UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Nov 2000

  Nov 1:

   Re: Clark vs Evans - Young - Bob Young [32]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young - Bob Young [47]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young - Bob Young [21]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [40]
   Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Hatch - Larry Hatch [30]
   Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Hatch - Larry Hatch [30]
   da La Rete - Alfredo Lissoni - CUN [14]
   Re: NICAP Site - Hatch - Larry Hatch [25]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [13]
   News Agency Looking For UFO Stories - Philip Mantle [13]
   Horizons Webcast 10-30-00 Archived - Bobbie Felder [26]
   Secrecy News -- 10/31/00 - Steven Aftergood [69]
   Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Jerome Clark [70]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [147]
   Re: The Cydonian Imperative - 10-30-00 - Bara - Mike Bara [24]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [74]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [25]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [51]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks - Brad Sparks [64]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [68]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [29]
   Rendlesham Book Update - Georgina Bruni [95]
   Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Randle - Kevin Randle [86]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [60]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Friedman - Stan Friedman [61]
   Re: I Feel Much Better Now That I've Given Up - - Jim Mortellaro [124]
   Posting Protocol - UFO UpDates - Toronto [87]
   Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Mundy - Brian Mundy [29]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Upcoming UFO Webcast - Richard Dolan - Author - Stig Agermose [21]
   Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Stats - Hatch - Larry Hatch [51]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez - John Velez [39]
   Re: Whitley on Coat to Coast AM - Hatch - Larry Hatch [32]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [41]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [79]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch - Larry Hatch [75]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Randles - Jenny Randles [127]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark - Jerome Clark [42]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans - Roger Evans [66]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [31]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [24]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Sparks - Brad Sparks [32]
   Re: Aveley Encounter - Anthony - Gar Anthony [24]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark - Jerome Clark [15]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [71]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [54]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Young - Bob Young [46]

  Nov 2:

   Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Jerome Clark [46]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [125]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Aveley Encounter - Randles - Jenny Randles [26]
   UpDates Posters Using AOL Version 6.0 - Don't! - Jim Mortellaro [22]
   Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Ledger - Don Ledger [55]
   Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [66]
   Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [46]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners - Jean Meiners [60]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton - James Easton [363]
   Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans] - Jerome Clark [83]
   Re: UFO Stats - Hale - Roy J Hale [12]
   Re: Credible Witnesses Get It Wrong Again - Hale - Roy J Hale [17]
   La Rete - Italian Webzine - Alfredo Lissoni - CUN [16]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [43]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [64]
   'Chupacabra' Skull Subjected To Scientific Scrutiny - Scott Corrales
   [33]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [96]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark - Jerome Clark [33]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark - Jerome Clark [56]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [183]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Andy Roberts [77]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 44 - John Hayes [488]
   Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads - Bobbie Felder [45]
   Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Andy Roberts [38]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [19]

  Nov 3:

   Jeff Rense on Mr. Wiesenthal's 'Hate List' - Alfred Lehmberg [29]
   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Strickland - Sue Strickland [53]
   Secrecy News -- 11/02/00 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young - Bob Young [77]
   Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [60]
   Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - - Bill Hamilton [69]
   Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Rimmer - John Rimmer [37]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [39]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [57]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [53]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Hart - Gary Hart [63]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Randles - Jenny Randles [109]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sawyer - Tom Sawyer [13]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton - James Easton [65]
   Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Randle - Kevin Randle [48]
   The Great Harrisburg UFO Wave - Bob Young [112]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates - Robert Gates [24]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Gates - Robert Gates [26]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates - Robert Gates [114]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates - Robert Gates [84]
   Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research Center? - Charles Chapman [71]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez - John Velez [77]
   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal - Larry Hatch [49]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [174]
   Links - Roy J Hale [17]
   Leeds Conference 16th September 2000? - Roy J Hale [5]
   'Winked Out' - UFOs Or High Tech Camouflage? - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [235]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [49]
   Crop Circles 'Amaze' NASA Space Station Project - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [108]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [29]
   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal - Josh Goldstein
   [43]
   The Real X-Files, November 2000 - Georgina Bruni [69]
   Nick Pope'S Weird World - November 2000 - Georgina Bruni [124]
   Secrecy News -- 11/03/00 - Steven Aftergood [100]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [22]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [10]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [48]
   Re: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers... - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson
   [34]
   Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [46]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Andy Roberts [81]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [158]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [159]
   Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Velez - John Velez [30]

  Nov 4:

