poll

The National Institute for Discovery Science are an American
group devoted to serious, scientific research into UFOs.  NIDS
was founded and is largely funded through the generosity of Bob
Bigelow, who has previously sponsored the Abduction Study
Conference held at MIT in June 1992.  It�s sad that work like
this has to be done by the private sector, because I believe
that governments have a responsibility to investigate anything
which suggests that national airspace is being violated.  But
since Project Blue Book was closed down in 1969, the US
Government have (officially) been out of the game, so it�s left
to the efforts of private citizens to take matters forward.
It�s not unlike the situation with regard to the SETI programme,
which is now continuing with private finance.  Anyway, the
latest NIDS venture is an opinion poll undertaken by the Roper
Organisation, and this focused on the likely human reaction to
alien contact.  The most intriguing results were that 25% of
those polled thought that there would be mass panic, while a
massive 80% thought that the government would try to classify or
suppress the evidence.  Click on www.accessnv.com/nids for
further information about NIDS, and the full text of the poll.

Ed�s Note:

Nick Pope�s two books, Open Skies, Closed Minds and The
Uninvited,  are available from all good bookshops.  Simon &
Schuster are his UK publishers, while The Overlook Press publish
his books in America.  Nick�s debut novel, Operation Thunder
Child, will be published in October by Simon & Schuster Ltd.

Hot Gossip UK
www.hotgossip.co.uk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:12:48 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:09:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


Andy Roberts proclaims ...

 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 ><snip>

 >>We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >>judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >>lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >>available.

 >Stanton's wiggly reasons to justify his belief (because that's
 >all it is) in extraterrestrials visiting Earth reach new levels.

 >Yes Stanton, criminal courts don't always have physical proof.
 >Well spotted. But there is one teensy flaw in your argument
 >here. Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >beings (dead or alive), whose physical existance is without
 >doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >whatsoever. Hence you analogy is useless. It doesn't matter what
 >you believe, what the statistics of belief show. All that
 >matters in the ET debate is hard, physical proof. And there
 >ain't any.


If you're looking for an alien to log in and introduce
himself here, you're on the wrong list.  And if hard,
incontrivertable physical proof existed, I guess we could
shut down the list and go home.  You want to be hand-fed,
don't you?  Life should be so comfy.

On the other hand, if you're honestly looking for good
evidence, there's plenty out there.  Stan already mentioned
a database of thousands of physical trace cases.  If you
need something on the web, how about Mark Cashman's online
database of ElectroMagnetic Effect cases?  I've appended his
recent update announcement of it (to another UFO research
list) below.

Take a look, and if you can easily dismiss all of this
information, or explain it all away, well then by all
means do so for us here on the list.  But don't expect
the answers to be out there on a silver platter;
the phenomenon just refuses to be that cooperative.

-Brian Cuthbertson

-----

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:59:10 -0400
From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      EM Effects Catalog Update
To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

More than 50 additional cases from the BUFORA Vehicle
Interference Catalog have been added to the Project 1947 EM
Effects Catalog (and the underlying queryable database at The
Temporal Doorway from which that catalog is now derived).

The catalog can be accessed at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/catalog/emeffect/index.htm
It now totals 940 entries. 64 of the 84 total pages of the
BUFORA catalog are now part of this database, dated through 1973
(Cases in the catalog from all sources date through 1997).

The queryable database can be accessed at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/catalog/database/query.htm

These CE-II cases represent a part of the reservoir of
relatively unexplored cases, many published once or twice and
never investigated in depth. Because of that, they are a
potential source of work for those interested in digging into
one of the most important categories of UFO report.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:26:59 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >Hi, Jim!

 >I must point out that your description is a match to something I
 >see every day here near my local airport - a somewhat distant
 >jet aircraft, usually a DC9, a 727 or some other T-tail
 >configuration, whose features are largely obscured by distance
 >and haze. The "band" to which you refer is actually the haze
 >filled shadow on the underside of the wing. The shadow is
 >roughly sky color due to the haze or environmental reflection,
 >and only stands out where contrasted against the brightness of
 >the fuselage. The reflected light of the rudder usually
 >eliminates this contrast for the stabilizer.

 >I am always highly suspect of this description for that reason.

Hi Mark,

Yes, this was a pretty good example of a UFO that could easily
get classified as an IFO, along the lines yu suggested. However,
your "band" was not a band, but a very narrow stripe. Not a
shadow. And then, the thorough ufologist should not omit the
other anomalies: no sound when close enough for a plane to be
heard, no tail section, no hint of wings, perfectly cylindrical
shape. Granted, however, it was sufficiently far away as not to
fall into the much more interesting category of a close UFO
encounter, and would not be worth a ufologist spending more time
on it. There are thousands of UFO sightings more anomalous than
this one.

   Jim Deardorff






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:08:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:25:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:53:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>Good points. But I did answer this specific question - twice -
 >>in detail. Check back through updates last week. The statistics
 >>argument grew from that.

 >>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>probably) landed in their estimation.

 >Dear Ms Randles et Al....

 >Very curious as to your reason for this "stat?" Personally I am
 >neither a proponent nor opponent of that view. I would frankly
 >doubt it, as both France and Russia, to name two countries,
 >appear to me to have a strong Ufological following and both
 >appear NOT to have the degree of skepticism seen in England and
 >the United States. But that's just a guess by someone who drinks
 >a great deal of vin ordinaire...

 >And is yous a "stat" or a "bet?"

 >That's my excuse, what is your reasoning?

Hi,

I am afraid I do not follow what it is that you want me to
explain that I have not done already during this discussion. I
have explained in considerable detail last week the basis of my
argument about the figures I find for IFOs, UAP and possible
alien UFOs. If I go through it all again we risk boring the
list, but if there was any specific point you did not grasp from
that series of answers, please elaborate and I will try to
elucidate.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:49:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:30:53 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 12:22:14 PDT

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100

 >Hi, Jenny,

 >>There have been some curious responses to my posting in reply to
 >>the question asked about whether - in my 25 years experience -
 >>one alien spacecraft had conclusively been seen. I thought I
 >>answered it fully and properly. Evidently not. It seems that for
 >>some of you unless I can be bullied into saying - yes, sure,
 >>they are here I admit it, then it isn't good enough.

 >I think that when you get more used to what happens on this
 >list, you'll stop characterizing it as "bullying" and start
 >accepting it for what it is: the usual rough and tumble of
 >debate, from which nobody -- including someone so esteemed as
 >your own good self -- is immune.  You're still a neophite here.
 >You need to thicken your skin a little.

Hi,

I am not in the least bothered about responding to questions and
challenges or defending my opinions. The point was that I
offered it, but was then basically told it wasnt good enough.
Tell me did one alien spacecraft land, was fired back - after I
had at length answered that question. That read to me like
someone wanting me to say something I cannot say because I do
not believe we have evidence to support it. I accepted the
possibility, maybe even the near probability, but not the
certainty. I would have accepted that as a reasonable answer to
the question from anyone else and a thick skin has nothing to do
with it. Although you are right, I am very new to this internet
debate thing!

 >>Well, sorry, I cannot honestly do that . I am afraid this
 >>attitude is, in my view, a large part of what is wrong with
 >>ufology. The plea - do we have to wait another 25 years for an
 >>answer - seems to be saying, go on, say they are here, I don't
 >>want to keep waiting to hear you say what I want you to say. I
 >>reckon we do have a good part of the answer. I understand what's
 >>going on far more than when I started. Its just that you don't
 >>seem to like what I say I have found. Problem is if you stand 25
 >>years at a bus stop waiting for a train it won't show up.

 >In your opinion. With all due respect, yours is an informed
 >view, but just one of a number, many of which disagree with
 >yours. As you're learning.

I am not just learning, as this suggests, that others have
different opinions to my own. Where in any posting have I ever
suggested otherwise? I have been asked what I think. I have said
what I think. I have been asked to explain why I think it. I
have explained why I think it. And frequently I have made
absolutely clear this is my opinion, no more, no less, and that
I could be wrong. Also that I am happy to listen to any counter
argument. Please look at my postings over the past three months
and I think my record will show thats what I have consistently
done. In fact, Jerry, you actually had a go at me once or twice
for listenin to alternative theories and ideas and for
committing the sin of not having a view that has remained
unwavering for 20 years. So It is wrong to infer that I expect
people to agree with me. I sure as heck dont. But equally I
reserve the right to agree with anyone who comes up with a good
argument, even if it means changing my mind on an issue or a
case. Is that not what debate is all about?

 >>As for Stanton's facts and figures. Some of them need to be
 >>interpreted. Yes, Condon found a third unsolved. But so would I
 >>if I selected the 60 best cases from the past year rather than
 >>studied the 6000 or whatever total sightings that have happened.

 >This misrepresents what happened with the Condon Committee.
 >Hynek and McDonald _wanted_ it to look at only the best cases.
 >Condon decided otherwise, no doubt because of his severe
 >antipathy to the UFO phenomenon, and the committee ended up
 >taking on whatever came its way, whatever the quality.  (At the
 >most absurd extreme this involved Condon's going to a spot where
 >a contactee had predicted a landing.)  Even so, about 30% of the
 >committee's cases ended up unexplained. According to several
 >reinvestigations (for example McDonald's) some of the explaineds
 >should in fact have been in the unexplained category. The great
 >irony, as Allen Hynek wrote in a piece on the Colorado Project
 >for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1969), was that
 >"the percentage of `unknowns' in the Condon report appears to be
 >even higher than in the Air Force investigation ... which led to
 >the Condon investigation in the first place."

No, I dont think this is strictly true. During the 18 month life
of the project Blue Book received many, many more sightings than
are in the report. A large number of trivial LITS were clearly
filtered out otherwise they would dominate the report as they
dominate any sample of UFO reports. In fact the report focuses
on a relatively small number of cases and there has to have been
some degree of selectivity given that it contains a proto
abduction and several photo cases (which is way over chance
expectation levels for such a small sample). Moreover, the
report focused on the good data from Blue Book archives - eg the
best photos (McMinville, Great Falls, etc) and radar (eg
Lakenheath/Bentwaters). It is very obvious that this was no
random sample of incoming trivia; although I appreciate that
some of this haphazardness went on (eg with Low visiting the UK
at a time of its biggest ever wave during which dizens of police
officers saw UFOs and he investigated none of them and went to
interview people who looked for the Loch Ness monster instead!)
But in essence the Condon data is bound to contain a higher than
norm percentage of unsolved cases because it had a far higher
than norm sample of good cases to start with. Am I seriously
misguided here, because thats certainly how I read it.

 >>I cannot change the results of what I find to make people happy.
 >>As I replied (and sorry its going to sound repetitive but as
 >>some of you don't seem to grasp what I am saying its necessary)
 >>here is what I actually find. And so, by the way, do a lot of
 >>other ufologists beyond the US. Many researchers in the US seem
 >>unaware that there is a ufology beyond the East Coast or the
 >>West Coast. But there is and when you add it up its actually
 >>bigger and very different from whats in the US as well. Note I
 >>did not say better. That is not my argument.

 >Oh, those US ufologists -- the root of all evil in the world.
 >Seriously, I detect a lot of provincialism (and, dare I say it,
 >a whiff of anti-Americanism - I am not referring to you, Jenny)
 >in non-US ufologists, too.  In truth, we all could learn from
 >each other. Instead, we are dowsed with gallons of rhetorical
 >dishwater in which "US ufology" becomes a synonym for "wrong
 >ufology." Sorry -- I don't buy it, and beyond that, I'm getting
 >bored with it.

There is no right and wrong ufology, just different approaches.
I have certainly never suggestedm argued nor believed otherwise.
Bit provincialism is a good word. In the UK we are fortunate to
have many diverse European cultures to perceive UFOs through as
well as our own. We also are awash in US UFO culture. So we do
get to see a very broad global impression of the similarities,
differences and nuances that exist from culture to culture. I
dont think many in the US are as fortunate. Most of the books
published are US originated. A little from the UK now gets there
(but that is rather recent) and little from beyond. I suspect
this is a key reason for the different approaches - which is why
the IUR, which you edit to splendidly, does such a good job of
reflecting to the US a little of the global UFO village beyond
the US.

 >>In the UK in an average year we get say 300 sightings. Of thise
 >>we can pretty conclusively explain around 180 (60%). I don't
 >>think there are too many disputes so far. Of the rest I contend,
 >>from my experience, that another 30 - 35% (it does vary - and
 >>thats maybe another 100 cases) are probably explainable. You
 >>cannot ever say for sure because the data to prove them is not
 >>there. But they are LITS or low definition incidents where it is
 >>best to err on the side of caution.

 >Explaining LITs is, for the most part, the functional equivalent
 >of shooting fish in a barrel.  I would hope that in the future
 >UK ufologists would invest their limited resources more wisely.

I actually noted in one of my replies last week that a major
reason we dont spend hours tracking many probable IFOs to a
certain conclusion once a probable solution emerges is that to
do so is the wrong way to use precious resources of time and
money we have. We do concentrate on the better, more challenging
cases and leave aside probable IFOs as just that. But we cannot
win because I was also told in this debate that by not resolving
IFO cases for certain and leaving them 'unsolved' we were
labelling as IFOs some cases that may in fact really be UFOs. I
agreed this was probably true, but that the cases left aside as
IFOs were low grade and so even if they were to prove
unexplained most would contribute little to our knowledge of the
phenomenon. This is always a juggling act given the fact that we
have a small UFO community with hardly any time and money
available in the UK. But we must evaluate what cases we can as
IFOs, determine which cases we cannot conclusively define as
IFOs and leave them aside if it would not benefit ufology to
pursue them to the bitter end (thus regarding them as probably
solved and moving on) and invesrtigate in detail the few cases
that are truly challenging and have the potential to add to our
knowledge. That was my very point - the reason we expend so much
effort on basic methods of quickly defining IFOs to 'clear the
decks'. It is not the end in itself, merely the means to the
end. That end is, of course, the study of the remaining
intriguing cases. That was a firm policy of all BUFORA
investigators in the period l981 to l993 that I was Director of
Investigations and it is part of our basic training course
philosophy.  So no argument there.

Best Wishes

Jenny Randles






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:33:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:17:03 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:50:26 +0100

 >>But the simple truth is that 99% of UFO sightings are not
 >>a close encounter. They are LITS and other poorly observed
 >>events.

Not wishing to be truculent, however I am convinced that the
reason for the above statement is that you have not personally
witnessed the event, nor as a consequence, had the opportunity
to evaluate the "evidence" based on the potency of it's having
hapened to you.

One must admit to this "personal factor" as adding a good amount
of belief to an otherwise stagnant description of swamp gas or
the planet Mongo.

 >What I can't really understand, after 50 years of this, is
 >spending scarce investigative resources on LITS. I mean, sure, a
 >high angular size NL case can have some value, but distant
 >moving lights, triangular configurations with white tips and a
 >central red light, etc, all are likely to be misinterpreted
 >aircraft, and even if they are not, offer little or nothing to
 >ufology in terms of understanding the nature of the UFO, the
 >behavior of the UFO, or the source / intent of the UFO.

 >So while 95% of a completely undiscriminating set of
 >investigations may be IFOs, the problem I have is with having
 >spent any time investigating perhaps 85% of that.

I have a problem with this line of thought as well as Jenny's.
First there are numerous sightings of anomalous objects which
are not distant.  Second, none of the two I sightings of
triangular objects which I saw along with others, were difficult
to calculate in terms of size, distance, shape and speed, from
hovering, to less than 50mph to ludicrous speed in a flash.  All
these factors were able to be calculated with relative ease.
The conditions extant defined the ceiling, therefore the maximum
height of the anomaly. They defined the minimal altitude by
conventional aircraft making an approach to the small airport
traveling under the triangle.  The speed was therefor easily
calculated by knowing transit time as well as altitude.  And
with a variance of only 1250 feet in the actual altitude of the
anomaly, it was quite accurate.

The problem is that according to all our knowledge, we don't
make anything which makes no sound at 3000 feet and goes 50mph
and whose dimensions are nearly equal to the variation in it's
altitude... almost!

All of which means that ANY objects sighted by multiple
witnesses, which are otherwise unexplained as conventional and
not pelicans, should be investigated. Leave no money on the
table.

God man, with so little known, to do otherwise would be
ridiculous.

Jim





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:35:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net

 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >available.

 >>Stanton's wiggly reasons to justify his belief (because that's
 >>all it is) in extraterrestrials visiting Earth reach new levels.
 >>Yes Stanton, criminal courts don't always have physical proof.
 >>Well spotted. But there is one teensy flaw in your argument
 >>here. Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >>beings (dead or alive), whose physical existance is without
 >>doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >>whatsoever. Hence you analogy is useless. It doesn't matter what
 >>you believe, what the statistics of belief show. All that
 >>matters in the ET debate is hard, physical proof. And there
 >>ain't any.


Andy's comments appear to miss the mark completely.
What Stan is clearly referring to is the testimony of witnesses
in a court trial. And witnesses in a court trial are directly
comparable to witnesses of a UFO sighting. In that sense,
the tools used to evaluate a trial witness' credibility can also
be used to evaluate whether a UFO witness is a trained
observer, has good character and is in possession
of his or her faculties.

In a courtroom _as in life_ the corroboration of multiple
witnesses is important and can lead, even in the absence
of Andy's vaunted physical evidence, to a verdict in either
criminal or civil cases. These are "flesh-and-blood" human
beings whose testimony we dismiss at the peril of our
intellectual integrity.

Yet one can add to the testimonials transient physical
evidence such as that associated with purported landings,
or the radar reflections that have accompanied a number
of UFO cases.

The only physical evidence that Andy seems willing
to accept _a crashed craft or preserved alien body_ might
have been available to us if the military had never taken
an interest in the subject.

I would remind Andy of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater's
efforts to gain access to the Wright Patterson AFB site where
alien debris was allegedly kept. Goldwater was a friend of the
base commander, Gen. Curtis LeMay, and moreover was
himself an officer with the Air Force Reserves and, most
importantly, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
As Goldwater reported to friends, he was told in no uncertain
terms that not only would he not be given access, but not to
ask again.

What, I ask, was so important that the chair of the Senate
intelligence committee would be deemed unworthy of gaining
entrance? Could it have been Andy's vaunted physical evidence?

Human testimony is also important in my field of work,
journalism. The rule we learn as apprentices is that no unnamed
source can be used unless a second, independent source
corroborates the first witness. By that measure, there are
hundreds, if not thousands of credible UFO sightings reported
by multiple, trustworthy witnesses.

While no one can say whether the crafts are truly
extraterrestrial rather than, say, interdimensional or time
travelers, to cloak one's reasonable doubt by insisting only
physical evidence counts is to reject the sum of human
experience.

Just another credulous resident of the States.

Pat McCartney





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     A Brief Message From Joseph Trainor

From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:59:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:49:24 -0400
Subject: A Brief Message From Joseph Trainor


To Maurice, UFO UpDates and all subscribers:


A brief message to let eveyone know that I have received an
e-mail from Joseph Trainor.

Joe states that he is checking out a new dial-up acount and
hopes to be able to resume UFO Roundup soon.

I assume his e-mail address will stay the same for now and
sighting reports etc. will be welcomed. In the meantime please
do not mail him asking when the bulletin will be back.

        More news as and when I receive it.

John Hayes

ufoinfo@ukgateway.net
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Archives for UFO Roundup/Filer's Files/UK UFO Network Bulletin/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:44:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:44:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:35:20 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto>updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >>let's face it;
 >>Arnold's stories were so inconsistent that just about anything
 >>could fit the mold, even, I'm sorry to say, Pelicans.

 >Sorry, Rog, I feel like I could possibly get a brain hemmorage
 >over the pelican theory. I can't seem to get it across  that we
 >don't have pelicans in Washington state. Canadian Geese yes,
 >Pelicans no. But you did make a good point that there is some
 >Arnold points that don't fit.

Kathleen,

Having experienced Florida and South Carolina pelicans in
flocks, they tend to fly in straight lines, one behind the
other. I don't know if Pacific pelicans behave that way or not
but that struck me as odd too...pelicans over Washington??

 >To James Easton, perception is a major key with the Arnold case.
 >Its a hard thing to visualize when you are sitting in the UK. A
 >map will never take the place of being at the actual location. I
 >have read the coverage by Jenny Randles  and also Larry
 >Warren/Peter Robbins about Rendlesham Forest. I did not see a
 >forest. I saw a stand of skinny tall trees that looked more
 >sparse than most backyards in the Pacific Northwest. How can
 >anyone be "scared" in this little group of trees? I was puzzled.

Don't know which part of the forest you were at but as the
before and after photos point out in Warren&Robbins Left at East
Gate, Rendlesham forest took a beating in a fluke storm in the
Fall of '87. They mentioned that this could have been some
result of fiddling with secret weather control machines. I
wouldn't know about that but I can say that this hurricane-like
storm came out of nowhere since I was in London at the time. We
went to bed with no warning of a storm and woke up with uprooted
trees all over town. Perhaps some Londoners can elaborate on the
likelihood of such a storm occurring with no warning from the
weathermen.

Bob






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                                  Re: IFOs

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:20:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:56:20 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:28 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>We can play with statistics as long as we like. I could argue
 >>that if Jim Deardorff is only able to explain 50% to 75% of the
 >>UFO reports he comes across then he's not doing his job
 >>properly! Other investigators find they can explain 95%. Maybe
 >>they're being over-zealous in explaining cases, maybe they're
 >>just more thorough in getting the facts.

 >Or maybe the set of cases is not filtered toward paydirt cases,
 >but includes a lot of chaff like LITS, distant reflections, and
 >other small angular size, small strangeness events.

 >As investigators, I believe that if we have a 95% IFO rate, then
 >it is more likely we are investigating the wrong cases, not that
 >we aren't looking hard enough for the answers.

Unfortunately this introduces a very subjective element into the
gathering of statistical data. Any individual investigator's
view of "paydirt data" will vary. It is clear that many
researcher's view of paydirt is anything which will support the
idea that at least some UFO reports represent structured craft,
hence vague lights-in-the-sky type reports are of little
interest to them, and can be ignored when compiling statistics,
inflating the "unexplained" cases at the expense of the
"insufficient data" column.

But researchers with a different agenda, promoting the
earth-lights hypothesis for instance, will find the distant
star-like objects extremely interesting, and would want to
include them in any definition of a UFO worth studying.

Ultimately we have to accept that the figure on which we must
base our percentage of "unknowns" is the totality of events
which are reported by the percipients as UFO events, and not
just the ones we personally happen to find interesting.

--
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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:27:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:59:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:53:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >Very curious as to your reason for this "stat?" Personally I am
 >neither a proponent nor opponent of that view. I would frankly
 >doubt it, as both France and Russia, to name two countries,
 >appear to me to have a strong Ufological following and both
 >appear NOT to have the degree of skepticism seen in England and
 >the United States. But that's just a guess by someone who drinks
 >a great deal of vin ordinaire...

France was the birthplace of sceptical "psycho-social ufology"
with people like Monnerie and Pinvidic. It was where British
sceptics cut their teeth at the famous Anglo-French channel port
conferences in the early 1980's. (All those post-modern literary
critics, dont'y ya know)

Russian ufology? Know nowt about it. Scandinavian and Italian
ufology has plenty of sceptics, although with one or two
exceptions the Germans seem a credulous crowd.

--
John Rimmer
You name 'em, we stereotype 'em





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:20:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:01:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:23:03 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


<snip>

 >Personal attack? Stating that a childs balloon is a cloaked ET
 >craft gives me the distinct impression that your standards of
 >evidence are lower, so not a personal attack but a reality.


Grow up Tony I've ben there done it, your a stuck record, yes
issue 3 I think yawn.

 >Talking of attacks, I heard all about your visit to Chris
 >Martin's, and the various conversations that went! Care to
 >comment?

Interesting this you have just solved something for me thanks, I
wondered what all the questions were for...........How many of
these have you got out there? Good Training I'll give you that!

 >Remote viewing is subjective and you're right, we are
 >investigating it's uses in the UFO phenomenon. In fact Sue is
 >the person who seems to be getting results, but to date we have
 >not established whether she is contacting anything other than
 >her imagination!


Say no more........

Roy..





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                               Re: Joe Firmage

From: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:42:44 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:13:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Joe Firmage


 >From: Dan [mailto:geibdan@qtm.net]
 >Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 10:05 AM
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>

 >Joe,

 >Haven't you noticed that so many people are refereing to you as
 >all show and no go ? Will you ever provide anything of substance
 >or just continue to flaunt your wild ideas, and continue to
 >dillute an already stressed field of research. I challenge you
 >to provide substance or stiffle it Edith THanxz Dan

Dan, we're working quite hard at ISSO. I'll talk about many of
our projects tomorrow. Many of our research projects will take
months and in some cases years to complete. We'll talk about
them if and only if they produce meaningful results... Best -
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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                             Abduction Theology

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:05:47 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:15:57 -0400
Subject: Abduction Theology


Hi Listers,

There seems to be an ever more growing (and dangerous)
phenomenon appearing on this and other lists that, for wont of
any existing term I have labelled "Abduction Theology".

Like any 'established religion' its adherants tend to vilify any
one questioning its foundations, structure, beliefs or even its
methodologies.

It strikes out at those who seek the truth by 'daring' to ask
any serious questions or ask people to think clearly about what
is thrust at  them.

Is the earth still flat?

Does the universe still revolve around the earth?

Of course not and we know this now because people had dared to
think and ask rather than what was rammed down their throats.

Stop "Abduction Theology" before it becomes "Abduction
Fundamentalism".

Regards,
Leanne  ];-)
(Stirring the possum as ever.)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                             Re: Bruce Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:58:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:27:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee


 >From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:32:29 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >Previously, Bruce had offered:

 >>>>What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >>>>estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >>>>wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

 >To which I had essentially questioned why it was okay for Bruce
 >or others to make assumtions about the validity and accuracy of
 >Arnold's statements to support their own theories; but not for
 >Easton to have the same right, regardless of what his theory
 >might be.

 >Bruce responded:

 ><much respected snip>

 >>Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
 >>accept ("believe") in the accuracy of certain values of
 >>quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses. The
 >>descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
 >>"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
 >>correct."

<snip>

 >If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
 >blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
 >why can't anyone else, including Easton?

Well, didn't I say "everybody does it"? I'm not surprised
that Easton has done it. The argument always comes down to
whether or not it is logical or at least "convincing" to reject
some data and accept some other data in order to arrive at a
solution.

Incidently, there is no "theory" of what a UFO should be, how
fast it could go, what it should look like and do. If we knew a
priori the characteristics of UFOs then we could attempt a
positive identification (if walks like a UFO, talks like a UFO
and looks like a UFO, then it's a UFO). Unfortunately without
this a priori knowledge we can only look for a "negative proof,"
that is, "this phenomenon has characteristics that match no
known phenomenon, therefore it is 'unidentified'... a UFO. In
this particular case, part of the negative proof that Arnold saw
UFOs would be that he didn't see pelicans. In other words, I
would claim "proof" that he didn't see:

(a) mirage,
(b) motes in the eye,
(c) normal aircraft glinting in the distance,
(d) reflections of bright objects in window glass,
(e) billowing clouds of snow,
(f) reflective wavy haze layers,
(g) orographic clouds,
(h) large aircraft nearby,
(i) water drops on his windshielf,
(j) swans,
(k) meteors and
(l) pelicans.

(All of the preceding have been proposed over the years.)

So, what did he see if none of these? Either come up with some
other explanation or conclude that Arnold saw "TRUFOs"... TRuely
Unidentifiable Flying Objects" where "unidentifiable" means
cannot be identified as a mundane/prosaic/known phenomenon (ET
craft, time travelers, etc., are assumed to be "unknown"
phenomena).

Now, in order to achieve this negative proof in regard to the PH
(pelican hypothesis) one must be able to show that the
characteristics of the POTENTIAL UFOs must be different from the
known characteristics of the pelicans. Maccabee's First Law of
Explanation is that any prosaic phenomenon that is suggested as
an explanation must, itself, obey known physical laws. Thus, for
example, it would be unphysical to attribute specularity
(reflective like a mirror or polished metal) to a pelican
because the feathers are finely divided reflecting surfaces
which can have a "sheen" or "gloss" under certain optimum
circumstances of lighting, but not a specular reflection. In
general they have a diffuse reflection (like paper, as compared
with a mirror). Hence it makes no physical sense to say that
Arnold could see the reflection from pelicans at a distance
beyond the distance at which he could see the pelicans
themselves.

Sorry, but this gets a bit complicated: a person can only detect
something "out there" if there is contrast with the background
(or foreground). White pelicans against a white sky would have
very little contrast. Even if there is contrast, the angular
size has to be large enough for the eye to detect at least a dot
(otherwise it might be lost in the "noise" in an eyeball; if you
think there is no such optical "noise", just go outside and
stare at the bright sky for a while, preferably a uniform blue
or a uniform white) . Hence the bottom line is that the pelicans
must make an angular size of about 0.5 milliradians and have
some contrast against the sky to be seen. If a pelican average
size is 5 ft. the maximum distance is on the order 5/0.0005 = of
10,000 ft or nearly 5 miles. (Hence in my reconstruction in a
previous message my use of 4 miles distance is likely an
exaggeration.... BUT this is to be determined by experiment)

Not so with a specular reflector in the sun. The specular
reflection can be seen a LOT farther than the mirror itself can
be seen because it is reflects the sun. It is like looking at a
small piece of the sun (the angular size of the reflector
divided by the angular size of th sun). The contrast between the
bright sky and a small piece of the sun can be huge (as anyone
who has seen a reflection from a car window at a distance will
know). In other words, a mirror reflection of the sun can be
seen at a distance greater than the distance at which a diffuse
reflector of the same size could be seen.

For those quantitatively minded here are some numbers: according
to a table published many years ago in Astronomy Magazine, we
can let the relative brightness of the sun (solar disc) be
10,000,000= 1E7 and the relative brightness of the sky be 1,000
= 1E3..

"Laws of visibility" generally indicate that, to be detectable,
a "compact" object (like a bird or disc, but not a thin rod)
must have at least a 2% difference or contrast between its
brightness and the sky brightness. Furthermore, its angular
size should be about 0.5 milliradian or larger

2% contrast means the object brightness would have to be 1.02 x
1E3 = 1,020 (or if darker than the sky, 0.98 x 1000 = 980). The
actual difference is 1,020 - 1,000 = 20 (or , if darker, 1,000 -
980 = 20).

Assume Arnold's eye could barely detect an object of
1/2 milliradian size, 0.0005 radian, against the
bright sky. The solar disc is about 0.0085 rad in diameter.
Hence the fraction of sun reflected by a mirror 0.0005
rad in diameter is (0.0005/0.0085)^2 = 3.5E-3.
Multiply this by 1E7, the solar brightness, and get
3.5E4. This is the relative brightness of a mirror surface
which subtends (there's a good geometric word!)
0.5 milliradians of angle.

Since the relative brightness of a white (or dark) object or
0.5 milliradian angular size against the bright sky is 20 units,
the brightness of the mirror surface of the same angular size is
about 3.5E4/20 = 1,730 times greater than the brightness of the
white diffuse surface.

Naturally it can therefore be seen farther. How much farther?
The angular size of the mirror shrinks with distance and so the
fraction of the reflected solar disc shrinks as 1/r^2. To find
the maximum distance, r2, at which a mirror surface could be
seen, as compared to the distance r1 for a white diffuse
surface, we need (r2/r1)^2 = 1,730 or r2 = 41 times r1. Thus, if
a bird could be seen at 10,000 ft, a mirror could be seen at
410,000 ft (77 miles) IF THERE WERE NO ATMOSPHERIC ATTENUATION.

This calculation is not correct because there is exponential
attenuation of the light in the atmosphere, so the visibility
distance is determined not only be the inverse square law, but
also by an attenuation law. However, the point still is valid:
the mirror will be detected a lat farther than the diffuse
reflector.

Back to the Arnold case: Easton has argued vociferously that
pelicans, being white, can be quite bright in the sun. So he
chooses as part of his data Arnold's claim that the objects were
seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, and hence must have been
brighter than the snow (Mt. Rainier was 20 miles away... the
atmospheric haze over this distance reduced the apparent
brightness of the snow; the reflection from the HP -
hypothetical pelicans - was not similarly reduced because they
were within a few miles). He then OVERLOOKS, or tries to "argue
away" Arnold's claim of bright flashes, because this would
conflict with his PH theory.

Let's now test his hypothesis/theory (which he didn't do): (a)
ASSUME Arnold first saw the pelicans when they were barely
visible. That means that Arnold would not detect the pelicans
until they were close enough so that the combined effects of
angular size (large enough) and diffuse reflective brightness
(bright enough) made them visible against the sky background.
BUT... at this distance their BODIES would be visible as dots
with a several percent contrast against the sky, not as bright
flashes. He would not be able to initially see their shapes,
however,.

Their apparent brightness would increase as they got closer, and
he would see more and more details, but he would always be
seeing them by diffuse reflection and they would never appear to
be reflecting the sun like polished metal. He could not see them
farther than the distance at which he could first see their
bodies as dots (whereas objects with mirror like reflections
COULD be detected at distances greater than the "dot" distance).

(b) ASSUME the pelicans got close enough to be at least
"startlingly bright" before Arnold realized they were there. In
this case their angular size would be quite large...they would
be close....and he would likely recognize them as birds. (If the
angular size isf 5 times that of the minimum angular size for
detection, then the observer can generally determine shape.) Of
course, they would still not flash like mirrors. But, how bright
could they be? Backlit by the sun, their white feathers would
probably still be only some percent greater than the sky
background, but we really have no way of knowing at this late
date. What we do know, is if they were close enough to be bright
that (1) Arnold should have been able to determined the shape
and (b) at the very least he should have been able to turn his
plane and follow them and outrun them.

Now, after this long dissertation (which I wanted to enter into
the public record), back to your point.

 >If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
 >blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
 >why can't anyone else, including Easton?

Of course Easton can choose his data. BUT, he's got to be able
to make his choices stick.....he's got to prove by using ALL
POSSIBLE TESTS that his hypothesis fits the details of the
sighting. His approach, like that of most skeptics, has been to
pick a few details that fit his hypothesis and then argue away
the others by saying they are incorrect statements on Arnold's
part, or they have been interpreted incorrectly. I have no
problem with this approach in principle, as long as the person
can provide convincing arguments for rejecting certain data and
accepting other data. Since I have no "theory" of what a UFO
should be, I do not have to pick and choose data to fit a theory
in the same way that Easton has to pick data to fit his
PH/theory. However, whenever I pick data that I claim
CONTRADICTS a theory, such as the PH, I should be able to argue
why those data should not be disregarded. I have tried to do
that. Naturally, if enough data can be thrown out "any"
hypothesis can be satisfied. Hence we have more than half a
dozen explanations proposed by people who have rejected various
portions of the data

 >For the record, I don't believe that what Arnold saw was
 >Pelicans. My own reasoning is less than scientific; I'd simply
 >like to believe what he was were UFO's.

Yes, unscientific. I would rather there be no UFOs. we've got
enough to worry about already without interlopers from"out
there" messing around. UFOs introduce another uncertainty into
life, which is already uncertain enough (what with population
growth, pollution growth, the coming "immortality" and medical
bills that will make the medicare arguments of today seem like
child's play)

 >However, I offer this
 >info regarding the "dissapearance" of the pelicans behind
 >mountain peaks. I have some video that I shot of my relative's
 >kids playing frisbee. On more than one occasion, the frisbee
 >flatened out to the point that it "dissappeared" behind a tree
 >almost a hundred feet in the distance. The effect was quite
 >startling. I have no doubt this was the effect Easton was
 >talking about. Considering we lose our sense of three
 >dimensional perception beyond about 35 feet or so, it would be
 >easy to be fooled by this effect in mid air. Just a thought.

I certainly understand what you are saying and have considered
it. The argument here is that Arnold saw the objects "disappear"
for short times (this is the observation) and then reported that
they went behind mountain peaks (this is the interpretation). As
usual the ufologist is confronted with separating the
observation from the interpretation. Clealy if Arnold's
interpretation were correct the PH fails. However, if one can
logically and convincingly show that Arnold misinterpreted what
he saw, then the PH IS NOT YET PROVED.... it has to pass other
hurdles. IN other words, one detail of observation could
disprove a hypothesis, but it cannot prove a hypothesis. Hence
it is not sufficient (but it is necessary) to argue that the
objects did not go behind mountain peaks-- that Arnold was wrong
in this interpretation. But then to prove the PH one must also
show that the flashing can be explained, the shapes can be
explained and that the dynamics of the situation as portrayed on
my map in another message (or someone else's map) can be
explained.

For example, Arnold says he turned his plane and rolled down his
window so there would be no glass between him and the objects,
yet he still wasn't able to see aircraft-like tails on the
object. If in turning the plane he chanced to fly parallel to
the objects, and if they were pelicans a mile or less away, it
seems reasonable to assume that he would immediately have
noticed that he was catching up with them... or passing them...
but AT LEAST that he was going faster than they and not the
other way around. Although Arnold didn't state explicitly which
way he turned, we do know he was sitting on the left side and
was therefore closest to the left window. We also (apparently)
agree that the objects passed between him and Rainier so,
assuming he turned AFTER they passed Rainier, it is MOST LIKELY
that he turned to the right and headed south and opened the left
hand window.

Easton's explanation of why Arnold failed to realize he was
traveling faster has basically been to argue that Arnold did not
report accurately what happened.. or that the interpretations of
what Arnold did report have been wrong. Easton has recently
suggested that maybe he turned to the left and opened the window
on the other side of the plane so he could have a better view of
the rear ends of these objects. This makes little sense, of
course, since they were going so rapidly... whether pelicans of
UFOs.... that all had to do was wait a little and they would 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:12:10 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:29:45 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey


 >Subject: Re: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:50:19 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Fred R. Saluga <FSaluga@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:41:45 EDT
 >>Subject: UFOs And Law Enforcement Survey
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>A. A common complaint among UFO witnesses and others who have
 >>had some type of UFO encounter or experience is that their local
 >>police tend to be unresponsive to their claims and show an
 >>unwillingness to get involved in cases involving UFOs and
 >>related phenomena. Do you agree or disagree, please explain?

 >I have had two cases with police involvement. In one case, the
 >police were called by the witness mother, and started to laugh
 >off the case, but the witness' mother, who had seen how upset
 >her son was, emphasized the importance of this. The police then
 >sent someone to the site, contacted the local hospital for
 >flights of their helicopter, and reported the case to NUFORC who
 >reported it to us.

 >In the second case, the police spoke to the witness, took his
 >information, drove through the area on subsequent nights, and
 >otherwise seemed to take him seriously.

Hi Mark and Fred,

Fred are you interested in cases where the police were the
witnesses or just took the reports?

Sorry, I'm getting in late on this.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:03:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:33:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs


 >From: David Rudiak DRudiak@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:04:48 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>(You would have to read my report on
 >>Arnold to get the details.)  Hence Hynek decided that the
 >>objects probably were about 50 ft long, fast fighter aircraft ,
 >>in which case they were not 20 miles away but only 6 miles away,
 >>and traveling not 1,200 or 1,700 mph, but about 400 mph.  Hence
 >>there was a big contradiction between Arnold's size estimate and
 >>Hynek's size "estimate" (really a "preferred size") and so the
 >>Air Force took this as indication that Arnold's report was so
 >>full of contradictions and errors that it didn't merit further
 >>attention.  Incidently, the official AF explanation has nothing
 >>to do with  Hynek's analysis.  According to Project Blue Book
 >>files Arnold saw a "mirage!" Now there's a rock-solid bit of
 >>logic for you.

 >Actually what was full of holes was Hynek's analysis, not
 >Arnold's report.  Hynek was an astronomer, which may have made
 >him an expert on the optics of telescopes and their resolution.
 >But he obviously knew nothing about measurement of human visual
 >acuity.

<snip>

Thanks for your typically erudite comments on the Arnold case.
It was, of course, Hynek;s analysis that was as solid as a swiss
cheese.

The analysis of eyesight capabilities, etc., which you have
presented is contained in each of the two papers I have written
on Arnold: "The Arnold Phenomenon" in the January.February,
March/April and May/June issues of the International UFO
Reporter (IUR) of th Center for UFO Studies and also in The 1997
Proceeding of the International MUFON Symposium.

You can also request a text version (with lousy illustrations)
from:  brumac@compuserve.com.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Alien Ruptures Majestic Thirteen... A Book Review

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:10:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:36:47 -0400
Subject: Alien Ruptures Majestic Thirteen... A Book Review


Dear List members, Gentle and Otherwise and of course,
Dr. Kanappy;

I just finished writing a review of a book which I read and
enjoyed so much, I wanted share it with you.  I realize it's
been in print for a while and likely has been discussed here,
prior to my subscribing to this list, however I enjoyed it so
much, that I felt compelled to bring it to your attention yet
again, most especially in light of recent sightings of the
"triangle." More to the point, I myself have sighted this
triumvirate of lights in the sky, seemingly attached to
something which should not be able to stay up there...
And so to my friends and some of my fiends, permit me
to recommend it and to explain why.

The review I wrote was for another venue.  I cannot post
it here, as it is no longer my property. However there are
some things which I can relate which may be appropriate
to this list.

I wrote the review mostly for me, because the book was a
blessing in it's simplicity and it's well met quality of
(according to the authors) of truth in fiction.  Not an
oxymoron, as many write from their own life experience. And
doing so precludes anything but a statement of a reality in it's
most basic form.  And I wrote it also, because the UFOs
described in the book bear such close resemblance to the UFOs
which I observed in the skies over my lower New York State home,
and again over the Indian Point Nuclear Power generating plant
not more than 18 miles from my home, NNW as the crow flies.