   Test - UFO UpDates - Toronto [1]

  Nov 5:

   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [37]
   Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - - Bill Hamilton [30]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans - Roger Evans [129]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark - Jerome Clark [62]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer - John Rimmer [104]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz - Manuel Borraz [103]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [99]
   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Walton - Fran Walton [45]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Ledger - Donald Ledger [67]
   The Cydonian Imperative: The 'Cliff' - What We'll - Mac Tonnies [106]
   Big Story On Crop Circles - Kenny Young [20]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez - John Velez [68]
   Re: Military Abductions - Hammond - Elizabeth
   Hammondlizzz@worldnet.att.net> [43]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso
   [13]
   Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [67]
   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: Secrecy News -- 11/03/00 - Larry Hatch [25]
   1st International Conference - Milan - Alfredo Lissoni - CUN [38]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Andy Roberts [34]
   Crop Circle Hoaxer Revealed - Andy Roberts [20]
   Re: Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research - Charles Chapman [16]
   Webcast Archive: Bill Hamilton & John Greenewald, - Bobbie Felder [34]
   A Truthseeker's View Of The Crop Circle Arrest - Anthony Chippendale
   [80]
   Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers? - Ken Kelly [7]
   Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update - Wendy Connors [23]
   CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests Reported - Paul Anderson [124]
   Cash Landrum [Was: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe] - Josh Goldstein [53]
   Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-4-00 - Rense E-News [267]
   Re: Russian Ufology Research Center - Persky - Alex Persky [21]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [184]
   CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2? - Royce J. Myers III [76]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak - David Rudiak [227]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak - David Rudiak [56]
   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal - John Velez [39]
   Crop Circle Hoaxer Or Something More? - Mark Haywood [9]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Andy Roberts [32]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Andy Roberts [52]
   Re: Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers? - Harrison - Diane Harrison
   Director AUFORN [16]
   MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Mark Pilkington [325]
   Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Prokic - Roger R. Prokic
   [33]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [48]

  Nov 6:

   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners - Jean Meiners [75]
   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [33]
   Re: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update - Klotz - Jim Klotz [40]
   Re: CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2? - Lamphere - Lan Lamphere [16]
   Astrophysicists & Star Fleet Captains - Diana Botsford [35]
   Mussolini's UFO Files - Alfredo Lissoni - CUN [10]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Hart - Gary Hart [66]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates - Robert Gates [64]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts - Robert Gates [41]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gates - Robert Gates [59]

  Nov 7:

   Re: Military Abductions - Hart - Gary Hart [76]
   On What is Known - Jim Mortellaro [48]
   PRG Programming Announcement - 11/5/00 - Stephen G. Bassett [45]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [19]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch - Larry Hatch [147]
   World's First 3D Walking Tour(TM) of Area 51 - Stig Agermose [113]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [75]
   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hatch - Larry Hatch [32]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton - James Easton [157]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [62]
   Re: ET evidence - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [41]
   ABC News To Release 'Very Convincing' Footage Of - Stig Agermose [14]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates - Robert Gates [85]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Bob Young [105]
   Element 115 And Saucers - Stig Agermose [24]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - John Velez [61]
   Re: Military Abductions - Hart - Gary Hart [35]
   Whatever It Is, It May Hit The Earth In 2030 - Stig Agermose [69]
   Crop Circle Hoaxer - Philip Mantle [47]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [32]
   Secrecy News -- 11/06/00 - Steven Aftergood [98]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [91]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [153]
   Re: CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests - - Tony Downing [47]
   Crop Circle Maker Fined - Larry Hatch [21]
   TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.6.00 - Paul Anderson [172]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [24]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [32]
   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale - Roy J Hale [29]
   Filer's Files #44 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [524]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [84]
   Krycek Personality Type - Scott Carr [15]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cashman - Mark Cashman [28]
   Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [35]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: On What is Known - Connors - Wendy Connors [85]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [110]
   A Scientific Mystery-Solving Strategy - Bill Hamilton [52]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [35]
   Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Stan Gordon [44]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [13]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [93]
   Thanks To The Rudiak Team... - Jim Mortellaro [13]
   Military Abductions - Katharina Wilson [59]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bell - Marc Bell [20]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young - Bob Young [21]
   Cydonian Imperative Update - 11-7-00 The 'City - Mac Tonnies [46]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [22]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer - John Rimmer [98]
   Re: On What is Known - Sparks - Brad Sparks [65]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [29]
   Secrecy News - 11/07/00 - Steven Aftergood [57]
   Re: ET Evidence - Rimmer - John Rimmer [21]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer - John Rimmer [39]
   Re: On What is Known - Randles - Jenny Randles [80]