Well, the book is Alien Rapture ... The challenge to this book
is in seeing the truth in it's pages, truth mixed in with the
fiction.  And we all know that when it comes to the subjects
discussed on this list, truth becomes specifically relative to
each person's pair of dimes. It tends not to be as stable as
absolute truth.

The issue is, just how many of those objects which have been
seen by so many people over decades, are _ours_?  While the
answer is not _necessarily_ in this book, there is that kernel
of truth, which shines through the tarnish on my pair of dimes.

The one I saw and reported in September of 1998 could very well
have been ours in spite of it's slow speed and huge size, if one
is to believe the theory intrinsic to Fouche's book.  But the
other sighting?  ... uh, .... no way.  Things which are made on
this ball of dirt, even reverse engineered at places like Groom
and Area 51, do not go from hovering over a nuclear power plant
on the Hudson River, all the way to "ludicrous speed" in a
heartbeat.  No one I know of can take the forces generated, or
for that matter compensate for them.  And no one I know, nor any
entity from hereabouts, can deliver that kind of technology
without waving it in the noses of our many enemies ... no one
person or group of persons can allow the lives of so many
American soldiers as well as the righteous young men and women
of so many other nations, to die needlessly whilst we sit on a
technology which can bring us into space, outer and inner, to
world peace, and with an ease and a joy of benefits unthinkable,
even the destruction of diseases presently without cures;
cancer, MS and so many others.

No one can do that.  Can they?  And if they are doing so, that
is, keeping this technology from the rest of the world, from
keeping us healthy, safe and sound... from exploring the outer
reaches of our solar system... then what do we do with such as
those, when and if we find out what they've done to us over so
many years?

If you've read the book, then someone please explain how a
government, secret or otherwise, with so much power and
technology, may hold out on the rest of the world at large in
the effort at maintaining that power?  And if you've not, but
are a conspiracy buff, I ask the same question. And one other
question.  Read the book.  Enjoy the plot and the excitement it
generates.  And decide for yourselves how much power may corrupt
a few men who fail to use it in any venue.

Regardless of the truth or lack of it, this book was one hell of
a "I just can't put it down" read.  I am one of those who think
there's more of "them" in these wedge-shaped doohickies than of
"us."

I loved the book.  I even take a good deal of it as truth.  But
the main conclusion is one I cannot grasp, that a group of
people could take it upon themselves to keep such power and not
use it.... to _any_ purpose.... good or evil.  Doesn't make
sense to me.  Does it make sense to anyone else?

Dr. Silly N. Naive, Ph.D.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:42:26 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:42:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:54:20 -0300

 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:29:17 -0700
 >>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>Fact: There was insufficient information to identify _not one
 >>report_ as an extraterretrial spacecraft, yet we are led to
 >>believe by Stanton Friedman that PBBSR 14 statistically supports
 >>his notion that "some" UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 >The category ET Spacecraft was not one that could be used. So
 >Ed's statement makes no sense.

The categories employed were balloons, aircraft, astronomical,
Light phenomenon, birds, clouds/dust/etc, insufficent
information, psychological manifestations, unknown and other. Of
greater importance was the main objective of the study:

        "to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS
represent observations of technological developments not known
to this country."

A secondary goal was to "ferret out any distinguishing
characteristics inherent in the data" and to perform a
"concentrated study of any trend or pattern found".

The results were inconclusive. In other words, the probability
that any of the UNKNOWNS represented observations of
technological developments not known to this country was "highly
improbable". Of course, BMI was  not playing with a full deck.
They were trying to evaluate Project Blue Book reports notorious
for their incompleteness, lack of reliable measurements, and
limited Air Force investigation of the original reports which
meant that unreliable and unverified anecdotal testimony
comprised a portion of the data which BMI was attempting to
scientifically reduce and draw significant conclusions from. The
portion of the data which is unreliable and unverified varies
from a high percentage whether ET proponents are attacking the
Air Force Blue Book Project, to a low percentage to when they
are trying to present Blue Book Report #14 as supportive of
their notions.

BMI did not stop there. The problem they were asked to evaluate
was too important simply to give up if they could  not reach any
conclusive statistical results. They took a second look at just
the UNKNOWNS and separated them into UNKNOWNS, GOOD UNKNOWNS,
and POSSIBLE KNOWNS. Only seven GOOD UNKNOWNS were found. Later,
five more were added to that group. BMI attempted to build a
flying saucer model from the reported data of these twelve
cases. They could not do it! The anecdotal reports were so
inconsistent with each other that BMI reached the conclusion:

        "It is not possible, therefore, to derive a verified model
of a 'flying saucer' from the data that have been gathered to
date". In other words, reducing 4,000 reports as provided by the
Air Force, only 12 had sufficiently detailed descriptions but no
pattern or picture of what a flying saucer is could be
developed."

BMI did not stop there. They looked at the other groups of
UNKNOWNS for observed characteristics if any were the same.

        "No such groups were found."

Of course, BMI was attempting to apply statistical methods to
Air Force data which has been shown to be notoriously
incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable and most importantly the
original data for the most part uninvestigated by the Air Force.
The same data that when it suits the fancy of ET promoters, is
purported to support their notion that some UFOs are
extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 >The testimony of thousands of witnesses certainly carries
 >weight in court as do radar measurements.

Court? Strange that a professed nuclear physicist has to make an
appeal for legal standards and not scientific standards. The
last time that science was decided in a courtroom setting was
during the Spanish Inquisition. In a social context, we have had
political standards applied to science in this century also. An
example being Germany during the 30s-40s.

 >Observations of objects
 >landing and taking off and leaving physical traces and in about
 >1/5 of the cases involving strange beings cannot be ignored even
 >if the Pope or Larry King or Ed Stewart wasn't there.

It was ignored when the elite (you weren't invited to
participate) of ufology made their pitch last year to an
"independent" panel of members of the scientific community at
Rockefeller's place. Or when the Coalition presented the best
evidence. Strange that no CE-III cases of note were included.
Much less abductions.

 >testimony of abductees cannot be ignored even if the Queen
 >wasn't there.

See above.

 >It is 20%  Ed  not 10%.

Well, actually, the unknowns can be just about anything
dependent on what someone wishes to emphasize. The statistics
contained in the charts and tables used the end of 1952 as the
cutoff date. It included 3201 total cases. 1953 and 1954 cases
show an UNKNOWN rate of 9% (4834 cases by the end of 1954),
while the 1955 cases to May 5, 1955 show an UNKNOWN rate of only
3%. (131 total 1955 cases)

But I know that Stanton Friedman knew that all along. He is a
nuclear physicist after all and should understand the nature of
statistics. <GRIN>

 >Perhaps you ought to buy and read  a
 >copy of the 250 page report from UFORI, Complete with the
 >misleading press release and all tables, charts etc only $25.

Why would anyone do that?  For half your price, $12, they can
get an analyses from FUFOR that says essentially the same thing.
BBR #14 is the greatest thing supporting ET (if you read it the
right way) and ignore that the raw data reduced in the report is
notoriously incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable and most
importantly for the most part uninvestigated by the Air Force
and presented to BMI "as is". In all fairness, it can be argued
that it is the best of the Blue Book data because Blue Book went
downhill from the moment it was created.

 >including priority Postage.I will even throw in my  20 page"Case
 >for The ET Origin of Flying Saucers" (only $4.by itself)

Stanton Friedman, the business man that argues for legal
standards in the interpretation of data, but professes to be a
nuclear physicist. Will the real Stanton Friedman please stand
up?

 >>_zero_. Stanton Friedman calls it "a serious semantic
 >>difficulty".

 >It is because it is undefined.SETI cultists talk about contact
 >from many light years away; is that what is meant? Or a
 >handshake or what?

Ask one of the many English majors on this mailing list. I fully
realize you have a tendency to gag when the word 'confirmation'
is uttered, mainly because no matter what the definition you are
unable to support your contention.

 >>When asked to produce a single case Friedman, as
 >>well as others holding similar viewpoints, refuse to do so
 >>stating that the evidence that some UFOs are extraterrestrial
 >>spacecraft is in the aggregate, not in any single case.

 >Try RB 47, Hills, Salt Lake City.. etc etc.

Personally, I think the "etc.etc." case is the most promissing.
<GRIN> I knew all along that Stanton Friedman would come through
with a definite case that left no doubt ET made a pit stop on
the third rock from the Sun.

 >Try those in Jim
 >McDonald's congressional testimony though none have papal
 >imprimateur.

Dr. McDonald was enough of a scientist to separate his belief
that some UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft, from the
knowledge that there was no compelling scientific evidence to
support his notion to his collleagues. That is why he fought so
strongly for added study and investigation. It was necessary if
ufology ever was going to get there from where it was in his
lifetime. There is not one single case which he publically
hawked as an ET spacecraft case and you know it. You dishonor
the memory of Dr. James McDonald by implying otherwise. But then
again, Dr. James McDonald was a real scientist. He didn't simply
talk the talk. He also walked the walk. In spite of his beliefs,
he was a scientist above all.

 >>Yet, the 16,090 MUFON and FSR articles that have reported on
 >>ufological cases, offered here as evidence in the aggregate,
 >>fail to substantiate Friedman's contention and belief that "some
 >>UFOs" are extraterrestrial spacecraft. Instead, they are
 >>introduced here as compelling evidence that the percentage of
 >>"confirmed alien contact" in the published UFO literature as of
 >>today is _zero_!

 >Again it was 20% Ed. That is much higher than the % of isotopes
 >that are fissionable or people who are 7' tall.

Also higher than the percentage of professed nuclear physicists
shorter that 7' tall that rely on social appeals to the court
system or polls instead of scientific standards. See above.

 >>>As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers,
 >>>Carl Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things
 >>>about flying saucers.

 >>As I have documented in the past on this very same mailing list,
 >>Friedman's _Top Secret/Majic_ is riddled with errors, historical
 >>innacuracies, misrepresentation of people's quotes and
 >>positions, faulty logic, and unsupported substantiations in the
 >>presentation of his beliefs. The above is a matter or record.
 >>Check the archival record of this mailing list for past
 >>discussions on MJ-12 for specific examples.

 >Now I understand CAC.. approved by Ed Stewart. Sorry I don't
 >belong to that church.

It is not required that you "belong" to anything. It is
documented evidence that shows a compelling archival record of
the real Stanton Friedman.

 >Sounds like the green monster is  coming into play. Sorry Ed, I
 >don't need anybody to carry my luggage.

Your baggage is your responsibility, no one elses.

Ed Stewart
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something         |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
    Going On!       ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo  ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:25:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:13:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:07:55 -0600

 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >Andy wrote (snip):

 >>...Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >>beings (dead or alive), whose physical existence is without
 >>doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >>whatsoever.

 >Wrong. Read again my July 4 and July 19 postings to UFO Updates.

 >(clip from July 19th)..."I have conscious recall of how I got
 >those burns...from an errant laser beam attached to a
 >transporter, in my bedroom in 1961 with many "visitors" present.
 >Do I expect you to believe that? No. You weren't there.

 >(clip from July 4th posting).."I can tell you, that in 1961,
 >there was no government experimenting on children in their
 >bedrooms with 3-dimensional laser-built transporters that could
 >move into the 4th dimension (through walls). We could barely get
 >into orbit as I recall. Is that enough "proof" for others? I
 >don't know. It certainly is for me. Pain is a great reality
 >check."

 >Your argument doesn't hold up with the thousands of people who
 >have experienced such incidents, and have the proof of the scars
 >to prove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has conscious
 >recall of how they were used and abused.

 >Start looking for similar people, people.

 >Sue

Your name is Sue!  How do you do?

I am so sorry to be the first (or the hundredth) to tell you
this, Sue, but what is in your memory or mine, matters not one
dot to the person with the closed mind.  He or she will assign
some reason or other with which to demean the memory.

Undigested beef, hallucination (you were probably on extra
strength Excedrin or something) and blah, blah.

The real answer from any skeptic should be, "I don't know what
happened to you, however it is not in my paradigm to believe it
was anything but something "natural" and merely misconstrued."
Or whatever....

The real answer from any experiencer should be, "I don't know
what happened to me, but I can tell you exactly what my mind and
memory saw and what my body felt."  Someone is gonna hafta
convince me exactly what it was and _prove_ it before my mind
attaches to anything but what it was to me and for me.

It's the least we can expect.  But rather than even this caveat,
we get some very difference things, do we not?  They tell us
_exactly_ what it was we did NOT see.  In another post, I stated
that I would not wish this experience on anyone except my
brother in law, this experience.  I am begining to change my
mind.  I am now adding others to this list.

Jim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:49:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:08:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:38:55 +0100

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinetco.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>>Roy's original question was:

 >>>>Could you please tell us if you personally believe at anytime
 >>>in >the last 25yrs or perhaps beyond that there has been at
 >>>least >one visit to this planet by any form of Extraterrestrial
 >>>craft?

 >>>That is a very good question and since there are so many
 >>>'ufologists' out there maybe one kind soul could answer that
 >>>(what I perceive to be) simple question.

 >>>Dave Bowden.

 >>Hi,

 >>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>probably) landed in their estimation.
 >>Jenny Randles

 >I wouldn't describe myself as a ufologist, I'm just an ordinary
 >wage-slave who's interested in the field. I've seen a couple of
 >lights that weren't easily explicable, but probably weren't
 >spacecraft. But I'd like to add my views.

 >I've read lots of books and lots of web-pages. I've seen some
 >very strange videos. But the thing that makes me wonder the most
 >about what is going on is the attitude of the military to the
 >UFO phenomenon. The evasive answers and the denials of official
 >interest don't tally with documents coming out of the UK Public
 >Records office and FOIA docs in the States.

 >The one thing I wouldn't attempt to do, and I don't think anyone
 >else should do, is to put probabilities and percentages. What's
 >the universe you're studying? All UFO sightings? You can't know
 >them all, as I would think most are never reported. Then what
 >percentage are explained? Well, most explanations I see put
 >about are full of 'likely' and 'probable'.

 >Jenny asked what others think. I don't know quite what to think,
 >and I expect most people are the same. I admire the certainty of
 >the ETH people and the Brits who think they are all advanced
 >human aircraft. I don't see how anyone can know - the evidence
 >is too contradictory. I can summarise my views as:

 >a)    I think it's likely that some UFO sightings are caused by
 >technology that is far beyond what is generally accepted as
 >human knowledge. There must be 'secret' aircraft (like Aurora,
 >though I don't think we can describe it as secret anymore, can
 >we?), but not as advanced as some of the things people have seen.

One of the best (in my opinion) arguments against Black Project
technology being responsible to most of the sightings of
anomolous flying objects, is the one which puts forth the
question, "If it's so damned Black, why fly it in the face of
the public?  Why fly it over populated areas all over the
world?"  One of the answers is that these flights are a
demonstration.  If so, by whom and to what end?  By one of "us"
to our enemies?  By "them'" to all of us?

You are quite correct, sir, over one point at least, it is a
very confusing arena right now.  And anyone proclaiming to have
the truth, is likely full of himself ... or her self.  Anyone
who proclaims what this _is_ or _is not_ with certitude is
likely as filled to a degree that prevents further entry or
passage of further confusing factoids, however true, however
false.

 >b)    I think that if this technology had been developed on
 >Earth, the secret would be out - I've worked in both
 >the academic world and the defence contracts world, and there
 >are a lot of 'secrets' that everyone knows. Gossip would emerge.

 >c)    I think that cattle mutilations are connected in some way
 >with all of this, but I don't know how or why.

 >d)    I think abductions are mostly imagined.

"Mostly" is a word which modifies the thought sufficiently with
which to preclude further comment.  A bit much, but so,
notwithstanding.

 >I take most notice of expert witnesses - scientists, pilots,
 >etc. There are a hell of a lot of them seeing things they don't
 >understand. And when our British Chief of the Defence Staff,
 >Admiral hill-Norton, says these things aren't ours, I tend to
 >believe him - you don't get to be the man who presses the
 >nuclear button if you're flaky.

 >After spending 25 years reading everything I can, the ufologists
 >haven't managed to make me certain about much. In fact, as time
 >goes on I'm more confused. I expect this confusion will only
 >grow.

 >Martin Phillips

It has been said quite often, that in the sciences and the
aerospace industry, there are a great many people who are
concerned over the issue of UFOs.  I've worked with a number of
people in both categories, and while the subject is not
discussed publically, it is dicussed privately, and to a great
extent.  People are righteously concerned about their careers,
which is why the topic is verboten.  This is clearly exhibited
among airline pilots, and is a well known phenom.  Why should it
be any different in the scientific and industrial complex, which
is tied so closely to the military and government?

Jim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                               Re: ISSO Update

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:45:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:17:31 -0400
Subject: Re: ISSO Update


 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:55:05 +0000
 >From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: ISSO Update

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:11:21 +500
 >>Subject: Re: ISSO Update [was: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>]

 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>From: Joe Firmage <jfirmage@uswebcks.com>
 >>>Subject: ISSO Update

 >>>It gives me great pleasure to announce that on July 28, 1999,
 >>>the International Space Sciences Organization will officially be
 >>>launched.

 >><snipped>

 >>It suddenly occurred to me that Mr. Firmage was looking for an
 >>artist with honesty, an appropriate attitude, aptitude -- an
 >>artist with a lack of ufological ineptitude . . . to reflect the
 >>spirit of his new initiative.

 >>It may be that I am that artist.

 >>Samples of my work can be seen on my site -- hundreds in the
 >>Dreamland portion of Renseworld. Please go to coordinates 9n
 >>57w, spend a reflective moment in a grove of Poet Trees, then
 >>take the warp to the sky gallery. Follow the directions of the
 >>uniformed attendants (touch them with your cursor).

 >>My work is unlike the usual, and certainly precludes the short
 >>reach of stark photorealism of ANY competency. If Mr. Firmage is
 >>interested in an artist with more reach (imagination) and less
 >>dependence on the limitations of tradition, the celebration of
 >>the individual as individual -- if he's looking for something
 >>with *there* there. . .

 >Or you could check my site at:

 >http://wkweb4.cableinet.co.uk/dbowden/

 >I do some pretty good stuff too.

 >Dave.

   Oh no.... check mine.  I am not merely an ARTIST.  I am an
ARTEEEST!  And I make great fresh wine, cheese, publish books,
make dead meat AND NOW, I  am also creating a cruise ship in
space.  That's right.  No one gets a leg up on the great
Gesundt.  Not that cheese upstart, not that Big guy wit the
farm, _nobody_!

I don't have a site yet, but you can see my work on RenseWorld
by going to .... cheeses, I forgot the coordinates.  Well, just
go there and aks anybody for Gripple Park... they all know where
it is.  Nobody likes to build anywhere near there. Oh, I just
remembered! It's 48N 65 W facing E.

Lehmberg wanted to move his site after I built Gripple Park.
But Jeff insisted he stay there.  He said it made up for
Gesundt's place.  It added a little class, he said.

What does he know anyway?  Besides, he's just ticked off because
there are so many drunks in his world.They drink from my free
Gripple streams and then wander around the rest of Rense World.
Hey, it's a free world, Rinse, aint it?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:04:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:19:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:08:50 +0100

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:53:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>>>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>>Good points. But I did answer this specific question - twice -
 >>>in detail. Check back through updates last week. The statistics
 >>>argument grew from that.

 >>>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>>probably) landed in their estimation.

 >>Dear Ms Randles et Al....

 >>Very curious as to your reason for this "stat?" Personally I am
 >>neither a proponent nor opponent of that view. I would frankly
 >>doubt it, as both France and Russia, to name two countries,
 >>appear to me to have a strong Ufological following and both
 >>appear NOT to have the degree of skepticism seen in England and
 >>the United States. But that's just a guess by someone who drinks
 >>a great deal of vin ordinaire...

 >>And is yous a "stat" or a "bet?"

 >>That's my excuse, what is your reasoning?

 >Hi,

 >I am afraid I do not follow what it is that you want me to
 >explain that I have not done already during this discussion. I
 >have explained in considerable detail last week the basis of my
 >argument about the figures I find for IFOs, UAP and possible
 >alien UFOs. If I go through it all again we risk boring the
 >list, but if there was any specific point you did not grasp from
 >that series of answers, please elaborate and I will try to
 >elucidate.

My question is over your use of the two words, "stat" and "bet."
They were used in the same paragraph ...

 >>>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>>probably) landed in their estimation.

My question was, is this a stat(istic) or are you guessing, as
in betting?  I do not claim to know the answer.  I am merely
asking the question.

You wrote that you were presenting a stat(istic) and then bet
that the stat would be in favor of lower percentage in Europe,
of ET landing.

Are there any stats which favor one or the other opinion?  And
what would be your guess as to the reason, if true?

Jim





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                      Cosmic Peace By Joseph Burkes MD

From: Mark Hall <capn_black@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:17:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:26:22 -0400
Subject: Cosmic Peace By Joseph Burkes MD


Cosmic Peace
by Joseph Burkes MD

Copyright 1999

A phantom has appeared in the skies of  Earth. It is the specter
of Unidentified Flying Objects. On the slopes of volcanos in
Mexico , over US ballistic missile bases, in the vicinity of
large cities as well as in remote locales, these unearthly craft
are being seen by millions. Who is piloting these strange
vehicles? Are they visitors from other planets? If so , then
what is their mission? Are they friend or foe? No one seems to
know for sure.

A growing number of people find the Extra-terrestrial
explanation most reasonable  for the UFO dilemma. Yes, many
sightings are undoubtedly due to other types of phenomenon.
Honest skeptics as well as prejudiced self styled debunkers
would have us believe that all structured craft which appear to
defy the laws of nature, are simply advanced terrestrial
military craft. Despite the skeptics' pronouncements, the UFO
phenomenon is quite robust. The number of close encounters with
true unknowns continues to increase. Sightings of unearthly
craft, appearing as flying golden globes, saucers and triangles,
persist in defiying the mandates of debunkers.

 >From 1992 till 1998 I was closely associated with Dr. Steven
Greer's Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence,
(CSETI). While participating with his group I had a number of
limited interactive encounters with what appeared to be
Extra-terrestrial spacecraft. In addition my field work with
individual contactees has demonstrated to me that consciousness
mediated, or in other words, mind to mind interactions, is a
mode of communication with non-human intelligence. I have worked
with a number of credible investigators who have quietly
described their having direct face to face encounters with
non-human beings of presumed Et origins. Thus the
Extraterrestrial hypothesis for some witnesses to the UFO
phenomenon approaches the level of certainty. I count myself
among that group.

The reaction of terrestrial elites, governments, scientific and
religious authorities, has been a predictable, albeit not an
enlightened one. It is my assessment that the current Et
presence profoundly threatens all terrestrial power. This
includes the international corporate, military, political and
religious leaders of our planet. Without acknowledging and
thoroughly studying this challenge to terrestrial power, those
interested in the phenomenon of Extra-terrestrial spacecraft
visiting our planet, will in my opinion be hopelessly confused.

In the absence of undeniable evidence that the
Extra-terrestrials are here, our leaders have simply  attempted
to ignore their presence. A de facto policy  of denial of the ET
visitations has been in effect for half a century. Witnesses to
the Extra-terrestrial presence are routinely subjected to
ridicule in an attempt to secure their silence.

Sadly within the civilian UFO research community,  harrowing
tales of routine abuse by of non-human beings are being peddled
non-stop. The so called "alien abduction" experience is the
focus of much investigation by sincere private citizens. The
highly bizarre nature of these numerous accounts leads many to
question the reality of what is being told. UFO investigators
often lack the scientific research tools and financial resources
to adequately study this phenomenon. Volunteer investigators
often can not provide professional counseling for witnesses who
claim to have experienced psychological trauma at the hands of
non-human beings. Thus a popular mythology appears to have
emerged. Frightful tales portray humanity as being the helpless
victim before the onslaught of "alien abductors". On scandal
sheets, in sci-fi horror films and in tabloid television
reportage, fear of the unknown is being exploited to promote
xenophobic, racist and militaristic fantasies in response to
what appears to be a growing Extra-terrestrial presence.

Under the current conditions of general societal denial that we
are being visited by Ets, the predominant human response to a
sighting has been a passive one. The UFO literature is rife with
accounts describing how those observing Et craft make no
attempts at interacting with the intelligence piloting these
strange vehicles, The response of passive amazement, as well as
fear based approaches to the Et presence, are not the only ones
that humanity is capable of. The situation is beginning to
change in positive ways.

Individuals and small groups with a more active and upbeat
approach to the Ets have taken the daring step of deliberately
inviting contact with Extra-terrestrial Intelligence. As a
result of these efforts, numerous encounters with
Extra-terrestrial spacecraft have been documented in the course
of field work. A smaller number of human initiated close
encounters with Extra-terrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs),
have also been described.

One long standing example of such an effort has been the
extraordinary work of the group known in the past as Mission
Rama. It was founded in 1974 around the contact experiences of
Sixto Paz Wells and his coworkers in Peru. For over two decades
Rama has been quietly facilitated human initiated close
encounters for thousands of people. The result has been the
creation of a world wide network of contactees who are promoting
interplanetary solidarity and peace.

Another organization seeking positive interactions with the
Extra- terrestrials is the Center for the Study of
Extraterrestrial Intelligence(CSETI). Founded in 1990 by the
North Carolina physician Steven Greer, it has carried out a
campaign to initiative contact called the CE-5 Initiative. The
designation CE-5 stands for Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind,
which is the term CSETI has coined to describe human empowered
contact with the Extra-terrestrials. The CE-5 Initiative is
openly organizing teams of UFO researchers to go out at night to
secure locations. There Dr. Greer and his followers are
attracting Et craft for limited peaceful interactions. As a
former facilitator of a CSETI working group, I can testify to
the efficacy of Greer's approach to initiating limited contact.

Unfortunately these preliminary attempts at citizen's diplomacy
are not the only examples of humans interacting with Et beings
visiting our planet. There is growing evidence indicating that
secret military programs focusing on the Et presence are also
underway. Although initially these covert groups probably worked
under government aegis, informed sources have reported that
private defense contractors now play a predominant role.

CSETI Director Steven Greer has reported meeting with many
retired military and intelligence officers who allegedly have
been involved with the UFO phenomenon as a result of their work.
He has also described having a December 1993 private briefing
with then CIA Director Woolsey.

In the May 1994 CSETI Newsletter Dr. Greer wrote the following,

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that virtually all of
the U.S.'s elected and appointed officials, including the
President and Cabinet members, are "out of the loop" on this
subject. This is an informal opinion based on significant
meetings with relevant and knowledgeable people. Exactly who,
then, is at the reins of this whole area, both in the U.S. and
internationally, remains a mystery. But we
have a good idea of the nature of this group. It is probably:

                     1.   Multi - National
                     2.   Multi - Agency
                     3.   Quasi - Governmental
                     4.   Quasi - Private
                     5.   Extraordinarily Secret

If true, this means a number of things:
  1. The President of the U.S., the Cabinet, and perhaps even the
Joint Chiefs of Staff may not be able to disclose anything on
this subject, since they probably do not have access to the real
information. And if they ask, I am not at all confident that
they would be told the truth, if anything at all.

                        2. Those controlling this subject may do
so without any legal, constitutional, or  moral authority. This
would be true both in the U.S. and abroad."

It appears more than possible that "those controlling this
subject" may covertly be taking direct military action against
the Extra- terrestrials. In his 1998 book "Confirmation", author
Whitley Strieber's analyses a controversial NASA video tape made
on  space shuttle Discovery during mission STS-48.  This video
has been featured several times on national television. It
displays what appears to be unidentified flying objects being
fired upon by some sort of particle beam weapon. The incident
transpired on September 15, 1991. The Discovery was flying near
Australia, approximately 1500 miles northwest from a secret US
military base located at Pine Gap near Alice Springs. Strieber
details a thorough analysis of the video tape by physicist Dr.
Jack Kasher and imaging specialist Dr. Mark Carlotto. Their
conclusion is that the prosaic explanations provided by NASA are
simply not credible.

Support for the notion that covert military forces are fighting
a secret war against the Extra-terrestrials has also been
provided by Philip Corso, a retired US Army Colonel and author
of the controversial book, "The Day After Roswell." Corso was a
former staff member of President Eisenhower's National Security
Council. Colonel Corso worked under General Trudeau at the
Army's Research and Development Division's Foreign Technology
desk. In "Day After Roswell" Corso alleges that he passed out
pieces of the wreckage of a crashed UFO to high tech firms. This
supposedly allowed advanced alien technology to be analyzed and
then integrated into our industrial culture.

Philip Corso after publication of his book quickly became a
celebrity within the flying saucer subculture. Sadly few UFO
experts criticized his openly  bellicose response to the Et
presence.  On page 267-267 he states,

"These creatures weren't benevolent alien beings who had come to
enlighten human beings....As long as were incapable of defending
ourselves, we had to allow them to intrude as they wished.  ...
We hid the truth and the EBEs(Extra-terrestrial Biological
Entities) used it against us until 1974 when we had our first
real shootdown of an alien craft over Ramstein Air Force base in
Germany."

It is difficult if not impossible to verify the particulars of
Philip Corso's account. In "Day after Roswell" he does not offer
the names of others who might corroborate his version of the
events described. On July 16, 1998, at the age of 83, he
reportedly passes away from a heart attack.

As a former peace movement activist, I find Philip Corso's
extremist views chilling. I suspect that his perspective on the
Et-human relationship  nevertheless has great value. It is my
suspicion that Corso's diatribes may provide us with an insight
into the mind set of a very important group, the wing of
military-industrial complex which will likely try to use
disclosure of the Et presence to unleash a new cold war.

Now that the US has presided over the downfall of the Soviet
Union, defense expenditures have decreased dramatically. Thus is
threatened the good fortune of some of the most economically
powerful and politically influential corporations on the planet.
In the current political atmosphere I fear that any disclosure
of the Et presence will be used to fuel xenophobia and to
precipitate a costly arms race against an unlikely adversary.

Open war with advanced Et civilizations is an extremely remote
possibility given the likelihood that UFOs are an ancient
phenomena. Extra-terrestrials have probably been here for
centuries if not for millennia. If the Ets were planning
aggressive action against human- kind, why should they wait so
many years before mounting an open attack? T By passing a test
of time, their non-harmful posture is confirmed.

If disclosure of the Et presence were suddenly made today,
defense corporations,their military and political allies would
probably use such a revelation for their own narrow interests.
This would result in an accelerated " Star Wars" program.  I
imagine the slogan, "we must  negotiate from a position of
strength," would be featured prominently in the congressional
sales campaign for space based weapon systems. A trillion
dollars could be needlessly wasted to prepare against an enemy
which we could never truly fight. On a planet where some 10
million children every year die from hunger and preventable
disease, squandering our limited economic resources on such
weaponry would be particularly tragic.

How can socially responsible citizens respond to the threat
posed by a future arms race aganist the Extra-terrestrials? As
long as there is general societal denial of the Et presence,
political action will be difficult to say the least. Fortunately
things are changing. Ever increasing numbers of people are
having their own sightings of anomalous craft and other contact
experiences. Thus there is a greater acceptance of the Et
hypothesis. Government secrecy and press ridicule are no longer
potent weapons against the credibility of UFO witnesses. Recent
opinion polls confirm this shift.

Nevertheless the risks of conflict are ever present as long as
the planet's elites are unwilling to adequately prepare humanity
for what appears to be an inevitable disclosure of the Et
presence. The situation is even more dangerous because these
elites have not reeled in the militarists who are planning, and
if Philip Corso is correct, even fighting a secret war against
Et.

To help prevent war and hopefully usher in a new era of
interplanetary cooperation, the creation of a new kind of peace
movement is required. One which acknowledges the Et presence and
resists those social forces which are systematically fanning the
flames of war. Such a movement will definitely require a strong
spiritual base. The realization that we are not alone compels
humanity to ask the question, "What then is our true place in
the universe?" This has enormous religious implications which
will need to be addressed by those promoting cosmic peace.

Such a movement will naturally stand on the shoulders of
pioneering groups like Rama and CSETI, as well as other networks
of contactees who have remained mostly secret up until now.
Individuals who affirm that they have experienced positive, long
lasting relationships with non-human intelligence, will likely
be prominently featured in the cosmic peace campaign. These
contactees' direct personal bonds with the Extra-terrestrials
appear quite bizarre at the present time. Hopefully they could
serve as an example of how humanity might coexist, and perhaps
even prosper, within the context of an Et-human relationship.  A
new internationalism could emerge based on the realization that
here on Earth we are truly one people living in one homeland. If
this sounds too idealistic let us consider the following.

Humanity is facing a constellation of man-made problems which
threaten the very existence of life on our planet. Global
environmental destruction from pollution is becoming an
increasingly probable end point as the atmosphere heats up with
the release of greenhouse gases. Nuclear proliferation will
continue as long the great nuclear powers do little to reduce
their obscene stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Without a robust
program of nuclear disarmament, it is most likely that these
instruments of genocide will be used  at some point during the
decades to come. We should never forget that some 100 million
people have died from war, revolution and the resultant famines
during this century alone. Regional wars continue across the
globe and threaten to be the sparks for another world wide
military conflagration.

I urge those who insist that the Extra-terrestrials are a
potential enemy to entertain this consideration. Preconditions
for any culture to become star-faring, likely include conditions
of enduring peace and ethical development far beyond anything
accomplished on Earth. The enormous energy required to move
between the stars, if used for military purposes, would likely
cause a civilization to self-destruct. Thus if a race of
intelligent beings have survived long enough to be able to
arrive here, then they are probably wise enough to live in
peace, not only with us, but with other civilization they might
encounter while voyaging across the sea of stars.

The UFO literature of the modern era provides some support for
the notion that the so called "aliens" are friendly. A growing
number of individuals claim to have experienced Close Encounters
of the Third and Fourth Kinds. These witnesses  often describe
different races of EBE's working together cooperatively on the
same alien spacecraft. To accept the hypothesis that
Extra-terrestrials are non-harmful however, most of the "alien
abduction" literature would have to be discounted. At this time
few UFO enthusiasts are willing to take such difficult step.

My personal view is that by acknowledging the Et presence we can
promote a new hope that a better future is possible right here
on Earth. I view the benefit of accepting the reality of Extra-
terrestrial visitations as being primarily an ideological one.
After all, our planet is beset by what appear to be unsolvable
problems. If these so called "aliens" have survived their own
dark times, similar to those we currently face, then perhaps we
too can survive and prosper. If they can curb self destructive
tendencies and travel to distant solar  systems, then God
willing, we too can make it to the stars! This is our hope.

It is extremely unlikely however that the Extra-terrestrials
will save us from ourselves. Nor in the opinion of  many
observers is it likely that they will seriously harm us. As Dr.
Steven Greer in his many lectures has pointed out, "The Ets are
neither Dar Vadar nor Jesus Christ in a spaceship." Humanity
will have to overcome its own problems by exercising wisdom,
compassion and a fierce determination to survive.This is our
promise.

This upbeat message is particularly important for the current
generation of youth. So often they experience a sense of
hopelessness when threatened with what appears to be
insurmountable social, economic and environmental problems. To
Earth's young people, the realization that they are not alone in
the universe, will in my opinion inspire them to join a campaign
promoting interplanetary peace and cooperation. Youth already
exhibit a tremendous interest in the UFO topic. If a link could
be made between the Et presence and the ongoing struggles to
save humanity from its self-destructiveness, it is my firm
conviction that such a movement would change the course of
history. There is much work to be done!


This draft position paper is the first in a series of documents.
I will endeavor to outline the parameters of a future movement
for cosmic peace, solidarity and cooperation. For those
interested in this subject, I suggest that you visit the web
sites of both CSETI and Rama. As always I encourage  dialogue on
this important topic and look forward to email correspondence.

Sincerely,

Joseph Burkes, MD
md1jb3@pol.net



Mark 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:34:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:30:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:43:43 +0100

 >>From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:14:13 +0100

 >>Dear Tony,

 >>Having been on the odd skywatch with Roy Hale, where sightings
 >>have been made & video evidence taken, I would hardly describe
 >>it as 'a lower standard of evidence'.

 >Hi Marc & All,

 >I think Chris Martin would not be impressed with such an attack,
 >only once again this Sunday, we had the chance to observe some
 >very strange objects in the sky. {Again being filmed}

 >There have been many people at the UFO Watch 2000 meetings, who
 >have come from all sides of the UFO debate and most have seen
 >things at those meetings, including yourself.

 >To start saying that this is a <a lower 'standard of  evidence'>
 >is quite incredible from a researcher who is also openly trying
 >to seek some kind of ET contact by whatever means, in fact I
 >would hope that those who attend such meetings would find the
 >remark highly offensive and was only said to cause trouble
 >nothing more.

 >So maybe Tony has real high UFO evidence that he is willing to
 >show to the masses out there will we see it?

 >I am sure that myself, Chris , Marc, Dave, Neil, James,
 >Jonathan, Richard, and many more would like to see it?

 >Also check out the Leeds Quest International UFO Conference
 >where you will be able to see an exclusive piece of film, taken
 >by Chris Martin {UFO Watch 2000} it is quite remarkable.

Hi Roy & All,

Also this video evidence (hardly of a 'lower standard'!) is, a)
available for analysis in its original un-cut format direct from
Chris Martin's video camera, b) to my knowledge there have been
witnesses present on most of Chris' footage (inc: myself) and
these can clearly be heard on the soundtracks.

What evidence do we need? Surely this must be part of it?

Marc Bell (WUFORG)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                            Re: UFO Organizations

From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@ukgateway.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:26:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:33:02 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Organizations


My thanks to all those who have replied to me so far with
information on UFO Organizations. They will be added to the
UFOINFO site ASAP.

The site will be moving to a new host soon and updates might be
affected during this time.

URL will of course remain the same.

Regards,

John Hayes

ufoinfo@ukgateway.net
webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Archives for UFO Roundup/Filer's Files/UK UFO Network Bulletin/
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

              Resend: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' [was: Re:

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:58:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:39:13 -0400
Subject: Resend: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs' [was: Re:


 >From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:32:29 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

 >Previously, Bruce had offered:

 >>>>What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >>>>estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >>>>wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

 >To which I had essentially questioned why it was okay for Bruce
 >or others to make assumtions about the validity and accuracy of
 >Arnold's statements to support their own theories; but not for
 >Easton to have the same right, regardless of what his theory
 >might be.

 >Bruce responded:

 ><much respected snip>

 >>Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
 >>accept ("believe") in the accuracy of certain values of
 >>quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses. The
 >>descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
 >>"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
 >>correct."

<snip>

 >If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
 >blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
 >why can't anyone else, including Easton?

Well, didn't I say "everybody does it"? I'm not surprised
that Easton has done it. The argument always comes down to
whether or not it is logical or at least "convincing" to reject
some data and accept some other data in order to arrive at a
solution.

Incidently, there is no "theory" of what a UFO should be, how
fast it could go, what it should look like and do. If we knew a
priori the characteristics of UFOs then we could attempt a
positive identification (if walks like a UFO, talks like a UFO
and looks like a UFO, then it's a UFO). Unfortunately without
this a priori knowledge we can only look for a "negative proof,"
that is, "this phenomenon has characteristics that match no
known phenomenon, therefore it is 'unidentified'... a UFO. In
this particular case, part of the negative proof that Arnold saw
UFOs would be that he didn't see pelicans. In other words, I
would claim "proof" that he didn't see:

(a) mirage,
(b) motes in the eye,
(c) normal aircraft glinting in the distance,
(d) reflections of bright objects in window glass,
(e) billowing clouds of snow,
(f) reflective wavy haze layers,
(g) orographic clouds,
(h) large aircraft nearby,
(i) water drops on his windshielf,
(j) swans,
(k) meteors and
(l) pelicans.

(All of the preceding have been proposed over the years.)

So, what did he see if none of these? Either come up with some
other explanation or conclude that Arnold saw "TRUFOs"... TRuely
Unidentifiable Flying Objects" where "unidentifiable" means
cannot be identified as a mundane/prosaic/known phenomenon (ET
craft, time travelers, etc., are assumed to be "unknown"
phenomena).

Now, in order to achieve this negative proof in regard to the PH
(pelican hypothesis) one must be able to show that the
characteristics of the POTENTIAL UFOs must be different from the
known characteristics of the pelicans. Maccabee's First Law of
Explanation is that any prosaic phenomenon that is suggested as
an explanation must, itself, obey known physical laws. Thus, for
example, it would be unphysical to attribute specularity
(reflective like a mirror or polished metal) to a pelican
because the feathers are finely divided reflecting surfaces
which can have a "sheen" or "gloss" under certain optimum
circumstances of lighting, but not a specular reflection. In
general they have a diffuse reflection (like paper, as compared
with a mirror). Hence it makes no physical sense to say that
Arnold could see the reflection from pelicans at a distance
beyond the distance at which he could see the pelicans
themselves.

Sorry, but this gets a bit complicated: a person can only detect
something "out there" if there is contrast with the background
(or foreground). White pelicans against a white sky would have
very little contrast. Even if there is contrast, the angular
size has to be large enough for the eye to detect at least a dot
(otherwise it might be lost in the "noise" in an eyeball; if you
think there is no such optical "noise", just go outside and
stare at the bright sky for a while, preferably a uniform blue
or a uniform white) . Hence the bottom line is that the pelicans
must make an angular size of about 0.5 milliradians and have
some contrast against the sky to be seen. If a pelican average
size is 5 ft. the maximum distance is on the order 5/0.0005 = of
10,000 ft or nearly 5 miles. (Hence in my reconstruction in a
previous message my use of 4 miles distance is likely an
exaggeration.... BUT this is to be determined by experiment)

Not so with a specular reflector in the sun. The specular
reflection can be seen a LOT farther than the mirror itself can
be seen because it is reflects the sun. It is like looking at a
small piece of the sun (the angular size of the reflector
divided by the angular size of th sun). The contrast between the
bright sky and a small piece of the sun can be huge (as anyone
who has seen a reflection from a car window at a distance will
know). In other words, a mirror reflection of the sun can be
seen at a distance greater than the distance at which a diffuse
reflector of the same size could be seen.

For those quantitatively minded here are some numbers: according
to a table published many years ago in Astronomy Magazine, we
can let the relative brightness of the sun (solar disc) be
10,000,000= 1E7 and the relative brightness of the sky be 1,000
= 1E3..

"Laws of visibility" generally indicate that, to be detectable,
a "compact" object (like a bird or disc, but not a thin rod)
must have at least a 2% difference or contrast between its
brightness and the sky brightness. Furthermore, its angular
size should be about 0.5 milliradian or larger

2% contrast means the object brightness would have to be 1.02 x
1E3 = 1,020 (or if darker than the sky, 0.98 x 1000 = 980). The
actual difference is 1,020 - 1,000 = 20 (or , if darker, 1,000 -
980 = 20).

Assume Arnold's eye could barely detect an object of
1/2 milliradian size, 0.0005 radian, against the
bright sky. The solar disc is about 0.0085 rad in diameter.
Hence the fraction of sun reflected by a mirror 0.0005
rad in diameter is (0.0005/0.0085)^2 = 3.5E-3.
Multiply this by 1E7, the solar brightness, and get
3.5E4. This is the relative brightness of a mirror surface
which subtends (there's a good geometric word!)
0.5 milliradians of angle.

Since the relative brightness of a white (or dark) object or
0.5 milliradian angular size against the bright sky is 20 units,
the brightness of the mirror surface of the same angular size is
about 3.5E4/20 = 1,730 times greater than the brightness of the
white diffuse surface.

Naturally it can therefore be seen farther. How much farther?
The angular size of the mirror shrinks with distance and so the
fraction of the reflected solar disc shrinks as 1/r^2. To find
the maximum distance, r2, at which a mirror surface could be
seen, as compared to the distance r1 for a white diffuse
surface, we need (r2/r1)^2 = 1,730 or r2 = 41 times r1. Thus, if
a bird could be seen at 10,000 ft, a mirror could be seen at
410,000 ft (77 miles) IF THERE WERE NO ATMOSPHERIC ATTENUATION.

This calculation is not correct because there is exponential
attenuation of the light in the atmosphere, so the visibility
distance is determined not only be the inverse square law, but
also by an attenuation law. However, the point still is valid:
the mirror will be detected a lat farther than the diffuse
reflector.

Back to the Arnold case: Easton has argued vociferously that
pelicans, being white, can be quite bright in the sun. So he
chooses as part of his data Arnold's claim that the objects were
seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, and hence must have been
brighter than the snow (Mt. Rainier was 20 miles away... the
atmospheric haze over this distance reduced the apparent
brightness of the snow; the reflection from the HP -
hypothetical pelicans - was not similarly reduced because they
were within a few miles). He then OVERLOOKS, or tries to "argue
away" Arnold's claim of bright flashes, because this would
conflict with his PH theory.

Let's now test his hypothesis/theory (which he didn't do): (a)
ASSUME Arnold first saw the pelicans when they were barely
visible. That means that Arnold would not detect the pelicans
until they were close enough so that the combined effects of
angular size (large enough) and diffuse reflective brightness
(bright enough) made them visible against the sky background.
BUT... at this distance their BODIES would be visible as dots
with a several percent contrast against the sky, not as bright
flashes. He would not be able to initially see their shapes,
however,.

Their apparent brightness would increase as they got closer, and
he would see more and more details, but he would always be
seeing them by diffuse reflection and they would never appear to
be reflecting the sun like polished metal. He could not see them
farther than the distance at which he could first see their
bodies as dots (whereas objects with mirror like reflections
COULD be detected at distances greater than the "dot" distance).

(b) ASSUME the pelicans got close enough to be at least
"startlingly bright" before Arnold realized they were there. In
this case their angular size would be quite large...they would
be close....and he would likely recognize them as birds. (If the
angular size isf 5 times that of the minimum angular size for
detection, then the observer can generally determine shape.) Of
course, they would still not flash like mirrors. But, how bright
could they be? Backlit by the sun, their white feathers would
probably still be only some percent greater than the sky
background, but we really have no way of knowing at this late
date. What we do know, is if they were close enough to be bright
that (1) Arnold should have been able to determined the shape
and (b) at the very least he should have been able to turn his
plane and follow them and outrun them.

Now, after this long dissertation (which I wanted to enter into
the public record), back to your point.

 >If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
 >blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
 >why can't anyone else, including Easton?

Of course Easton can choose his data. BUT, he's got to be able
to make his choices stick.....he's got to prove by using ALL
POSSIBLE TESTS that his hypothesis fits the details of the
sighting. His approach, like that of most skeptics, has been to
pick a few details that fit his hypothesis and then argue away
the others by saying they are incorrect statements on Arnold's
part, or they have been interpreted incorrectly. I have no
problem with this approach in principle, as long as the person
can provide convincing arguments for rejecting certain data and
accepting other data. Since I have no "theory" of what a UFO
should be, I do not have to pick and choose data to fit a theory
in the same way that Easton has to pick data to fit his
PH/theory. However, whenever I pick data that I claim
CONTRADICTS a theory, such as the PH, I should be able to argue
why those data should not be disregarded. I have tried to do
that. Naturally, if enough data can be thrown out "any"
hypothesis can be satisfied. Hence we have more than half a
dozen explanations proposed by people who have rejected various
portions of the data

 >For the record, I don't believe that what Arnold saw was
 >Pelicans. My own reasoning is less than scientific; I'd simply
 >like to believe what he was were UFO's.

Yes, unscientific. I would rather there be no UFOs. we've got
enough to worry about already without interlopers from"out
there" messing around. UFOs introduce another uncertainty into
life, which is already uncertain enough (what with population
growth, pollution growth, the coming "immortality" and medical
bills that will make the medicare arguments of today seem like
child's play)

 >However, I offer this
 >info regarding the "dissapearance" of the pelicans behind
 >mountain peaks. I have some video that I shot of my relative's
 >kids playing frisbee. On more than one occasion, the frisbee
 >flatened out to the point that it "dissappeared" behind a tree
 >almost a hundred feet in the distance. The effect was quite
 >startling. I have no doubt this was the effect Easton was
 >talking about. Considering we lose our sense of three
 >dimensional perception beyond about 35 feet or so, it would be
 >easy to be fooled by this effect in mid air. Just a thought.

I certainly understand what you are saying and have considered
it. The argument here is that Arnold saw the objects "disappear"
for short times (this is the observation) and then reported that
they went behind mountain peaks (this is the interpretation). As
usual the ufologist is confronted with separating the
observation from the interpretation. Clealy if Arnold's
interpretation were correct the PH fails. However, if one can
logically and convincingly show that Arnold misinterpreted what
he saw, then the PH IS NOT YET PROVED.... it has to pass other
hurdles. IN other words, one detail of observation could
disprove a hypothesis, but it cannot prove a hypothesis. Hence
it is not sufficient (but it is necessary) to argue that the
objects did not go behind mountain peaks-- that Arnold was wrong
in this interpretation. But then to prove the PH one must also
show that the flashing can be explained, the shapes can be
explained and that the dynamics of the situation as portrayed on
my map in another message (or someone else's map) can be
explained.

For example, Arnold says he turned his plane and rolled down his
window so there would be no glass between him and the objects,
yet he still wasn't able to see aircraft-like tails on the
object. If in turning the plane he chanced to fly parallel to
the objects, and if they were pelicans a mile or less away, it
seems reasonable to assume that he would immediately have
noticed that he was catching up with them... or passing them...
but AT LEAST that he was going faster than they and not the
other way around. Although Arnold didn't state explicitly which
way he turned, we do know he was sitting on the left side and
was therefore closest to the left window. We also (apparently)
agree that the objects passed between him and Rainier so,
assuming he turned AFTER they passed Rainier, it is MOST LIKELY
that he turned to the right and headed south and opened the left
hand window.

Easton's explanation of why Arnold failed to realize he was
traveling faster has basically been to argue that Arnold did not
report accurately what happened.. or that the interpretations of
what Arnold did report have been wrong. Easton has recently
suggested that maybe he turned to the left and opened the window
on the other side of the plane so he could have a better view of
the rear ends of these objects. This makes little sense, of
course, since they were going so rapidly... whether pelicans of
UFOs.... that all had to do was wait a little and they would be
south of him and he could see their rear ends clearly.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                     P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology

From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:50:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:49:57 -0400
Subject: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology


After rereading Bill Jones posting I sat back and thought for a
while. Here's what came out of that exercise.

About a week ago I released to the Project 1947 List and the
Current-Encounters List the news that a tape that had been
"lost" for over 30 years had been located. It was an excessively
important tape because it contained the actual voice and ideas
of Colonel Howard M. McCoy, former Commanding General of T-2
Technical Intelligence at Wright Field in 1947 and the man who
was the final decision maker about Project SIGN. SIGN being the
first official investigation of UFOs by the new USAF.

Just locating that tape took over seven months of blood, sweat
and tears. Then, never having heard the voice of Col. Howard
McCoy I went to probably one of probably only two people
remaining in the field of Ufology who could identify his voice,
because he sat next to Col. McCoy when the tape was being
recorded. That man is Richard Hall. In my opinion the absolute
Dean of Ufology because of his longivity in Ufology from the
early days of Major Donald Keyhoe. Richard became NICAP after
Keyhoe, so a living history library is still among us and we
should all be eternally grateful. As a matter of fact, if I can
scrape up the money (and even if I can't, I'll walk) I am going
to be visiting Richard Hall in October to sit down with him and
capture for future generations his living history and
participation in the field of Ufology. Anyway, as I said, Dick
is the one of the few people left besides Major Dewey Fournet
who could identify Col. McCoy's voice. We worked hard together.
I dubbed the tape and sent it to him. We both listened intently
and Dick told me what wonderful memories listening to that tape
brought back to him. Not only was I touched by that, but when he
emailed me with great excitement and told me where McCoy really
speaks out on the tape, I went right to work to make a full clip
of what McCoy had said in Isabel Davis's home way back in 1966,
grateful for the expertise and assistance of Dick Hall.

Col. McCoy, after retirement was a member of NICAP and attended
many of the NICAP meetings and functions. During that day in
1966 he finally spoke out and being the consumate military man,
as well as a man honed in military intelligence and engineering,
he chose his words carefully. He spoke his thoughts on alien
visitation. At first listening it sounded like general
discussion, but I listened to him dozens of times before I
realized he was saying a lot more than just general discussion
with a group of people in that apartment. I came to this
conclusion based upon historical acumen by spending many years
in search of the factual history of Project SIGN.

What went through my mind was astounding to me. Here was a man
who believed in the expertise of his own men and his own
investigations to have the intestinal fortitude to forward a T-2
Technical Intelligence Estimate of the Situation to the highest
levels of command with a conclusion based on hard investigation
under extreme shortages of manpower and monetary budget that the
only logical answer to the flying disc phenomenon was that they
were probably from outer space, under intelligent control and
nothing else at the time made any better sense. Well, Col. McCoy
suffered a great deal for his action, as did many of his people
who were friends and colleauges. He lost his chance at promotion
to Brig. Gen., yet his own accomplishments during his career
where without question outstanding and of the highest calibur.
Now he sat in an apartment in Washington D.C. and listened to
other NICAP members discuss many topics. He finally opened up
and gave his "thoughts" regarding the topic of the possibility
of alien visitation.

McCoy wasn't discussing just anything. He was giving an inside
look at his thinking and the thinking of the Project SIGN group
and their conclusions. He was saying in effect, that aliens
walked among us. He was certainly in a position to know many
things and had done more analysis and investigation than any
other military group to follow, so to take his thoughts lightly
didn't make sense to me. To me, he was telling a great deal
more. Now, I don't know if aliens walk among us; I don't think
anyone really knows that, but the fact that he had reached the
conclusion as to it's being possible is absolutely astounding
and of the greatest historical importance. It's the closest
we've ever come in Ufology to at least a military man discussing
it.

Having come to these conclusions I took the time to start and
stop the tape a thousand times until I could share with you list
members a written transcript of what Col. McCoy said. I posted
it and waited in anticipation for the discussion I thought sure
would follow. I even looked forward to the bickering and puffing
of the Greg Long's and Kal Korff's among the list members. But
ya know what? Absolutely nothing happened. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

"OK," I said to myself. Pelicans were being discussed at the
time and important historical information obviously ain't too
important to the list, so I posted it on the Project SIGN
Research Center website along with the only known photo of the
people who did the first official investigation of UFOs in
history. Man, action happened immediately. Well over two
thousand hits in 24 hours, yet not one email to me or discussion
on any list - P-47, Current-Encounters, UFO UpDates. Zilch.
Zero. Zip. People came in droves to listen and look, but nobody
bothered to say anything.

My conclusions: Damn near everyone on this list is either brain
dead, totally ignorant of what Ufology actually is, or only here
to take up space, waste the few true researchers left in
Ufology's time or debunk at any cost, under any guise because
you don't have an ounce of common sense or imagination. Pretty
intense I know, but only a few of you do anything. The rest of
you ain't worth the time or effort from those of us who talk the
talk, walk the walk and proceed to the truth. But I also know
something else...when the truth, whatever it may be comes, those
of you who do nothing but get in the way, posturize and
pontificate will be the first in line to spout to the world how
great you are because of all the research you've done and the
contributions you've made to the field of ufology. There will
just be one thing wrong...you didn't do squat but sit in your
comfy chair, emailed your opinions and maybe read a book.

Bitter? Nah. Very disappointed? Nah. Just the truth as I see it.
So, Kal...shut up. I don't wanna hear it cause nothing you say
is of any social redeeming value.

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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                         Re: Nick Pope's Weird World

From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:28:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:56:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:36 +0100
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World

 >Over the past few months I d been becoming more
 >bullish in my response to certain people within ufology who'd
 >been sniping at me over the years.  Nobody likes criticism,
 >and I'd been getting a fair bit - little of it constructive in
 >nature.

Maybe if you removed the following from your opening header,
people would take you seriously.

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

"Gossip."  By its very nature this shows the level of your
bulletins. Gossip is going behind people's backs and repeating
things that aren't strictly true.

Maybe when you stop gossiping, the waters may become calmer.

Being Nick Pope's messenger doesn't help either. Tell him to get
on the Internet and do his own messages instead of using you.

If your standard of research is on a par with Nick's, then
welcome to the Twilight Zone. Don't go on any toll roads, they
cause you all sorts of problems. Of course we are all looking
forward to your forthcoming book to set the record straight.

Cheers

Rory Lushman






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

                 Closest-Ever Asteroid Flyby Set For July 29

From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:50:16 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:55:14 -0400
Subject: Closest-Ever Asteroid Flyby Set For July 29


Douglas Isbell
Headquarters, Washington, DC    July 28, 1999
(Phone:  202/358-1547)

John G. Watson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone:  818/354-0474)

RELEASE:  99-84

CLOSEST-EVER ASTEROID FLYBY SET FOR JULY 29

With its technology tests almost complete, NASA's Deep Space 1
mission is about to undertake the closest encounter with an
asteroid ever attempted when it flies within 10 miles (15
kilometers) of the newly named asteroid Braille on July 29.

Deep Space 1 will rely on its experimental autonomous navigation
system, called AutoNav, to guide the spacecraft past the
mysterious space rock at 12:46 a.m. EDT at a relative speed of
nearly 35,000 mph (56,000 kilometers per hour).

"Deep Space 1's main purpose is to test advanced technologies
for the benefit of future missions, so we view the flyby and its
science return as a bonus," said Dr. Marc Rayman, Deep Space 1's
chief mission engineer and deputy mission manager.  "This
ambitious encounter is a high-risk endeavor and its success is
by no means guaranteed.  But  should there be significant data
return, the findings will be of great interest to the science
community."

Asteroid Braille was previously known as 1992 KD.  The new name
was announced today by the Planetary Society, Pasadena, CA, as
the result of a contest that focused on inventor themes and drew
more than 500 entries from around the world.  The name honors
Louis Braille (1809-1852), the blind French educator who
developed the system of printing and writing named for him and
used extensively by the blind.

The winning entry was submitted by Kerry Babcock of Port Orange,
FL.  Eleanor Helin, who co-discovered the asteroid with fellow
astronomer Kenneth Lawrence, made the final decision on the
name.  Helin and Lawrence are astronomers at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA, which also manages
Deep Space 1.

During the encounter, Deep Space 1 will be in the ecliptic plane
(the plane in which Earth and most other planets orbit the Sun),
moving more slowly than the asteroid, which will be progressing
up through the ecliptic plane from below.  It may well be more
appropriate to say that the asteroid will zoom by Deep Space 1
than the reverse.

The flyby will allow final testing of AutoNav, which enables the
spacecraft to use images of distant stars and asteroids within
our Solar System to keep track of its location in space and to
guide trajectory changes.  Deep Space 1 has successfully
completed tests of its 11 other new technologies.

The asteroid and the space environment surrounding it make
scientifically interesting targets for two advanced science
instruments aboard Deep Space 1.  During the flyby, a
spectrometer and imaging instrument will send back
black-and-white photographs and images taken in infrared light,
while a second instrument observes the three-dimensional
distribution of ions and electrons, or plasma, in the area.

In addition to their value for designing future missions, the
images and other data returned from this encounter will greatly
assist scientists in understanding the fundamental properties of
asteroids.  Although scientists believe Braille's diameter is
approximately 0.6 to 3 miles (1 to 5 kilometers), they know
little else about it.  With this flyby, they can learn more
about its shape, size, surface composition, mineralogy and
terrain.

Launched on Oct. 24, 1998, from Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL,
Deep Space 1 marked the first launch of NASA's New Millennium
Program, which tests and validates new technologies for future
space and Earth-observing missions.  The technologies that have
been tested on Deep Space 1 will help make future science
spacecraft smaller, less expensive and capable of more
independent decision-making so that they rely less on ground
controllers.

The mission has exceeded almost all of its technology validation
requirements by conducting more extensive tests than had been
planned.  As one dramatic example, the spacecraft's experimental
xenon ion engine, which was required to thrust for a minimum of
200 hours, has been operated for nearly 1,800 hours.

Deep Space 1 is budgeted at $152 million, including design,
development, launch and operations.  The mission is managed for
NASA's Office of Space Science by JPL, a division of the
California Institute of Technology.

                                 -end-

                                 * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available
automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject
line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no
quotes).  The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail
of each subscription.  A second automatic message will include
additional information on the service. NASA releases also are
available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA.  To
unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the
message.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 28

               Creative Impact Experiment To Mark End Of Lunar

From: nasanews@hq.nasa.gov
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:07:40 -0400
Subject: Creative Impact Experiment To Mark End Of Lunar


Douglas Isbell
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202/358-1547) July 28, 1999

David Morse
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
(Phone:  650/604-4724)

Becky Rische
University of Texas at Austin
(Phone:  512/471-7272)

RELEASE:  99-85

CREATIVE IMPACT EXPERIMENT TO MARK END OF LUNAR PROSPECTOR

In one final blast of scientific productivity, NASA's Lunar
Prospector mission will end abruptly in the early morning hours
of July 31 with a controlled crash into a crater near the south
pole of the moon.

The scripted, violent end of Lunar Prospector at 5:51 a.m.
EDT is designed to provide direct evidence of the existence of
water ice in permanently shadowed craters near the moon's poles.

Scientists hope that the estimated 3,800-mph impact will exhume
water vapor and rocky debris that may be detectable for several
hours, although data analysis could take days or even weeks if
the signal is faint.  Coordinated observing teams will use
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and Submillimeter Wave Astronomy
Satellite, and ground-based instruments including the McDonald
Observatory in Texas and the Keck telescope in Hawaii, to seek
signs of the water vapor or its byproducts.

While the probability of successful detection is estimated to be
less than 10 percent, it will be a fittingly creative finish to
a low-cost Discovery Program mission that has exceeded all
expectations after more than 6,800 lunar orbits in 18 months.

"Regardless of the outcome of this final bold experiment, Lunar
Prospector has yielded a gold mine of science data," said Dr.
Henry McDonald, director of NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett
Field, CA, which has managed the mission.  "We now have
invaluable global maps of the moon's gravitational and magnetic
fields, and the distribution of its key elements, giving us a
much better understanding of the origin, evolution and
composition of our rocky neighbor."

Launched on Jan. 6, 1998, from Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL,
aboard an Athena 2 rocket, Lunar Prospector reached the moon in
four days.  Shortly after entering orbit over the lunar poles,
its five science instruments began expanding the limited
equatorial measurements made by the Apollo command modules into
global, high-resolution data sets.

Lunar Prospector's data gathering has resulted in a series of
discoveries and new scientific tools, including:

* tentative evidence that water ice exists in shadowed craters
   near the moon's south and north poles.
* the first precise gravity map of the entire lunar surface.
* confirmed the presence of local magnetic fields that create the
   two smallest magnetospheres in the Solar System.
* the first global maps of the moon's elemental composition.

In exceeding its design life, the $63 million Prospector mission
has exhausted the bulk of its fuel and battery power.  Although
the drum-shaped probe will have a mass of only 354 pounds (161
kilograms) at the end, its impact energy will be equivalent to
crashing a two-ton car at more than 1,100 miles per hour.

Further information about Prospector and its science data return
can be obtained at the project Web site:

    http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov

Additional information about the end-of-mission sequence is
available at:

     http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~cfpl/lunar/

Dr. Alan Binder of the Lunar Research Institute, Tucson, AZ, led
the Lunar Prospector team. The spacecraft was built by Lockheed
Martin, Sunnyvale, CA.  Other participating organizations
include the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM; NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
MD; and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.  An
external team of engineers and astronomers led by Dr. David
Goldstein of the University of Texas at Austin will conduct the
end-of-mission telescopic observations and data analysis.

                             -end-

                             * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes).  The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription.  A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA.  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:01:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:55:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:43:43 +0100

 >I think Chris Martin would not be impressed with such an attack,
 >only once again this Sunday, we had the chance to observe some
 >very strange objects in the sky. {Again being filmed}

Which attack Roy? Have I stated that Chris has a lower standard
of evidence? No. You begin to bring in other people to back
yourself up. I merely mentioned a conversation that took place
at a meeting at this person's house yet your 'standard of
evidence' throws in an assumption that I disregard his claims
without any investigation. Seems you read what you want to read
and fit that in to your belief system. I suggest you read the
words and construct a sentence without prejudice in future.

 >There have been many people at the UFO Watch 2000 meetings, who
 >have come from all sides of the UFO debate and most have seen
 >things at those meetings, including yourself.

I have not been to one of these meetings so how can you comment?
This can only be another example of how you mould the data and
manipulate the facts to fit with your own belief system.

 >To start saying that this is a <a lower 'standard of  evidence'>
 >is quite incredible from a researcher who is also openly trying
 >to seek some kind of ET contact by whatever means, in fact I
 >would hope that those who attend such meetings would find the
 >remark highly offensive and was only said to cause trouble
 >nothing more.

As a researcher I am, with a group from Hertfordshire trying to
establish whether claims of ET contact via remote viewing are
credible. Is there a problem with research or should we just
believe?

Which meetings do you refer to Roy?

 >So maybe Tony has real high UFO evidence that he is willing to
 >show to the masses out there will we see it?

Where have I stated that we have 'high UFO evidence' I think you
have demonstrated to the list that you make of the data what you
will.

 >I am sure that myself, Chris , Marc, Dave, Neil, James,
 >Jonathan, Richard, and many more would like to see it?

You have made up a fictitious account of 'high UFO evidence'
only stressing my point that you manipulate what you hear into
facts. Is the'Neil' you mention the same who passed information
about one meeting where a conversation took place about me, if
so would you care to comment on the conversation?

 >Also check out the Leeds Quest International UFO Conference
 >where you will be able to see an exclusive piece of film, taken
 >by Chris Martin {UFO Watch 2000} it is quite remarkable.

I doubt any on this list dispute that UFOs exist, does the
footage contain evidence of a 'controlled ET craft'? I do
believe that's the discussion point in this thread. If you
believe the footage contains proof can you please explain to us
why you come to this conclusion?

Tony





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:12:53 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:57:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:46:44 +0100

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:27:57 +0100

 >>>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT)
 >>>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
 >>>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>PS.  I guess you might call me a "ufologist" instead of a
 >>>"Ufologist".  It strikes me we really do need a professional
 >>>exam for this field.  Perhaps Klass could suggest some of the
 >>>questions to go on it?

 >>In the UK right now a gang of rebels (alright, Dr Dave Clarke,
 >>Gloria Dixon - who holds the record score in the test by the way
 >>- Tim Matthews, Robert Moore, Andy Roberts and myself for now)
 >>(but we're growing!) have been discussing such issues as
 >>professionalism in UFOlogy. It is a good idea to have something
 >>to add to the self policing that we do. But finding the right
 >>balance is not easy.

 >I agree that the field needs to be more professional, and have
 >higher standards, but I don't think it will happen. I've been
 >watching this list from the sidelines for a year, and I've seen
 >slanging matches worthy of 5 year-olds in the playground.
 >usually it's the ETH people and the 'they're all American'
 >people calling each other silly names and arguing over spurious
 >'facts'. Just look at the recent debate on statistics for
 >sightings, with people quoting percentages. They're guesses, but
 >people defend them as facts. The arguments for and against ETH
 >remind me of the debates in the Reformation about what happens
 >in the Communion.

 >For the field to become more professional, there will need to be
 >some big names who will have to change their approach, and stop
 >defending positions that they hold as certainties when there is
 >no conclusive proof.


In civil matters it is a preponderance of the evidence that
matters. Why even bring up such terms as "conclusive Proof" or
"Confirmed alien contact"??.. Evidence there is aplenty.

Stanton Friedman





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                           Re: Abduction Theology

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:27:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:59:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Abduction Theology


 >From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Abduction Theology
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:05:47 PDT

 >Hi Listers,

 >There seems to be an ever more growing (and dangerous)
 >phenomenon appearing on this and other lists that, for wont of
 >any existing term I have labelled "Abduction Theology".

 >Like any 'established religion' its adherants tend to vilify any
 >one questioning its foundations, structure, beliefs or even its
 >methodologies.

 >It strikes out at those who seek the truth by 'daring' to ask
 >any serious questions or ask people to think clearly about what
 >is thrust at  them.

 >Is the earth still flat?

 >Does the universe still revolve around the earth?

 >Of course not and we know this now because people had dared to
 >think and ask rather than what was rammed down their throats.

 >Stop "Abduction Theology" before it becomes "Abduction
 >Fundamentalism".

 >Regards,
 >Leanne  ];-)
 >(Stirring the possum as ever.)

If by "abduction theology" you mean someone or ones whose belief
systems, or paradigms, cause them to lean in that direction as
an explanation for their experiences or the experiences of
others, then you are quite wrong, as there is also the same
reaction on the opposite side.  Then should there be an
accusation of anti abduction theology, or are you having a
headache?

Should we then request those who do not have that belief system
to cease and desist in their efforts to refute those who do
believe? And does belief of unbelief constitute a religion or a
theology?  And more to the point, are you accusing believers of
vilification by virtue of your opposing view or that the
opposing view exists?

This is unclear to me.  Perhaps it's that swamp gas
regurgitating in a tummy full of Gripple(!)(?).

And what do you mean by "vilify?"  To vilify is to MALIGN or to
slander. Does belief in a subject and defending it cause you to
accuse these of slander?  The contrasting words are to
compliment, to honor.  OK, I honor all those of you who proclaim
not to have truth, but a damned good opinion.  The rest of you
who claim to have the truth can go fish.

I vilify you.  I slander you.  I do not respect you.  But I will
consider allowing you to date me. Females only need apply.  Just
don't tell my wife I aksed.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:32:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:06:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:20:38 +0100

 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:23:03 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

 >>Personal attack? Stating that a childs balloon is a cloaked ET
 >>craft gives me the distinct impression that your standards of
 >>evidence are lower, so not a personal attack but a reality.

 >Grow up Tony I've ben there done it, your a stuck record, yes
 >issue 3 I think yawn.

I didn't realise the account I mentioned had appeared in your
magazine.

 >>Talking of attacks, I heard all about your visit to Chris
 >>Martin's, and the various conversations that went! Care to
 >>comment?

 >Interesting this you have just solved something for me thanks, I
 >wondered what all the questions were for...........How many of
 >these have you got out there? Good Training I'll give you that!

What do you mean training, can you enlighten everyone? You
really don't think that the conversation was taped covertly as
part of my military spy duties do you? <g>

 >>Remote viewing is subjective and you're right, we are
 >>investigating it's uses in the UFO phenomenon. In fact Sue is
 >>the person who seems to be getting results, but to date we have
 >>not established whether she is contacting anything other than
 >>her imagination!

 >Say no more........






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                           Re: Abduction Theology

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:30:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:02:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Abduction Theology


 >From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Abduction Theology
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:05:47 PDT

 >Hi Listers,

 >There seems to be an ever more growing (and dangerous)
 >phenomenon appearing on this and other lists that, for wont of
 >any existing term I have labelled "Abduction Theology".

 >Like any 'established religion' its adherants tend to vilify any
 >one questioning its foundations, structure, beliefs or even its
 >methodologies.

 >It strikes out at those who seek the truth by 'daring' to ask
 >any serious questions or ask people to think clearly about what
 >is thrust at  them.

 >Is the earth still flat?

 >Does the universe still revolve around the earth?

 >Of course not and we know this now because people had dared to
 >think and ask rather than what was rammed down their throats.

 >Stop "Abduction Theology" before it becomes "Abduction
 >Fundamentalism".


If by "abduction theology" you mean someone or ones whose belief
systems, or paradigms, cause them to lean in that direction as
an explanation for their experiences or the experiences of
others, then you are quite wrong, as there is also the same
reaction on the opposite side.  Then should there be an
accusation of anti abduction theology, or are you having a
headache?

Should we then request those who do not have that belief system
to cease and desist in their efforts to refute those who do
believe? And does belief of unbelief constitute a religion or a
theology?  And more to the point, are you accusing believers of
vilification by virtue of your opposing view or that the
opposing view exists?

This is unclear to me.  Perhaps it's that swamp gas
regurgitating in a tummy full of Gripple(!)(?).

And what do you mean by "vilify?"  To vilify is to MALIGN or to
slander. Does belief in a subject and defending it cause you to
accuse these of slander?  The contrasting words are to
compliment, to honor.  OK, I honor all those of you who proclaim
not to have truth, but a damned good opinion.  The rest of you
who claim to have the truth can go fish.

I vilify you.  I slander you.  I do not respect you.  But I will
consider allowing you to date me. Females only need apply.  Just
don't tell my wife I aksed.

Jim





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 19:01:45 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:09:29 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:49:32 +0100

 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 12:22:14 PDT

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100


Hi, Jenny,

 >>>As for Stanton's facts and figures. Some of them need to be
 >>>interpreted. Yes, Condon found a third unsolved. But so would I
 >>>if I selected the 60 best cases from the past year rather than
 >>>studied the 6000 or whatever total sightings that have happened.

 >>This misrepresents what happened with the Condon Committee.
 >>Hynek and McDonald _wanted_ it to look at only the best cases.
 >>Condon decided otherwise, no doubt because of his severe
 >>antipathy to the UFO phenomenon, and the committee ended up
 >>taking on whatever came its way, whatever the quality.  (At the
 >>most absurd extreme this involved Condon's going to a spot where
 >>a contactee had predicted a landing.)  Even so, about 30% of the
 >>committee's cases ended up unexplained. According to several
 >>reinvestigations (for example McDonald's) some of the explaineds
 >>should in fact have been in the unexplained category. The great
 >>irony, as Allen Hynek wrote in a piece on the Colorado Project
 >>for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1969), was that
 >>"the percentage of `unknowns' in the Condon report appears to be
 >>even higher than in the Air Force investigation ... which led to
 >>the Condon investigation in the first place."

 >No, I dont think this is strictly true. During the 18 month life
 >of the project Blue Book received many, many more sightings than
 >are in the report. A large number of trivial LITS were clearly
 >filtered out otherwise they would dominate the report as they
 >dominate any sample of UFO reports. In fact the report focuses
 >on a relatively small number of cases and there has to have been
 >some degree of selectivity given that it contains a proto
 >abduction and several photo cases (which is way over chance
 >expectation levels for such a small sample). Moreover, the
 >report focused on the good data from Blue Book archives - eg the
 >best photos (McMinville, Great Falls, etc) and radar (eg
 >Lakenheath/Bentwaters). It is very obvious that this was no
 >random sample of incoming trivia; although I appreciate that
 >some of this haphazardness went on (eg with Low visiting the UK
 >at a time of its biggest ever wave during which dizens of police
 >officers saw UFOs and he investigated none of them and went to
 >interview people who looked for the Loch Ness monster instead!)
 >But in essence the Condon data is bound to contain a higher than
 >norm percentage of unsolved cases because it had a far higher
 >than norm sample of good cases to start with. Am I seriously
 >misguided here, because thats certainly how I read it.

In point of fact, it was a matter of great frustration to
outside observers -- McDonald, Hynek, Dick Hall, to name three
who got to see its operations at close range on a few occasions
-- that the committee did not select the best cases but pretty
much took what it got, regardless of quality.  Condon concerned
himself largely with contactee yarns, and project coordinator
Robert Low compiled a sightings casebook in which reports of
potential scientific interest and those of no value whatever
were assembled without discrimination.  This is what you do,
obviously, if you think the whole subject is nonsense, as Condon
and Low did.

Many factors, of course, went into the Colorado Project's
day-to-day operations and decisions, but I don't think it can be
seriously disputed that no effort was made to focus on the most
puzzling reports. That (as you note) some such reports did get
looked at is something of a miracle, or maybe just happy
circumstance. It certainly wasn't policy. Whatever it was, in
any event, we can all be grateful for it.

Mostly, though, the news was bad. Most knowledgeable ufologists,
I think, would agree that the Portage County, Ohio, police-car
chase is among the most important and evidential of all UFO
episodes. NICAP and its field investigator Bill Weitzel
conducted a commendably thorough inquiry into all aspects of
this complex occurrence.  After Weitzel filed a detailed report,
Hall flew it to Boulder and handed it personally to Condon --
who, from all evidence, didn't even bother to read it.  It's
mentioned nowhere in the Condon report.  To anybody sincerely
looking for answers to the UFO mystery, the Portage County chase
would have been one of the top priorities.  Condon, his cronies,
and their funders (the Air Force), as we all know, couldn't have
cared less.

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 19:56:47 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:16:19 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:31:16 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 12:22:14 PDT

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100


Hi, John,

 >>Oh, those US ufologists -- the root of all evil in the world.
 >>Seriously, I detect a lot of provincialism (and, dare I say it,
 >>a whiff of anti-Americanism - I am not referring to you, Jenny)
 >>in non-US ufologists, too.  In truth, we all could learn from
 >>each other. Instead, we are dowsed with gallons of rhetorical
 >>dishwater in which "US ufology" becomes a synonym for "wrong
 >>ufology." Sorry -- I don't buy it, and beyond that, I'm getting
 >>bored with it.

 >It does seem to be a fact though, that there is a very
 >fundamental divide between ufological attitudes on each side of
 >the Atlantic, and it is something that might bear looking into,
 >rather than dismissal as "anti-Americanism". By and large
 >British and European ufologists are more sceptical than their
 >American coevals. One of the most significant differences is
 >that most British and European ufological "sceptics" have come
 >to their scepticism _after_ a great deal of study,
 >investigation, reading and writing about UFOs. Most American
 >"skeptics" seem to have come to the subject from the outside.

If skepticism has anything to do with the questioning of
received wisdom, American ufologists are by far more
iconoclastic, and thus more skeptical.  The European neoskeptics
-- pelicanists, I call them in my uncharitable moments (though I
could never be uncharitable to you, John) -- seem much more
believing of conventional opinion, far more obsessed with
holding safe and unheretical views which will keep the ridicule
of the washed at bay.

For someone who champions the psychosocial approach to ufology,
I'm surprised that you would so easily dismiss cultural
attitudes -- such as anti-Americanism, even if unconscious -- in
the shaping of views regarding UFOs on your side of the pond.
Believe me, if you were on my side and reading much of the
rhetoric from yours (which is uniquely obsessed with the
particular national identity of the dissenters from European
wisdom), you would be forced to agree that my characterization
is hardly a casual one. I recall an especially amusing bit of
goofiness from no less than the esteemed Magonia, where one
authority on all things American (Peter Rogerson, if memory
serves, as it may not; forgive me, Peter, if I'm suffering from
what we Yanks call old-timer's disease) held that we're in the
grips of abduction delusions owing to our fear of Hispanics.

To turnvery briefly serious: all of us, Brits, Americans, and
other earthlings, are prisoners of culture, in ways that
sometimes -- I didn't say always -- only those outside our
specific cultures can see.  On the other hand, don't get me
started on the subject of American characters in British movies,
or for that matter American ufologists in British UFO
journals....  I'm just joking.  Sort of.

 >Someone like Jenny Randles is hardly considered as a sceptic in
 >Britain, and I have criticised her as much as anyone when I
 >think she has made unjustified assumptions which I felt had been
 >based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence. However, in
 >the end she has always allowed the evidence to get the upper
 >hand. In American terms however, she seems to be rapidly gaining
 >the status of lovable old Phil Klass as a hard line sceptic.

Not as far as I can see.  Is there a little wishful thinking
going on here, John -- just more proof of the foolishness of
Americans? Though I disagree with Jenny as often as I agree with
her, I like and respect her for what she is: one of ufology's
few truly nuanced thinkers.  Sometimes she (or, more accurately,
an opinion of hers) irritates the hell out of me, but she is
_always_ interesting and thought-provoking, and ufology is lucky
to have her.  Few people have contributed as much to this field
as she has.

 >Most serious British and Euro researchers are aware, if no more,
 >of the various psycho-social aspects of ufology and of the
 >vaguaries of witness testimony. Most serious American witnesses
 >seem more willing to take eyewitness testimony at face value --
 >see for instance the debate about Kenneth Arnold's golden geese
 >elsewhere on this list -- and discount the possibility of
 >radical misperceptions.

Amusingly, the first full-length book to champion an early
version of ufology's psychosocial hypothesis was The
Unidentified, published in 1975. Jerome Clark, lifelong resident
of the United States, was coauthor and has been trying to live
it down ever since.

Witness perception and misperception, your (I'm sure
unintentionally) self-congratulatory observations
notwithstanding, has been discussed at length -- sometimes
book's length (e.g., by Dick Haines and Allan Hendry) -- this
side of the water.

IUR, which I edit, has also published some illuminating pieces
on that subject.  What you object to, I gather, is that we have
looked at the same data and found your conclusions concerning
same largely unwarranted and uncomfortably like ... oh, jeez,
you'll have to forgive me; I just can't help myself ... the
ruminations of English majors and librarians.

Cordially,

Jerry Clark





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:16:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:18:17 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:26:59 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:10:27 -0400
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >>There have actually been large numbers, I believe, of UFOs that
 >>have been passed off as aircraft because they resembled aircraft
 >>in certain respects, but they were not because other aspects of
 >>them did not resemble aircraft. One of my own sightings could
 >>illustrate this. It was rather like a medium sized aircraft 1 to
 >>2 miles away, just moving along steadily. However, it was
 >>cylindrical shaped (horizontally oriented), without any tail
 >>section and no wings either (which I intensively looked for).
 >>And it made no noise, though small planes at a comparable
 >>distance can definitely be heard in my neighborhood. And this
 >>object had a single vertical stripe around its middle, rather as
 >>a capsule is sometimes divided into two halves.

 >I must point out that your description is a match to something I
 >see every day here near my local airport - a somewhat distant
 >jet aircraft, usually a DC9, a 727 or some other T-tail
 >configuration, whose features are largely obscured by distance.
 >and haze. The "band" to which you refer is actually the haze
 >filled shadow on the underside of the wing. The shadow is
 >roughly sky color due to the haze or environmental reflection,
 >and only stands out where contrasted against the brightness of
 >the fuselage. The reflected light of the rudder usually
 >eliminates this contrast for the stabilizer.

Hi, Mark, Jim:

See the current issue of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL for an article
about a video of a similar object, where the observer using
human eyesight and binoculars described a plane-like object.
The video was probably not as useful as the eye in such a
situation.

Clear skies,
Bob Young





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology

From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:35:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:28:51 -0400
Subject: Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology


 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:50:54 -0600
 >From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
 >Subject: The Stupidity Within Ufology
 >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >McCoy wasn't discussing just anything. He was giving an inside
 >look at his thinking and the thinking of the Project SIGN group
 >and their conclusions. He was saying in effect, that aliens
 >walked among us. He was certainly in a position to know many
 >things and had done more analysis and investigation than any
 >other military group to follow, so to take his thoughts lightly
 >didn't make sense to me. To me, he was telling a great deal
 >more. Now, I don't know if aliens walk among us; I don't think
 >anyone really knows that, but the fact that he had reached the
 >conclusion as to it's being possible is absolutely astounding
 >and of the greatest historical importance. It's the closest
 >we've ever come in Ufology to at least a military man discussing
 >it.