  Nov 8:

   Re: Military Abductions - Meiners - Jean Meiners [16]
   Re: ET Evidence - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [30]
   Re: On What is Known - Cashman - Mark Cashman [32]
   Re: On What is Known - Hale - Roy J Hale [21]
   Scientists Downplay 'Space Object' - Steven L. Wilson Sr [46]
   Re: Military Abductions - Velez - John Velez [61]
   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Beaver - Mike Beaver [212]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Velez - John Velez [71]
   Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [42]
   Re: On What is Known - Randles - Jenny Randles [70]
   Re: Introducing 'The Mars Online Gazette' - Mac Tonnies [67]
   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Bowden - Dave Bowden [31]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden - Dave Bowden [15]
   Re: On What is Known - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [40]
   Re: On What is Known - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [81]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris - Neil Morris [53]
   Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [95]
   Re: Filer's Files #44 -- 2000 - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [100]

  Nov 9:

   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris - Neil Morris [9]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [25]
   Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [37]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [153]
   Crop Circle Hoaxes, Etc. - Murray Bott [10]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [9]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [9]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Clark - Jerome Clark [24]
   Re: ET Evidence - Friedman - Stan Friedman [56]
   Re: On What is Known - Friedman - Stan Friedman [42]
   Re: On What is Known - Sparks - Brad Sparks [228]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [27]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [43]
   BBC's 'Horizon' Censured For Unfair Treatment - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [46]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Hart - Gary Hart [17]
   Re: On What is Known - Hart - Gary Hart [22]

  Nov 10:

   Re: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - - Greg Sandow [399]
   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale - Roy J Hale [41]
   Re: On What is Known - Hale - Roy J Hale [79]
   Re: On What is Known - Bowden - Dave Bowden [58]
   Re: On What is Known - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [17]
   Re: ET Evidence - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [29]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 45 - John Hayes [445]
   Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Mark Pilkington [16]
   Ed Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B - From: Jim Mortellaro
   [150]
   Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [67]
   Re: ET Evidence - McCoy - GT McCoy [75]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez - John Velez [64]
   Ashtabula, Ohio Sightings & Videotape - Kenny Young [172]
   Re: Military Abductions? - Velez - John Velez [72]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [37]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [20]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Jenny Randles [192]
   Re: On What is Known - Friedman - Stan Friedman [77]
   Re: On What is Known - Randles - Jenny Randles [62]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Jenny Randles [55]
   Re: On What is Known - Randles - Jenny Randles [154]
   Re: Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B - - Ed Gehrman [93]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer - John Rimmer [209]
   Re: On What is Known - Baker - David Baker [61]

  Nov 11:

   Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez - John Velez [62]
   Virus Follow Up - Dennis Stacy [22]
   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes UtterMole@cs.com
   [27]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark - Jerome Clark [239]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Nick Balaskas [62]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Sandow - Greg Sandow [158]
   Re: On What is Known - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [78]
   An Open UFO Letter to President Clinton - [11]
   Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [80]
   UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Royce J. Myers III [25]
   Re: On What is Known - Hale - Roy J Hale [47]
   Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Gates - Robert Gates [41]
   Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [33]
   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden - Dave Bowden [14]
   Biblical ETs? - Bobbie Felder [28]
   Military Abductions? - Jean Meiners [17]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch - Larry Hatch [50]
   Re: Virus Follow Up - Ledger - Don Ledger [34]

  Nov 12:

   Re: On What is Known - Hatch - Larry Hatch [81]
   Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Jim Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro
   [34]
   Re: On What is Known - Baker - Dave Baker [106]
   Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [26]
   Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-11-00 - "Rense E-News" [258]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak - David Rudiak [180]
   Book Wanted - Murray Bott [26]
   Anne Druffell? - Murray Bott [10]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez - John Velez [173]
   Re: Virus Follow Up - Hatch - Larry Hatch [57]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez
   Manso [139]
   Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [93]
   UFO*BC Updates - 11-12-00 - David Pengilly [33]
   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Evans - Roger Evans [42]
   MUFON Opens Its Doors In Denver Mall - Stig Agermose [166]

  Nov 13:

   Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [45]
   Re: On What is Known - Hatch - Larry Hatch [102]
   Re: 'Heartbeat' Sightings - Randles - Jenny Randles [146]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [78]
   Secrecy News -- 11/13/00 - Steven Aftergood [110]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000 - George A. Filer [511]

  Nov 14:

   Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates - Robert Gates [155]
   Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [32]
   'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Bruce Maccabee [18]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [157]
   Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000 - Young - Bob Young [75]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [120]
   Secrecy News -- 11/14/00 - Steven Aftergood [104]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [32]
   UFO Researchers In Montana? - Ken Kelly [5]
   Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Stig Agermose [55]
   TMP News: Wekly Briefing 11.14.00 - Paul Anderson [31]
   Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [41]
   Richard Hoagland - 1965 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [122]
   Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [41]
   Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [42]

  Nov 15:

   Re: UFO UpDate: Richard Hoagland - 1965 - Velez - John [39]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [57]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [61]
   Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO? - Scott Corrales [43]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles - Jenny Randles [134]
   Re: ET Evidence - Murray - Marty Murray [37]
   NIDS: NARCAP Report - Colm Kelleher - NIDS [26]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale - Roy J Hale [23]
   Stupid UFO Tricks - Bobbie Felder [35]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [75]
   Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [25]
   Secrecy News - 11/15/00 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Re: ET Evidence - Liddle - Sean Liddle [26]
   Re: ET Evidence - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [45]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz - Manuel Borraz [147]
   Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez
   Manso [20]

  Nov 16:

   Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Nick Balaskas [47]
   Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [46]
   'About UFOs' - Steve Wilson Snr. [109]
   Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [54]
   Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [18]
   Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [38]
   Re: ET Evidence - McCoy - Gt McCoy [45]
   Re: ET Evidence - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [22]
   Re: Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [70]
   Re: ET Evidence - Lemire - Todd Lemire [23]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles - Jenny Randles [141]
   Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch - Larry Hatch [54]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [109]
   Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [60]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46 - John Hayes [549]
   Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [30]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Dave - Dave Ledger [81]

  Nov 17:

   Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [92]
   Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [18]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale - Roy J Hale [178]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Michel M. Deschamps
   [36]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [91]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch - Larry Hatch [73]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [55]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [35]
   Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles - Jenny Randles [155]
   Bogus Contactee Prepares To Flee Brazil - Scott
   Corraleslornis1@juno.com [49]
   Re: ET Evidence - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [38]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [66]
   Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [30]
   More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [93]

  Nov 18:

   UFO Historical Review #7 - Jim Klotz [19]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Michel M. Deschamps
   [23]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [71]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [47]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [89]
   Spacemen In African History? - UFO UpDates - Toronto [199]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [67]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46 - Jerome Clark [100]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Milot - Gilles Milot [98]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [44]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak - David Rudiak [267]
   UFO Sighting OZ File 000996 Nov 08 2000 - Diane Harrison - Director
   AUFORN [121]
   Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-18-00 - Rense E-News [211]

  Nov 19:

   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46 - Lemire - Todd Lemire [31]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [58]
   Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roger Evans [65]
   Science Advisor Briefing - Bruce Maccabee [7]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [119]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Velez - John Velez [87]

  Nov 20:

   Joseph Trainor & UFO Roundup - UFO UpDates - Toronto [31]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [91]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [67]
   Re: ET Evidence - Friedman - Stan Friedman [62]
   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young - Bob Young [128]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez - John Velez [92]
   Re: ET Evidence - Sparks - Brad Sparks [69]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [40]
   Hillsdale Information Added - Todd Lemire [19]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [36]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [113]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch - Larry Hatch [65]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [128]
   Experiencer's Point of View - GT McCoy [58]
   'About UFOs' November 19, 2000 - Vol. 2, No. 46 - Steve Wilson Senior
   [105]

  Nov 21:

   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [34]
   [PQ] UFO Over Illinois 11-30-00, Discovery Channel - Dream Masters
   Studios, LLC [31]
   Re: ET Evidence - Velez - John Velez [98]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [50]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [83]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [128]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [114]
   [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend - Larry Klaes [57]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Evans - Roger Evans [32]
   TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.20.00 - Paul Anderson [108]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Cashman - Mark Cashman [102]
   Filer's Files #46 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [502]
   Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - - Nick Balaskas [39]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [79]
   (CSETI) The Disclosure Project - Update And Status - Steven L. Wilson
   Sr [48]
   Re: ET Evidence - Lowe - Adam Lowe [28]
   Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [44]
   Re: [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend - Steven [18]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [89]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille
   [24]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez - John Velez [135]