 >Having come to these conclusions I took the time to start and
 >stop the tape a thousand times until I could share with you list
 >members a written transcript of what Col. McCoy said. I posted
 >it and waited in anticipation for the discussion I thought sure
 >would follow. I even looked forward to the bickering and puffing
 >of the Greg Long's and Kal Korff's among the list members. But
 >ya know what? Absolutely nothing happened. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
 >
 >"OK," I said to myself. Pelicans were being discussed at the
 >time and important historical information obviously ain't too
 >important to the list, so I posted it on the Project SIGN
 >Research Center website along with the only known photo of the
 >people who did the first official investigation of UFOs in
 >history. Man, action happened immediately. Well over two
 >thousand hits in 24 hours, yet not one email to me or discussion
 >on any list - P-47, Current-Encounters, UFO UpDates. Zilch.
 >Zero. Zip. People came in droves to listen and look, but nobody
 >bothered to say anything.
 >
 >My conclusions: Damn near everyone on this list is either brain
 >dead, totally ignorant of what Ufology actually is, or only here
 >to take up space, waste the few true researchers left in
 >Ufology's time or debunk at any cost, under any guise because
 >you don't have an ounce of common sense or imagination. Pretty
 >intense I know, but only a few of you do anything. The rest of
 >you ain't worth the time or effort from those of us who talk the
 >talk, walk the walk and proceed to the truth. But I also know
 >something else...when the truth, whatever it may be comes, those
 >of you who do nothing but get in the way, posturize and
 >pontificate will be the first in line to spout to the world how
 >great you are because of all the research you've done and the
 >contributions you've made to the field of ufology. There will
 >just be one thing wrong...you didn't do squat but sit in your
 >comfy chair, emailed your opinions and maybe read a book.
 >
 >Bitter? Nah. Very disappointed? Nah. Just the truth as I see it.
 >So, Kal...shut up. I don't wanna hear it cause nothing you say
 >is of any social redeeming value.
 >
 >Wendy Connors


Thank you Wendy. I totally agree with the last two paragraphs.

I only rarely bother to post information. When I do, it is
pounced on as an old cow by Piranha, only to be ripped to shreds
by those who fancy themselves "experts."

I went through all of this back in the late 80's and up to the
mid-90's when the "BBS" (Bulletin Board System) was active and
the main source of computer communication via such groups as:
MUFONET, & FIDONET, among others.

The very discussions which are taking up so much band width here
and now, were what was being discussed back then. Yet, one group
grows older... slides over... another, younger group takes their
places and start the cycle over again.

I tired of all this bickering ten years ago... it got boring
then and is boring now. And guess what? The same old worn out
themes, were discussed by the very same "experts" then!

The "experts" stay the same, only the people to whom they are
expounding change. Those of us who got our fill of it back then,
simply hit "delete" when we see these message headers which go
on endlessly, and look with great anticipation for something
really New and Fascinating.

Unfortunately, I find very little of what is posted today to be
so.

Lights in the sky? How many of these reports have I read in the
past 15 years on the computer? In the past 45 years in the
media, i.e., books, TV, newspapers, and periodicals?

To many. IF there are not landing traces, daylight sightings of
an object within 500 yards, with accompanying VIDEO TAPE and
35mm photos, then I could care less about hearing about it.

So someone sees a flying disk in 1999 at a distance of three to
five miles... so what?  What good does that do us? What good did
it do us in 1947? 1954? 1960? All that it did back then was clue
us in to the idea that there was a phenomena which we might wish
to take a long, long, long, long hard look at.

But, 50 years have passed and what has really changed? The
stories continue to accrue. But, what of the hands-on hard
facts? How many of those have made themselves available to you,
I, or the mass of humanity after all these years of teasing and
tempting us?

Those who place themselves about The Law take the position that
you, I and the mass of humanity are mere "babes" in
understanding and therefore choose to wipe our snotty noses,
change our diapers, and feed us the pablum which they have
decided we need to keep us happy.

What we have today is the next generation of infants, making
noises for attention. Each generation grows up to think it is
better educated, more informed, and better able to handle the
"secret" than the generation before them.

The problem is that it is the "Generation from WWII which is
still controlling this "secret." So, it doesn't matter how much
you think you are deserving, their ideas, attitudes, and
approach to the subject of "UFO's" and all related Phenomena is
the one which counts.

We can have the smoking gun. Won't matter. We can have the
Military Officers who worked on projects dealing with this
issue...won't matter. We can have respected Scientists,
Politicians, and Financiers come forward and support our desire
to have the truth made known. Won't matter. Nothing will change!
Nothing is going to change. If we think it is, then we are sadly
mistaken, and open ourselves up to opportunists, who will slid
right in and bilk us of our money, time, and intelligence.

So, with that, I wish you well. I hope you "prove me wrong."

To quote a passage from a Religious Text: "Don't look back..."

REgards, Mike

  Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
  ICQ#:7508455
  BBS: (270) 683-3026
  Fax: (270) 686-7394
  Home: (270) 683-6811





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:17:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:32:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:25:18 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:07:55 -0600

 >>>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >>>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>Andy wrote (snip):

 >>>...Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >>>beings (dead or alive), whose physical existence is without
 >>>doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >>>whatsoever.

Sue Responds-

 >>Wrong. Read again my July 4 and July 19 postings to UFO UpDates.

 >>(clip from July 19th)..."I have conscious recall of how I got
 >>those burns...from an errant laser beam attached to a
 >>transporter, in my bedroom in 1961 with many "visitors" present.
 >>Do I expect you to believe that? No. You weren't there.

 >>(clip from July 4th posting).."I can tell you, that in 1961,
 >>there was no government experimenting on children in their
 >>bedrooms with 3-dimensional laser-built transporters that could
 >>move into the 4th dimension (through walls). We could barely get
 >>into orbit as I recall. Is that enough "proof" for others? I
 >>don't know. It certainly is for me. Pain is a great reality
 >>check."

 >>Your argument doesn't hold up with the thousands of people who
 >>have experienced such incidents, and have the proof of the scars
 >>to prove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has conscious
 >>recall of how they were used and abused.

 >>Start looking for similar people, people.

 >>Sue

I seriously doubt there are "thousands" who who believe they
were taken by UFOs, though I think if we include people who have
a similar weird experience and don't neccessarily attribute it
to UFOs, we may be that high in count. And I especially doubt
there are thousands who have unexplained scars to 'prove' it, or
even fully conscious memory of it.

As for the scar, I must, unfortunately, at least at this point,
file it in along with the other examples of evidence and alleged
independently witnessed events which are tossed out offhandedly
and held up as proof, and unfortunately, not properly
investigated or documented, if investigated or documented at
all, sometimes proclaimed to be "outside the boundaries" of
evidence we should be allowed to investigate when followed up
on. Anectdotes are simply different from evidence.

BTW, I am not specifically aiming that as an insult to you, Sue,
I am just stating that all of these things _could_ prove
intriguing, but too often they never become nothing more than
comments in a thread of discussion, which by itself means
nothing.

And from Jim-

 >Your name is Sue!  How do you do?

 >I am so sorry to be the first (or the hundredth) to tell you
 >this, Sue, but what is in your memory or mine, matters not one
 >dot to the person with the closed mind.  He or she will assign
 >some reason or other with which to demean the memory.

 >Undigested beef, hallucination (you were probably on extra
 >strength Excedrin or something) and blah, blah.

I have to be honest and break the unspoken rule by saying that I
think of the many people who claim such experiences, a fair
number really _do_ hallucinate or lie *gasp*, are insane, or are
very suggestable. Many have probably pieced together some hazy
memories (with or without the help of books, and 'abduction
researchers and support groups') and formed a total belief
structure around the events. Many have also made close bonds
with other 'abductees' and in a sense, even established some
sense of identity as 'an experiencer', making it even more
difficult for such beliefs to change, should specific evidence
to the contrary or personal doubts arise.

And some probably have/do not. But even if I did 'believe in
abductions' (meaning hold the opinion that some people have been
physically taken by UFO occupants) doesn't mean I would believe
that everyone who claims it has actually had this experience.

Note I said some of people who claim these experiences, not all.
Still, admitting that is amost like admitting you own the local
peep show or adult bookstore (inquire for details next time
you're in my home base of pensacola/gulf breeze- "UFO capital of
the world- for a free coupon).

 >The real answer from any skeptic should be, "I don't know what
 >happened to you, however it is not in my paradigm to believe it
 >was anything but something "natural" and merely misconstrued."
 >Or whatever....

 >The real answer from any experiencer should be, "I don't know
 >what happened to me, but I can tell you exactly what my mind
and
 >memory saw and what my body felt."  Someone is gonna hafta
 >convince me exactly what it was and _prove_ it before my mind
 >attaches to anything but what it was to me and for me.

<snip>

Of course I agree with you regarding the attitude anyone
involved with this stuff should take, but as can be witnessed,
everyone involved gets out of line at some point. Some folks
more than others, but I agree that we should strive to keep our
heads clear.... well, at least when we are debating, as for
other times.... *grin*

Jim, I can't say I know you well at all, but I do know you well
enough to know that you believe what you say. Now I know, thats
not a massive step, but is the first one, and we have to move
slowly or we'll stumble or run of a cliff, and on the other
hand, not so slowly that nothing gets done.

But let's say, hypothetically, that everyone on this list now
'believes' that abductions are real? Now what is required? And
_what_ exactly DO we believe? Do we believe that they fly here
from space and we must work on some way to shoot them down? But
what if another of the many alleged abductees says they use
widgetry Gripple fueled technology to warp here or teleport? Who
do we believe? We can't really find out, we can just believe,
and whose account do we believe? Do we work on some way to foil
their hybrid program? wait, a lot of abductees don't even
believe that. And again, if we decide to shoot them down, what
are they made of so we know what to build? We can't look at one,
and we don't study them, we just believe in them. Btw, do the
beings float through walls, or not? Depends who you ask, I
think. We've not been able to catch them on video to see, but
never the less, we believe in them now. Can they bleed, or are
they robots? Maybe we should get the environment in shape,
because they seem to care about that- wait, actually they seem
to not care much at all and are just cold scientists. What about
the contactees, I'll add? Or were they just 'hallucinating' or
full of bs? So, what are the specifics here we are being asked
to believe? They differ from experiencer to experiencer, and
some of these differences are glaring. Belief alone won't get us
anywhere even if everyone _is_ 'won over.' The exception (an
important one, I add) is more help for people who have to deal
with these events in their lives.

Other than belief, what is wanted, and how are we going to
get/accomplish it without the evidence it is suggested we should
stop asking for?

Tim

)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:38:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:36:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net


 >Andy's comments appear to miss the mark completely.
 >What Stan is clearly referring to is the testimony of witnesses
 >in a court trial. And witnesses in a court trial are directly
 >comparable to witnesses of a UFO sighting. In that sense,
 >the tools used to evaluate a trial witness' credibility can also
 >be used to evaluate whether a UFO witness is a trained
 >observer, has good character and is in possession
 >of his or her faculties.

 >In a courtroom _as in life_ the corroboration of multiple
 >witnesses is important and can lead, even in the absence
 >of Andy's vaunted physical evidence, to a verdict in either
 >criminal or civil cases. These are "flesh-and-blood" human
 >beings whose testimony we dismiss at the peril of our
 >intellectual integrity.

 >Yet one can add to the testimonials transient physical
 >evidence such as that associated with purported landings,
 >or the radar reflections that have accompanied a number
 >of UFO cases.

 >The only physical evidence that Andy seems willing
 >to accept _a crashed craft or preserved alien body_ might
 >have been available to us if the military had never taken
 >an interest in the subject.

 >I would remind Andy of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater's
 >efforts to gain access to the Wright Patterson AFB site where
 >alien debris was allegedly kept. Goldwater was a friend of the
 >base commander, Gen. Curtis LeMay, and moreover was
 >himself an officer with the Air Force Reserves and, most
 >importantly, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
 >As Goldwater reported to friends, he was told in no uncertain
 >terms that not only would he not be given access, but not to
 >ask again.

 >What, I ask, was so important that the chair of the Senate
 >intelligence committee would be deemed unworthy of gaining
 >entrance? Could it have been Andy's vaunted physical evidence?

 >Human testimony is also important in my field of work,
 >journalism. The rule we learn as apprentices is that no unnamed
 >source can be used unless a second, independent source
 >corroborates the first witness. By that measure, there are
 >hundreds, if not thousands of credible UFO sightings reported
 >by multiple, trustworthy witnesses.

 >While no one can say whether the crafts are truly
 >extraterrestrial rather than, say, interdimensional or time
 >travelers, to cloak one's reasonable doubt by insisting only
 >physical evidence counts is to reject the sum of human
 >experience.

 >Just another credulous resident of the States.

Might I add, without being caught up on this thread or knowing
Mr. Roberts' position I must admit, that nowhere in that quote
did he claim UFOs did not exist or that witness testimony is
worthless? he seems to me to merely be implying that evidence of
_what they are_ is lacking, not that everyone who sees one is
utterly full of .... beans, or an idiot.

Big difference. "Do you believe in UFOs?" is a question a lot of
folks ask. The answer, for me, is yes. Unfortunately, many
people seem to define UFO, in their own mind, as an ET
spaceship, without defining to the person they asked, what the
hell they meant. My opinion is that the true nature of what
_some_ (hey, I underlined the some!) UFOs are (and even some
abductions, when I'm not being as cynical as I often am) is
still undetermined.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:21:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:39:51 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:20:13 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >Unfortunately this introduces a very subjective element into the
 >gathering of statistical data. Any individual investigator's
 >view of "paydirt data" will vary. It is clear that many
 >researcher's view of paydirt is anything which will support the
 >idea that at least some UFO reports represent structured craft,
 >hence vague lights-in-the-sky type reports are of little
 >interest to them, and can be ignored when compiling statistics,
 >inflating the "unexplained" cases at the expense of the
 >"insufficient data" column.

Hi, John!

Actually, there can be little doubt as to what represents
"paydirt" in any science. It is that observation which contains
the greatest amount of information.

In the UFO field, that means high angular size observations with
the longest available durations (at least for those of us who
accept the OEH (Objective Existence Hypothesis)).

Yes, some good information can be extracted (with a healthy
respect for the error bars) from relatively low content reports.
But a simple comparison between a high quality close encounter
and even a high quality quarter-degree NL shows the difference
in available data (which, of course, relates to Hynek's
"strangeness").

 >But researchers with a different agenda, promoting the
 >earth-lights hypothesis for instance, will find the distant
 >star-like objects extremely interesting, and would want to
 >include them in any definition of a UFO worth studying.

Inclusion of such reports would seriously degrade to S/N ratio
in the data under study. If this is the sort of thing EL
proponents consider acceptable data, no wonder their conclusions
fail to be supportable.

History tells us that such reports are more likely than high
angular size reports to represent a "known". If they are instead
accepted as unknowns, they corrupt all of the results to which
they are applied.

 >Ultimately we have to accept that the figure on which we must
 >base our percentage of "unknowns" is the totality of events
 >which are reported by the percipients as UFO events, and not
 >just the ones we personally happen to find interesting.

That's a position which would hardly be acceptable in any
science. Can you imagine an ornithology which performed its
study of birds by including observations of insects, on the
rationale that specks too small to resolve could be birds?

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                     Out Of The Blue And Into The Black

From: Kurt Jonach - eWarrior <ewarrior@scruznet.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:01:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:45:45 -0400
Subject: Out Of The Blue And Into The Black


Out Of The Blue And Into The Black

"Nothing succeeds like success"

(July 28, 1999) The coolest space toy has something going for it
Star Wars will never have - the Hot Wheels NASA Mars Rover is a
copy of the real thing.

Highly successful Mars missions like Pathfinder and Global
Surveyor were championed by NASA's Daniel Goldin to get more
bang for the buck. But, according to a recent press release,
NASA's cost efficiency has been rewarded by an 11% budget cut
for FY 2000:

"Year after year, NASA is touted for doing more and more with
smaller budgets and held up as a model of good government...
NASA has always stepped up to the budgetary challenge. This time
the NASA team plans to fight."

The Planetary Society has cited a number of science missions
that are likely to be terminated if the proposed cut is enacted
by Congress. According to Executive Director Dr. Louis Friedman:

"The space science cuts are the most devastating in NASA's
history and effectively curtail space exploration after 2001.
It's an irresponsible budget that does terrible harm to
America's future."

Following a week of news celebrating space agency achievements,
many news sources have yet to catch up with the story. If you
disagree with the House Appropriations Committee markup you can
Write Your Representative about it.

- eWarrior (Kurt Jonach)

( The Web version has handy links to additional information
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mgs/MarsOnline4.htm )

The Electric Warrior
July 28, 1999





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

               The Crossing Point, Steven Greer & The Prophets

From: prophets@maui.net
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:15:43 -1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:53:00 -0400
Subject: The Crossing Point, Steven Greer & The Prophets


The Prophets Conferences explore the growing potential for a
reunion of science and spirituality, or science and
consciousness, and at the conference taking place August 27-29,
in the beautiful seaside location of Port Townsend, Washington,
Dr. Steven Greer will bring us closer to an understanding of
this union.  His research with the UFO phenomena assists us in a
number of ways, one in particular being the observation of a
powerful metaphor, that once understood could lead to
significant evolution..

The following published paper by Dr. Greer is a bit long for the
Internet, but it is well worth the reading.  For convenience,
you may want to download and print it.

At the conference Dr. Greer will be autographing copies of his
long awaited new book �Extraterrestrial Contact:  The Evidence
and Implications.�  He will be presenting a workshop and will he
will also be joining the unprecedented panel exploring �The UFO:
Anomaly, Reality, Implications� along with Dr. John Mack, Dr.
Edgar Mitchell, Joe Firmage, Dr. Robert Anton Wilson, John A.
Keel, and Marcia Schafer.

To get full information about this exceptional Port Townsend
Prophets Conference you may visit
http://www.greatmystery.org/prophets.html, or call us toll-free
at 1-888-777-5981 for a brochure.

Other outstanding conference presenters are Gregg Braden, Joan
Ocean, James Twyman, and Ilona Selke.

Aloha,
Cody
____________________________________________________________


Reprinted with permission of Contact Forum: The Journal of the
5th World, a bi-monthly journal of considered thought relating
to the coming transition into cosmic citizenship. $18.50/year
U.S. 800/366-0264.

THE CROSSING POINT
By Steven Greer, M.D.

Experience and observation combined with insight often yield a
new breakthrough into truth and the nature of reality.

Science (and the pursuit of truth in general) is a coordinated
blending of empirical observation with knowledge, intellect,
insight and often inspiration. And just as it is true that no
problem can be solved from the level of consciousness which
created it, so too insights into reality and the great
scientific developments seldom arise from the current milieu
alone but rather are born from something beyond the current
status quo. It is frequently resisted, even vilified, when
first brought forward--and the current high priests of science
are little changed from the Vatican hierarchy who condemned
Galileo.

In dealing with the question of ET life, this is true in
spades. Because the reality which we are pursuing is
intrinsically non-human, non-earthly and therefore outside the
tidy box of current scientific understanding. By definition,
any advanced non-human life form capable of interstellar travel
will possess technologies which will look like magic to us.
And if we view this quest through late twentieth century
anthropocentric eyes alone we are guaranteed to miss 99.9% of
the truth. Because the new truth always hovers just outside the
current view finder and even the lens of this viewfinder is
lamentably defective.

As we scan the heavens for intelligent life with our much
vaunted billion channel BETA system at Harvard have we paused
to consider that our instruments may be akin to smoke ring
detectors looking for us? That is, if our ancestors tried to
detect our civilization by looking for smoke signals rising
from the forests they would be rather disappointed. For we have
forsaken the smoke signals for TV and radio signals--but they
would lack the instruments to detect these exotic things called
electromagnetic signals.

Do we really imagine that ET life forms--who have evolved on
different planets around distant suns--would really be using
twentieth century human technologies? Could it be that--between
the era of smoke signals and something else--the era of radio
waves may be a very brief instant in time...a virtual fad, a
fleeting ephemera?

CSETI has spent literally thousands of hours with thousands of
people out under the stars observing phenomena, which can only
be described as extraordinary. And while we have some few
interesting pictures and videotapes of craft appearing and
disappearing from view, what has been really interesting could
not have been videotaped or photographed--indeed the best of it
perhaps could not have been measured at all.

This is because the really good stuff, if you will, has
occurred just barely in what may be termed conventional
reality. Much has happened on both sides of the crossing point
of light--but the most interesting has been on the other side.

UFOs of ET origin simply are not using our current
technologies--and if we try to detect and understand them
purely from within the tidy box of current scientific
knowledge, we are going to be sorely disappointed. Indeed, we
will miss 99.9% of the data, and the discovery will be hidden
by the fog in our own vision.

What will be presented in this paper will win us few friends.
It will be protested as nonsense and it will raise many more
questions than find answers. It will greatly disturb the status
quo and upset the hidebound. It will be used as evidence that
we have gone round the bend, as it were, and that the entire ET
matter is just so much hogwash, and so on and so forth. It has
been ever thus....

Nevertheless, while I have personally been extremely reluctant
to put on paper what follows for reasons, which will be
obvious, it is equally true that this information is the crux
of the mystery, and quite possibly the real lesson which the ET
phenomenon has to teach us. It is all about going to the next
step--in knowledge, in science, in truth and in personal
experience.  The observations and hypothesis which follow will
bring together the conventional empirical data of UFO reports
with the more bizarre "high strangeness" experiences of many
close encounters. Once a unified theory is understood which
bridges matter and mind, machine and consciousness, the
physical sciences with the emerging sciences of awareness and
thought then and only then will the disparate and seemingly
contradictory ET phenomena make some sense. We are stepping off
into a terrain which is our future--and a hidden current
reality, though it is largely unappreciated. Upon reading these
pages one may be confused as to whether this information is
science or spirituality or both or neither or....Chose your
label as you need it and as it makes you comfortable. Truth is
always beyond labels anyway.

There is no question that there are ET life forms which have
found this planet and have been observed for decades near or on
the Earth. Some think they have been around for hundreds of
years, even millennia, and still others think they have been
here for millions of years. What is certain is that they are
here now. The evidence for this is overwhelming and will not be
recounted here.

But consider these questions: How did they get here? How does
one travel through vast interstellar distances and get
someplace within a biological life form's natural lifetime? And
how does one communicate through such vast distances in real
time?

Consider: If an ET life form is from a star system 1000 light
years away (that is the distance a beam of light travels in
1000 years while moving at a speed of 186,000 miles per second)
it would take 1000 years for such a life form to get to Earth
traveling at the speed of light! And another 1000 years to get
home again. That is, traveling at the speed of light, it would
take at least 2000 years to make a round trip journey. This is
the time which has elapsed since the birth of Christ and it is
very unlikely that one life form would live long enough to get
here, never mind back home. And 1000 light years distance is in
our relatively nearby galactic neighborhood. Now lets consider
communications. Using radio, microwave, TV or any other
electromagnetic signal currently en vogue now on the Earth, it
would take this ET 1000 years (at the speed of light which is
how fast EM signals like radio waves travel) to communicate
back home once he arrived here. And another 1000 years for the
ET's home planet to answer back. Another 2000 years!

Obviously, any star-faring civilization, perforce, will have
developed technologies which operate outside of the current
twentieth century Earth gadgets in use today. Way outside, in
fact. So far outside that an entire ET craft could (probably
has) hovered right above the SETI radio survey project and they
never "saw" it. Why? We were looking with the wrong
instruments. We are trying to detect civilizations which are
not human with strictly 20th century current technologies. But
is there another way?

By definition, as you can see from the above analysis of the
time delay in "speed of light" travel and communications
systems, any ET civilization capable of getting here from
interstellar space will be using technologies which bypass
linear time/space as we know it. That is, they must drop out of
linear time space reality and actuate communication and travel
using technologies--and spectra of reality--way outside of the
electromagnetic spectrum currently being used by Harvard and
SETI to detect them.

Just as x-rays, gamma rays, UV radiation, infrared radiation,
radio waves and the like existed before we had instruments to
accurately measure them so too do spectra of reality utilized
by advanced ETs. That is, ETs are using aspects of the physical
universe which are beyond current non-covert scientific
instruments to adequately measure.

Remember, we did not invent gamma rays just because we finally
developed scientific instruments to detect them. Gamma rays
existed for eons before we 'discovered' them. They existed, but
since they were outside of the visible spectrum seen by the
human eye, they were not perceived.

Similarly, the ETs are here, but usually exist in spectra of
energy outside of current civilian instruments to measure them.
Occasionally they pop through/into our measurable reality and
end up being seen, photographed, land and even crash (or get
shot down). They then will leave traces on a radar scope, or
create a significant field flux in certain energy spectra, such
as microwave, ultrasound and the like. But then they are gone.
To....where? To...what? To...when?  Indeed, this is the real
challenge. After 35 years of observing these objects at various
times, I am convinced that through frequency shifts and very
high energy physics, these objects and the life forms within
them move between linear space time and other spectra of
physical energy and physical reality outside of current
detection capabilities. Some have called this inter-dimensional
or multi-dimensional shifting, verbiage only useful once
defined clearly. But once understood and experienced, you find
that it is other dimensional in the same way gamma rays would
have been supernatural to cavemen: in reality, all of these
'dimensions' are not so 'other' after all, but are part and
parcel of this reality and folded away within it.

Unfortunately, some researchers have concluded that the UFOs
are not ET but are rather inter-dimensional instead. It is
quite clear to us from our own direct research that they are
both.  That is, the nature of the ET reality is very much like
our own--only they are using a bit of a wider spectrum of
reality for travel, communication and related tasks. This wider
spectrum crosses over into phenomena which some have termed
inter-dimensional and the like, but in reality it is all
present within this reality, only it is finer, more subtle and
currently immeasurable by our scientific instruments in the
civilian arena. (Covert programs do have such capabilities.)

To bring this discussion into focus and tangible reality,
consider this account from a CSETI military witness.

One evening I got a phone call from a gentleman who had worked
in the Air Force and also with Kelly Johnson at Lockheed
Skunkworks. He had called ostensibly to offer to be one of the
CSETI military witnesses to UFO events--but his larger purpose
was to get my feedback on an experience which he had in the
early to mid 1960s. At that time he was studying a tradition
which helped people to have so-called out of body or astral
projection experiences. This is when the subtle or astral body
leaves the physical body and flies off somewhere. One day, his
teacher told him that he was ready to have such an experience
fairly soon, and that evening he indeed had his first OBE (out
of body experience). But what happened really surprised him.
After many disclaimers on his part to the effect that he was an
altogether sane and rational person, and apologizing in advance
for going into something so strange and bizarre, he related the
following:

As soon as he left his physical body, he shot up through the
ceiling of his house, into the space above--and then slammed
into the side of an ET spacecraft hovering somewhere high in
our atmosphere. As he did so, he literally rocked the
spacecraft (remember this is in his astral body) and popped
into the craft, whereupon he saw some ETs at a console who
looked over at him, saw him, and had an expression as if to
say, "My God, why don't you watch where you are going!"

I have no doubt that this man is telling me the absolute truth
about what he experienced. I have no doubt whatsoever that he
had an OBE, went out into the space above his house
uncontrollably, and slammed into an actual ET craft--which was
hovering in an energy form closely akin to whatever energy form
we are in when we have an OBE or a very lucid dream.  He rocked
the spacecraft with his astral body and the ETs inside saw him
(and he saw them). Now consider: what form of energy was this
military man in and what form were the ETs in? If the ETs were
the same as an angel or a ghost or the like, why would they be
in a technologically advanced spacecraft operating a computer
console? Angels do not need computers....  Now, this man--who
was very timid about relating this story to me because he
thought that I would consider him a crack pot of some type--was
surprised when I explained that this is a very common
experience and went further to explain the nature of ET
technologies as they function beyond the crossing point of
light. That is, the spectrum or aspect of physical energy which
ET craft and people are capable of shifting in and out of
approximates what the mystics and ancient traditions would call
the astral field or plane. That we cannot adequately detect and
measure this component of reality is no reason to dismiss
empirical observation and experience. After all, empirical
observation and experience is the mother of all science.
Remember Newton observing the apple falling from the tree.

But what is the connection between this so-called astral or
etheric aspect and ET technologies? And why are they related at
all?

To understand this we have to ask the question "What is beyond
the crossing point of light?" That is, what is beyond the light
barrier--what do you experience when you exceed the speed or
vibration of light and electrons and even subatomic particles?
What exists when you traverse that barrier and go beyond the
speed of light and the frequency and energy of matter?  By
definition any ET civilization which is here has interstellar
travel and communications capabilities. This means that they
operate on the other side of the light/matter barrier as easily
as we use radio signals and fly on jets. This is their reality
and world. This is their cell phone and automobile. This is
their existence technologically, theoretically and every-day
practically. But it sure looks like magic to us.

Consider this: When you traverse the veil of light, what do you
find? What is beyond the crossing point of light? How do the
physics work? What is space and time like? At that level, can
we measure a thought and call it a thoughtron? Can mind and
machine become integrated and operate seamlessly? What is life
like there? What is experience like? How would we know that
reality?

To begin to address these issues, however briefly, we must
elucidate a cosmology which can accommodate the observed facts
and experiences from both sides of the crossing point of
light/matter. Here, I must digress into my own understanding of
reality, inwardly and outwardly, and will ask for your patience
in advance. This discussion will take us into areas which make
many uncomfortable, especially those with scientific
backgrounds or very conventional religious backgrounds.   What
I share here is admittedly from my own experience and
background and so I ask your forbearance in considering the
ideas and terminology which follows.  First, let me state my
bias: That God exists and is omnipresent in every way
imaginable. Now, this is quite counter to my up-bringing and
training since I was raised a very devout atheist by parents
who did not believe anything existed which could not be
measured in a test tube. Nevertheless, my experience has shown
otherwise and at any rate God exists whether we acknowledge Him
or not...

Therefore, the cosmology which I present below factors into the
equation the universal component of mind, which some may call
the impersonal aspect of God. The Great Mind, the Universal
Mind, the Pre-existent Mind, the Absolute.

As I have come to understand this cosmos, the basis of all
existence--every atom, every star, every molecule and every
person--is a non-local essence which is present at every point
in time and space and yet is bound by no point in space or time
or matter. This essence is awake, intelligent and knowing. It
is conscious. It is mind. It is the awakeness of awareness, the
undifferentiated pure intelligence and mind of the universe. It
is present in every blade of grass and pervades the vacuum of
space and the farthest reaches of the universe--and yet it
cannot be divided or localized to one point in space or time or
matter. That is, it is a unitive state, present always, but
indivisible, and its effect is to create a oneness without the
possibility of division. Its effect also, once recognized, is
to make everything non-local, that is every point in space and
time is a window, an entry point to every other point in space
and time. The permeating, integrating aspect of this
intelligent essence is such that all that exists is always
connected and actually accessible through this non-local,
integrated aspect of existence.

The structure of existence is that this non-local, conscious
and intelligent component of existence is unchangeable and is
unaffected by relativity or changes in space, time, matter and
so forth. And yet paradoxically it is very present in every
grain of sand and every galaxy -only in a form which is always
one, indivisible and whole.

Through its organizing and integrating aspects, non-locality
exists at the very local level, whether one considers the
microscopic or macroscopic level of existence. That is, the
cosmos is integrated in such a fashion that there is absolute
integration at every level--and so the mystics were right when
they said that one could behold the cosmos in a drop of water.

 >From this Pre-existent, Absolute field of intelligence and
consciousness emerges all else. Again, paradoxically, the
unified field of consciousness and intelligence, while
indivisible, is present at every level, no matter how small or
large. The Absolute remains the Absolute--and yet it is present
in every quark--but not bound or limited or divided by the
quark.

For this wonderful Nothingness (which is the fullness of
absolute awareness) to give rise to the expressed cosmos, with
all of its stars and galaxies and atoms and peoples, a creative
process exists which is at once simple and elegantly complex.
That is, from the plane of the Absolute--that pervasive,
ever-present and indivisible state- creation comes forth and is
maintained by what has been termed the Creator aspect of God.
The critical elements of this process are will, the sound
component of thought, then the visual component of thought and
then the structural aspect of the astral world and then the
matrix of the material world, expanding and encompassing the
entirety of the universe.

The Creator aspect of the Absolute, through the operation of
His Will, creates the cosmos from very subtle to very material
as follows:

* The sound component of pure idea-forms/thought give rise to
the aspect (you may think dimension if you must) of the
universal which is the sound quality of the idea/thought for
each and every created thing--whether an ant or a galaxy.
Evolution and change occurs around and through the blueprint of
this initial idea form of creation. The entirety of the cosmos
exists as and through this sound component of thought. The
essence of non-local, omnipresent mind/intelligence is present
at this and every stage which follows. In some traditions, this
idea/sound component or form of the entire universe and
everything within it is called the 'causal or causative world'.
In Biblical and other traditions I believe this is what is
meant by the Word of God, 'In the beginning there was the
Word...'.

* The sound/idea component of thought then gives rise to a less
abstract but still very fine and subtle aspect which some have
called 'astral' but which I prefer to regard as the
conscious-intelligent visual (CIV). This aspect, which has
within it the blueprint causal or idea/thought/ sound of the
causal world, is more defined and is 'seen' or visible as
expressed thought-related forms. It is vast and beautiful and
many lucid dreams involve interactions with that realm or
aspect. The military man who had the out of body experience had
an astral or CIV body interaction with an ET craft, which was
phase shifted primarily into this energy form or aspect (more
on this later).

* Absolute, undifferentiated Mind, together with the causal
idea/sound/thought form and the CIV or astral form create a
matrix which supports or gives rise to the so-called material
universe. The blue-print, if you will, of ideas/thought/sound
and subtle CIV form actually supports and helps create the more
gross or expressed material universe. But the material universe
has within it the unitive, indivisible Absolute mind, as well
as the causal and CIV aspects. Indeed, each and every aspect of
the expressed material universe which science can study and
measure with current instruments has associated with it all of
these finer aspects or spectra of energy. It is incorrect to
regard, therefore, these aspects as purely distant 'other
dimensions' since the warp and woof of the material cosmos is
conscious, thought form based and has an astral or CIV matrix
within it (or associated with it).

This rather brief and simple overview admittedly leaves out a
number of details, best left to another treatment. However, it
should be noted that at each level described above there are
many gradations and expressions of detail. That is, the causal
and CIV aspects have within them a multitude of
differentiations, expressions and laws of function much like
the material cosmos has fine sub-atomic particles and vast
swirling galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Indeed, the details
and laws affecting these vast realms dwarf those of the
material cosmos and it is too obtuse a matter to elucidate in
this paper.

The human being (and this would include other non-homo-sapiens
higher intelligent life forms, i.e. ETs) has every aspect (or
dimension) folded within him. Human consciousness, or spirit,
is always connected, however unknowingly by the individual, to
the Absolute conscious being. In fact, as mentioned earlier,
consciousness or pure mind in its essential aspect is simply
that whereby we are awake--or that whereby we are. It is a
unitive state and is not divisible. It is always essentially
one with the Absolute, but we are trained to see only
multiplicity and separation. Thus individuation overwhelms the
unitive state--and we think we are separate. It is a perceptual
defect which the practices of all religions, in the form of
rituals, prayer and meditation, attempt to correct.

An ancient Sufi tradition attributed to Ali states "Thinkest
thyself a puny form when within thee the universe is folded?"
This rhetorical question serves as a reminder of the
holographic nature of mind and the human being's potential
place in the universe: Through the experience of the non-local,
omnipresent aspect of mind or consciousness, every aspect of
the universe can be directly accessed and experienced. This is
because the non-local aspect of consciousness is essential to
awareness itself. It is always 'there' and need only be
experienced.

This aspect or nature of mind is why people occasionally have
spontaneous experiences of non-locality: They will have a dream
and the next day, or the next year, the events perceived in the
dream will unfold precisely as seen. How can this happen?  The
nature of mind is that it is unitive, indivisible and present
at every point in time and space--but bound or limited by no
aspect of space or time. This means that both distant points in
space and time can be accessed through this faculty. Human
history is filled with such accounts, and while they are
generally dismissed as curiosities by modern day science, in
fact they hold the key to understanding the next great leap in
scientific exploration: The study of consciousness and
non-local reality.

In the lucid dream, the individual experiences increasing
non-locality as the so-called astral or CIV aspect of the
person awakens or perceives a distant point in space and/or
time. This is less mysterious once we understand that mind or
consciousness is always existing in its basic nature as a
unitive state which transcends the limits of both time and
space. Through it, any point in space and time can be accessed,
at first one at a time. This should not be confused with the
prerogatives and powers of God however. God, the Absolute
universal mind, knows all things at all times and at all
places, all at once, all of the time. But the individual
person, through the faculties described above and by the very
nature of the unitive state of mind, which is essential to his
basic awareness, can experience precognition, inspiration,
intuition, remote viewing and the like.

Dr. Robert Jahn at Princeton University has studied another
aspect of this non-locality of consciousness as it pertains to
mechanical systems. The reader should study the results of
these experiments which demonstrate that mind and thought,
directed for example at a random number generator, can affect
the outcome of the device. This can be accomplished because
there is a nexus or link between awareness and matter: the warp
and woof of matter is woven in with consciousness and in fact
is simply mind-stuff expressed at a different frequency. Thus,
an individual can affect his body, another person's health
through prayer and visualization or even mechanical systems via
thought and consciousness.

Dr. Larry Dossey and others have collected many interesting
scientific studies which demonstrate this non-local nature of
mind or of reality. The reader should study these for a fuller
understanding. History is filled with accounts of such enigmas:
the person in prayer who spontaneously levitates, the adept who
can materialize or dematerialize objects or teleport objects
across the room etc. While easy to dismiss as anecdotal or
superstitious tales, the history of humanity as well as recent
scientific experiments clearly establish that consciousness is
non-local, can operate outside of time and space as we define
it and can clearly affect distant inanimate objects or
machines.

This is easily understood once the basic cosmology is
appreciated: Consciousness is never divided, is present
everywhere, is never limited by space or time and yet
paradoxically is present at every point in space and time--in
every atom and throughout every galaxy. Thus, the interface
between consciousness and matter is essential, not contrived or
difficult. Actuating events, then, becomes a matter of working
in this nexus.  In previous papers I have discussed some of the
unusual technological manifestations of ETs in recent times.
Many of these aspects of ET activity get left out of reports or
get suppressed even by main stream UFO organizations and
researchers because they are so far out of the 'box' of
conventional scientific norms. But it is precisely these
unusual manifestations of ET technology which should interest
us the most: They are the ones which will open the door to new
understandings of the universe which make our current
scientific knowledge look like kindergarten musings.

Back to the main problem: How are ET craft and personnel
traversing the vastness of interstellar space and time? Well,
it turns out that the rigidity of that vastness of space
becomes quite flexible and can be largely bypassed once you
frequency shift to the other side of the light barrier. In one
quantum movement, the ET craft and all its occupants phase
shift to a finer aspect of the cosmology outlined above, and
exist then in an aspect or dimension which is more non-local
than the material universe known to modern science. That is,
the observed phenomenon of these objects which often seem to
disappear and then reappear instantly at a considerable
distance is due to the fact that they can phase shift in and
out of the fixed time/space material aspect to one which is
inherently more non-local. (Yes, non-locality is relatively
relative.)

 >From what I have observed, this is done through very high
energy physics and electronics which literally phase shift, in
one quantum leap, the material ET craft and all its occupants
into an aspect of the cosmology which closely approximates what
was described above as astral or CIV. This is done through a
complex interaction between powerful rotating electromagnetic
fields and the gravitational field and mass inertia. When the
craft is on this side of the crossing point of light, it is
seen like any other material, manufactured object, but it can
maneuver in ways which appear to negate mass inertia and
gravity. Once it phase shifts onto the other side of the
crossing point of light/matter, it seems to disappear. But it
has not. It is in that place beyond our SETI Beta radio wave
survey--the place where our military contact bumped into them
in his astral body!

While in that form or energy spectrum (or dimension) the craft
can hover, or move within the material universe at many, many
multiples of the speed of light. The velocity is
non-relativistic, at least as measured on this side of the
light barrier. However, 1000 light years will not be traversed
instantly because there is an element of 'drag' as it moves in
this aspect through the material cosmos. Put another way, there
is a component of the object which adheres to the underbelly of
the material cosmos and there is a coefficient of cosmic drag
which prevents the transport from being instantaneous across
vast interstellar distances. Operating, then, in a sort of
'junction' between aspects (or dimensions) the ET craft can
phase between either. Actually, it can also be partially in
both.

The spacecraft then can be hovering outside the SETI
Institute--and remain undetected by them unless it pops into
the material aspect fully and then only if the people in the
building bother to look outside, see the device- and honestly
report it.

Similarly, ET communications systems are ones which interface
with mind, thought and computerized telemetry. For decades,
people have reported having what has been dismissed as
telepathic experiences with UFOs. As soon as such accounts are
admitted to, the scientific community howls and tosses out the
entire case. Alas, they have tossed out the baby and the bath
water. As Dr. Jahn and Dr. Dossey and others have demonstrated,
mind and thought can interface with and affect material--even
technological--systems. What is obvious from 35 years of
experience with this phenomenon is that ET communication
protocols are not using AT&T microwave systems to communicate
in real time through interstellar distances. This cannot be
done. They are using computerized systems which are advanced
enough to interact directly with thought and consciousness, and
by so doing access non-local spectra of energy, thus bypassing
linear time and space.