  Nov 22:

   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [158]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [37]
   Secrecy News -- 11/20/00 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Secrecy News -- 11/21/00 - Steven Aftergood [124]
   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez - John Velez [92]
   Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Velez - John Velez [40]
   UFO Sightings OZ Files 001002 11.11.2000 - Diane Harrison Director
   AUFORN [143]
   Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000] - Bruce Maccabee
   [121]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Robert Gates [211]
   X-PPAC Update - 11/22/00 - Steven G. Bassett [92]
   Horizons Webcast Cancelled For This Week - Bobbie Felder [28]

  Nov 23:

   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [143]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [151]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [268]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [40]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Ledger - Donald Ledger [145]
   Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Stephen MILES Lewis
   [23]
   'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your Mind' - Ron Cecchini [52]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [94]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [100]
   Re: ET Evidence - Sparks - Brad Sparks [62]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Kurt Jonach [41]
   Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent - Stig Agermose [46]
   US Air Force's Nuclear Flying Saucer - Roger Cook [9]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 47 - John Hayes [296]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Larry Hatch [22]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [96]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [92]

  Nov 24:

   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Steven Kaeser [24]
   Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Alfred Lehmberg
   [60]
   Re: 'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your - Jim Mortellaro [37]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia - Joe Murgia [30]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [71]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [97]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz - Daniel Muoz [196]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [132]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Jim Mortellaro [30]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [199]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [187]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [94]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [82]
   Re: ET Evidence - Hatch - Larry Hatch [85]
   LRV in Popular Mechanics - Holger Isenberg [12]
   WOW signal [was: ET Evidence] - Larry Hatch [151]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [59]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Roger R. Prokic
   [23]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [66]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [59]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [39]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz - Daniel Muoz [53]
   Re: WOW Signal - Hatch - Larry Hatch [44]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [39]
   Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent - Josh Goldstein [41]

  Nov 25:

   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia - Joe Murgia [63]
   Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Young - Bob Young [23]
   Re: WOW Signal - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: ebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [66]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [109]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [82]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [96]
   'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights - Larry Hatch [81]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [97]
   Re: WOW Signal - Velez - John Velez [23]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [23]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Larry Hatch [44]
   Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Roy J Hale [29]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [74]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [56]
   Russian UFO Info Sources - Paul Stonehill [7]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [51]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [105]

  Nov 26:

   Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [85]
   Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Jim Mortellaro [35]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [42]
   Moscow's 'Museum of Parapsychology & Ufology' - Stig Agermose [80]
   Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro
   [87]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [57]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [30]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [16]
   Campinas, Brazil? - Manuel Borraz [9]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [109]
   Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military - Stig Agermose [15]

  Nov 27:

   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [115]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [28]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates - Robert Gates [37]
   ABC Poll - Visitors? 25% of Americans Suspect So - Stig Agermose [106]
   U.S. Navy & UFO Research - Paul Stonehill [4]
   Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report - Larry Hatch [60]
   Re: WOW Signal - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]
   WOW Signal Details - Larry Hatch [84]
   Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights - - Josh Goldstein [73]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [16]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [95]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [59]
   UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [49]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [20]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [70]
   Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights - - John Hayes [59]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [77]
   The Cydonian Imperative: Martian 'Graveyard' - Mac Tonnies [9]
   Saturn Moon Mimas & 'Deathstar'? - Holger Isenberg [20]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [45]
   Free Download - Issues 1 & 2 of CE-BK! - Michael Wysmierski [8]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [32]
   Re: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At - Alex Persky [29]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Velez - John Velez [175]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.27.00 - Paul Anderson [156]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [110]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [66]
   Re: WOW Signal Details - Sparks - Brad Sparks [84]

  Nov 28:

   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [116]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [32]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [166]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [48]
   Secrecy News -- 11/27/00 - Steven Aftergood [99]
   Filer's Files #47 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [502]
   Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Sparks - Brad Sparks [11]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Borraz - Manuel Borraz [31]
   Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [13]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [22]
   Martian 'Monoliths' Pose Questions - Mac Tonnies [57]
   Re: Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report - - Brad Sparks [108]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [22]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [128]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [39]
   NASA Mars Viking Project Scientist Dies - Kurt Jonach [37]
   'Polaris'? - John Velez [17]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [27]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [51]
   Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights - - Larry Hatch [31]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Cashman - Mark Cashman [24]
   Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [35]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [92]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [98]

  Nov 29:

   Russian Sources - Paul Stonehill [65]
   Russian Physicist Lost - Paul Stonehill [33]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [24]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [43]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [55]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans - Roger Evans [43]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [34]
   Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [56]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [40]
   Turkish Announcements - Philip Mantle [140]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [158]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [81]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [174]
   Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Young - Bob Young [70]
   Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Young - Bob Young [18]

  Nov 30:

   Re: Mexico City Video - Bowden - Dave Bowden [100]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [107]
   Calling Jaime Maussan! - John Velez [20]
   Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Royce J. Myers III [10]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [74]
   Sasovo And The Lost Scientist - Paul Stonehill [27]
   UFO*BC Xmas Gift Suggestions - David Pengilly - UFO*BC [16]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [45]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro
   [74]
   [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files - Martin Jasek [21]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates - Robert Gates [13]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [44]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez - John Velez [67]
   Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [91]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [55]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [87]
   Re: [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files - - Donald Ledger [59]

   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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:43:54 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:17:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Young


 >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:48:01 EDT
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:38:36 +0100
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

<snip>

 >I think there is some confusion of terminology here. The term
 >"UFO" is used rather loosely to mean both "Unexplained UFO"
 >cases which remain unexplained after a technically competent
 >investigation (as Hynek defined it in 1972 in The UFO
 >Experience), and "Uninvestigated UFO" cases which remain in a
 >holding pattern of indeterminate status until they are
 >adequately investigated. Most cases fall into the latter
 >category as I will argue below.

<snip>

 >Thus we cannot say that "the majority of UFO cases have been
 >turned into IFOs." The majority of UFO cases have never been
 >turned into anything and remain in an indeterminate IFO/UFO
 >status. Given the difficulties in carrying out large numbers of
 >UFO investigations globally, it is likely that most UFO cases
 >are still uninvestigated.

Hi, Brad:

In general, I agree with your reasoning. Could it be said,
then, that the majority of UFO sighting reports which have been
investigated have turned out to be IFOs?

Since there have been so many seperate databases, how would one
approach the use of any statistics from any one or them?

Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:23:50 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:19:41 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:43:13 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:05:53 -0400
 >Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >Some time ago, a casual glance at the book 'The Hynek UFO
 >Report' lead me to a puzzling finding about Hynek's research on
 >the Elmood Park (Illinois) case of Nov. 4th, 1957 - see "The
 >Squad Car and the Glowing Sphere" in Chapter 8.

 >Hynek stated that "according to the men the moon was out that
 >night, but to the _East_, whereas the object at that same time
 >was toward the _West_" (emphasis added). Nothing more is said
 >about this specific point. In fact, it can be verified that the
 >moon was indeed to the _West_ near the horizon!

 >This could be a good explanation of the sighting, provided that
 >the observers had a _clear_westerly_view. Can anyone check
 >this?

Dear Manuel Borraz, List:

You may be right.

The time given for the incident in Hynek's book (p. 172) is 3:00
A.M. and the location was Elmwood Park, Ill. The witnesses said
that, "The object slowly decended and hovered a few feet off the
ground" to the West.

I went to the U. S. Naval Observatory website, "Sun and Moon for
a Day", at:

http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html#forma

and found that the waxing gibous, 92% illuminated Moon
set at 3:32 A.M. It would have been perhaps 5 degrees or so
above a true horizon thirty-two minutes before setting, and
depending upon horizon obstructions could have appeared
nearly at ground level.

This reminds me of an incident that I investigated, here near
Harrisburg, a couple years ago. The witness swore that the Moon
was in the East and that he saw an object toward the West, on
either side of a cloud in a bank of mammaform clouds which
filled the sky. I asked him repeatedly about the directions and
he was certain that the Moon was to the East because it was
illuminating the clouds in that direction.

Of course the Moon would be illuminating the clouds all over the
sky. It was also exactly in the direction that the witness said
that he saw an object, which set soon after. It boggled my mind,
but was just a matter of being confused that it was not the moon
becaus he was mistaken about the moonlight. The witness also
said that his sister had seen the same thing in a nearby city.
The mammaform cloud formation was also over that place and the
lighting would have been the same.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:40:55 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:21:42 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Young


 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:24:57 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:43:13 +0200

Hi Larry, Manuel:

 >Thank you for the opportunity to show off my neat database
 >software.

Seems pretty cool.

 >The simple fact is there were TWO object seen at about the same
 >time, in opposite sides of the sky. Hynek found that
 >interesting enough to put an account into his good little book.