Literally thousands of people have had interactions with these
objects which have a thought/matter or telepathic component to
them. I feel that we dismiss such accounts at our peril, as we
may be slamming the door on the next great science: the science
of consciousness and its interface with material and
technological systems.

Do not confuse these systems with current human experiments
with brain wave activity and links to computers: those are
still using electromagnetic energy which only travels at the
speed of light. The ET systems referred to here operate on the
other side of the crossing point of light and, while
technologically facilitated, interface with thought and mind
directly. Through such a system, information can be instantly
transmitted through millions of light years of space since the
non-local aspect of mind, thought and energy are being
utilized. The communication systems do not have real time
delays due to the coefficient of cosmic drag mentioned above.

Essentially, there are spectra of energy which are
sub-electromagnetic and sub-materialbut which are nevertheless
very real and very physical. The use of the term meta-physical
in relation to this area is very incorrect and time-restricted:
A hologram or a flashlight would be metaphysical or
supernatural to a human 500 years ago! This is a key point,
that the energy and spectra of energy referred to here are
naturally occurring aspects of the creation. They are all
around us and within us. It is not "other." It is not
supernatural. It is not metaphysical. It has simply not be
studied and understood adequately by modern science--and it has
been by advanced ET civilizations which are interstellar
competent.

There are numerous accounts, dating back for decades, of very
ordinary humans seeing one of these ET craft and directly
interacting with it by thought alone. That is, the person may
think 'Oh, I wish it would move to the right' and the craft
will move to the right, or as it starts to leave he may think,
'I wish it would turn around and come back' whereupon it
immediately stops, turns and comes over.   A few such accounts
may be dismissed as coincidence. But there are so many of them
that empirically one must reach the assessment that these
objects have telemetry capabilities which can interface with
directed thought.

As I have written elsewhere, this class of ET technologies may
be viewed generally as consciousness assisted technologies
(CAT) and technology assisted consciousness (TAC). That is,
their technologies utilize that nexus referred to above where
mind/conscious thought interface technologically and
reproducibly with matter, machine, communication devices etc.
CAT is when the individual (or group) consciousness and thought
assists or interfaces with a receptive device. TAC is when a
device augments, projects or assists an individual or group's
consciousness or thought.

For example, CSETI has located a former Bell Labs/Lucent
Technologies scientist who, more than 35 years ago, while
working on a covert research project, was given an ET
communication device by a general. This scientist was asked to
study and reverse engineer the device--that is, take it apart
and figure out how it worked. Here is his story.

Upon receiving the device, which was a round object about the
size of a grapefruit, dark and textured on the surface, it
began to 'speak' to him directly in his awareness with thought.
He was startled by this--especially when the device mentally
told him that the people who had asked him to study the object
had malice in their hearts and that the scientist should
destroy the device!  After struggling with what to do about
this conundrum, the scientist 'accidentally' over-heated the
device in an experiment and it was destroyed (at least
materially). But after it was destroyed, he heard one last
thought which said 'Thank you...'.

I know that this sounds very strange. But the strangest things
are true, and this account is one of those very strange but
true accounts. We may wish to run at light away speed from such
information--and go back to our radio signals. But the future
is here and if we do not meet it wisely others--like the
general who originally provided the device--will hijack the
future to places where we do not want to go.

Over the past 8 years, CSETI has gone all over the world
pursuing this phenomenon and observing its manifestations.
Others are better at photography, landing traces and the like.
There are dozens of day light photographs of these devices.
There is radar evidence. There are over 4000 landing traces
documented by Ted Phillips. Dr. Richard Haines has hundreds of
pilot accounts of these objects.

Our purpose has been to interact with these ETs on their level.
To consider what their reality is and to go there. It is an
experiment and an experience. It has been mind-blowing for all
concerned.

Over these 8 years we have had experiences and seen phenomena
which involve every aspect of what has been described
qualitatively in this paper. A brief listing of this phenomena
follows:

* RV x 2. (See CSETI training materials) Our experiment, the
CE-5 Initiative, involves numerous protocols, some obvious and
practical, some very experimental and immensely controversial.
One of the controversial protocols involves group access to
non-local consciousness followed by remotely viewing (through
consciousness) ET craft or persons which may be at a great
distance or which may be nearby and phase--shifted beyond the
visible spectrum of human sight. Once an object or person is
'locked on' and viewed, the process is reversed and the object
or person is directed to the CSETI research site via CIV /
visual thought component vectoring. That is, the ET
object/person is shown clearly our coordinates and location via
the CIV component discussed earlier. The CSETI research
experiment in this protocol attempts to RV (remote view via
consciousness) the ET object, connect to its CAT telemetry
system and vector or guide the object to our exact location.
Essentially, we are doing in a dynamic, applied setting what
Dr. Jahn is doing at the Princeton PEAR lab experimentally:
Connecting clearly directed conscious- visual thought to ET
communications devices and attempt to do so with adequate
precision so that they see us and we see them, and a trajectory
is established for contact.

I am quite aware how ridiculous this may seem to some. But this
is an experiment which not infrequently results in a object
popping in over head--or more. While using lights, lasers and
radio signals to vector and confirm contact, the core of the
protocol does involve CAT (and often in response from the ETs
TAC--see below).

Key to RV x 2 are the following components:

1. Human access to the non-local component of consciousness

2. Remote viewing of ET objects or persons with accuracy

3. Connecting to ET CAT communication systems while in the CIV
mode of awareness

4. Clearly vectoring (guiding) the ET object into the research
site area through sequential and coherent visual thought which
shows the site from deep space down to the specific details of
the site.

5. RV'ing the response if any from the ETs prior to appearance
(interactive RV mode)

The entire protocol is done with the clear intent to establish
peaceful contact and relations with these life forms.

During RV x 2 often more than one person will 'lock on' to the
same object or life form and receive the same information
regarding its location and/or time and place of appearance.
This information is regarded as unconfirmed unless an actual
event seen by the group confirms it.  As a result, during these
experiments around the world, we have had the following general
types of experiences which demonstrate the technologies
referred to earlier:

* Sudden appearance of large structured craft (discs, triangles
etc.) which 'pop in' and then vanish in seconds and even a
fraction of a second, but which is witnessed by multiple people

* Longer term appearance of objects, up to many minutes, which
then disappear (phase shift out of visible/material perception)

* Intelligent probes consisting of ball shaped objects, of
various colors, which come over and even within the group and
which are not only intelligently controlled, but are themselves
conscious and intelligent (advance AI--artificial
intelligence). Usually these are translucent to slightly opaque
red, blue, green or golden spheres ranging in size from 6
inches to 1-2 feet. They interact consciously with the
individual or group and then vanish. They are most likely
demonstrations of TAC where the consciousness and thought (even
personality) of an ET on board a craft is technologically
assisted and projected in a controlled fashion into the group.

* Anomalous beeping or high pitched tones which have an
omni-directional component, as if heard from all directions at
once. Often these occur after projecting over radio waves the
CSETI beeping tones which are routinely transmitted from the
site.

* Anomalous electromagnetic effects (EM) on equipment, cars
etc. Often, equipment will fail with a close approach of an ET
craft, as happened in Mexico in 1993 when an 800 foot diameter
silent triangle approached the group and all camera and other
electronic equipment failed. Other manifestations include
setting off radar detectors, laser detectors, car electronics
dimming down or browning out, electrostatic energy on peoples'
skin or clothing. On multiple occasions my compass has rotated
counter-clockwise around the dial as a counter-clockwise
rotating craft has approached. During one CIV/Material
interface case (see below) the compass changed magnetic north
to almost due south (off 160*) and remained that way for nearly
3 months. It now works perfectly fine (until the next very
close encounter!)

* Fast-walker interactions. Frequently, after RV x 2, the group
will experience multiple objects which initially appear to be
satellites--but which interact with directed thoughts or
signals. For example, a high flying object will, as soon as a
thought command is given, stop or change directions abruptly.
Satellites do not back up, make right hand turns or descend
suddenly and get brighter while interacting with people on the
ground. These types of events have been witnessed by dozens of
people during multiple CSETI research events.

* CIV/Material interface phenomena. This is a broad category of
phenomena when ET objects are just on the other side of the
crossing point of light and matter--and begin to "bleed through"
to this aspect or dimension. Frequently the team will observe
sudden strobe-like light discharges all around us. These are not
retinal firings from the eye since multiple people see them at
the same instance. Subsequently, the form of an ET craft or even
individual will appear faintly and then will form -as if some
type of shimmering electronic hologram. These have appeared
within the group itself or within a few feet from the group.
During such very close encounters there are often multiple
phenomena occurring: RV'ing of objects along with visual
perception of scintillating craft or people, AI probes coming
into the group and anomalous sounds being experienced. Not
infrequently, participants will report being touched by someone,
but when they look only a faint shimmering glow is seen. During
prolonged events of this type, an unusual time/space dilation or
contraction will occur: time seems to stand still--or proceed
very quickly and the space around the group becomes more
defined. These types of encounters have had durations of over 2
hours or may be very fleeting. In England in 1998, near Alton
Barnes, after first seeing a very large circular craft on
separate nights which would pop in and disappear in seconds, the
group had the same object descend around them in a
scintillating, sparkling form complete with discreet areas of ET
life forms seen shimmering, spaced between each person in the
group! The temperature of the setting raised at least 10-15*
Fahrenheit. All participants saw the object and the life forms.
None of them were fully "hard" material, but rather remained
only partly in this dimension.

In 1997, while in England on a training expedition, my trusted
colleague Shari Adamiak and I were upstairs in a room in the
manor house which we had leased. The remainder of the team,
about 6 people, were out on the manor grounds. Suddenly, I saw a
blue white light or object fly through the closed window and
into the room. It hovered over by the fireplace and then
expanded to become a shimmering ET about 3 feet tall, as if a
subtle electronic hologram had appeared. It was conscious and
sentient. It was just barely material and visible, but clearly
so. This was an AI projection of the consciousness and
CIV/astral form of an ET which had been projected into the room.
What the other team members saw from outside (they were not
initially aware that we were in that room and did not learn of
our experience until the following morning) was a blue white
object swooping down from the sky and flying into the window of
the room where we were located. They all saw this object, but
were unaware of the further experiences which Shari and I had
with the person. This is another good example of TAC.

* Lucid dream state interaction with ET craft and / or persons.
Because the ET technological reality allows them to move
seamlessly between the CIV dimension and this material one, and
since their communications systems prefer CIV transmission
modes, frequently individuals (and sometimes more than one
individual) will have a detailed interaction during the dream
state. Remember that the CIV/astral component and technologies
which interface with that energy spectrum allow for easy
interface with the dream state since the lucid dream state is
the activation of the CIV/astral body or component of an
individual. ETs can interface as easily with that aspect as we
pick up a phone and call New York. It is my opinion that the
most common way in which ETs have interacted with individual
humans is in lucid dreams and not material contact (bodily
contact). While material contact has occurred, it is risky and
unnecessary once these more subtle technologies are mastered and
understood. Once it is appreciated that the CIV/astral spectrum
is the preferred field through which ETs must pass for
interstellar communication and travel--and that it is the same
spectrum activated or used in a lucid dreamit is easy to see why
so many people report this type of experience. The RV x 2
protocol described above is a conscious activation of expanded
awareness and CIV component to deliberately interface with ET
technologies and individuals.

* ET craft transfer through solid matter. On more that one
occasion we have observed solid appearing ET objects or craft
(daytime sightings with the sun shining off the metal surface)
pass directly into a mountain without crashing. This is
accomplished by a frequency shift in the material of the craft
so that it can mesh or pass through matter of traditional
density without actually affecting either. That is, a frequency
phase shift allows one solid object to pass through another
without interacting. Remember that most of what we call 'solid
matter' is not solid at all--it is mostly space (or
something--hint: see the cosmology outlined above). This
phenomenon has been reported for decades and has caused some to
dismiss such accounts as 'ghost-like' or poltergeist. Actually,
it is only another expression of ET technologies operating on a
more profound or subtle level of existence which can alter the
frequency of matter (they can also alter time/space
relationships as well through similar means). I should also
point out that covert military sources known by me personally
have testified to the fact that at least by 1953 human secret
projects were materializing and dematerializing objects and
transferring them across defined spaces. If we were doing this
covertly by 1953, one can only imagine what advance interstellar
ET technologies can achieve.

This list could go on much further but what is described above
should give the reader a sense of how unusual manifestations of
ET technology may be. From the above, it is easy to understand
why ET events can be confused with phenomena which originate
from the CIV/astral or causal level, that is are not ET but have
components of the same manifestations. No wonder the literature
is filled with confusing accounts of ETs, angels, ghosts and
strange phenomena of all stripes, all lumped in together. Of
course, modern man would look like something supernatural to
people a few hundred years ago: imagine showing up at a church
meeting in Salem Massachusetts in 1692 with a cell phone, a
hologram, a satellite TV and a Range Rover. You would be burned
at the stake as a witch forthwith!

Still, it is important to keep in mind that the cosmos contains
many levels of existence. There are CIV/astral and causal worlds
and beings which are not ET. And yet there are ETs which some or
much of the time interface with and utilize aspects of the
physical cosmos which are in those subtle realms.

It should also be remembered that not all ETs may be so
advanced. Given the billions of galaxies each with billions of
stars, it is likely that some ETs are the equivalent of human
cave men while others may be at our level of evolution and yet
others are millions of years more advanced than we are today.
For those at the SETI Institute, may you find those ETs which
are at our level and which are primarily still using linear
radio wave technologies. Odds are, there are some out there.

But know this: ETs far advanced beyond radio signals and
internal combustion engines do exist. They are here. They may be
all around us. Let us open our minds and our eyes to the
extraordinary opportunity that hovers right in front of us. For
most of what is exists beyond the veil--through the crossing
point of light. And it awaits our exploration.

________________________________________________________________

Complete Prophets Conference Information is Available for you
at: http://www.greatmystery.org/prophets.html You may request
The Prophets Conference Brochure by calling toll-free
1-888-777-5981 and leaving your name and address, or by emailing
axiom@greatmystery.org.

Thank you for forwarding this information to your friends and
member lists.

Questions, unsubscribe, subscribe, inquiries, comments, issues?
Send email to Cody@greatmystery.org





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                  Thank You

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:41:46 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:17:38 -0400
Subject: Thank You


Thank you from Jerry Black

I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every
one of you who took the time to E-mail me concerning my Open
Letter on the 50th anniversary of UFOlogy.

85% of my E-mail was in support of what I had to say, and I
really appreciate that. I also certainly appreciate those people
whose replies I did not necessarily agree with. I am always
interested in hearing from everyone pro or con about anything I
put on the internet, which is why I include my phone number and
address so that I can be easily accessible to those who have
questions about what I have to say.

So again, thanks to one and all for the E-mails I received
concerning my Open Letter on the 50th Anniversary of UFOlogy.

Sincerely,

JERRY BLACK
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107 (513)
625-2613

Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/

YOU CAN E-MAIL JERRY BLACK AT
blackhole60@hotmail.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                    'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:02:01 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:40:47 -0400
Subject: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'


Mr. Jerome Clark;

I will respond to your petty complaints about my not referring
to Mr. Bruce Maccabee as Dr. Bruce Maccabee. In checking with a
young lady in the UFO field who is also an English scholar, she
has informed me that you are certainly correct about my use of
the terms 'Mister' and 'Doctor.' If I am going to use the word
"Mister" before Bruce Maccabee's name, that would be incorrect.
It should be "Doctor" Bruce Maccabee. I thank you for making
that English correction for me. However, she also told me that
if I do not use the word "Mister," and simply refer to him as
Bruce or Bruce Maccabee, it is perfectly acceptable not to use
the term "Doctor" in front of his name. This is what I will do
from this point forward: I will refer to him as Bruce or Bruce
Maccabee. Thank you for correcting me with this English lesson.

I would now like to refer to remarks you made about my comments
concerning the "self-proclaimed leaders of ufology".

You knew exactly what I meant, however I will explain that for
you and to all the internet readers. The "self-proclaimed
leaders of ufology" are those who appear most frequently on TV,
or appear at most of the UFO symposiums throughout the country.
In my opinion, you cannot go to any UFO symposium in the country
without seeing one or sometimes three of these people at that
particular symposium. So in my opinion, those "self-proclaimed
leaders of ufology" are those that the general public listens to
or hears most, whether it be on TV, radio or major symposia.
These people would be: Stanton Friedman, Budd Hopkins, Kevin
Randle, Linda Moulton Howe, Bruce Maccabee, Whitley Strieber and
Walt Andrus (even though Walt Andrus does not appear on national
television or radio frequently, he is a major figure in ufology,
being the leader of one of largest UFO organizations in
America).

Those people, Mr. Jerome Clark, are people I call the
"self-appointed leaders of ufology."

The general public looks to these people for the answers to
those cases that they see on national TV or radio: such as the
autopsy video, the Whitley Strieber story, or the Jonathon Reed
story (he claimed, on the Art Bell radio program to have killed
an alien). The public looks to these people to let them know
which of these stories are credible and which are not credible.
They certainly cannot depend on the television networks, with
shows such as Sightings and most recently the NBC special
Confirmation. The television media certainly does not lend
itself to giving the general public an objective look at the
national cases and letting them know, from an investigative
standpoint, whether these stories are credible or not. They are
not interested in credibility, as I have said many, many times
before, they are interested in ratings. The Whitley Strieber
show Confirmation was produced with no intent to authenticate
the Strieber claim of experiences with the visitors. Just
because he has written a book and is a well-established author,
they decided to do a special on TV using him as an executive
producer. So the general public cannot rely on TV to give them
the true answer to the cases that we see on TV and are written
in books.

Therefore, the general public relies on the Mutual UFO Network,
the Center for UFO Studies, and the "self-appointed leaders of
ufology."  In my opinion, neither of these aforementioned are
doing their jobs at keeping the general public informed of which
cases are credible and which cases do not deserve attention. I
also do not think the Mutual UFO Network and the "self-appointed
leaders of ufology" are doing a good, sound, scientific and
objective job when they do investigate these cases.

As you stated, Mr. Jerome Clark, your organization does not have
the time or money to really get into investigating current cases
out there in ufology, besides the fact of putting your opinion
of cases in your monthly journal. So I am not accusing you of
not doing a good job of investigating current cases, because as
you have told me: you are not doing "any" job of investigating
current UFO cases. You are simply making small reports in your
journal which are merely opinions.

While your friendship with some of these "self-proclaimed
leaders of ufology" may keep you from making certain remarks
about their work, it certainly doesn't stop me. I will continue
to keep making remarks that I feel is necessary as long as they
continue to do the job they are doing at this particular time.

I, however, agree with you that there are many people out there
who do a tremendous job who hardly get any ink, get no time on
national radio or TV, but do a tremendous job in trying to help
find the answer to the UFO phenomena. Some of those people are:
Jenny Randles, Tom Dueley, Ray Fowler, Dan Wright, Tom Adams,
Glenn Joyner, Mark Rodheigher, Rex Salisberry, and the list
could go on and on. But these people, because of family or other
responsibilities, do not have the time needed to allow
themselves to be leaders in the field of ufology and attend the
national symposia in the country, or to appear on national TV
or radio. I wish that some of these people would do so.

But, for the time being, we have to deal with those "self
proclaimed leaders of ufology" and the work they are doing.

Finally, Mr. Clark, you have said that honorable men have come
down on both sides of the case in Gulf Breeze, Florida. I
certainly agree that all the gentlemen and ladies mentioned as
"self-proclaimed leaders of ufology" are likely honorable
people, some of whom have earned Ph.D.'s. All that means is that
honorable men and women, some of whom have Ph.D's, can at times
be lousy UFO investigators.

Sincerely,
Jerry Black
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107 (513)
625-2613

Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/

YOU CAN E-MAIL JERRY BLACK AT
blackhole60@hotmail.com





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                                Bell Lawsuits

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:38:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:01:03 -0400
Subject: Bell Lawsuits


Tuesday, July 27, 1999
Copyright � Las Vegas Review-Journal
Host of talk show claims threats from former guests
By Carri Geer
Review-Journal


Radio talk show host Art Bell claims two former guests have
threatened him and caused him to fear for his safety since he
filed a defamation lawsuit against them in May.

Bell obtained temporary protective orders June 21 in Pahrump
Justice Court against Colorado resident David John Oates and
Montana resident Robert A.M. Stephens.

A justice of the peace is expected to decide Aug. 19 whether
those one-month orders will be extended for a year, as Bell has
requested.

"Five witnesses have now come forward and described Oates as an
angry and potentially mentally ill individual who believes he is
Jesus Christ, uses drugs, owns firearms, may have killed in the
past, and has repeatedly threatened the physical safety of Bell
and threatened to burn down his home," according to one court
document Bell filed last week. "Absolutely nothing has changed
since this court issued its protective order that would relieve
Mr. Bell's fears."

Oates, reached Monday afternoon on his cellular phone as he
drove to a lecture in Salt Lake City, emphatically denied the
allegations, although he admitted he owns firearms.

"I don't think there's a crime in that in America, is there?"
asked Oates, a native of Australia.

Another court document, also filed last week by Bell, claims
Stephens has pledged to gather 500 people for a "sit-in" at the
talk show host's home in Pahrump.

"In addition, Stephens has continued to post threats and abusive
language on the Internet that is directed at Bell," the document
alleges.

It further claims Stephens physically abused his ex-wife, who
obtained a protective order against him in Montana. Stephens
could not be reached for comment Monday.

Oates, who bills himself as a specialist in the field of
"reverse speech" -- the analysis of taped speech played backward
-- said he was shocked when he learned Bell had obtained a
protective order against him. He has asked the court to dissolve
it.

"The protective order is absolutely ridiculous," he said. "It's
stupid. I never go to Nevada."

Oates claimed Bell sought the orders to bolster his defamation
case and garner publicity. He denied threatening Bell either
directly or indirectly.

"I have no intentions of doing any harm to Bell," he said.

Bell filed a $60 million lawsuit in May in Los Angeles County
Superior Court that accuses Oates and Stephens of slandering him
by falsely describing him as a pedophile and child pornographer.
Since then, the case has been moved to federal court, and Oates
has filed a countersuit against Bell.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:05:23 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:19:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


Mr. Joe Murgia:

I certainly disagree with your analysis that we have to prove
every one of Ed Walters' photographs to be a hoax. We have
proven conclusively through the work of Mr. William G. Hyzer
[and his son James] that photograph #19, the famous road-shot,
is without question, a double exposure.

Mr. William G. Hyzer was given 10-photographs. In his
preliminary report, he stated of the other nine photos, that
while not being able to conclusively prove that they were double
exposures, also showed signs of double exposure. This leaves us
with a final conclusion, Mr. Murgia: photograph #19 has been
conclusively proven to be a hoax. All the other photographs thus
taken by Ed Walters are all suspect.

There is no other evidence to support the validity of the Ed
Walters photographs. Ed Walters has refused to take a polygraph
test given not only by myself, but by Rex Salisberry and also
one of the editors of the leading newspaper in the Gulf Breeze
area.

Referring now to your comments about Art Hufford and the object
he saw; Mr. Hufford saw an object in the sky for a few seconds.
His wife, who was interviewed by another UFO investigator,
stated that she only saw the object briefly, for a split second.
Because her husband was driving, she claimed that he could see
it for only a split second also. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hufford
produced a drawing for anyone and everyone to see. This drawing
was shown in an article about the Gulf Breeze/Ed Walters case in
UFO Magazine some years ago. Again, Mr. Art Hufford stated to a
UFO researcher -by telephone- that he did not see any windows on
the object. His wife also stated during the interview with a UFO
researcher, that she did not see any window on the object. All I
am saying to you, Mr. Murgia, is that I watched Art Hufford on
national TV at least two -possibly three- times, saying: "Ed, I
saw the same thing you saw."

Obviously, we have to go by the facts that we have. And the
facts are very clear: while Bruce Maccabee tries to imply that
the size and shape of the object were similar to Ed's makes no
difference, Art Hufford and his wife perceived -in a split
second- an unusual object which had no windows on it.

Thus, when Art Hufford was on national TV twice saying that he
saw the same thing Ed Walters saw, he was lying and continues
that story to this day.

You will have to call Art Hufford and ask him why he said on
national TV that he saw the same thing Ed Walters saw. But there
is no way, based on the evidence and testimony given by Art
Hufford and his wife, that they saw the same thing allegedly
photographed over Ed Walters home.

Mr. Murgia, if you would like more information on the Gulf
Breeze case, I invite you to call me at the number I have
provided on every letter I put on the internet, and I would be
happy to discuss any problems or questions you have about Gulf
Breeze. But don't tell me that I have to prove every photograph
to be a hoax. That is financially impossible and unnecessary. We
have proven photograph #19 conclusively -without question- to be
a hoax, to the contrary of what MUFON or Bruce Maccabee says. If
you want to discuss this and look at this case objectively, you
will see that there is no evidence to support the Ed Walters
photographs.

JERRY BLACK
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107 (513)
625-2613

Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/

YOU CAN E-MAIL JERRY BLACK AT





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 29

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:44:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:26:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:17:27 -0500


 >I seriously doubt there are "thousands" who who believe they
 >were taken by UFOs, though I think if we include people who have
 >a similar weird experience and don't neccessarily attribute it
 >to UFOs, we may be that high in count. And I especially doubt
 >there are thousands who have unexplained scars to 'prove' it, or
 >even fully conscious memory of it.

 >As for the scar, I must, unfortunately, at least at this point,
 >file it in along with the other examples of evidence and alleged
 >independently witnessed events which are tossed out offhandedly
 >and held up as proof, and unfortunately, not properly
 >investigated or documented, if investigated or documented at
 >all, sometimes proclaimed to be "outside the boundaries" of
 >evidence we should be allowed to investigate when followed up
 >on. Anectdotes are simply different from evidence.

 >BTW, I am not specifically aiming that as an insult to you, Sue,
 >I am just stating that all of these things _could_ prove
 >intriguing, but too often they never become nothing more than
 >comments in a thread of discussion, which by itself means
 >nothing.

 >And from Jim-

 >>Your name is Sue!  How do you do?

 >>I am so sorry to be the first (or the hundredth) to tell you
 >>this, Sue, but what is in your memory or mine, matters not one
 >>dot to the person with the closed mind.  He or she will assign
 >>some reason or other with which to demean the memory.

 >>Undigested beef, hallucination (you were probably on extra
 >>strength Excedrin or something) and blah, blah.

 >I have to be honest and break the unspoken rule by saying that I
 >think of the many people who claim such experiences, a fair
 >number really _do_ hallucinate or lie *gasp*, are insane, or are
 >very suggestable. Many have probably pieced together some hazy
 >memories (with or without the help of books, and 'abduction
 >researchers and support groups') and formed a total belief
 >structure around the events. Many have also made close bonds
 >with other 'abductees' and in a sense, even established some
 >sense of identity as 'an experiencer', making it even more
 >difficult for such beliefs to change, should specific evidence
 >to the contrary or personal doubts arise.

I hate it when people makes sense on this list.  Then I have no
excuse to overdue my Gripple testing.... damn!

 >And some probably have/do not. But even if I did 'believe in
 >abductions' (meaning hold the opinion that some people have been
 >physically taken by UFO occupants) doesn't mean I would believe
 >that everyone who claims it has actually had this experience.

Neither would I.  But it too often seems that on finding a
truth, either for or against the subject, the "for's" claim
complete vindication as do the "agin's"  In my book, this merely
exacerbates the closed mind theory, which is unacceptable (to
me, at least).

 >Note I said some of people who claim these experiences, not
 >all. Still, admitting that is amost like admitting you own the
 >local peep show or adult bookstore (inquire for details next
 >time you're in my home base of pensacola/gulf breeze- "UFO
 >capital of the world- for a free coupon).

The mayor of New York City, which is about 30 miles from here,
(his name is Himmler, I think) has closed most of these peep
show stores as their being against the local "quality of living"
standards adopted by the newly formed "Neuischer Gestapo
Politzei."  So I'll be down in a few days.  Just make sure the
Booby Trap in Orlando is accepting your coupons.  Thanks.

 >>The real answer from any skeptic should be, "I don't know what
 >>happened to you, however it is not in my paradigm to believe it
 >>was anything but something "natural" and merely misconstrued."
 >>Or whatever....

 >>The real answer from any experiencer should be, "I don't know
 >>what happened to me, but I can tell you exactly what my mind
 >and
 >>memory saw and what my body felt."  Someone is gonna hafta
 >>convince me exactly what it was and _prove_ it before my mind
 >>attaches to anything but what it was to me and for me.

 ><snip>

 >Of course I agree with you regarding the attitude anyone
 >involved with this stuff should take, but as can be witnessed,
 >everyone involved gets out of line at some point. Some folks
 >more than others, but I agree that we should strive to keep our
 >heads clear.... well, at least when we are debating, as for
 >other times.... *grin*

 >Jim, I can't say I know you well at all, but I do know you well
 >enough to know that you believe what you say. Now I know, thats
 >not a massive step, but is the first one, and we have to move
 >slowly or we'll stumble or run of a cliff, and on the other
 >hand, not so slowly that nothing gets done.

There you go making sense again.  Better slow down or Dr.
Kanappy might black list you.... or me.... somebody!

 >But let's say, hypothetically, that everyone on this list now
 >'believes' that abductions are real? Now what is required? And
 >_what_ exactly DO we believe? Do we believe that they fly here
 >from space and we must work on some way to shoot them down? But
 >what if another of the many alleged abductees says they use
 >widgetry Gripple fueled technology to warp here or teleport? Who
 >do we believe? We can't really find out, we can just believe,
 >and whose account do we believe? Do we work on some way to foil
 >their hybrid program? wait, a lot of abductees don't even
 >believe that. And again, if we decide to shoot them down, what
 >are they made of so we know what to build? We can't look at one,
 >and we don't study them, we just believe in them. Btw, do the
 >beings float through walls, or not? Depends who you ask, I
 >think. We've not been able to catch them on video to see, but
 >never the less, we believe in them now. Can they bleed, or are
 >they robots? Maybe we should get the environment in shape,
 >because they seem to care about that- wait, actually they seem
 >to not care much at all and are just cold scientists. What about
 >the contactees, I'll add? Or were they just 'hallucinating' or
 >full of bs? So, what are the specifics here we are being asked
 >to believe? They differ from experiencer to experiencer, and
 >some of these differences are glaring. Belief alone won't get us
 >anywhere even if everyone _is_ 'won over.' The exception (an
 >important one, I add) is more help for people who have to deal
 >with these events in their lives.

 >Other than belief, what is wanted, and how are we going to
 >get/accomplish it without the evidence it is suggested we should
 >stop asking for?

For me, belief is _not_ what I seek from anyyone.  What I
_expect_ is an open mind, what I demand is that _no one_ claim
to have the unvarnished truth or _the_ absolute truth regarding
this issue. Simply because the knowledge of this truth does not
exist in our minds as yet. What I cannot fathom is anyone
claiming to know the truth.  There is nothing wrong with
investigating, enquiring, researching.  But until and when the
proof reveals itself one way or another, I will Gripple every
closed mind until he or she is irrevocably sensless under the
affluence of inkahol.

At least that way, they sound, look and act silly.  Their way,
they merely look, sound and act stupidly.

Sorry.  I ran out of booze early this morning and I can't do a
thing with me.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                                Re: Thank You

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:53:31 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:42:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Thank You


 >From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Thank You
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:41:46 PDT

 >Thank you from Jerry Black

 >I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every
 >one of you who took the time to E-mail me concerning my Open
 >Letter on the 50th anniversary of UFOlogy.

 >85% of my E-mail was in support of what I had to say, and I
 >really appreciate that. I also certainly appreciate those people
 >whose replies I did not necessarily agree with. I am always
 >interested in hearing from everyone pro or con about anything I
 >put on the internet, which is why I include my phone number and
 >address so that I can be easily accessible to those who have
 >questions about what I have to say.

 >So again, thanks to one and all for the E-mails I received
 >concerning my Open Letter on the 50th Anniversary of UFOlogy.


Hey, any time.  Guess you didn't count mine, tho.  Woulda
ruined your curves...






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                   Re: P-47 :The Stupidity within Ufology

From: Richard D. Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:22:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:48:55 -0400
Subject: Re: P-47 :The Stupidity within Ufology


 >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:50:54 -0600
 >From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
 >Subject: The Stupidity Within Ufology
 >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >Having come to these conclusions I took the time to start and
 >stop the tape a thousand times until I could share with you list
 >members a written transcript of what Col. McCoy said. I posted
 >it and waited in anticipation for the discussion I thought sure
 >would follow. I even looked forward to the bickering and puffing
 >of the Greg Long's and Kal Korff's among the list members. But
 >ya know what? Absolutely nothing happened. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

 >"OK," I said to myself. Pelicans were being discussed at the
 >time and important historical information obviously ain't too
 >important to the list, so I posted it on the Project SIGN
 >Research Center website along with the only known photo of the
 >people who did the first official investigation of UFOs in
 >history. Man, action happened immediately. Well over two
 >thousand hits in 24 hours, yet not one email to me or discussion
 >on any list - P-47, Current-Encounters, UFO UpDates. Zilch.
 >Zero. Zip. People came in droves to listen and look, but nobody
 >bothered to say anything.

 >My conclusions: Damn near everyone on this list is either brain
 >dead, totally ignorant of what Ufology actually is, or only here
 >to take up space, waste the few true researchers left in
 >Ufology's time or debunk at any cost, under any guise because
 >you don't have an ounce of common sense or imagination. Pretty
 >intense I know, but only a few of you do anything. The rest of
 >you ain't worth the time or effort from those of us who talk the
 >talk, walk the walk and proceed to the truth. But I also know
 >something else...when the truth, whatever it may be comes, those
 >of you who do nothing but get in the way, posturize and
 >pontificate will be the first in line to spout to the world how
 >great you are because of all the research you've done and the
 >contributions you've made to the field of ufology. There will
 >just be one thing wrong...you didn't do squat but sit in your
 >comfy chair, emailed your opinions and maybe read a book.

 >Bitter? Nah. Very disappointed? Nah. Just the truth as I see
 >it. So, Kal...shut up. I don't wanna hear it cause nothing you
 >say is of any social redeeming value.


Dear Wendy Connors,

You did a _great_ job! And I apologize for having not sent you
directly an e-mail to tell you.

What Col. McCoy said evidently didn't please the debunkers and
it's not surprising that you got no response from people like
Kal Korff...

And it shows, one more time, that the "alien solution" was
shared by many important people in the US military since the
"official" beginnings in 1947. People who had first hand
information. The same thing in England (see Nicholas Redfern's
publications), in Chile (official military project including UFO
researchers) or in France (see the COMETA report).

You are right when you say that something is wrong with the
members of various UFO lists . These lists are invaded with
insanities discussed over and over (pelicans, etc) with boring
personals quarrels  (Max Burns, Peter Brookesmith, etc), with
inflated egos (sorry I have not the necessary space to write all
the names...) and so on. But, regularly, some interesting
subjects are left without response. For example, I'm always
waiting for any reaction to my inquiry on this list about the
new witness statement and the photographs published by Jim Marrs
in "Alien Agenda" about the infamous 1897 Aurora case... But, I
suppose that if I had posted a crazy message saying that the
"airships" seen in 1897 were in fact birds, I would have
received a flood of reactions...

RDN






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:16:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:51:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:34:46 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:30:30 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:43:43 +0100

 >Also this video evidence (hardly of a 'lower standard'!) is, a)
 >available for analysis in its original un-cut format direct from
 >Chris Martin's video camera, b) to my knowledge there have been
 >witnesses present on most of Chris' footage (inc: myself) and
 >these can clearly be heard on the soundtracks.

Marc,

I have never mentioned anything about Chris Martin's video, only
Roy and yourself have brought this into play. My original
comment was that everyone has a different standard to which they
believe a UFO is an ET craft. If you and Roy feel that this
video shows an ET craft, then that's fine. But don't drag me in
saying that because I've known Roy to make some assumptions
before, therefore because Roy believes this video is astounding
evidence then I must obviously think it's worthless. The true of
the matter is, I haven't seen the footage therefore I cannot
comment on it.

 >What evidence do we need? Surely this must be part of it?

I can't say because I haven't seen it, nor has anyone explained
what the footage contains. My point originally was exactly your
question, what evidence do we need to believe a UFO is a
'controlled ET craft'?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                          'Phoenix Lights' in Iowa?

From: Phil Danielson <jpmwjb@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:27:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:55:31 -0400
Subject: 'Phoenix Lights' in Iowa?


Morning everyone ,

I had a report from someone late last nite that they had seen
the same formation of lites over Iowa that was in Phoenix.  I
was wondering if there were any reports on this from anyone
else..... more details after further investigation...





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                  Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 11:51:47 PDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:45:05 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'


 >From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:02:01 PDT


Hi, Jerry,

 >I would now like to refer to remarks you made about my comments
 >concerning the "self-proclaimed leaders of ufology".

 >You knew exactly what I meant, however I will explain that for
 >you and to all the internet readers. The "self-proclaimed
 >leaders of ufology" are those who appear most frequently on TV,
 >or appear at most of the UFO symposiums throughout the country.
 >In my opinion, you cannot go to any UFO symposium in the country
 >without seeing one or sometimes three of these people at that
 >particular symposium. So in my opinion, those "self-proclaimed
 >leaders of ufology" are those that the general public listens to
 >or hears most, whether it be on TV, radio or major symposia.
 >These people would be: Stanton Friedman, Budd Hopkins, Kevin
 >Randle, Linda Moulton Howe, Bruce Maccabee, Whitley Strieber and
 >Walt Andrus (even though Walt Andrus does not appear on national
 >television or radio frequently, he is a major figure in ufology,
 >being the leader of one of largest UFO organizations in
 >America).

Wrong, old boy, unless you can provide specific evidence -- I'm
talking quotes here, not broad, sweeping charges -- that any of
these individuals have declared _themselves_ "leaders of
ufology." That's what "self-proclaimed" means.  You're referring
to persons who, for one reason or another, for good or ill, are
prominent figures in this field.  Whether they are "leaders" is
quite another issue, much less "self-proclaimed" ones.

If you want to criticize some well-known individual for his/her
views or behavior, fine.  But it's bizarre to criticize persons
on the lame, unfair, and manifestly false grounds that they have
proclaimed _themselves_ ufology's leaders.  Reading this, I have
a hard time, to be honest, taking you seriously.

 >The Whitley Strieber
 >show Confirmation was produced with no intent to authenticate
 >the Strieber claim of experiences with the visitors. Just
 >because he has written a book and is a well-established author,
 >they decided to do a special on TV using him as an executive
 >producer. So the general public cannot rely on TV to give them
 >the true answer to the cases that we see on TV and are written
 >in books.

I'm confused.  What does this have to do with ufology?  This was
an entertainment television show conceived, financed, produced,
written, filmed, and aired by a commercial company, not one of
whose members would identify him- or herself as a ufologist.
Which brings to mind another question: does Whitley Strieber
consider himself a ufologist?  I could be wrong, but I don't
think he does.

 >Therefore, the general public relies on the Mutual UFO Network,
 >the Center for UFO Studies, and the "self-appointed leaders of
 >ufology."

Once more, please cite -- again, I am asking for specific quotes
-- who has appointed him- or herself a "leader" of ufology.  I
have been around this field probably longer than you have, and
to the best of my recollection, I have _never_ heard anyone call
himself a "leader" of ufology.  The closest thing I can imagine
a "leader" to be is the head of a specific UFO group, which is
hardly the same animal as all of ufology.  In my limited
experience of UFO groups (my only organizational affiliation has
been with CUFOS), the heads are not "self-appointed" but elected
by a board of directors. Thus, for example, Mark Rodeghier is
not the "self-appointed leader" of CUFOS.

 >In my opinion, neither of these aforementioned are
 >doing their jobs at keeping the general public informed of which
 >cases are credible and which cases do not deserve attention. I
 >also do not think the Mutual UFO Network and the "self-appointed
 >leaders of ufology" are doing a good, sound, scientific and
 >objective job when they do investigate these cases.

If you are saying that the MUFON UFO Journal ought not to be
running articles on alien skeletons, I'm with you, friend.

 >As you stated, Mr. Jerome Clark, your organization does not have
 >the time or money to really get into investigating current cases
 >out there in ufology, besides the fact of putting your opinion
 >of cases in your monthly journal. So I am not accusing you of
 >not doing a good job of investigating current cases, because as
 >you have told me: you are not doing "any" job of investigating
 >current UFO cases. You are simply making small reports in your
 >journal which are merely opinions.

Actually, not.  IUR, which I'm sure you don't read or you
wouldn't have typed the above nonsense, carries investigative
pieces as well as insightful analytical overviews.  For example,
the current issue (available from J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO
Studies, 2457 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659 --
thanks for the opportunity to put in the plug) carries a 14-page
investigative review, by Bill Chalker (prominent, well-regarded
Australian ufologist who has never to my knowledge proclaimed
himself to be a "leader" of the field), of apparent biological
evidence associated with an abduction case.  The same issue
carries two first-rate analytical essays by Mark Cashman
("Behavioral Classification System for UFO Occupants") and
Thomas E. Bullard ("Abductions and Researcher Bias: How to Lose
Your Way").  I happen to think we're putting out the best UFO
magazine in America, and a lot of people agree, if we can credit
the comments and letters we get from readers who appreciate our
sober, balanced, informed approach.

 >While your friendship with some of these "self-proclaimed
 >leaders of ufology" may keep you from making certain remarks
 >about their work, it certainly doesn't stop me. I will continue
 >to keep making remarks that I feel is necessary as long as they
 >continue to do the job they are doing at this particular time.

Before you get any more carried away on a tidal wave of self-
righeousness, you need -- let me say it again -- to tell us when
and where these individuals have proclaimed themselves "leaders
of ufology."

 >I, however, agree with you that there are many people out there
 >who do a tremendous job who hardly get any ink, get no time on
 >national radio or TV, but do a tremendous job in trying to help
 >find the answer to the UFO phenomena. Some of those people are:
 >Jenny Randles, Tom Dueley, Ray Fowler, Dan Wright, Tom Adams,
 >Glenn Joyner, Mark Rodheigher, Rex Salisberry, and the list
 >could go on and on. But these people, because of family or other
 >responsibilities, do not have the time needed to allow
 >themselves to be leaders in the field of ufology and attend the
 >national symposia in the country, or to appear on national TV
 >or radio. I wish that some of these people would do so.

Odd.  Jenny Randles, whom I also admire, is quite well known,
even outside ufology, in Britain for her many media appearances.
Mark Rodeghier, who leads CUFOS, has appeared on a number of
television programs, radio shows, and videos, and he is a
regular at national symposia.  In fact, he goes to, and speaks
at, many more than I do. Tom Adams has not been active as a
ufologist for years; his principal interest for a long time has
been alleged mutilations of cattle. Tom Deuley is a ubiquitous
presence on the UFO scene, deeply involved with MUFON and the
Coalition, and I've run into Dan Wright on a number of occasions
at conferences.  Ray Fowler has written many books, toured to
promote them, and been a guest on numerous UFO shows on TV and
radio. Aside from noting the obvious inaccuracy of your
characterization above, I am at a loss to grasp your point,
unless it's that the above are good people and the other people
are not.

 >Finally, Mr. Clark, you have said that honorable men have come
 >down on both sides of the case in Gulf Breeze, Florida. I
 >certainly agree that all the gentlemen and ladies mentioned as
 >"self-proclaimed leaders of ufology" are likely honorable
 >people, some of whom have earned Ph.D.'s. All that means is that
 >honorable men and women, some of whom have Ph.D's, can at times
 >be lousy UFO investigators.

Like you, I have deep doubts about the core claims of the Gulf
Breeze episode.  On the other hand, I have much respect for
Bruce Maccabee's intelligence, knowledge, and ability.  If you
want to argue photoanalysis with him, I'm afraid you're going to
lose.

Again, if you want to criticize certain prominent ufologists for
what you perceive to be their shortcomings, you have every right
to do so.  Nobody's perfect, God knows.  Unfortunately, the
criticisms you've given us so far seem irrelevant, self-serving,
and even spurious.  Or, as the Bard says,  sound and fury,
signifying nothing.

Jerry Clark









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                          Filer's Files #30 --1999

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:38:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:23:10 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #30 --1999


Filer's Files #30 --1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,  Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
July 30, 1999,      Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

EXTRATERRESTRIALS MAY CAUSE REVOLUTION IN CHINA

SHANGHAI -- The largest political group in China outside the
Communist Party is the Falun Gong that attempts to improve a
person's health through exercise, mediation, and contact with
unseen extraterrestrial forces.   The group has up to 70 million
members, and is considered the most serious threat to communist
rule since the 1989 pro-democracy protests.  Falun Gong
doctrines draw on a belief in extraterrestrial forces, martial
arts, Buddhism, Taoism, high moral standards, and traditional
values.  This belief system results in members who are seldom
sick, and so they rarely use Chinese medical facilities.  On
April 25, ten thousand Falun Gong members conducted a silent
protest against government harassment outside the Beijing
compound where President Jiang Zemin lives.  Additional silent
protests were carried out in more than 30 Chinese cities
allegedly coordinated over the Internet by sect founder Li
Hongzhi, who lives in New York.  Coupled with the NATO bombing
of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia the Communist government is
extremely worried.  Thousands of Falun Gong members are being
arrested and put in prison while millions of their books are
being burned.  Old Chinese legends talk of fiery dragons on
which the sons of Heaven rode.  Although China has asked the
United Nations in recent years to join them in studying UFOs,
this spreading belief in extraterrestrials terrifies the
government.  The threat of a civil uprising against Communism in
China is more likely than is generally realized.  China is
attempting to stop further trouble by issuing an arrest order
for the popular Li Hongzhi the leader of Falun Gong.  A
significant sign from heaven, such as UFO sightings could set
off spectacular events in China.  Revolutions have been won by
extraordinary things.

At the start of the American Revolutionary War in 1775, General
George Washington took command of the Continental Army to fight
England, then the world's most powerful nation.  The first
general order issued to his pitifully few troops who had little
hope of winning the war was: "The General most earnestly
requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war
established for the government of the army, which forbid profane
cursing, swearing and drunkenness.  And in like manner, he
requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in
actual duty, a punctual attendance of Divine Services, to
implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our
safety and defense."  Perhaps heaven will bless another
revolution in China?

NEW JERSEY

SHORT HILLS -- Seedath writes did anyone hear about a strange
object in the sky on July 23, 1999, at 8:35 to 8:37 PM in the
northern part of the state?  I had just left the Short Hill Mall
on Route 24 heading eastbound.  Three other individuals and
myself saw a strange object in the sky.  It was on the left hand
side, above the trees.  The object was oval in shape with the
appearance of being crystal clear with lights all around it.  I
called 911, the local police precinct, the FBI and AFA.  No one
seem interested.  I told them it was not a plane or helicopter.
I was interested to know if anyone made a similar report of that
area.  Thanks to Seedath.  Editors Note: There were no other
reports on July 23 in New Jersey.

MARYLAND SIGHTINGS

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND � A young teenager whose father was in
the military confronted an alien creature in the Edgewood Base
Housing area in 1978.  The witness went outside to take the
trash out.  Hiding behind the trash can was an unknown alien
creature. The witness and the creature startled each other and
the creature ran away.  The creature had gray skin and large
almond shaped eyes without lids, a small nose,  a slit for a
mouth and no ears.  The creature stood about 4 feet tall and
weighed about 30 pounds.  The witness ran home in fright and
stopped on the porch and saw a saucer shaped UFO take off
rapidly with an orange glow to the east.  Shortly there after
the housing area was closed.

GUNPOWDER FALLS STATE PARK �Jenny Herritt RN states, "I was out
hiking one morning in early July, and found a large footprint in
the muddy riverside.  The footprint was about 18 inches long and
had 4 toes.  The width was at least 6 inches and probably more.
.  My normally friendly Golden Retriever became very anxious,
and aggressive.  He would growl and cling to my leg and have his
tail tucked down.  I called investigator Dave B.  who found
additional evidence.  There was the leg of a killed deer, that
was placed directly on our path.  About a week later, I went
hiking again and found another footprint evidence of a Bigfoot
that I photographed.  While I photographed the print, I heard
the eerie scream that reminded me of howler monkeys I have heard
in Belize, Central America.  Thanks to LJenSilver.

GEORGIA

GRIFFIN -- A Griffin area couple reported to Carl Pruett that on
July 16, 1999, they were out on their patio deck looking at the
sky before retiring at about 11:00 PM.  It was clear and warm,
and as they looked at the stars, a large round ball of light
streaked across the sky, appearing to be lower than the normal
air traffic routes.  It flew horizontally, and just seemed to
"come on," then it "cut off".  It appeared to come from the
north toward Atlanta, flying south in the eastern sky.  What
made this event particularly strange is that about 2:00 AM,
their 17 year old son arrived home from work (ROTC Cadet and 'A'
student).  He told them that while driving home, a blue tinted
ball of light came down in front of his car.  It hovered
briefly, then shot back up into the sky at a different angle at
a high  rate of speed.  The main witness in this case indicated
that another person living in the same area had mentioned seeing
a highly unusual ring of red lights hovering in the sky the same
night.  Griffin is 33 miles south of Atlanta and is the county
seat of Spaulding County.  Carl Pruett will continue with the
investigation.  Please take note of the 'Starshine Satellite'
mentioned in last weeks Filer's Files. I've received a couple of
calls recently describing the traditional 'light in the sky'
sighting, if this satellite is for real, it could be the cause.
Thanks to MUFONGA's State Director Tom Sheets.  Editor's Note:
Fireballs and meteorite dropping fireballs can not be observed
all the way to impact with the ground?  Fireballs are not
generally visible below an altitude of 9 miles.  Between 48,000
to 63,000 feet altitude the meteoroid remnants will decelerate
to the point that the ablation process stops, and visible light
is no longer generated.  This occurs at a speed of about 2-4
km/sec, 4500 to 9000 mph. http://www.amsmeteors.org/faqf.html

ARIZONA

BISBEE � Scott Heckman writes, "I was with Mary Chestnut,
Christine and Scott Luton when we saw a silvery saucer, wobbling
as it hovered."  We were in a mining district called Warren, at
the Phelps-Dodge Mercantile Store on March 6, 1980.  Northwest
of us hovering over the mine tailings called "the # 7 dump" was
this disc.  I was driving the truck and immediately stopped in
the middle of the street.  We all jumped out of the truck
leaving the doors wide open watching this craft.  We gathered
together and stood in the road watching this wondrous craft
glinting in the light.  I telepathically thought towards the
craft, "I see you, show me that you know that I know."

Immediately as I transmitted my thoughts  the craft rose upon
edge -- so we could all clearly see that this was a perfectly
'round' saucer shaped craft.  The saucer then traveled the
length of the Mule Mountain to the divide.  We got in the truck
and followed it the short distance to Bakerville, where we
originally spotted the craft.  We had a good view here, and as
the saucer approached the Mule Mountain divide it again attained
flat and level flight.  It stopped and hovered wobbling over the
divide.  Scott telepathically asked for confirmation from the
craft. The UFO responded immediately by rising up onto it's rim
again as it flew south along the top of the ridge to the Mexican
Border.  Thanks to Scott Heckman.  Editor's Note:  Many report a
telepathic link with the craft inferring they are manned by
intelligent beings.

CALIFORNIA KC-135E AIRCRAFT SPRAY CONTRAILS CLOUDING SKY

During the month of June several types of aircraft were video
taped leaving heavy low level contrails over southwestern
California.  Two KC-10s were videotaped in formation.  The most
startling video showed a KC-135E aircraft spraying an unknown
substance from the tail boom of the aircraft leaving a thick
contrail.  The craft flew in a pattern across the sky at about
5000 feet.  Within minutes the blue sky started clouding over,
and within an hour there was a complete overcast. See photos at:
http://www.contrailconnection.com.  Thanks to Chuck Warren.

CROP CIRCLES IN CANADA

The first known crop formations in Canada for this year were
reported to the main Circles Phenomenon Research (CPR)- office
inVancouver, BC on July 25.  Drew Gauley, the Ontario
representative conducted an initial ground inspection.  Two
pictogram type formations close to Hagersville, Ontario  were
reported on July 22,  by Clynt King, whose brother, Ken, owns
the fields. Hagersville, Ontario #1 is a 300 feet long complex
pictogram in wheat.  It has circles, a rectangle,  a semi-ring
and other pathways along a main axis.  It is similar to some  of
the more complex early 90s formations in England.
Hagersville, Ontario #2 is a simple pictogram type formation,
about 65 feet long in wheat.  Two circles are connected by
various straight and curved  pathways.  Photos and video were
taken by the local TV news stations and will be available soon.
Arrangements are being made to try and get sampling done for the
BLT Research Team.  Based on initial descriptions, the larger of
the two formations may be the largest and most complex ever seen
in Canada.  Both formations contain elaborate layering patterns
of the wheat in various directions up to four layers deep.
Canada had  fourteen crop circle reported in 1998.  See
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/1999.html) Thanks
to Paul Anderson

ABDUCTION EVIDENCE

After reading your files about collecting evidence of
abductions, I thought it might be helpful to add one my own
ideas to your collection.  While initiating a journal on strange
personal experiences,  I suddenly awoke in front of my mirror
trying to get black goo out of my eyes and being mentally told
that this was eye mail.  This seemed ridiculous, but 45 minutes
had mysteriously disappeared from my life.  I also found a
rather disturbing mess in my kitchen caused by my normally very
fastidious cats.  I was shocked beyond belief,  since there were
3 very large messes with a completely  unrecognizable odor.  I
feel it is possible that these messes may be clues to a sudden
fright to my pets.  My cats are now very nervous and become very
frightened and  alert to outside noises.  I suggest animal
behavior clues may be useful  in a officially investigated
abduction cases.  Thanks to  Jan at catfest@sympatico.ca.
Editors Note:  There are many cases where animals seem to have
been effected by our visitors.

BELGIUM TRIANGULAR  UFOs

OSTEND � During the last two weeks I had two sightings of
triangular shaped UFOs. Members of my family had another
separate sighting.  The first sighting was a really good one
that happened on a Saturday (July 3, 1999?)  My mother and
sister were driving back from Ostend to Bruges.  They were
driving next to some fields when they saw two bright white
lights in front of them.  When they got  closer they saw a
triangular shaped craft next to the road hovering about 7 meters
above a field.  The distance from the car to the UFO was no more
then 10 meters.  They stopped to take a picture, but as my
sister was about to photograph the UFO turned towards her and
started to land!  They were so scared they drove off in a panic
just as it touched the ground.  The UFO was silver/black with
lights on each corner.  In the center they saw a red pulsating
light.  On the back there was a huge tail looking thing.  BRUGES
-- This Saturday, my girlfriend and I were driving home when we
also saw two bright white lights.  I drove towards the lights
and hanging in the air next to a hospital, I saw a triangular
UFO!  I stopped the car as the UFO started to move.  It flew
around and returned to same spot it was hovering in the
beginning.  I started the car and it started moving again and I
lost track of it.  The craft was very big but it made no noise.
There has been allot of triangular UFO activity here lately.  My
girl friend made detailed drawings of the UFO. Thanks to:
Gunther and John Hayes ufoinfo@ukgateway.net

ADMINISTRATOR CALLS CUTS TO NASA BUDGET 'DEVASTATING'

"The NASA team just launched Chandra, the world's most powerful
space telescope," NASA Administrator Dan Goldin said.  "Today,
we will have to turn it back on Washington to see what remains
of the NASA budget."  Last night, a U.S. House of
Representatives subcommittee passed a funding bill that cuts
NASA's budget about 11 percent below the President's request for
Fiscal Year 2000.  "Year after year, NASA is touted for doing
more and more with  smaller budgets," said  Goldin.  "The NASA
employees get up every day to achieve what most  think is
impossible and risen to the challenge of smaller budgets.  And
this is the reward the NASA team gets?  Not only is  this cut
devastating to NASA's programs, it is a knife in the  heart of
employee morale.  Goldin  said.  "NASA continues to deliver
amazing scientific discoveries  and reach new heights of
exploration.  To many Americans, NASA is  a cornerstone of our
national pride.  But there is nothing to be  proud of in this
budget.  "Over the past five years, NASA has restructured the
Agency,  done more with less, reduced government employees by
one-third without forced layoffs, and still significantly
increased  productivity.  Up until now, NASA has always stepped
up to the  budgetary challenge.  This time the NASA team plans
to fight.  These cuts would gut space exploration.  They may
force the  closure of one to three NASA centers with significant
layoffs" said Goldin.  The Administrator noted other
implications for the budget as well: *  For the past seven
years, the NASA budget has declined and,  because of inflation,
the Agency's buying power is already down by  one-third.  While
the subcommittee's cuts total $1.325 billion, if these  figures
are projected out five years, the cuts would total
approximately $5.3 billion.  As a result of the cuts, we would
be forced to eat our seed corn, and would  weaken America's
technological and defense sectors.  Perhaps most sadly, we will
lose the opportunity to inspire a future generation  of
children." "I won't feel better until every nickel is restored,"
said  Goldin.  Editor's Note: Dan Goldin only has to hint to the
press, what he tells friends privately, that UFOs are visiting
the Earth to get more funds.

WASHINGTON HAS NEW 'UFO' LOBBYING GROUP

The first lobbying group dedicated to UFO issues has opened for
business on Capitol Hill.  The Extraterrestrial Phenomena
Political Action Committee, X-PPAC, will lobby for more openness
from the federal government about possible evidence of alien
life.  The group's overriding goal, said founder Stephen
Bassett, is open congressional hearings on what he says is a
massive government secrecy effort that extends back to the
famously rumored 1947 crash in Roswell, New Mexico.  "We're
calling for open hearing from government witnesses who have
approached us and want to testify openly, about the big stuff,"
Basset said. "There are dozens of people and they want to talk.
If we get those hearings, the cover-up is over."  Bassett helped
launch a petition in 1997 to ask for open hearings. Now that the
Cold War is over, the government has less need to hide
information.  The group will also back open reforms like the
bipartisan Government Secrecy Reform Act  introduced by Sen.
Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., in January and is now sitting in the
Governmental Affairs Committee.  Thanks to Steven Bassett
http://www.paradigmclock.com

ANTI MISSILE BLACK PROGRAM FUNDED ILLEGALLY

WASHINGTON -- The House Appropriations Committee is angry that
the Pentagon spent money on a black program that they believed
was closed down. The Air Force indicated that they were under
the impression the program had not been completely cancelled and
it was a matter of misinterpretation.  It is legal to switch
funds between programs provided Congress is notified of the
switch. The Air Force was also accused of taking money out of
research funds to help finance a new $800 million 'Milstar'
military communications satellite.  A Milstar satellite was lost
in space earlier this spring.  The report accused the Pentagon
and missile-defense officials of illegally financing a system
known as the Medium Altitude Air Defense program.  So far the
system has cost a $100 million and has been a failure.  The
Pentagon apparently diverted funds to keep the program alive.
The 'Star Wars' missile defense program could be useful in
defending against UFOs.  Editor's Note: The military is getting
only a small share of the funds it needs to replace old
equipment.

LINDA'S ARIZONA SIGHTINGS

Linda Hilton wrote: "I just wanted to comment that I have been
studying UFOs for many years because of a sighting I had in
1973.  I saw what looked like a stealth back then.  Underneath
it had a blue glow with sparks coming out like one those small
toys  where sparks fly out.  I ran to a neighbor's house who was
working underneath his truck.  By the time he reluctantly came
out the UFO was gone.  That's what first got me started in
researching UFOs, doing reports in college and talking to dozens
of people who have also seen UFOs.  My father-in-law saw one on
Tyler Lake, Texas in the 50s.  He was on his boat when a bright
multi colored light came toward him.  He got scared and left.
He is not one to lie or exaggerate.  I personally have seen
several UFOs this year.  Some are silver discs and one was a
tarnished gold crown hovering in the clouds.  Thanks to Linda
Hilton: lindah@itexchsrv2.phx.mcd.mot.com

LIFE IS COMMON IN THE UNIVERSE

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University,
has published a new book entitled "Planetary Dreams," by John
Wiley & Sons.  Shapiro feels the standard origin-of-life
theories are defective.  These theories depend on a miraculous
events: the once-in-a-universe spontaneous generation of nucleic
acids DNA or RNA that make up plant, animal, and microbial genes
or some related molecule.  Shapiro, a specialist in the
chemistry of DNA and RNA, marshals an array of data to argue
that the simplest kind of cellular life may arise as a
predictable result of organic chemistry and the physics of
self-organizing systems.  Whenever planets exist with the right
conditions life may form in a liquid or dense gas medium, a
suitable energy source, and a system of matter capable of using
the energy to organize itself.  He calls this hypothesis the
"life principle."  He argues that no predictable directions
exist for life's later development from these beginnings.  We
should send probes to Mars, Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's
moon Titan where life may exist.  It is likely we will find
chemical systems evolving in the direction of life, remnants of
extinct life or existing life.  Its possible there are only
wastelands without life.  The results will help decide which of
two very different views of the Universe is more nearly
correct."

U.S. GOVERNMENT UFO PROOF RELEASED: Audio tapes of a genuine UFO
Alert at Edwards Air Force base and studied by the Foreign
Technology Division at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, are now
available for distribution to the public.  Lunar Astronaut Dr.
Edgar Mitchell was at Edwards the night the UFO chase occurred.
The 6th person to walk on the moon said, "The night it happened
I investigated it myself and this was a real event."  Sam
Sherman's audio documentary tape called THE EDWARDS AIR FORCE
BASE ENCOUNTER on the night of October 7, 1965, uses the actual
voice recordings provided by the Air Force.  During this event
12 high tech luminous UFOs invade secure air space and came down
low over the runways at Edwards AFB.  Tower operator Sgt. Chuck
Sorrels spotted them and notified the Air Defense Command.  Sgt.
Sorrels is heard on the original tapes and in a new segment
where he verifies the event as it is heard on the archival
recordings.  The UFOs are described and a decision is made to
launch F-106 fighter interceptors.  Your there for an important
part of UFO history.  Hear it for yourself, its the best UFO
tape ever made.  Tape cost is $14.95 each plus $2.00 for
shipping -- total $16.95 -- you can send either a personal check
or money order to: Independent International Films, Box 565,
Dept. GF, Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857.

DERREL SIMS former CIA operative and trainer, master
hypnotherapist and hypnotic  anesthesiologist, NLP Master, 4th
Degree Black Belt, firewalk trainer, handwriting analysist  and
abductee, will present, for the first time in NYC, a week long
presentation on the abduction phenomena.  He will present
physical proof of the alien presence.  Monday, August 16th @
7:30pm Alien and Military Intelligence Cover-up As a former CIA
operative and trainer, Derrel Sims has a unique
perspectivintensity as you view the surgical removal of an
actual implant.  Experience the findings of Derrel�fs
medical/scientific team work.   Wednesday, August 18th, 7:30pm
Mass Abduction Presentation  Derrel a hypnotic anesthesiologist
and full time UFO investigator, in a proactive move, created a
Manchurian candidate.   By giving the volunteer post hypnotic
commands to create a reaction from the alien presence,   Sims
hit the Jackpot.  Amazing physical evidence will be shown of 8
persons in a mass abduction.   Thursday, August 19th, 7:30 pm
Handwriting and Symbol Analysis In England 180 people attended
this amazing workshop where all got to watch their
subconconscious draw realities on paper.  Derrel then shows you
how to evaluate your own and others handwriting.  Friday, August
20th, 7:30 pm The truth of what hypnosis can and cannot do  and
how to tell if you are an alien abductee. This is a fascinating
ride into how one can possibly gain evidence of human/alien
contact.  Sims will use Infra red, Ultra violet and the visible
spectrum of light to prove your case. This investigator of 35
years, has found physical proof of abductions and will discuss
how you can do so as well!  All events are located at the Source
of Life, 22 W. 34th Street, 5th floor. & cost is $25 @ the door
($20 with phone reservations; call 718-565-0852)  Derrel is also
available for Private sessions.

MUFON JOURNAL For more detailed investigative reports subscribe
by writing to 103 Oldtowne Road, Sequin, TX 78155-4099 or E-mail
Mufon@aol.com.  Filer's Files Copyright 1999 by George A. Filer,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post items from the Files on
their Websites provided that they credit the newsletter and its
editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared.  Send your letters to me at Majorstar@aol.com.  If you
wish to keep your name confidential please so state.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:18:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:14:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:04:02 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >My question is over your use of the two words, "stat" and "bet."
 >They were used in the same paragraph ...

 >>>>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>>>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>>>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>>>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>>>probably) landed in their estimation.

 >My question was, is this a stat(istic) or are you guessing, as
 >in betting?  I do not claim to know the answer.  I am merely
 >asking the question.

 >You wrote that you were presenting a stat(istic) and then bet
 >that the stat would be in favor of lower percentage in Europe,
 >of ET landing.

 >Are there any stats which favor one or the other opinion?  And
 >what would be your guess as to the reason, if true?

 >Jim

Hi,

Sorry, one and all, for slipping into UK colloquialisms.

The results of any cummulative response to the question from a
number of UK and US respondents will, of course, provide a stat
(istic) - when they come in. As yet we dont know what the
results are so we cannot know what the stat will be. But I am
betting (yes, educating guesswork no more) that the results
would be as shown. I may be proven wrong, of course. But its
what my experience suggests would be the case. From the writings
and general tenure of the UFO community in the UK in comparison
with the US (woth which I am somewhat familiar) there are
considerable differences that I suspect would manifest in the
reply to such a question.

Sorry. It was sloppy English written in haste when trying to
reply to a squillion e mails. Hope this is clearer.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                         Re: Nick Pope's Weird World

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:07:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:16:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World


 >From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@Globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:28:22 +0100

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:36 +0100
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World

 >>Over the past few months I d been becoming more
 >>bullish in my response to certain people within ufology who'd
 >>been sniping at me over the years.  Nobody likes criticism,
 >>and I'd been getting a fair bit - little of it constructive in
 >>nature.

 >Maybe if you removed the following from your opening header,
 >people would take you seriously.

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

 >"Gossip."  By its very nature this shows the level of your
 >bulletins. Gossip is going behind people's backs and repeating
 >things that aren't strictly true.

 >Maybe when you stop gossiping, the waters may become calmer.
 >
 >Being Nick Pope's messenger doesn't help either. Tell him to get
 >on the Internet and do his own messages instead of using you.
 >
 >If your standard of research is on a par with Nick's, then
 >welcome to the Twilight Zone. Don't go on any toll roads, they
 >cause you all sorts of problems. Of course we are all looking
 >forward to your forthcoming book to set the record straight.
 >
 >Cheers
 >
 >Rory Lushman
 >
Hi,

I'd just add, Georgina, that I have no problem with you nor am I
criticising you personally, if I am one of the people referred
to here, but I was very disappointed in the tenure of your
questions posed to me for your forthcoming book on Rendlesham.
Some list members will know (because I have offered full
accounts privately) that I am sadly not willing to do this for
your book to appear, inevitably and not through your fault as
selected bits and pieces. This is because of my desire not to
appear within your pages arguing tittle tattle rather than facts
and evidence. You may or may not agree with my views on this
case, but I have been involved almost from day one and thus have
more to contribute than answering the inane questions you saw
fit to pose. I prefer not to appear in your work at all if it
cannot be through commenting on facts and evidence that I saw
unfold first hand.

Sadly, what you asked was not about the results of my 18 years
digging into this case, the things I had learned or my views on
the most remarkable set of UFO experiences in the UK. Instead
they were all abstract and seemingly based on false innuendo and
gossip doing the rounds at the speed of rumour in the way that
you of all people should know is no guarantee of truth. These
questions were regarding such important issues as my telling you
whether I started to investigate in late January l981 or early
February l981 (as I have contradicted myself on this key issue
it seems - for a very simple reason, if it truly matters), or
exactly how many people I have interviewed on this case (the
implication being that the facts and referenced sources stated
in the three books I have authored or co-authored on the case
are untrustworthy - otherwise, why would you need to ask for
clarification).

As you know, because I told you, I would gladly have answered
any serious questions about the case itself, the facts behind it
or my views upon it. These, I assumed you might be interested by
and your readers would benefit a little from hearing. Instead,
it would appear, all you want from me are responses to garbled
chatter - which seems at best of oblique relevance to a case
with undoubted importance to UFOlogy.

If you perceive my refusal to give you quotable replies to tall
tales and trivia as a criticism of you, then I am sorry. But it
is not . However, it is certainly a reflection of disappointment
that after first telling me a year ago that you wanted to
interview me on this case you did not eventually come up with
anything beyond feeble gossip to ask me about.

A truly objective overview on this case from someone such as
yourself will be welcome to all (myself included - as I am
undoubtedly too close to the affair for a good perspective). You
still might pull it off, of course, but I am bound to worry that
the level of questions that you posed to me serve as an
illustration of what you may have asked others.

Still you may prove me wrong. I'll be truly pleased if you do as
the case deserves it.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:38:09 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:16:00 EDT
 >Subject: IFOs
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:26:59 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:10:27 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]

 >>>There have actually been large numbers, I believe, of UFOs that
 >>>have been passed off as aircraft because they resembled aircraft
 >>>in certain respects, but they were not because other aspects of
 >>>them did not resemble aircraft. One of my own sightings could
 >>>illustrate this. It was rather like a medium sized aircraft 1 to
 >>>2 miles away, just moving along steadily. However, it was
 >>>cylindrical shaped (horizontally oriented), without any tail
 >>>section and no wings either (which I intensively looked for).
 >>>And it made no noise, though small planes at a comparable
 >>>distance can definitely be heard in my neighborhood. And this
 >>>object had a single vertical stripe around its middle, rather as
 >>>a capsule is sometimes divided into two halves.

 >>I must point out that your description is a match to something I
 >>see every day here near my local airport - a somewhat distant
 >>jet aircraft, usually a DC9, a 727 or some other T-tail
 >>configuration, whose features are largely obscured by distance.
 >>and haze. The "band" to which you refer is actually the haze
 >>filled shadow on the underside of the wing. The shadow is
 >>roughly sky color due to the haze or environmental reflection,
 >>and only stands out where contrasted against the brightness of
 >>the fuselage. The reflected light of the rudder usually
 >>eliminates this contrast for the stabilizer.

 >Hi, Mark, Jim:

 >See the current issue of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL for an article
 >about a video of a similar object, where the observer using
 >human eyesight and binoculars described a plane-like object.
 >The video was probably not as useful as the eye in such a
 >situation.

 >Clear skies,
 >Bob Young

Hello Bob,

I read that article with interest, having come across at least
one case, though many years ago, wherein the UFO appearance
through binoculars was quite different than what was seen by the
naked eye -- more different than could be accounted for by the
binocular magnification. Similar, perhaps, are some of the cases
wherein a UFO was photographed by the camera but was not visible
to the photographer at the time.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                                  Re: IFOs

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:43:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:06:32 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 19:56:47 PDT


 >If skepticism has anything to do with the questioning of
 >received wisdom, American ufologists are by far more
 >iconoclastic, and thus more skeptical.  The European neoskeptics
 >-- pelicanists, I call them in my uncharitable moments (though I
 >could never be uncharitable to you, John) -- seem much more
 >believing of conventional opinion, far more obsessed with
 >holding safe and unheretical views which will keep the ridicule
 >of the washed at bay.

So basically, to reject a workable scientific model of the
universe on the basis of a series of contentious and
questionable narratives, is iconoclastic and by inference a good
thing; continuing to doubt the literal validity of these reports
because there is no convincing evidence behind them, is being
safe and unheretical and fearful of the riducule of the
establishment.

Yes, we British ufologist all meet from time to time at the
Carlton Club to decide just how far we can deviate from
conventional opinion before we are likely to meet ridicule from
the Royal Society, the House of Lords, Tony Blair, the Church of
England, the BBC, the MCC and the Royal Society of Miniaturists
and Watercolourists. Naturally we would be terrified of ever
upsetting such powerful establishment figures, who might laugh
at us for our strange views, uncouth accents and inability to
eat an artichoke properly.

 >For someone who champions the psychosocial approach to ufology,
 >I'm surprised that you would so easily dismiss cultural
 >attitudes -- such as anti-Americanism, even if unconscious -- in
 >the shaping of views regarding UFOs on your side of the pond.

Jerry, where the hell have I dismissed cultural attitudes as an
explanation for different attitudes to ufology on either side of
the Atlantic? Of course it's cultural attitudes, what else could
it be unless the UFOs have decided to share the earth out
amongst themselves, like that 15th century pope who drew a line
across a map to separate Portuguese and Spanish areas of
colonisation?

 >Believe me, if you were on my side and reading much of the
 >rhetoric from yours (which is uniquely obsessed with the
 >particular national identity of the dissenters from European
 >wisdom), you would be forced to agree that my characterization
 >is hardly a casual one.
 >I recall an especially amusing bit of
 >goofiness from no less than the esteemed Magonia, where one
 >authority on all things American (Peter Rogerson, if memory
 >serves, as it may not; forgive me, Peter, if I'm suffering from
 >what we Yanks call old-timer's disease) held that we're in the
 >grips of abduction delusions owing to our fear of Hispanics.

Oh dear, not this again. Yes, of course it was Peter, as you
know very well. I'm sure this isn't the only bit of goofiness
you've found in Magonia. If anybody wants to read the discussion
last time you'll find it archived away somewhere in the UpDates
vaults. I did actually get a couple of comments from people on
your side of the Atlantic saying they thought there might be
something in Peter's suggestion, but they were all
psychosocialists so they don't count.

 >To turnvery briefly serious: all of us, Brits, Americans, and
 >other earthlings, are prisoners of culture, in ways that
 >sometimes -- I didn't say always -- only those outside our
 >specific cultures can see.  On the other hand, don't get me
 >started on the subject of American characters in British movies,
 >or for that matter American ufologists in British UFO
 >journals....  I'm just joking.  Sort of.

And vice-versa of course.

 >>Someone like Jenny Randles is hardly considered as a sceptic in
 >>Britain, and I have criticised her as much as anyone when I
 >>think she has made unjustified assumptions which I felt had been
 >>based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence. However, in
 >>the end she has always allowed the evidence to get the upper
 >>hand. In American terms however, she seems to be rapidly gaining
 >>the status of lovable old Phil Klass as a hard line sceptic.

 >Not as far as I can see.  Is there a little wishful thinking
 >going on here, John -- just more proof of the foolishness of
 >Americans?

That's how it sounds from the responses to her latest postings
on UpDates, daring to say that there's no actual evidence for a
extraterrestrial landing on Earth.

 >Though I disagree with Jenny as often as I agree with
 >her, I like and respect her for what she is: one of ufology's
 >few truly nuanced thinkers.  Sometimes she (or, more accurately,
 >an opinion of hers) irritates the hell out of me, but she is
 >_always_ interesting and thought-provoking, and ufology is lucky
 >to have her.  Few people have contributed as much to this field
 >as she has.

"Always interesting and thought-provoking" is of course one of
the great put-down lines. You've used it about Magonia often
enough, as indeed I have about others.

 >Amusingly, the first full-length book to champion an early
 >version of ufology's psychosocial hypothesis was The
 >Unidentified, published in 1975. Jerome Clark, lifelong resident
 >of the United States, was coauthor and has been trying to live
 >it down ever since.

Yes I know, and we'll never let you forget it, Jerry. Some barmy
stuff in there, certainly, but definitely "interesting and
thought-provoking".

 >Witness perception and misperception, your (I'm sure
 >unintentionally) self-congratulatory observations
 >notwithstanding, has been discussed at length -- sometimes
 >book's length (e.g., by Dick Haines and Allan Hendry) -- this
 >side of the water.

I seem to remember in some previous discussion here that you
were telling us just how unreliable Hendry's book was, something
about his wife had been very critical of his statistics about
UFOs and IFOs. Got the impression then that you weren't too
impressed by it and thought we Magonians were taking is too
seriously? Somewhere in the archives I'm sure.

The point is that a lot has changed in ufology on both sides of
the Atlantic since those heady days in the seventies. And the
way American ufology has gone has been away from those landmark
publications, whereas in Euroland many of us have tended to
stick closer to the ideas of these great American pioneers.

 >IUR, which I edit, has also published some illuminating pieces
 >on that subject.  What you object to, I gather, is that we have
 >looked at the same data and found your conclusions concerning
 >same largely unwarranted and uncomfortably like ... oh, jeez,
 >you'll have to forgive me; I just can't help myself ... the
 >ruminations of English majors and librarians.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!!!!!!


--
John Rimmer
Magonia editor and member of the International Librarian Conspiracy.
(When they send you a letter saying that you have an overdue library book, and
you have already returned it, do you really think it is just an accident?)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:58:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:10:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >Andy's comments appear to miss the mark completely.
 >What Stan is clearly referring to is the testimony of witnesses
 >in a court trial. And witnesses in a court trial are directly
 >comparable to witnesses of a UFO sighting. In that sense,
 >the tools used to evaluate a trial witness' credibility can also
 >be used to evaluate whether a UFO witness is a trained
 >observer, has good character and is in possession
 >of his or her faculties.

Witnesses in a court trial are usually dealing with events we
know can happen. Houses do get burgled. People do get murdered.
Fraudsters do rob unsuspecting marks. The evidence sought here
is to determine how plausible it is that a particular individual
commited any of these acts. However a case in which I claimed
that you teleported yourself into my house in the middle of the
night and stole my video recorder might not be so
straightforward. If I produced someone who saw you actually
disappearing through the house wall and appearing a few moments
later with the said video in your hand, that wirness might just
get as tough a ride as abductee witnesses get from the sceptics.

Actually, that witness would probably get a much tougher
grilling than the average abductee, as lawyers are not as polite
as UFO investigators, even the hard-line sceptics.

So let's stop having these silly comparisons about court
evidence relating to criminal acts which everyone knows do
happen in real life, and abduction events which - to put it
politely - are far more contentious!

--
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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                                  Re: IFOs

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:15:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:12:26 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Subject: Re: IFOs
 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:21:36 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:20:13 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Unfortunately this introduces a very subjective element into the
 >>gathering of statistical data. Any individual investigator's
 >>view of "paydirt data" will vary. It is clear that many
 >>researcher's view of paydirt is anything which will support the
 >>idea that at least some UFO reports represent structured craft,
 >>hence vague lights-in-the-sky type reports are of little
 >>interest to them, and can be ignored when compiling statistics,
 >>inflating the "unexplained" cases at the expense of the
 >>"insufficient data" column.

 >Actually, there can be little doubt as to what represents
 >"paydirt" in any science. It is that observation which contains
 >the greatest amount of information.

 >In the UFO field, that means high angular size observations with
 >the longest available durations (at least for those of us who
 >accept the OEH (Objective Existence Hypothesis)).

Precisely, for those of you who accept the OEH, or at least your
interpretation of it.

 >>But researchers with a different agenda, promoting the
 >>earth-lights hypothesis for instance, will find the distant
 >>star-like objects extremely interesting, and would want to
 >>include them in any definition of a UFO worth studying.

 >Inclusion of such reports would seriously degrade to S/N ratio
 >in the data under study. If this is the sort of thing EL
 >proponents consider acceptable data, no wonder their conclusions
 >fail to be supportable.

 >History tells us that such reports are more likely than high
 >angular size reports to represent a "known". If they are instead
 >accepted as unknowns, they corrupt all of the results to which
 >they are applied.

I don't want to speak on behalf of earth-light researchers, but
they are looking for something rather different to OEH seekers.
Their research has a large statistical element. A concentration
of reports in a particular area which had previously been
identified as a possible locale for earthlight phenomena (i.e.
an area with major geological faults) would help provide
evidence as to whether or not such a prediction had scientific
value. Likewise, if an area was identified as having a
concentration of UFO reports, from LIT to "structured" objects,
and was later found to have major geological faulting, that
would also be evidence of value to the EL researcher.

 >>Ultimately we have to accept that the figure on which we must
 >>base our percentage of "unknowns" is the totality of events
 >>which are reported by the percipients as UFO events, and not
 >>just the ones we personally happen to find interesting.

 >That's a position which would hardly be acceptable in any
 >science. Can you imagine an ornithology which performed its
 >study of birds by including observations of insects, on the
 >rationale that specks too small to resolve could be birds?

What a spurious comparison. We know what a bird is. We can
clearly identify objects which are birds and study them. If we
come across an object which isn't a bird, or has no bird-like
features we can safely ignore it. However we don't know what a
UFO might be (well, some of the contributors to this list do,
obviously, because they're always telling us) so those
irritationg little LITs which subsequently turn out to have
boring explanations are part of our raw data. >

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonis.demon.co.uk





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:55:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:22:58 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:31:16 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Most serious British and Euro researchers are aware, if no more,
 >of the various psycho-social aspects of ufology and of the
 >vaguaries of witness testimony. Most serious American witnesses
 >seem more willing to take eyewitness testimony at face value --
 >see for instance the debate about Kenneth Arnold's golden geese
 >elsewhere on this list -- and discount the possibility of
 >radical misperceptions.

 >Now why should this be? Is it an example of American
 >politically-correct egalitarianism: everyone's viewpoint is
 >equally valid and should not be challenged? Or is it a
 >manifestation of European cynicism?

 >I actually think this growing rift is quite important, and is
 >worthy of some discussion, rather than just instant dismissal as
 >anti-American (or indeed anti-European) provincialism.


For the record,

I have been on the list for 2 1/2 years now and the only
anti-Americanism that I have seen came from two British
subscribers.

I have observed this negative attitude by a number of Brits
towards the US in other walks of life as well, such as music and
culture. In other words, I think there is simply some tension
between the Brits and the Americans that is underlying their
relationship towards each other. The cause of that? Perhaps the
Brits don't like to play second fiddle to Americans in English
speaking forums. After all, they gave up their position to the
Americans as the dominant world power and all that.

BTW. I don't think it's anti-Americanism. I'd rather say it's
a love-hate relationship.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:10:51 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:32:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:42:26 -0700
 >From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:54:20 -0300

 >>>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:29:17 -0700
 >>>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>Fact: There was insufficient information to identify _not one
 >>>report_ as an extraterretrial spacecraft, yet we are led to
 >>>believe by Stanton Friedman that PBBSR 14 statistically supports
 >>>his notion that "some" UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 >>The category ET Spacecraft was not one that could be used. So
 >>Ed's statement makes no sense.

 >The categories employed were balloons, aircraft, astronomical,
 >Light phenomenon, birds, clouds/dust/etc, insufficent
 >information, psychological manifestations, unknown and other. Of
 >greater importance was the main objective of the study:

 >"to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS
 >represent observations of technological developments not known
 >to this country."

 >A secondary goal was to "ferret out any distinguishing
 >characteristics inherent in the data" and to perform a
 >"concentrated study of any trend or pattern found".