The second object thought was seen left and behind when they had
turned around in a u-turn and were headed East. They then turned
around and headed West again chasing the object. There were
sightings of two object, but they could have been the same one.

Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:28:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >Hi All,

 >Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >family of five, two adults and three  children.

 >Any help would be appreciated.

 >Regards,

 >Roy..

 >Check out the UFO noise via Real Audio:

 >http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/Articles.htm


Hello Roy:

The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

The events supposedly took place 27 OCT 1974 starting around
22:20 hrs in or about Aveley, Essex, England.

The car conked out (presumed EME), and the radio not smoked (or
got smoked as I might say.)

The story goes that at least two people in the car were beamed
up to some UFO. I have this pigeon-holed as a Saucer or roundish
craft. Inside, they were examined by batlike figures and
possibly pseudo-humans. There was also some sort of telepathic
communication.

My two sources, with all the Halloween details are:

FSR Volume 24 #1,  _and_
Randles, Jenny:  Alien Abductions -- The Mystery
Solved. Page 29.

I vaguely recall a message from Jenny indicating that this
rather unlikely title, at least the last part, was foisted on
her by the publishers.

In this particular listing of mine, I have marked the HOX
attribute indicating (to me at least) the possibility of some
sort of hoax... not proof by any means, just suspicion.

This and 63 other "attributes" enables me to sift and sort cases
all sorts of ways for obvious reasons, and for purposes yet
unforeseen.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:09:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:30:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:52:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Young
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Fate: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:31:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO

 >>I was searching for some background information on the NAZI
 >>German jet fighter, Messerschmitt 262 which saw action in WWII
 >>(one of these may still be preserved in a dried up swamp a few
 >>kilometers southeast of York University in Toronto, but that's
 >>another story) when I came across this NAZI German drawing of a
 >>saucer shaped aircraft dated 7 November 1943 (see URL below)
 >>which also resembles both the George Adamski and Townsend Brown
 >>saucers but predates them.

 >>http://www.net.yu/~djordjen/Nazi2.gif

 >Nick:

 >Where did you find this page?

 >Bob Young

Hello Bob:

Taking a wild stab, I cut off the end of the URL yielding an ISP
of sorts in Yugoslavia (Serbia really, Beograd which we call
Belgrade.)

http://www.net.yu/

As for the image presented, anyone with an old typewriter could
have faked that gem up, quite possibly somebody with a name like
Djorjen.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:31:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:33:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:23:08 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 >Hi All:

 >I am trying to replace the records that I had up to a few years
 >ago, regarding UFO related incidents in the Quinte Area (Oshawa
 >to Brockville including all of Lake Ontario).

 >If anyone has any records of sighting reports in this region,
 >could you please forward them to me at:

 >sliddle@chalktv.com

 >Thanks.

 >If I ever catch up with the boob who took my files and never
 >returned them, 'Bam, Boom, Zoom to da moon!' (and if you want to
 >know the name of this weasel, or why QAPRA folded, contact me
 >privately via email and I'll let you know).

 >Sean Liddle
 >President
 >Kingston Aerial Phenomenon Research Association (KAPRA)
 >Kingston, Ontario
 >Canada


Hello Sean:

This may not help much, but I might have a few references to
original sources of sightings in your area, i.e. books and
journals with page or issue numbers, and a very brief synopsis.

To do this however, I would need a time frame (which years) and
some geographical limits, say an eastern and western limit in
degrees, and same for North and South.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                                 da La Rete

From: Alfredo Lissoni - CUN <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:41:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:35:09 -0500
Subject: da La Rete


E' on line - it's on line
La Rete 291
http://web.tiscalinet.it/lareteufo/rete291.htm
UFO a Lecce ed in Valdichiana - Congresso a Milano - Padre Pio - USO

e-and

La Rete 282
http://web.tiscalinet.it/lareteufo/rete292.htm
Acqua su Marte - Playstation e UFO - USO in Adriatico - Archivi

Italian tongue

Saluti - Best wishes
Alfredo Lissoni
Italy's Nationali UFO Center
Centro Ufologico Nazionale
http://www.cun-italia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                           Re: NICAP Site - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:34:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:37:03 -0500
Subject: Re: NICAP Site - Hatch


 >From: Adam Lowe <nicap@freechariot.co.uk>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: NICAP Site
 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >Hi Everyone,

 >I would like to inform the list that the NICAP site has moved
 >to:

 >http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk

 >We had been experiencing server problem for the last few weeks
 >so we have moved the whole site.