 >The results were inconclusive. In other words, the probability
 >that any of the UNKNOWNS represented observations of
 >technological developments not known to this country was "highly
 >improbable". Of course, BMI was  not playing with a full deck.
 >They were trying to evaluate Project Blue Book reports notorious
 >for their incompleteness, lack of reliable measurements, and
 >limited Air Force investigation of the original reports which
 >meant that unreliable and unverified anecdotal testimony
 >comprised a portion of the data which BMI was attempting to
 >scientifically reduce and draw significant conclusions from. The
 >portion of the data which is unreliable and unverified varies
 >from a high percentage whether ET proponents are attacking the
 >Air Force Blue Book Project, to a low percentage to when they
 >are trying to present Blue Book Report #14 as supportive of
 >their notions.

 >BMI did not stop there. The problem they were asked to evaluate
 >was too important simply to give up if they could  not reach any
 >conclusive statistical results. They took a second look at just
 >the UNKNOWNS and separated them into UNKNOWNS, GOOD UNKNOWNS,
 >and POSSIBLE KNOWNS. Only seven GOOD UNKNOWNS were found. Later,
 >five more were added to that group. BMI attempted to build a
 >flying saucer model from the reported data of these twelve
 >cases. They could not do it! The anecdotal reports were so
 >inconsistent with each other that BMI reached the conclusion:

Bruce Maccabee did an excellent piece about the 12 best cases
nonsense. He has written an extensive paper on one of them.

 >"It is not possible, therefore, to derive a verified model
 >of a 'flying saucer' from the data that have been gathered to
 >date". In other words, reducing 4,000 reports as provided by the
 >Air Force, only 12 had sufficiently detailed descriptions but no
 >pattern or picture of what a flying saucer is could be
 >developed."

 >BMI did not stop there. They looked at the other groups of
 >UNKNOWNS for observed characteristics if any were the same.

 >"No such groups were found."

 >Of course, BMI was attempting to apply statistical methods to
 >Air Force data which has been shown to be notoriously
 >incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable and most importantly the
 >original data for the most part uninvestigated by the Air Force.
 >The same data that when it suits the fancy of ET promoters, is
 >purported to support their notion that some UFOs are
 >extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 >>The testimony of thousands of witnesses certainly carries
 >>weight in court as do radar measurements.

 >Court? Strange that a professed nuclear physicist has to make an
 >appeal for legal standards and not scientific standards. The
 >last time that science was decided in a courtroom setting was
 >during the Spanish Inquisition. In a social context, we have had
 >political standards applied to science in this century also. An
 >example being Germany during the 30s-40s.

Evaluation of testimony and evidence relating to UFO
observations using the techniques of the legal system,in the
face of the government's refusal to release what it has, is an
appropriate technique.Being a physicist gives one insight as to
the questions to ask.. Being a noisy negativist is easy. One
starts with a conclusion (no sightings can representt
observations of alien visitations)and pushes and shoves the data
to make it fit.Sort of like a defense attorney without a
prosecutor  to keep him honest.

 >>Observations of objects
 >>landing and taking off and leaving physical traces and in about
 >>1/5 of the cases involving strange beings cannot be ignored even
 >>if the Pope or Larry King or Ed Stewart wasn't there.

 >It was ignored when the elite (you weren't invited to
 >participate) of ufology made their pitch last year to an
 >"independent" panel of members of the scientific community at
 >Rockefeller's place. Or when the Coalition presented the best
 >evidence. Strange that no CE-III cases of note were included.
 >Much less abductions.

Cetainly is strange .. reminds me of the Robertson panel.

 >>testimony of abductees cannot be ignored even if the Queen
 >>wasn't there.

 >See above.

 >>It is 20%  Ed  not 10%.

 >Well, actually, the unknowns can be just about anything
 >dependent on what someone wishes to emphasize. The statistics
 >contained in the charts and tables used the end of 1952 as the
 >cutoff date. It included 3201 total cases. 1953 and 1954 cases
 >show an UNKNOWN rate of 9% (4834 cases by the end of 1954),
 >while the 1955 cases to May 5, 1955 show an UNKNOWN rate of only
 >3%. (131 total 1955 cases)

Of course Ed is fully aware that BBSR 14 tables did indeed not
deal with any of the l953-55 cases. He is beginning to sound
more and more like one of those Air Force Disinformation
Specialists. USAF Sec. Donald A. Quarles in the October 25, 1955
Press Release "Air Force Releases Study on Unidentified Flying
Object" (the report wasn't distributed, the names of the
investigators and of BMI were not mentioned.) stated  " On the
basis of this study we believe that no objects such as those
popularly described as flying saucers have overflown the United
States. I feel certain that even the UNKNOWN three % could have
been explained as conventional phenomena or illusions if more
complete observational data had been available". His 3% was the
3% of the 131 l955 cases. It had absolutely nothing to do with
"this study" for which 20%  of 3201 cases were  UNKNOWNS
completely independent of the 10% listed as insufficient
information. In short he lied, or is disinformed a better word?

The USAF techniques were worse, not better than BMIs.

The rules were try to explain everything no matter how unlikely
the explanation was. There were many other tricks used to try to
fool the public.. almost as bad as explaining reports of alien
bodies connected with Roswell as Crash Test Dummies not dropped
until 6 years later, or trying to get rid of 1947 reports of a
red haired officer using Colonel Kittinger who wasn't at the
Roswell Hospital until 1959.

 >But I know that Stanton Friedman knew that all along. He is a
 >nuclear physicist after all and should understand the nature of
 >statistics. <GRIN>

 >>Perhaps you ought to buy and read  a
 >>copy of the 250 page report from UFORI, Complete with the
 >>misleading press release and all tables, charts etc only $25.

 >Why would anyone do that?  For half your price, $12, they can
 >get an analyses from FUFOR that says essentially the same thing.
 >BBR #14 is the greatest thing supporting ET (if you read it the
 >right way) and ignore that the raw data reduced in the report is
 >notoriously incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable and most
 >importantly for the most part uninvestigated by the Air Force
 >and presented to BMI "as is". In all fairness, it can be argued
 >that it is the best of the Blue Book data because Blue Book went
 >downhill from the moment it was created.

 >>including priority Postage.I will even throw in my  20 page"Case
 >>for The ET Origin of Flying Saucers" (only $4.by itself)

 >Stanton Friedman, the business man that argues for legal
 >standards in the interpretation of data, but professes to be a
 >nuclear physicist. Will the real Stanton Friedman please stand
 >up?

The real Stanton Friedman is interested in finding the truth.
Legal standards are far more appropriate for dealing with
testimony than are lab experiments totally under the control of
the experimenter. When I have a piece of wreckage I know an
appropriate place to have it tested.

 >>>_zero_. Stanton Friedman calls it "a serious semantic
 >>>difficulty".

 >>It is because it is undefined.SETI cultists talk about contact
 >>from many light years away; is that what is meant? Or a
 >>handshake or what?

 >Ask one of the many English majors on this mailing list. I fully
 >realize you have a tendency to gag when the word 'confirmation'
 >is uttered, mainly because no matter what the definition you are
 >unable to support your contention.

Still can't define "Confirmed alien contact" can you, Ed?

 >>>When asked to produce a single case Friedman, as
 >>>well as others holding similar viewpoints, refuse to do so
 >>>stating that the evidence that some UFOs are extraterrestrial
 >>>spacecraft is in the aggregate, not in any single case.

 >>Try RB 47, Hills, Salt Lake City.. etc etc.

 >Personally, I think the "etc.etc." case is the most promissing.
 ><GRIN>I knew all along that Stanton Friedman would come through
 >with a definite case that left no doubt ET made a pit stop on
 >the third rock from the Sun.

 >>Try those in Jim
 >>McDonald's congressional testimony though none have papal
 >>imprimateur.
 >
 >Dr. McDonald was enough of a scientist to separate his belief
 >that some UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft, from the
 >knowledge that there was no compelling scientific evidence to
 >support his notion to his collleagues. That is why he fought so
 >strongly for added study and investigation. It was necessary if
 >ufology ever was going to get there from where it was in his
 >lifetime. There is not one single case which he publically
 >hawked as an ET spacecraft case and you know it. You dishonor
 >the memory of Dr. James McDonald by implying otherwise. But then
 >again, Dr. James McDonald was a real scientist. He didn't simply
 >talk the talk. He also walked the walk. In spite of his beliefs,
 >he was a scientist above all.

 >>>Yet, the 16,090 MUFON and FSR articles that have reported on
 >>>ufological cases, offered here as evidence in the aggregate,
 >>>fail to substantiate Friedman's contention and belief that "some
 >>>UFOs" are extraterrestrial spacecraft. Instead, they are
 >>>introduced here as compelling evidence that the percentage of
 >>>"confirmed alien contact" in the published UFO literature as of
 >>>today is _zero_!

 >>Again it was 20% Ed. That is much higher than the % of isotopes
 >>that are fissionable or people who are 7' tall.

 >Also higher than the percentage of professed nuclear physicists
 >shorter that 7' tall that rely on social appeals to the court
 >system or polls instead of scientific standards. See above.


Court techniques are appropriate for evaluating testimony. Why
is that so difficult to understand?

 >>>>As I noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC and in a number of papers,
 >>>>Carl Sagan has said many foolish and unscientific things
 >>>>about flying saucers.

Nothing like snipping the preceding remark about Sagan

 >>>As I have documented in the past on this very same mailing list,
 >>>Friedman's _Top Secret/Majic_ is riddled with errors, historical
 >>>innacuracies, misrepresentation of people's quotes and
 >>>positions, faulty logic, and unsupported substantiations in the
 >>>presentation of his beliefs. The above is a matter or record.
 >>>Check the archival record of this mailing list for past
 >>>discussions on MJ-12 for specific examples.

 >>Now I understand CAC.. approved by Ed Stewart. Sorry I don't
 >>belong to that church.

 >It is not required that you "belong" to anything. It is
 >documented evidence that shows a compelling archival record of
 >the real Stanton Friedman.

Another neat snip about my traipsing around the world.

 >>Sounds like the green monster is  coming into play. Sorry Ed, I
 >>don't need anybody to carry my luggage.

 >Your baggage is your responsibility, no one elses.


So is yours Ed and it sure is over the weight limit.

Stan Friedman.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:44:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:03:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


 >From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:05:23 PDT
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:19:47 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

Previously, Jerry Black proclaimed:

<snip>

 >We have
 >proven conclusively through the work of Mr. William G. Hyzer
 >[and his son James] that photograph #19, the famous road-shot,
 >is without question, a double exposure.

Jerry,

For the record, I'd like you to provide specific technical
details of just how Mr. Hyzer and son proved conclusively that
photograph #19 (or any photo, for that matter) is a double
exposure.

You'll excuse my somewhat terse tone, but I have very little
room for people that pontificate about something that they know
little or nothing about. Since you have recently made quite the
stink about the same thing in the world of ufology, then you'll
understand my disdain that you consider yourself a "self
appointed expert" on the subject of photographic techniques or,
at the very least, on the subject of photograph #19 and its
validity.

Make no mistake; this posting is neither in support of nor
against the validity of photograph #19. It is a fundamental
examination of whether or not you practice what you preach. How
can you, Jerry Black, prove that photograph #19 is a double
exposure?

I know the answer. Do you?

Roger Evans





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:28:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:15:23 -0400
Subject: Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology


Wendy,

I don't recall seeing a message about a McCoy tape on the UFO
UpDates list. I don't check into the Project Sign site often. I
will certainly read the transcript on the Sign list.

I recall Hall saying some years ago that he recalled McCoy but,
at the time, did not know the "real McCoy,"  that is McCoy's
connection to early UFO work. I gather from wat you said that,
with a background in the history, one is able to "read between





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                  Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:44:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:18:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


 >From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:05:23 PDT

 >Mr. Joe Murgia:

 >I certainly disagree with your analysis that we have to prove
 >every one of Ed Walters' photographs to be a hoax. We have
 >proven conclusively through the work of Mr. William G. Hyzer
 >[and his son James] that photograph #19, the famous road-shot,
 >is without question, a double exposure.>

Hyzer did not prove photo 19 wasa dpouble exposure. Reasons why
he was not able to do so have been provided in numerous previous
posts and publications.

On the other hand, other photos Ed took have no evidence of
double exposure and some argue against it.

Black doesn't understand the significance of the smearing of the
images of the nearby streetlight and the UFO lights in the first
5 photos. The smears are due to camera motion. The smears of the
light and UFO images are in the same directiona dn magnitude.
The identical nature of th two smears is at best, highly
unlikely, and some might say impossible, if a double exposure
where the first exposure (of th model) creates an image smear
(of the model image) by one hand jerk/vibration and the second
exposure creates another image smear (of the
background/streetlight image) with a different hand
jerk/vibration.

As I have published before, the blu beam image in photo 11
contradicts the double exposure hypothesis, as does photo 1 (UFO
partly blocked by tree).

Hufford may well have seen the same object. Black does not
discuss the other witnesses who claimed to have sen the same
thing, such as Dr. McConnell and wife who had a good view for a
couple of minutes and Truman Holcombe who not only saw the
object, but also reported seeing the beam.

Before faling for Black.... read UFOs Are Real, Here'S The Proof.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                              Re: Bell Lawsuits

From: Sue Kovios <bradford@globalserve.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:25:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:21:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Bell Lawsuits


 >From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Bell Lawsuits
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:38:13 -0500

<snip>

 >Bell obtained temporary protective orders June 21 in Pahrump
 >Justice Court against Colorado resident David John Oates and
 >Montana resident Robert A.M. Stephens.

Okay guys, time to get a life. If this kind of 'crap' is going
to be dragged into ufology, or any other field associated with
discovery of our origins and other life forms, I would prefer to
not even hear from Bell, Oates, Stephens, or any other
individual who hopes to make a buck this way, or thrive off
defaming another. If you have proof of what you all say is
going on or not going on or whatever you're causing a 'stink'
about and accusing one another of, present it, deal with it and
get along little doggie.

It sure as hell ain't gettin us any further to the truth and
your 'truths' are only interfering with the real tasks at hand,
which by the way are far more important than your na na na na
na's.

Stop acting like you _do_ work for 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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                  Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:15:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:40:38 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 11:51:47 PDT

 >>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'
 >>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:02:01 PDT


 >>I would now like to refer to remarks you made about my comments
 >>concerning the "self-proclaimed leaders of ufology".

 >>You knew exactly what I meant, however I will explain that for
 >>you and to all the internet readers. The "self-proclaimed
 >>leaders of ufology" are those who appear most frequently on TV,
 >>or appear at most of the UFO symposiums throughout the country.
 >>Snip

 >Wrong, old boy, unless you can provide specific evidence -- I'm
 >talking quotes here, not broad, sweeping charges -- that any of
 >these individuals have declared _themselves_ "leaders of
 >ufology." That's what "self-proclaimed" means.  You're referring
 >to persons who, for one reason or another, for good or ill, are
 >prominent figures in this field.  Whether they are "leaders" is
 >quite another issue, much less "self-proclaimed" ones.
 >

Dr. Jerome Clark, how dare you NOT mention my name in this post.
I have indeed declared myself to be "The, Self Proclaimed
Ufological Ex Spurt."  Not mentioning my name is demeaning. And
after all I've done to try to get you to allow us to publish
your stuff. All that free, fresh wine and everything.
Ingrate! Fink! However, if you please, I will consider
publishing the next heavy books(s) you write.  Only the heavy
ones, please.  They make great substitoots for Canal Street and
Bowery feet, which are getting very expensive these days.  Not
only do they want free Gripple, but they demand money for food.
Ingrates!

 >If you want to criticize some well-known individual for his/her
 >views or behavior, fine.  But it's bizarre to criticize persons
 >on the lame, unfair, and manifestly false grounds that they have
 >proclaimed _themselves_ ufology's leaders.  Reading this, I have
 >a hard time, to be honest, taking you seriously.

Why not?

 >>The Whitley Strieber
 >>show Confirmation was produced with no intent to authenticate
 >>the Strieber claim of experiences with the visitors. Just
 >>because he has written a book and is a well-established author,
 >>they decided to do a special on TV using him as an executive
 >>producer. So the general public cannot rely on TV to give them
 >>the true answer to the cases that we see on TV and are written
 >>in books.
 >Snip

 >I'm confused.

Me too, Jerry.

<snip>

 >Once more, please cite -- again, I am asking for specific quotes
 >-- who has appointed him- or herself a "leader" of ufology.  I
 >have been around this field probably longer than you have, and
 >to the best of my recollection, I have _never_ heard anyone call
 >himself a "leader" of ufology.  The closest thing I can imagine
 >a "leader" to be is the head of a specific UFO group, which is
 >hardly the same animal as all of ufology.  In my limited
 >experience of UFO groups (my only organizational affiliation has
 >been with CUFOS), the heads are not "self-appointed" but elected
 >by a board of directors. Thus, for example, Mark Rodeghier is
 >not the "self-appointed leader" of CUFOS.

Dear Black person, I will answer this one on your behalf.  I
hope you don't mind.  I, Dr. J. Jamie Gesundt, declare that I am
a self procaimed and appointed UFO Ex Spurt and leader of UFO
stuff.  Satisfied, Clark?  Huh?

 >>In my opinion, neither of these aforementioned are
 >>doing their jobs at keeping the general public informed of which
 >>cases are credible and which cases do not deserve attention. I
 >>also do not think the Mutual UFO Network and the "self-appointed
 >>leaders of ufology" are doing a good, sound, scientific and
 >>objective job when they do investigate these cases.

You are quite correct.  This is my job.

 >If you are saying that the MUFON UFO Journal ought not to be
 >running articles on alien skeletons, I'm with you, friend.

FIEND... FIEND.... get it right.

 >>As you stated, Mr. Jerome Clark, your organization does not have
 >>the time or money to really get into investigating current cases
 >>out there in ufology, besides the fact of putting your opinion
 >>of cases in your monthly journal. So I am not accusing you of
 >>not doing a good job of investigating current cases, because as
 >>you have told me: you are not doing "any" job of investigating
 >>current UFO cases. You are simply making small reports in your
 >>journal which are merely opinions.

 >Actually, not.  IUR, which I'm sure you don't read or you
 >wouldn't have typed the above nonsense, carries investigative
 >pieces as well as insightful analytical overviews.  For example,
 >the current issue (available from J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO
 >Studies, 2457 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659 --
 >thanks for the opportunity to put in the plug) carries a 14-page
 >investigative review, by Bill Chalker (prominent, well-regarded
 >Australian ufologist who has never to my knowledge proclaimed
 >himself to be a "leader" of the field), of apparent biological
 >evidence associated with an abduction case.  The same issue
 >carries two first-rate analytical essays by Mark Cashman
 >("Behavioral Classification System for UFO Occupants") and
 >Thomas E. Bullard ("Abductions and Researcher Bias: How to Lose
 >Your Way").  I happen to think we're putting out the best UFO
 >magazine in America, and a lot of people agree, if we can credit
 >the comments and letters we get from readers who appreciate our
 >sober, balanced, informed approach.

 >>While your friendship with some of these "self-proclaimed
 >>leaders of ufology" may keep you from making certain remarks
 >>about their work, it certainly doesn't stop me. I will continue
 >>to keep making remarks that I feel is necessary as long as they
 >>continue to do the job they are doing at this particular time.

 >Before you get any more carried away on a tidal wave of self-
 >righeousness, you need -- let me say it again -- to tell us when
 >and where these individuals have proclaimed themselves "leaders
 >of ufology."

Damn you Clark, I already answered that one.  Stop repeating
yourself.

 >>I, however, agree with you that there are many people out there
 >>who do a tremendous job who hardly get any ink, get no time on
 >>national radio or TV, but do a tremendous job in trying to help
 >>find the answer to the UFO phenomena. Some of those people are:
 >>Jenny Randles, Tom Dueley, Ray Fowler, Dan Wright, Tom Adams,
 >>Glenn Joyner, Mark Rodheigher, Rex Salisberry, and the list
 >>could go on and on. But these people, because of family or other
 >>responsibilities, do not have the time needed to allow
 >>themselves to be leaders in the field of ufology and attend the
 >>national symposia in the country, or to appear on national TV
 >>or radio. I wish that some of these people would do so.

 >Odd.  Jenny Randles, whom I also admire, is quite well known,
 >even outside ufology, in Britain for her many media appearances.
 >Mark Rodeghier, who leads CUFOS, has appeared on a number of
 >television programs, radio shows, and videos, and he is a
 >regular at national symposia.  In fact, he goes to, and speaks
 >at, many more than I do. Tom Adams has not been active as a
 >ufologist for years; his principal interest for a long time has
 >been alleged mutilations of cattle. Tom Deuley is a ubiquitous
 >presence on the UFO scene, deeply involved with MUFON and the
 >Coalition, and I've run into Dan Wright on a number of occasions
 >at conferences.  Ray Fowler has written many books, toured to
 >promote them, and been a guest on numerous UFO shows on TV and
 >radio. Aside from noting the obvious inaccuracy of your
 >characterization above, I am at a loss to grasp your point,
 >unless it's that the above are good people and the other people
 >are not.

Jenny is a woman.  And having been married for more than thirty
years and having had my mommy and daddy married for over 60
years, I can tell you what that means.  Only off line and on a
secure phone. They can punish a man very painfully, you know.
Even without a knife.

 >>Finally, Mr. Clark, you have said that honorable men have come
 >>down on both sides of the case in Gulf Breeze, Florida. I
 >>certainly agree that all the gentlemen and ladies mentioned as
 >>"self-proclaimed leaders of ufology" are likely honorable
 >>people, some of whom have earned Ph.D.'s. All that means is that
 >>honorable men and women, some of whom have Ph.D's, can at times
 >>be lousy UFO investigators.

 >Like you, I have deep doubts about the core claims of the Gulf
 >Breeze episode.  On the other hand, I have much respect for
 >Bruce Maccabee's intelligence, knowledge, and ability.  If you
 >want to argue photoanalysis with him, I'm afraid you're going to
 >lose.

 >Again, if you want to criticize certain prominent ufologists for
 >what you perceive to be their shortcomings, you have every right
 >to do so.  Nobody's perfect, God knows.  Unfortunately, the
 >criticisms you've given us so far seem irrelevant, self-serving,
 >and even spurious.  Or, as the Bard says,  sound and fury,
 >signifying nothing.

 >Jerry Clark

Horse hockey.  I am perfect.

In conclusion, and with respect to my opinion of Mr. Dr. Black's
comments....

"Mmfff frpppp lousy stinkin no good bbfhfiuhw@#**!"






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 30

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:04:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:53:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:16:51 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: "updates@globalserve.net" <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:34:46 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:30:30 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@virgin.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:43:43 +0100

 >>Also this video evidence (hardly of a 'lower standard'!) is, a)
 >>available for analysis in its original un-cut format direct from
 >>Chris Martin's video camera, b) to my knowledge there have been
 >>witnesses present on most of Chris' footage (inc: myself) and
 >>these can clearly be heard on the soundtracks.

 >Marc,

 >I have never mentioned anything about Chris Martin's video, only
 >Roy and yourself have brought this into play. My original
 >comment was that everyone has a different standard to which they
 >believe a UFO is an ET craft. If you and Roy feel that this
 >video shows an ET craft, then that's fine. But don't drag me in
 >saying that because I've known Roy to make some assumptions
 >before, therefore because Roy believes this video is astounding
 >evidence then I must obviously think it's worthless. The true of
 >the matter is, I haven't seen the footage therefore I cannot
 >comment on it.

 >>What evidence do we need? Surely this must be part of it?

 >I can't say because I haven't seen it, nor has anyone explained
 >what the footage contains. My point originally was exactly your
 >question, what evidence do we need to believe a UFO is a
 >'controlled ET craft'?

 >I hope this makes things a little clearer.


Dear Tony,

I have no interest in personal grudges, back-biting,  or
nit-picking over minor or irrelevent detail.

What I have seen with my own eyes and what I've seen on video
(when I have also been a witness), can only be discribed as
'un-explained'. However in my humble opinion, there is nothing
to say that some of these could be a) structured E.T. craft b)
sky beast

My opinion is also swayed by the fact I have seen one of these
craft recently at close quarters with two witnesses present. It
'blinked' out against a clear blue sky. Perhaps someone on this
list can name a 'man made' craft that can do this.

It is also interesting to note that I was on a mobile phone link
to Chris Martin talking about sightings we had made earlier that
day (on video) and one of the witnesses a few seconds prior to
this was telling me she'd love to see one really close up.... I
can't explain it.

All the best,

Marc Bell





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                  Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:44:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:06:53 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'
 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 11:51:47 PDT

 >>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: 'Self-Proclaimed Leaders Of Ufology'
 >>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:02:01 PDT

 >Hi, Jerry,

 >>I would now like to refer to remarks you made about my comments
 >>concerning the "self-proclaimed leaders of ufology".

<snip>

 >>As you stated, Mr. Jerome Clark, your organization does not have
 >>the time or money to really get into investigating current cases
 >>out there in ufology, besides the fact of putting your opinion
 >>of cases in your monthly journal. So I am not accusing you of
 >>not doing a good job of investigating current cases, because as
 >>you have told me: you are not doing "any" job of investigating
 >>current UFO cases. You are simply making small reports in your
 >>journal which are merely opinions.

 >Actually, not.  IUR, which I'm sure you don't read or you
 >wouldn't have typed the above nonsense, carries investigative
 >pieces as well as insightful analytical overviews.  For example,
 >the current issue (available from J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO
 >Studies, 2457 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659 --
 >thanks for the opportunity to put in the plug) carries a 14-page
 >investigative review, by Bill Chalker (prominent, well-regarded
 >Australian ufologist who has never to my knowledge proclaimed
 >himself to be a "leader" of the field), of apparent biological
 >evidence associated with an abduction case.  The same issue
 >carries two first-rate analytical essays by Mark Cashman
 >("Behavioral Classification System for UFO Occupants") and
 >Thomas E. Bullard ("Abductions and Researcher Bias: How to Lose
 >Your Way").  I happen to think we're putting out the best UFO
 >magazine in America, and a lot of people agree, if we can credit
 >the comments and letters we get from readers who appreciate our
 >sober, balanced, informed approach.

Hi,

Let me chip in here to defend the IUR and Jerry Clark - as it
may carry some weight with the other Jerry given that I am not
(and would never wish to be) a leader of ufology. Not even a
leader of British Ufology. Heck, not even a leader of ufology in
Dove Holes. Politics in ufology is one of the reasons for our
various problems and we are served best by researchers and
investigators (both inside and outside of groups) doing a good
job and publishing it through the handful of excellent
magazines. There are not that many. But there are some.

There are only three UFO associations I have ever been directly
involved with. My local team (now called NARO and of which I
have only ever been, or wanted to be, an ordinary member),
BUFORA, which even though I have no current role (I am not a
council member let alone a leader) I have been on council from
time to time in the past, and CUFOS - although I am not overtly
in any way with the group, only as a contributer to the
magazine, but I am associated in the very real sense that I
uttterly support its ideals, sober approach to the subject and -
most importantly - its professional output. This includes the
superb (and unrivalled) Journal of UFO Studies for in depth
analysis and the IUR, which under Jerry's editorship has been
and is, in my estimation, the best UFO publication we have got.
This is why he and the IUR and CUFOS have had my complete
backing.

As you have seen from the discussions in this list, Jerry and I
do not agree on everything. We disagree as often as we agree, in
fact. But we share a common approach to the problem and I have
utmost respect for the extensive work he has done that has
contributed so much. ufology has benefited from his
documentation of cases, historical research and skilful editing
(not to mention his own writing - of which the encylopedia
project has to rank amongst the two or three most important
pieces of UFO literature we have ever had). All across four
decades (which means Jerry must have started very young!)
(Sorry, Jerry, I first read one of your articles in FSR when I
was at school and its only recently I figured out that you
cannot have been much out of there yourself)

Although he has never used the term of himself or even hinted at
it, I regard Jerry as a leader of ufology - and thus take note
of what he says on any issue - but I mean a leader in the sense
that he guides us through example not through self proclamation
or ego. I doubt he would even dream of thinking himself by that
description.

You might think this is flannel, or the old pals act. It isnt.
There is no other organisation I would defend like I do CUFOS
(regularly on interviews over here) and very few ufologists I
would support openly in this way. The remarkable thing is that
so many of the others are associated with the IUR and CUFOS. If
Jerry Black is unaware of all this fine material dating back 25
years and is not reading the IUR then I am sorry, but its a loss
I would suggest that he rectify.

Of course, ufology has its own version of what you might term
the ego has landed. The media inevitably focus on the people
they think will give them the biggest story and that usually
means those with the most positive (or even outspoken) views.
Its how life is. The loudest get heard and the wisest keep their
mouths shut. But as Jerry C notes many of those you may not see
often on TV are still out there making their voice heard by
other routes. I dont get on TV much myself these days, much less
than a few years ago as new blood has come along like Nick Pope
and gets most of the interview requests, but its not a cause of
despair. I have had my share of appearances and still do them
from time to time, but am happy these days to say no more often
than I say yes.

Age brings the wisdom of holding ones council I guess.

So we all do what we do best in our own way and for some thats
banging a drum on TV, for others its writing books and for
others still just getting on with the job pleases them most such
as case investigation or pressing the government to wake up or
come clean. The difference is between the UFO organisational
structure, which by its nature requires a hierarchy and
leadership system to function, and so attracts that kind of
personality to lead, and ufology, per se, which involves the
groups, of course, but is more than just groups. Jacques Vallee,
for instance, told me quite categorically once that nothing of
much value emerges from groups. I think thats an over reaction,
but it has a degree of truth. He, of course, has steered well
away from the UFO hierarchy but it has not stopped him
contributing in his own way.

Ufology, as a movement, is much more a team of equals working in
loose partnership, disagreeing, of course, but working towards a
common goal. The internet well illustrates that. There is no
hierarchy here. It doesnt matter two hoots whether you have
written 100 books, made 1000 TV appearances and received the
award for the years most voluble UFOlogist, or whether you saw a
UFO last night and are about to read your first book. Equanimity
rules and we all have our say.Thats how it should be.

The real essence of ufology does not require leaders. In fact
they would get in the way. In the UK right now a few of us are
trying to forge a UFO community that is not a group. It will
have no members, no leaders, no committees, no conferences, no
lectures, no money. It will just be a loosely forged alliance of
like minded UFOlogists getting on with researching the cases we
think will contribute most to our knowledge. It will not be
distracted by the things that too often can dominate some groups
(not all groups I should emphasise) - that is power politics,
membership numbers and finance.

The media does not always reflect ufology as it is in its
entirity but I dare say the same is true of any area of life. So
we just have to forget about any perceived unfairness and get on
with the job. Thats what really matters, not how often we appear
on Sightings, surely?

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: F. Scott Elisberg <scott-elisberg@home.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:51:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:29:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

 >I would remind Andy of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater's
 >efforts to gain access to the Wright Patterson AFB site where
 >alien debris was allegedly kept. Goldwater was a friend of the
 >base commander, Gen. Curtis LeMay, and moreover was
 >himself an officer with the Air Force Reserves and, most
 >importantly, chair of the Senate Select Committee on
 >Intelligence.

 >As Goldwater reported to friends, he was told in no uncertain
 >terms that not only would he not be given access, but not to
 >ask again.

 >What, I ask, was so important that the chair of the Senate
 >intelligence committee would be deemed unworthy of gaining
 >entrance? Could it have been Andy's vaunted physical evidence?


Dear Pat and Listmembers,

Since you bring up the famous remarks made by Barry Goldwater
regarding his inquiry to General LeMay about access to supposed
ET artifacts at Wright Pat, I hope if the following information
could help clarify some things.

I have heard the actual audio recording of Goldwater's remarks
as I'm sure most of you have. No one has ever disputed that he
said those words or that he meant what he said. It sounded to me
like LeMay treated Goldwater as an "impertinent junior officer"
for making such an inquiry. But Goldwater also says that they
were the very best of friends(?)

I consider General Curtis E. LeMay a war criminal and perhaps
one of the greatest mass murderers of all time. In the latter
months of WW2, he became chief of staff of the Strategic Air
Forces in the Pacific. LeMay's strategy could have come right
from the Nazi play-book, so to speak. Knowing that much of the
civilian population lived in concentrated areas, in homes made
mostly of paper and wood, he saw an opportunity. He had almost
all missions diverted to bomb strictly in the civilian areas
with firebombs. The resulting firestorms caused massive
suffering and death, far more than the combination of both
atomic bombs that were used later. By June 1945, LeMay's
firebombs had wiped out 56.3 square miles of Tokyo and vast
stretches of other cities, killing as many as a half million
men, women, and children outright and leaving 8 million
homeless. So fierce and intense was the bombing campaign, that
he depleted the entire stock of firebombs and was forced to use
regular bombs on the civilian targets until fresh supplies came.
When Truman became aware of the full extent of the horror he was
against it, but perhaps this was not a good time to start a
fight over strategy with a general with whom he was about ready
to let use atomic weapons. In any case he let it continue, at
least until he knew the atomics would work. At the time of the
Roswell crash, General LeMay was assigned to the Pentagon as the
first Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Research and Development. He
was one of the progenitors of the Strategic Air Command and was
it's commanding general from 1948 though 1957, then Air Force
vice chief of staff to 1961 and chief of staff to 1965. He never
was assigned to Wright Paterson as base commander, but he
certainly would have known what was there and could have
unlimited access as head of the Air Force.

His was the type of military mind-set, through the cold-war and
perhaps even today, that could and would, in effect, order a
civilian, no matter how politically powerful, to keep their nose
out the military's dealings with ET technology. Basically, in
essence, the generals are paid to be a highly professional
killers.

If the generals are in possession of a technology that will give
them an edge against potential adversaries, are they going to
share that? No. (Especially not with a politician -- the
quickest way to loose something is to give it to a politician).
No, not ever, until war is impossible and there are no more
armies or generals. No matter how potentially beneficial the
release of ET technology would be for humanity, the generals
have another priority, even "our" generals. General Curtis LeMay
is considered an American war hero to this day.

Scott Elisberg





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                  [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense E-News 7-30-99

From: Jocelyn Savage <jocelyn@dewittec.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:55:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:34:56 -0400
Subject: [rense_e-news] Jeff Rense E-News 7-30-99


----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                          The Week Ahead
                        8-1-99 thru 8-6-99

            Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                        From sightings.com

                Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
                exclusively by Free Subscription.

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       * FROM JEFF'S DESK *

In a field as strange as UFOlogy, weirdness, strange books, and off-
the-wall articles are common.  Once in a while one comes along that
is a major prize nominee...like this one, sent to us 'For Immediate
Release' on 7-26-99.

The AIDS-ET Connection
 From PHILLIP S DUKE <drpduke@juno.com>
7-26-99

Dr. Phillip S. Duke Ph.D.'s new book "The AIDS-ET Connection" is
a blockbuster. The book presents evidence that HIVs and the HIV
world wide epidemics are purposeful creations of ET Aliens!

HIVs are presented as Alien created ideal Biological Warfare
agents of mass human destruction. Dr. Duke says HIVs are now
doing what they were designed for. HIV infection is spreading
rapidly, and the most that education with preventive measures
has accomplished, is in some cases to slow the spread.

Employment of a sexually transmitted agent ensures destruction
of the work force's most vital age group. In the USA AIDS is the
number one cause of death for young men aged 25-44. The long
asymptomatic infectious period of years ensures effective
spread.

According to Dr. Duke employment of an RNA retroviral agent
ensures rapid viral genetic change. So rapid that creation of a
generally effective preventive vaccine is virtually impossible.

When enough people are sick, dying and dead, human civilization
will collapse. Then the alien colonization will proceed, without
concern for organized resistance.

"The Aliens" says Dr. Duke, "Want to live here. They do not want
a radioactive wasteland. That is why they are proceeding in
secret. Our government has known of the Aliens for over 50 years
now, but before my work no one had evidence linking the Aliens
to HIV. I present that evidence."

His work, Dr. Duke says, is a scientific hypothesis, the least
reliable stage of scientific knowledge. It requires testing,
but- "It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain testing  of
something society says does not exist."

The social blackout on UFO investigations has created a
dangerous ignorance concerning what the Aliens are doing. At
this time only a few humans know. One is Dr. David Jacobs whose
book The Threat should be required reading.

If you want to learn more read the book. "The AIDS-ET
Connection" is available for $20.00 from Dr. Phil Duke 2503 S.
47th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68106 USA. <Amazon.com> also
carries it. For more information see <www.anomalies.net/~pduke/>.
Dr. Duke's e-mail address is
<drpduke@juno.com>.

If you desire medical assistance consult a physician without
delay. Good Luck!

Phillip S. Duke Ph.D. Graduate USC Medical School Pathology
Department
__________

Now, a small rejoinder...and a little review...for the author...

By Jeff Rense
www.sightings.com

Having spent three years researching and compiling my own
extensive book on the origins of HIV and the mechanics of its
transmission, I was more than er...disappointed to read the
outlandishly absurd proposal that ET has sewn the deadly AIDS
virus on our humble planet with the intent of, shall we say,
mitigating the human race.

In nearly ten years of the closest scrutiny of this issue, and
having interviewed on my program, multiple times, such
AIDS-origin authorities as Dr. Len Horowitz ('Emerging Viruses:
AIDS and Ebola'), Dr. Robert Strecker, MD ('The Strecker
Memorandum'), Dr. Lorraine Day, MD ('What The Government Isn't
Telling You About AIDS'), and Dr. Carey Savitch, MD ('The
Nutcracker Is Already Dancing'), it is awesomely clear we don't
need ET to have concocted and spread HIV.  Humans are more than
nefarious enough to have conjured up AIDS...and undoubtedly many
more frightful and deadly items which are probably sitting on
BSL Level 3 lab shelves and in secret freezers in this very
country.

Going back to the 1960 House Appropriations Subcommittee
verbatim testimony, in which the DoD [Department of Defense]
actually requests $10 million for the creation of an HIV weapon,
and the World Health Organization's call for the creation of an
HIV organism ('for cancer research' purposes, of course), the
record is quite clear:  humans created HIV ('accidentally' or
otherwise) probably 25-35 years ago and are responsible for its
introduction and spread into a catastrophic epidemic.  We don't
need to look to our space brothers as culprits. To even suggest
such reveals a monumental naivete'...if not a downright, and
transparent, effort to confuse the public and obfuscate the
reality of the blacker aspects of our military-industrial ethos.

Direct from the 1960 DoD funding request in the Congressional
hearing: "...possible to make a new infective
microorganism...differ(ent)... from any known disease-causing
organisms.  Most important...it might be refractory to the
immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to
maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."  Read:
your DoD asked for $10 million to build an immune- system
destroying virus 40 YEARS AGO.

We can also toss in NSM 200 from the 70's in which Henry
Kissinger elucidates that the reduction of population in third
world countries is now termed a vital US national interest.  HIV
is, indeed, a perfect vehicle for reducing population, at home
and abroad, while providing incalculable profits for the
pharmaceutical giants and medical industry in general.  The
average AIDS victim will generate about $300,000 gross revenues
in medical costs before passing on. The so-called 'cocktail'
drug approach to 'control' HIV costs $35,000 to $50,000 a year,
depending on which quotes you trust.  Many of those taking this
withering regimen say the ordeal of doing so is hardly worth it.
In any event...

It would be a good idea for the author of the ET-AIDS scenario
to actually spend some time reading the grim HIV data available
from such as Dr. Len Horowitz, and, God forbid, to actually
discuss the issue directly with the authorities listed above
(and many others) before publishing such science fiction (unless
it were to be so-labeled).  We have enough trouble, thanks all
the same, without someone suggesting ET brought us AIDS...now
the fourth-leading cause of death of the planet. Interesting
that the author missed the whole issue of Hepatitis A, B, and
C...the latter of which is just as deadly as HIV and is
officially transmissible through saliva, just like HIV...a small
fact that, so far, the government health machine is refusing to
own up to.

                    --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

          If you realized how powerful your thoughts are,
            you would never think a negative thought.
                      Peace Pilgrim 190? - 1981

                     --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

  Free internet greeting cards featuring the award winning artwork
of James Neff, the jeffrense.com-sightings.com webmaster and
                     artist extraordinaire.
        http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                          * TOP STORIES *

             Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                     http://www.jeffrense.com

    * Oily Ocean Found On Mysterious Saturn Moon
    * Trepca Mines Finally Surface In Media As UN War Prize
    * JFK Jr. - The Facts
    * Midwest Bottle-Fed Babies Ingest Cancer-Causing Weed Killer
    * Armageddon..... Again
    * Who's Getting Rich Off China? Follow The Money...
    * Coronal Airbourne Objects Observed - What Are They?
    * Y2K - Warning To All 50 State Governors Issued By Chem
      Safety Board
    * Waco Evidence Raises Questions-Texas Official
    * More US Combat Pilots Quitting Over Anthrax Shots
    * Citizens Confront FBI At Press Conference In Andrews, N.C
    * The Armed Citizen - Saving Lives And Property With Firearms
    * Y2K - Worldwide Flow Of Goods And Services Likely To Be
      Disrupted
    * Tunguska Blast To Get Major Look 91 Years Later
    * Defense Secretary Cohen - Preparing For A Grave New World
    * Mandatory DNA Tests For All Arrestees 'Probably Legal'
    * Russia Hails 'New World Order' With China
    * Scale For Asteroid Threats
    * Japan Declares TB Emergency
    * $9 Million Supercomputer Goes To China For $30,000
    * UN Declaration Re: Mind Control
    * Deadly Germs Now Resistant To 'Superbug' Drugs
    * FBI Cancels Public Tours Of Headquarters
    * Is Aspartame Blinding The World?
    * Australian Government Gets Tough On Vaccinations
    * Breakthrough(s) In Rabin Murder Investigation
    * 'Mozart Effect' Strikes False Chord
    * China Bans 100 Million Strong Falungong Religion
    * Total Solar Eclipse Coming August 11, 1999

           Read the entire text of these stories and more at
                     http://www.jeffrense.com

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

       Discovered ! Two additional books by David H. Lewis
         author of the Hidden Mysteries of the Pyramid
            = = = = Days Before Tommorrow = = = =
           = = = =  Survival of the Remant = = = =
      Written from a Christian perspective Lewis offers his
     insight of prophecies from the late 70's. Though dated,
        there are many insights and warnings for today.
              http://www.immunotex.com/books/lewis/

                    --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                        8-1-99 thru 8-6-99

(Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can change due to late
breaking stories, etc)

SUN  8-1
      Jerry Mander:  How Television Controls Us

MON  8-2
      Steve Douglas:  Monitoring Military Communications
      Ken Kalb:  Transformational Eclipse Implications

TUE  8-3
      Kal Korff:  New UFOlogy Revelations
      TBA

WED  8-4
      Michael Lindemann:  Weekly UFO/ET World Report
      Gail Eisnitz:  Shocking Story Of US Meat Industry

THU  8-5
      Ken Welch:  Contrail/Chemtrail Update
      TBA

FRI  8-6
      Judy Goodman:  Intuitive Readings
      TBA

Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://www.jeffrense.com

                     --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Still need to get ready for Y2K, earth changes or whatever coming?
This is an excellent guide: http://www.immunotex.com/prepare-now/

                     --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                  * LISTENER/SUBSCRIBER COMMENTS *

Cynthia C: After seeing the archives on the Broadcast.com site
and hearing the wonderful interview that Jeff did with Art Bell
a few weeks ago, I added the Sightings web site to my favorites
and now listen daily (at work, SHHH!) to the previous nights
broadcast via the G2 player.  I cannot pick up the broadcast
live on the radio here in Austin, TX.  I had always thought
(assumed really) that Jeff was "riding" off of Art's show until
I heard him interviewed by Art. I'm sorry for this assumption.
I was clearly wrong and Jeff has a wonderful show with a style
all of his own that is worthy of his "top show" status.  Thank
you for bringing this venue to the public.

                             Cindy in Austin, TX
                             Love you Jeff and staff!


Diane U: Jeff..You are magnificent.  Thank you for all you do
and all your guests.


Carl L: Jeff Rense rocks!!
     I had been a long time A. Bell listener until I started
listening to Sightings via the internet. I really appreciate the
dedication and the passion  that J. Rense puts into his program.
     Keep up the excellent job!
                               Thanks

                     --<>--  --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
         Live Coast-To-Coast
         Monday-Friday 7-10pm Pacific 10-1am Eastern
         Sundays 8-11pm Pacific 11-2am Eastern
Call in Line:
         800 850-5043
Program Transcripts at
         http://www.immunotex.com/rense/
Program Audio Tapes
         888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
         http://www.jeffrense.com
Advertising-Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com each month
         Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
         mailto:jocelyn@dewittec.net?Subject=Advertising
Sightings.com info/email center
         http://www.jeffrense.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Jeff Rense Y2K RESOURCE CENTER
         http://www.jeffrense.com/y2kresource/y2k1r.html
RenseWorld! A unique virtual experience!
         http://www.jeffrense.com
DISCUSSION FORUM
         http://www3.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?userid=hj135985

               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share with your friends!
    Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense Weekly
    E-Newsletter to any and all who are interested... but please
    forward in its entirety and do not modify it in any fashion
    without permission. Thank you!

Past issues are archived at http://www.immunotex.com/rense/

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

To subscribe:
http://www.immunotex.com/rense/rense800/subscribe-form.htm

To unsubscribe:
mailto:rense_e-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com

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

Jeff Rense Weekly E-News is independently produced by ImmunoTex
in cooperation with Jeff Rense. The material and views expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of Jeff Rense,
sightings.com, or the Jeff Rense - Sightings Radio Program,
except for the *From Jeff's Desk* segment.

                     --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Get paid for surfing. (U.S.) Watch your account $ go up. It's fun.
http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=AMR609

                     --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

We thank eGroups for providing this tremendous service to us. The
following ad is inserted by eGroups and is not affiliated with
Jeff Rense.
_________________________________________________________________


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

GET $10 OFF ANY ORDER @ healthshop.com! No min. purchase req.
Save on vitamins & supplements. Use coupon code: EGROUPS at checkout
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/615


eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/rense_e-news
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                 Hagersville, Ontario Crop Formations - III

From: Paul Anderson - TMP / CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:14:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:18:27 -0400
Subject: Hagersville, Ontario Crop Formations - III



(Important!) Update #2 on Hagersville, Ontario, Canada Crop Formations

Report from Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310

July 30, 1999

_____________________________


The investigation and circumstances surrounding the appearance
of the two new crop formations in Ontario continues to become
more interesting.

I spoke at length this afternoon with Lynda Powless, a Native
Indian resident of the Six Nations / New Credit reservation
where the formations were found. She is the editor of The Turtle
Island News, a local newspaper for residents of the community.

She described the same elaborate lay patterns in both
formations. In virtually all the pathways joining the circles,
the crop is "braided"; in the smaller formation, the wheat is
flattened in one direction, then a second layer of wheat is
flattened over top of this, at a diagonal flow to the pathways
themselves. In others, one section of crop flows in one
direction along the pathways, then the crop adjacent to this
goes in the opposite direction. Very similar to the infamous
"4:20" formation at Cando, Saskatchewan in 1998. In one of the
circles in the longer formation (the one at the end of the
pattern extending at a right angle out from the main part of the
formation), the wheat is laid in a "five-pointed star" pattern,
where the points of the star are made by "squares of flattened
crop laid over top of each other, each angled a bit from the
ones next to it to create a star-like outline". Some Hopi Indian
elders have also expressed interest in these formations, she
said, the "star" lay pattern in particular. At one point along
one of the pathways in the smaller formation, the tops of the
stalks were "singed or burned". Unfortunately, these have all
been picked off by visitors (150 - 200 per day now). She was
able, however to get photos of this as well the intricate lay
patterns, before all the vistors starting arriving (!). Copies
are being forwarded and will be posted as soon as possible.

Then there are the lights...

About two weeks ago, she said, some of the residents of the
reservation reported seeing two bright lights hovering just
above these two (adjacent) fields. Then, on Saturday the 24th,
another resident saw, and *photographed*, *three large beams of
light like large spotlights*, extending up into the air from the
same or nearby field. Does this sound familiar??? (very similar
sighting reported in England this summer). The three beams of
light then converged into one large beam. Photos were printed I
am told in a recent issue of the newspaper, and copies of these
as well are being forwarded. Ken King, who I also spoke to this
evening, and who owns the field with the larger formation, said
that people in the area have reported seeing similar beams and
lights over the past two or three weeks. He also mentioned that
a number of people have had their digital cameras fail inside or
near the formations (including his own as they flew over by
helicopter on the 28th to obtain more aerial shots; good photos
were successfully taken with the other analog camera). Some
video footage taken showed only "snow" when played back. Also
reports of people experiencing headaches and / or nausea. The
usual (!). One person who took a geiger counter into the circles
last Tuesday reportedly obtained a reading of about 600, with a
"normal" reading of about 150 outside. Ken is going to try to
have that experiment repeated next week.

As well, Lynda told me that she was standing at the end of one
of the arms of the smaller formation on the night of the 28th,
the night of a *lunar eclipse* here in Canada. She noticed that
this arm of the formation pointed directly at where the moon was
in the sky. Another tie-in between formations this year and
eclipses?? A diagram of this will be posted soon. I have also
posted a link to a report by Ontario resident and researcher
Krsanna Duran examining this and other possible connections:

http://www.iaml.net/~timestar/hagerscrop.htm

Also, there are apparently two other circles nearby the smaller
formation, not initally reported but found later, about the same
size as the other circles in this formation.

There have also been good reports on the circles in the July 29
(front page) and July 30 editions of The Hamilton Spectator
newspaper in Ontario.

Many thanks to everyone who have assisted in this investigation.
As this location is a long ways across the country from me
(Vancouver, BC) and funds have been tight, I haven't been able
to get to the site yet myself. Hopefully there will be more
formations in western Canada again this year.

Paul Anderson
Director
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

_____________________________


This report is a special supplement to the regular editions of Circles
Phenomenon Research Canada News.

A reminder for all Canadian subscribers / readers - your assistance
is welcome and needed - ANY reports of other possible circles this
year, please do let us know as soon as possible!

See Reporting and Field Research Guidelines
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/reporting.html)
on the web site for more information.

_____________________________


Paul Anderson

Founder / Director
THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

Director
CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH CANADA
Circles Phenomenon Research International
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310

Representative
BLT RESEARCH, INC.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/blt.html

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, BC  V6J 1J4  Canada
Tel / Fax: 604.731.8522
E-Mail: psa@direct.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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

               New Crop Circles in Remote Paddock in Australia

From: Paul Anderson - TMP / CPR-Canada <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:57:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:37:40 -0400
Subject: New Crop Circles in Remote Paddock in Australia


New Crop Circles in Remote Paddock in Australia

Report from Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310

July 30, 1999

_____________________________


Just received this from researcher Ross Dowe in Australia.
According to the web site, the rings are in a remote paddock,
five kilometres from the nearest road. Report is dated July 30.

Paul

_______________



Oz Crop circles in paddock

Farmers find 5 round rings in a remote 400 acre paddock in South
Australia

Ross Dowe

<http://www.over.to/space>www.over.to/space


_______________


This report is a special supplement to the regular editions of
Circles Phenomenon Research Canada News.

A reminder for all Canadian subscribers / readers - your
assistance is welcome and needed - ANY reports of other possible
circles this year, please do let us know as soon as possible!

See Reporting and Field Research Guidelines
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/reporting.html)
on the web site for more information.

_____________________________








Paul Anderson

Founder / Director
THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

Director
CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH CANADA
Circles Phenomenon Research International
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310

Representative
BLT RESEARCH, INC.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3310/blt.html

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, BC  V6J 1J4  Canada
Tel / Fax: 604.731.8522
E-Mail: psa@direct.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 > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:51:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:41:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:58:59 +0100
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >Witnesses in a court trial are usually dealing with events we
 >know can happen. Houses do get burgled. People do get murdered.
 >Fraudsters do rob unsuspecting marks. The evidence sought here
 >is to determine how plausible it is that a particular
 >individual commited any of these acts. However a case in which
 >I claimed that you teleported yourself into my house in the
 >middle of the night and stole my video recorder might not be so
 >straightforward. If I produced someone who saw you actually
 >disappearing through the house wall and appearing a few moments
 >later with the said video in your hand, that wirness might just
 >get as tough a ride as abductee witnesses get from the
sceptics.

Do you realize how ethnocentric your comparison is? Do you
honestly believe that humanity has reached the apex of
technological development, and that cultures which may have
existed for thousands or _millions_ of years longer than ours
may not have developed a trick or two that would seem magical to
us? Like muskets would seem to the Aztecs? Like cellular biology
would seem to medieval blood-letters? Or a Harrier jump jet to
the Roman legions?

Perhaps lack of evidence is not the problem for you. Perhaps
it's a lack of imagination.

Comtemplating the breadth of the universe and the ability of
life to survive no, _thrive_ in environments that humans would
find deadly, most people, scientists included, now realize life
is probably common throughout our galaxy.

What we "know can happen" is culturally determined, and the
cumulative testimony of UFO witnesses suggests our definition
is, shall we say, a trifle limited. To paraphrase Thomas Huxley,
we must sit before human testimony like a child before coming to
grips with the UFO phenomenom.

Incidentally, we were speaking of UFOs, not accounts of
abductions, which by their nature often do not lend themselves
to multiple witnesses or radar corroboration.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                   Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology

From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:40:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:03:01 -0400
Subject: Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology


 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:28:27 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:50:54 -0600
 >>From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
 >>Subject: The Stupidity within Ufology
 >>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM


<snip>

 >>About a week ago I released to the Project 1947 List and the
 >>Current-Encounters List the news that a tape that had been
 >>"lost" for over 30 years had been located. It was an excessively
 >>important tape because it contained the actual voice and ideas
 >>of Colonel Howard M. McCoy, former Commanding General of T-2
 >>Technical Intelligence at Wright Field in 1947 and the man who
 >>was the final decision maker about Project SIGN. SIGN being the
 >>first official investigation of UFOs by the new USAF.

<snip>

 >>I went right to work to make a full clip
 >>of what McCoy had said in Isabel Davis's home way back in 1966,
 >>grateful for the expertise and assistance of Dick Hall.

 >>Col. McCoy, after retirement was a member of NICAP and attended
 >>many of the NICAP meetings and functions. During that day in
 >>1966 he finally spoke out and being the consumate military man,
 >>as well as a man honed in military intelligence and engineering,
 >>he chose his words carefully. He spoke his thoughts on alien
 >>visitation. At first listening it sounded like general
 >>discussion, but I listened to him dozens of times before I
 >>realized he was saying a lot more than just general discussion
 >>with a group of people in that apartment. I came to this
 >>conclusion based upon historical acumen by spending many years
 >>in search of the factual history of Project SIGN.

 >>What went through my mind was astounding to me. Here was a man
 >>who believed in the expertise of his own men and his own
 >>investigations to have the intestinal fortitude to forward a T-2
 >>Technical Intelligence Estimate of the Situation to the highest
 >>levels of command with a conclusion based on hard investigation
 >>under extreme shortages of manpower and monetary budget that the
 >>only logical answer to the flying disc phenomenon was that they
 >>were probably from outer space, under intelligent control and
 >>nothing else at the time made any better sense. Well, Col. McCoy
 >>suffered a great deal for his action, as did many of his people
 >>who were friends and colleauges. He lost his chance at promotion
 >>to Brig. Gen., yet his own accomplishments during his career
 >>where without question outstanding and of the highest calibur.
 >>Now he sat in an apartment in Washington D.C. and listened to
 >>other NICAP members discuss many topics. He finally opened up
 >>and gave his "thoughts" regarding the topic of the possibility
 >>of alien visitation.

 >>McCoy wasn't discussing just anything. He was giving an inside
 >>look at his thinking and the thinking of the Project SIGN group
 >>and their conclusions. He was saying in effect, that aliens
 >>walked among us. He was certainly in a position to know many
 >>things and had done more analysis and investigation than any
 >>other military group to follow, so to take his thoughts lightly
 >>didn't make sense to me. To me, he was telling a great deal
 >>more. Now, I don't know if aliens walk among us; I don't think
 >>anyone really knows that, but the fact that he had reached the
 >>conclusion as to it's being possible is absolutely astounding
 >>and of the greatest historical importance. It's the closest
 >>we've ever come in Ufology to at least a military man discussing
 >>it.

 >Wendy,

 >I don't recall seeing a message about a McCoy tape on the UFO
 >UpDates list. I don't check into the Project Sign site often. I
 >will certainly read the transcript on the Sign list.

Bruce,

Wendy was kind enough to respond to an inquiry from me and
furnish a transcript of Col. McCoy's remarks. Following is a copy.

Regards,

Pat McCartney

-----

"Let me ask something. I've listened to all this. My ideas and
this...I've got a military background [someone says, "yes" to
this at that point]. I was in intelligence for a long time. Very
high up. I was in the war. Now, it is logical thinking -- not
just military thinking, but logical thinking and you people are
thinking quite a bit, but I mean I want to put this particular
thought in.

There was never a successful military occupation or adventure
ever made recently, or even in the days of Alexander the Great,
where prior to the invasion... prior to the mass landing there
were not agents sent ahead. This is standard practice. Agents.
Now in Germany we and the British inserted American and we
inserted British... looked like the Germans and spoke their
language. In Japan we inserted... we had enough Nisei and
inserted them into Japan, but we had agents in their countries
exactly like we have agents in the Iron Curtain.

Now, the main purpose of these people are to be exactly like the
natives as possible. Now, everybody here says, 'well, these
Contactees stories' and everything else are ridiculous... and
yet the facts of life... facts of military life... the facts of
cultural logic and especially since 'they' have not been hostile
dictates... almost dictates the fact that there would be,
especially with your remarks that they have seen all these
humanoids -- these humanoids are from respectable cases that you
believe in -- if they are humanoid there can be humanoids picked
out... since the range in size, shape and color is... covers
almost the entire spectrum... it almost dictates that there
would be... lets say agents of the space people, wherever they
come from, living among us at the present time and having been
here for the last hundred years. This is standard.

I'm merely stating the fact that common sense dictates the fact,
especially with the story that emerged from your analysis,
Doctor, and that they first came in for general geographical
survey...it has gotten more and more intense... it, its has





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:35:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:07:13 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
 >Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:55:05 +0200 (MET DST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:31:16 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Most serious British and Euro researchers are aware, if no more,
 >>of the various psycho-social aspects of ufology and of the
 >>vaguaries of witness testimony. Most serious American witnesses
 >>seem more willing to take eyewitness testimony at face value --
 >>see for instance the debate about Kenneth Arnold's golden geese
 >>elsewhere on this list -- and discount the possibility of
 >>radical misperceptions.

 >>Now why should this be? Is it an example of American
 >>politically-correct egalitarianism: everyone's viewpoint is
 >>equally valid and should not be challenged? Or is it a
 >>manifestation of European cynicism?

 >>I actually think this growing rift is quite important, and is
 >>worthy of some discussion, rather than just instant dismissal as
 >>anti-American (or indeed anti-European) provincialism.

 >For the record,

 >I have been on the list for 2 1/2 years now and the only
 >anti-Americanism that I have seen came from two British
 >subscribers.

<snip>

 >BTW. I don't think it's anti-Americanism. I'd rather say it's
 >a love-hate relationship.

Dear Henny:

Your last statement, 'love-hate' seems closest to the mark.

Include the French, and you have a love-hate triangle worthy
of the steamiest romance novel!

Best wishes






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:41:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:15:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:04:13 +0100


 >My opinion is also swayed by the fact I have seen one of these
 >craft recently at close quarters with two witnesses present. It
 >'blinked' out against a clear blue sky. Perhaps someone on this
 >list can name a 'man made' craft that can do this.

Firstly you need to define how close, "close quarters" is.
Witness reliability of distance is very poor.  Saying it blinked
out gives the impression it was a long way from the observer.
Planes blink out. Planes heading towards you with a spotlight on
(yes they have them on during the day) then suddenly turning
away can give the impression of blinking. A plane that reflects
sunlight, can also blink off as it turns away.

You describe it as a craft; on what do you base this
observation. I have seen many things that to the naked eye seem
"weird."  But get a pair of binoculars out and "Hey Presto",
mystery solved. I was watching some white balloons fly over my
house yesterday, I could see them through the binoculars.
However, to the naked eye, they looked like a spinning, white
bright object.

 >It is also interesting to note that I was on a mobile phone link
 >to Chris Martin talking about sightings we had made earlier that
 >day (on video) and one of the witnesses a few seconds prior to
 >this was telling me she'd love to see one really close up.... I
 >can't explain it.

A classic case of, 'if you want to see one you will'. Remember
the LWT TVprogramme I was part of. We were all out in the
country talking about UFOs when all of a sudden a few of the
guests started pointing to the sky and shouting UFO. It was
quite clearly a plane, I could see the wings. These were the
very people who say they look at UFO sightings rationally before
making a judgement.

They had made their minds up on the spot that this was something
unusual. So much for rational research.

Cheers






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 99 10:27:32 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:19:50 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:43:35 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs
 >>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 19:56:47 PDT


Hi, John,

 >>If skepticism has anything to do with the questioning of
 >>received wisdom, American ufologists are by far more
 >>iconoclastic, and thus more skeptical.  The European neoskeptics
 >>-- pelicanists, I call them in my uncharitable moments (though I
 >>could never be uncharitable to you, John) -- seem much more
 >>believing of conventional opinion, far more obsessed with
 >>holding safe and unheretical views which will keep the ridicule
 >>of the washed at bay.

 >So basically, to reject a workable scientific model of the
 >universe on the basis of a series of contentious and
 >questionable narratives, is iconoclastic and by inference a good
 >thing; continuing to doubt the literal validity of these reports
 >because there is no convincing evidence behind them, is being
 >safe and unheretical and fearful of the riducule of the
 >establishment.

It's precisely this sort of self-righteous posturing that helps
make us American ufologists so deeply skeptical of the theories
of English majors and librarians about UFOs. Yet one more reason
I am proud not to be a pelicanist, or psychosociologist, or
whatever the proper name for your continuing exercise in
ridicule-avoidance.

There is, of course, "convincing evidence" for the existence of
anomalous UFOs, though no one would know that from reading
Magonia.  Maybe you think that grand rhetorical gestures will
drive the heresies (and the heretics) from the temple. There
must be _some_ rational explanation for strange allegations like
yours.  You should, however, save them for the rubes.  The
people on this list are better informed than that.

The rest of you are referred to the UFO literature.  For some
convincingly documented cases which have stubbornly withstood
the assaults of pelicanists, see The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed.,
on the Coyne CE2 (254-57), Portland County Sightings (719-27),
RB-47 case (761-90), or the Socorro CE2/CE3 (856-67).  To cite
just a very small number.  Amusingly, no less than the eminent
historian of astronomy Steven Dick recently stated (at a private
gathering of UFO historians held in Chicago late this past May)
that "evidence" in science is always a matter of dispute and
negotiation; he went on to say that ufologists' evidence is
entirely reasonable in that context (the history of scientific
disputation), and he said what we're doing is well worth doing.

Asked why he believed in one controversial phenomenon, which
skeptics have charged is based solely on misidenti- fications
and hoaxes, a scientist of world-class reputation has stated the
following:

"Though ... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
that there is no question that [this phenomenon] exists. I have
talked to six eyewitnesses of the phenomena and think there is
no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of their
observations. Furthermore, the reports are all remarkably
similar and have common features with the hundreds of
observations that appear in the literature."

What a dope.  Obviously, this true believer has never read The
UFO Handbook or Magonia, and he actually thinks witness
testimony ("six eyewitnesses"!) and patterns in the data mean
something.  You'd almost think this guy was an American.

Well, actually, he's an Australian, and he's a plasma physicist
of world-class reputation.  His name is John Lowke, and he is
one of the earth's major authorities on ball lightning.  A few
months ago I found his words on the Scientific American website.

For the compatibility of ufology's concerns with science, see,
for example, Michael Swords's many splendid writings on the
subject.

Long live the iconoclasm of American ufology, and long may it
thrive.  Too bad British ufology -- or at least that end of it
that's wandering aimlessly through the library stacks -- has
lost its way.

 >>I recall an especially amusing bit of
 >>goofiness from no less than the esteemed Magonia, where one
 >>authority on all things American (Peter Rogerson, if memory
 >>serves, as it may not; forgive me, Peter, if I'm suffering from
 >>what we Yanks call old-timer's disease) held that we're in the
 >>grips of abduction delusions owing to our fear of Hispanics.

 >Oh dear, not this again. Yes, of course it was Peter, as you
 >know very well. I'm sure this isn't the only bit of goofiness
 >you've found in Magonia. If anybody wants to read the discussion
 >last time you'll find it archived away somewhere in the UpDates
 >vaults. I did actually get a couple of comments from people on
 >your side of the Atlantic saying they thought there might be
 >something in Peter's suggestion, but they were all

 >psychosocialists so they don't count.

I guess that's why we have Hispanic abductees, even on this very
list.  I imagine you and Peter will now tell us that these poor,
deluded souls hallucinate these experiences out of fear of their
own culture and maybe even of their own relatives. Actually,
though of Anglo-Celtic stock, I, too, harbor a healthy fear of
in-laws.  Thus I expect to get abducted by little gray aliens
anytime now.  I'll keep you posted.

 >>>Someone like Jenny Randles is hardly considered as a sceptic in
 >>>Britain, and I have criticised her as much as anyone when I
 >>>think she has made unjustified assumptions which I felt had been
 >>>based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence. However, in
 >>>the end she has always allowed the evidence to get the upper
 >>>hand. In American terms however, she seems to be rapidly gaining
 >>>the status of lovable old Phil Klass as a hard line sceptic.

 >>Not as far as I can see.  Is there a little wishful thinking
 >>going on here, John -- just more proof of the foolishness of
 >>Americans?

 >That's how it sounds from the responses to her latest postings
 >on UpDates, daring to say that there's no actual evidence for a
 >extraterrestrial landing on Earth.

Apparently it's our obligation to nods our heads to every
anti-ETH pronouncement made from your side of the water, lest we
be accused of being dimwitted Americans unable to discern the
difference between, say, a Randles and a Klass.  Get serious,
John. I hate to disappoint you, but I have _never_ heard an
American colleague confuse the two.  And we're supposed to
_trust_ your judgment on these crucial social and psychological
questions?

Incidentally, over here we also know the difference between you
and another John, one Keel, even though the two of you seem to
hold comparable views of the ETH and American ufology in
general.  If we don't hold you responsible for John Keel, don't
expect us to hold Jenny Randles responsible for Philip J. Klass.

 >>Witness perception and misperception, your (I'm sure
 >>unintentionally) self-congratulatory observations
 >>notwithstanding, has been discussed at length -- sometimes
 >>book's length (e.g., by Dick Haines and Allan Hendry) -- this
 >>side of the water.

 >I seem to remember in some previous discussion here that you
 >were telling us just how unreliable Hendry's book was, something
 >about his wife had been very critical of his statistics about
 >UFOs and IFOs. Got the impression then that you weren't too
 >impressed by it and thought we Magonians were taking is too
 >seriously? Somewhere in the archives I'm sure.

You'll have to look long and hard, I'm afraid.  Your memory is
doing you no good (but I'm not pointing fingers; as I get older,
mine, too, keeps telling me ever more fibs).  As I have stated
repeatedly, Hendry's book is a "flawed masterpiece." I did not
say it was "unreliable," though I am told (by persons who know
about such things) that the chapter on statistics is seriously
flawed and the weakest in the book.

But by any standard -- how many times do I have to put this into
print before it registers on you? -- this is a significant
contribution to the UFO literature. The UFO Handbook represents
one informed, thoughtful man's opinion and should be read as
such, not as a late-20th-Century edition of The Bible.  It also
represents the pessimistic state of mind Allan was in at the
time he wrote it, and so there is a subjective element to the
conclusions it draws. (There is, of course, a "subjective
element" in just about all things human beings, including you
and me, do.  I mention this only because the Handbook's more
enthusiastic, lessly critically minded readers like to think of
it as coldly objective -- meaning only, naturally, that it tells
them, or at least they think it does, what they want to hear.)

It's a book everybody interested in UFOs ought to read, but it's
not the only one.  David Hufford's more scholarly The Terror
That Comes in the Night, for example, does not deal specifically
with UFO reports (though they are mentioned), but it amounts to
a powerful refutation of some of Handbook's more disputable
assertions -- i.e., the ones particularly beloved of
pelicanists.

In any event, Allan was more sympathetic to ufology's concerns
than Magonia and the pelicanist crowd are.  I always chuckle
when skeptics and debunkers proudly point to this ufologist's
work as proof of their rightness (and, of course, righteousness;
in their own eyes, skeptics and debunkers are nothing if not
righteous).  In the many conversations Allan and I had on the
subject, Allan had not a good word to say about any of them.
That's why, for example, the works of Klass and Menzel are
notably absent from the bibliography.  Their absence, Allan
would state explicitly, was not accidental.  Remember, too, that
in the 1981 Smithsonian UFO debate Hendry (along with Hynek and
Maccabee) spoke on the _pro_ side, and the major fireworks
display was the one that erupted between him and Klass.

Hendry's argument, which seems too nuanced for many to grasp,
was not that UFOs as potentially big anomalies don't exist, but
that the tools available to us are not adequate to the job of
documenting them properly.  One may agree or disagree with that
interesting point of view, but it is _not_ a pelicanist
argument.

Anyway, the point is this: Like any other UFO book, including
the best ones, The UFO Handbook should be read not as the final
word -- which it certainly isn't -- but as one more worthy
effort by an intelligent researcher to come to grips with
ufology's intractable problems.

 >The point is that a lot has changed in ufology on both sides of
 >the Atlantic since those heady days in the seventies. And the
 >way American ufology has gone has been away from those landmark
 >publications, whereas in Euroland many of us have tended to
 >stick closer to the ideas of these great American pioneers.

Like, you mean, Keyhoe, Hall, McDonald, Davis, Bloecher, Hynek,
Webb, and all those other psychosocial theorists?

 >>IUR, which I edit, has also published some illuminating pieces
 >>on that subject.  What you object to, I gather, is that we have
 >>looked at the same data and found your conclusions concerning
 >>same largely unwarranted and uncomfortably like ... oh, jeez,
 >>you'll have to forgive me; I just can't help myself ... the
 >>ruminations of English majors and librarians.

 >Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!!!!!!

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Cheers,

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #310

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 04:56:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:21:37 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #310


Apology to MW #310 (For July 31, 1999)

Scientists are not amusing, lawyers are unkind (abusive), and
cops (too busy) arm themselves to keep an *order* rich men will
. . . Tesla's papers languish, hidden. Mystery confides (not
kidding!) all those questions gone unanswered by the ones may
give us cancer. Autonomy (so near at hand!) -- suggesting what
it always had. We are _best_ when on our feet, and struggle is
our _meal_ -- our feast. We would _have_ reward for work, to
keep our edge alive -- alert. We'd have a _useful_ satisfaction,
without division or detraction.

We would look for stuff that flies in daylight, dusk, or starry
skies. We would change our attitude -- we'd see what _worked_
and be imbued! We'd make it _not_ a petty crime to fake a
sighting, anytime! It's the SAME as faking mayhem -- yelling
FIRE in a stadium. It's faithless, mad -- a mal-occurrence to
willfully create disturbance. It lacks no end to disrespect!
It's rudeness at impertinent best. It's spit so greasy in your
eye that scales form from lying slime. It's falseness in a
presentation -- willful (thoughtful!) mis-creation.  It's not
used for elevation -- providing only sad deflation.

Still you say that I'M the problem, and say it smoothly,
charming -- solemn. I am not a _clear_ solution so I'm a REASON
for confusion? This, my wage for asking why? This the fruit of
endless skies that rain their strangeness willingly in ways that
shake our fragile tree? It's true I'm asking tougher questions,
but you dismiss the mere SUGGESTION that science has been
_insufficient_, incomplete and so -- deficient!

And this is said in plain cognition of its *gifts* (its
imposition), 'cause it's _not_ the total picture; it won't save
us; fill our pitcher! It won't give us ALL the answers. All by
itself? It won't cure cancer!  In fact, it causes more than
cures, and vectors from our grace -- I'm sure.

How did Homer (Virgil ?) know -- that Mars had moons so long
ago?  How would terror and a beating name these moons so quick
and fleeting? Where can come that strange idea they couldn't see
or _see_ conceive of?  How'd they KNOW, or WHO would tell them?
Where's that knowledge even _come_ from? This was what their
legends said? This was myth (?), and fiction, dead? This was
just an odd coincidence? This was nothing -- of no significance?
You whistle past your graveyard, Bunky! Admit there's something
to it, Chucky!

You profess your mass hysterics, or suggest a dearth of clerics?
Folks mistaken, mad -- misleading, misinformed or clearly
bleeding from putrescent wounds they bear as ignorance confronts
them . . . where! Jerked back and forth, incredulity -- weighed
unfairly (institutionally), folks wallow in a murky mire of
shadow truth and "stuff conspired". This avoids the real deal.
And who is hurt if things get real?

As we bury heads in sand we make it harder -- understand? You're
the problem! You're no solution. You own convenient
institutions! Cops and lawyers (strange collusion!), and Doctors
dance with media -- fusion! Gub'mint's owned by un-elected
masters of contrived confusion . . .

Everywhere you look there's lying! Christians spinning webs
decrying sins unseen if of their own, but quick for others with
their stones. Little girls are taught to lie with make up or
their inserts high. The Government's prevarication, the Church's
lack of declaration, and distractions from a whorish news will
sell the soap but spoil the stew. Doctors cheat on Medicare, and
lawyers trump up _charges_ there. Cops can torture out
confessions, opportunists squeeze concessions, futile schools
still beat their kids, we even KNOW they're invalids! Lying is
our way of life. We do it first! We ARE our strife!

Best we cop and get right to it. I won't hear excuses -- screw
it!  Your denial stops progression; I can't believe in your
obsession that we crown a grand creation built by God -- loves
infestation  . . . And what we are: mere parasites destroying
hosts with all our might. We're not alone and we should stop.
We're being watched, and we should cop! "Cop to what," you smirk
and ask. Cop to time, its grand expanse. Cop to space, its
plumbless  reaches. Cop to matter! Minds beseech us, while you
smirk your glad derision, paradigms are in collision.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

More than paradigms it would so appear. Tune in next week.

Restore John Ford!


--
Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
Take a ride in the Teleporter.

Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
<Updated 31 July>

John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
(cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from
afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at the





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                         Re: Nick Pope's Weird World

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:41:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:28:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World


 >From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@Globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:28:22 +0100

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:36 +0100
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World

 >>Over the past few months I d been becoming more
 >>bullish in my response to certain people within ufology who'd
 >>been sniping at me over the years.  Nobody likes criticism,
 >>and I'd been getting a fair bit - little of it constructive in
 >>nature.

 >Maybe if you removed the following from your opening header,
 >people would take you seriously.

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

I am bound and driven, not to mention shriven, by my conscience
and liver (what's left of both, the combination achieving a
modest similacrum to both) to comment on the comments...
coments, whatever...  sorry, my speel cheeker aint workin.

Please, Kind Sir, elicit from your pen, the name of any _one_
UFO researcher or other person or persons who are associated
with the subject, who is at one time or another (if not too
freaking often), whacky, wild, gossiping weirdos.  Go ahead.  I
dare you.

 >"Gossip."  By its very nature this shows the level of your
 >bulletins. Gossip is going behind people's backs and repeating
 >things that aren't strictly true. > >Maybe when you stop
gossiping, the waters may become calmer.

While I agree on the definition, and agree that gossiping should
be stopped, I also think that the request should be made of, oh,
say 95% of all of us in this racket.  Which is why I do my
Grippling in public.  May as well act like the idiot I am
instead of people saying it behind my back.  I am much more
comfortable this way. And I get to call a spade the ass-a-whole
he, she or it really is without having the portfolio the biggies
on this list have.

 >Being Nick Pope's messenger doesn't help either. Tell him to
 >get on the Internet and do his own messages instead of using
 >you.

I disagree, all my posts are written by my own personal ghost.
Make that ghost writer.  Goebles Gomez.  Aint his stuff great?

 >If your standard of research is on a par with Nick's, then
 >welcome to the Twilight Zone. Don't go on any toll roads, they
 >cause you all sorts of problems. Of course we are all looking
 >forward to your forthcoming book to set the record straight.

Do you know what you just wrote and how it reminds me of
something?  Let me elaborate....

"Look out kid, **
Don't matter what you did,
Walk on your tip toes,
Don't try 'No Doze'
Better stay away from those,
That carry around a fire hose.
Keep a clean nose,
Watch the plain clothes,
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows..."

 >Cheers

 >Rory Lushman

Cheers indeed.

Rory, I do not disagree with you.  I just think that you have a
very limited target in mind.  You should consider opening up the
choke on that 12 gauge you are using.  Full choke is for blowing
holes in one person.  Me thinks you need to knock down a coupla'
more clays than the one you shot at.  Try a modified, open or
maybe no choke at all.  I use a sawed off meeself.  And for full
effectiveness, try a SIX gauge.  Woof!  Powders them clays like
baking soda in the wind.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                                  Re: IFOs

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:41:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:33:33 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


 >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
 >Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:55:05 +0200 (MET DST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:31:16 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: IFOs

 >>Most serious British and Euro researchers are aware, if no more,
 >>of the various psycho-social aspects of ufology and of the
 >>vaguaries of witness testimony. Most serious American witnesses
 >>seem more willing to take eyewitness testimony at face value --
 >>see for instance the debate about Kenneth Arnold's golden geese
 >>elsewhere on this list -- and discount the possibility of
 >>radical misperceptions.

 >>Now why should this be? Is it an example of American
 >>politically-correct egalitarianism: everyone's viewpoint is
 >>equally valid and should not be challenged? Or is it a
 >>manifestation of European cynicism?

 >>I actually think this growing rift is quite important, and is
 >>worthy of some discussion, rather than just instant dismissal as
 >>anti-American (or indeed anti-European) provincialism.

 >For the record,

 >I have been on the list for 2 1/2 years now and the only
 >anti-Americanism that I have seen came from two British
 >subscribers.

 >I have observed this negative attitude by a number of Brits
 >towards the US in other walks of life as well, such as music and
 >culture. In other words, I think there is simply some tension
 >between the Brits and the Americans that is underlying their
 >relationship towards each other. The cause of that? Perhaps the
 >Brits don't like to play second fiddle to Americans in English
 >speaking forums. After all, they gave up their position to the
 >Americans as the dominant world power and all that.

 >BTW. I don't think it's anti-Americanism. I'd rather say it's
 >a love-hate relationship.

Hi,

As a Brit who has visited the US many times , I don't see what
you do. The UK press is certainly not full of anti Americanism.
Indeed our culture is more and more steeped within it. Our once
proud lead in TV has been eroded by the dumbing down of the BBC
(my goodness they even gave me a camera and told me to make a
UFO programme so that proves my point!) and the parallel
escalation of quality of many US shows that we import. Only the
other day there were reports of how children at school now
regularly talk with slight American accents and use words like
'vacation' instead of holiday as a status symbol. So, honestly,
wherever this 'snobbish Brit' image of anti Americanism comes
from I don't know. But it belongs with the idea that many have
that people in the UK live in castles, have servants, talk with
their nose in the air and have tea with the Queen. Er, in Miss
Marples novels maybe. Not in real life.

When I first visited Chicago in l983 the thing that struck me
immediately was how much it was like my nearest big city
(Manchester). The similarities were greater than the
differences. If you watch Frasier the character Daphne Moon (a
fun loving eccentric who is both sharp witted and a bit scatty
and comes from Manchester) is far more typical of reality.
Ironically, of course, the actress who plays her is more like a
Miss Marples character in real life with a Southern accent
(definitely not like what we speak here up north!) and, indeed,
the American actor who plays Frasier's father actually came to
the US from Manchester. He helped 'Daphne' with her accent.
Nothing better shows the blending of our cultures than that.

I think it is silly to imply jealousy or the handing over of the
rulership of the world. The world is a community, surely?
Britain voluntarily dissolved its empire into a commonwealth
(which still exists) and has continued to contribute much to
culture. As, of course,has the US - although I am not sure the
concept of a commonwealth is understood much beyond our shores.
But you can see a parallel in ufology where the UK community
embraces other cultures and wants to work in a community (a sort
of UFO commonwealth) whereas - I think it is evident that the US
has a degree of provincialism that is present in both life and
ufology that makes it hard to see beyond boundaries.

I find this when writing books. Publishers always tell me - make
sure you have plenty of American stuff in there, we need to sell
the book to a US market and wont unless it has a good percentage
of local material. The same is much less true in the UK - as
evidenced by the fact that prior to very recent times most major
US UFO books were published in the UK (even though many had no
British content) whilst a great many good UK books never went
across the pond at all.

None of this is criticism of American culture or praise of the
British. It is simply how we are and we can gain from these
differences.

We are, of course, both similar and different in many other
respects, not least the American tendancy to be gregarious and
the British reserve. This manifests in ufology in very visible
fashion and is the root of much of the difference in our
relative approaches. Some extremists on both sides naturally
blame it all on the other, but the vast majority of sensible
folk accept that we can learn from one another. We are also more
in tune than we are discordant, I suspect, although the
discrepancies get most of the attention.

There are things I like about America, which is why I visit it
often (usually not for UFO reasons either - so frequently in
secret!) But I would never live anywhere but Britain. I dare say
most Americans feel the same in reverse. And thats how it should
be.

Best wishes,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1999 >
   Jul > Jul 31

                        Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

From: Dave Bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:55:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:37:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:16:51 -0400
 >From: Tony Spurrier <TSpurrier@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: "updates@globalserve.net" <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>From: Marc Bell <MARC@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:34:46 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:30:30 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >>Also this video evidence (hardly of a 'lower standard'!) is, a)
 >>available for analysis in its original un-cut format direct from
 >>Chris Martin's video camera, b) to my knowledge there have been
 >>witnesses present on most of Chris' footage (inc: myself) and
 >>these can clearly be heard on the soundtracks.

 >Marc,

 >I have never mentioned anything about Chris Martin's video, only
 >Roy and yourself have brought this into play. My original
 >comment was that everyone has a different standard to which they
 >believe a UFO is an ET craft.

I need more than a ball of light in the sky to convince me that
it's an ET craft too but Chris has brought this video to me for
analysis and it stands up as a true UFO. ie: it's not a
satellite because it's under the clouds, it changes direction,
it zips off from 0 to whatever in a split second, need I say
more.

Your original comment also made mention of a 'lower standard'
used by Roy Hale. This is laughable coming from someone who
hasn't even seen the footage we are speaking of.

Even though I agree it's no evidence of ET it IS evidence of the
phenomena that occupies our skies. Keep the teeth clenched until
you've seen the footage then start flapping the jaw.