 >My previous email address of:

 >adam@nicap.co.uk

 >is now dead and my new one is:

 >nicap@freechariot.co.uk

 >The Coyne case report is now at:

 >http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/coyne.htm


Hello Adam:

Thanks for the notice. I have changed the link on the *U*
Database website:

http://www.jps.net/larryhat/index.html

... to the new URL for the NICAP site on this links page:

http://www.jps.net/larryhat/ULINKS.html

I tested the new NICAP URL and in came in fine.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:03:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:39:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:18:16 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >What you snipped out of my message was your earlier comment
 >about how "the hoax suggestion is clearly a front runner." To
 >which I pointed out that was nothing new and incredible, for
 >those of us who have been around. Personally I don't have any
 >problems with it being troted out. Years ago we were assured it
 >was absolutly a pie pan. Now its mirrors. Who knows, perhaps in
 >five or so years the next theory that will be troted out is a
 >combination of pie pan and mirrors.

Nope. Pelicans and mirrors all the way!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                     News Agency Looking For UFO Stories

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:13:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:42:20 -0500
Subject: News Agency Looking For UFO Stories


Today I received a call from National News, a UK news agency.
They are loking for UFO stories that have not featured in the
national press. I agreed to pass on their particulars to
possible interested parties. I have no dealings with them in the
past so I cannot tell you what they are like or how they treat
the subject.

If you are interested in contacting them you can telephone Lisa
Bingham on: 0207 6843000. Or e-mail her at:

lisa_j_bingham@hotmail.com


--

Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                     Horizons Webcast 10-30-00 Archived

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:14:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:44:34 -0500
Subject: Horizons Webcast 10-30-00 Archived


UFO Research List - http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/

Horizons Radio webcast from October 30, 2000, is now available
in archive online.  You can listen to the archive at
http://www.oklahomasky.com

If it could go wrong, it went wrong in this broadcast but, we
prevailed and brought to you Miss Bobbie 'Jilain' Felder who
spoke on Alien Abductees, and the mind set needed by the
research field to produce real evidence of these events that
plague so many people who sit in silent suffering.

Scott A. Roberts, General Manager of Three Horizons
Broadcasting, provided us new insight and format structure for
future shows and outlined the mission of Horizons in this
special appearance.

Lan 'BladeRunR' Lamphere comments of space bacteria and the ISS
crew men who are blazing a new path to space. We should all be
very proud of our species as we take on more step toward the
stars. Also, Lan speaks on the threat of bacteria possibly found
in space rocks. What threat would they pose to us as new
technology awaken life forms nonexhistant for millions of years.
That and more in this special addition of Horizons!

Horizons Radio and webcast is a production of Three Horizons
Broadcasting.


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder

http://www.oklahomasky.com
IRC Undernet #horizons
ICQ #7524076









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                          Secrecy News -- 10/31/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:04:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:49:56 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 10/31/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
October 31, 2000


FUROR OVER "LEAK" STATUTE ESCALATES

As opposition mounts against the new legislation that would make
it a felony to disclose classified information, pressure is
building on the White House to veto the Intelligence
Authorization Act containing the "leak" statute between now and
November 4.

In a revealing front page story today, the New York Times
reported that "There is now strong opposition to the bill inside
and outside the White House."

"It's potentially disastrous for a government spokesman,"
Kenneth H. Bacon, assistant secretary of defense for public
information, told the Times. "It's disastrous for journalists.
It's disastrous for any official who deals with the press in
national security, whether at State, the N.S.C. or the
Pentagon."   See:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/31/politics/31INTE.html

In an October 27 letter to the White House, Senator Charles E.
Schumer (D-NY) asked President Clinton to veto the bill.
Otherwise, "this bill ... will have profound effects on the
ability of an informed citizenry to keep our government honest."
See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/10/schumer.html

In an October 25 letter to the House Appropriations Committee,
House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Minority Member
John Conyers reiterated their opposition to the bill and asked
the appropriators to adopt a legislative rider that would defer
the effective date of the leak statute for a year.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/10/hyde2.html

On October 27, Senators Leahy, Grassley and Schumer wrote to the
Senate Appropriations Committee seeking a similar deferral on
the Senate side.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/10/leahy.html

"Because leaks to the media have always provided the most
reliable warnings of executive branch misconduct, the new
legislation would tend to diminish Congress's own oversight
capacity where it is most needed," wrote Steven Aftergood of the
Federation of American Scientists in a letter to the editor of
the Washington Post today:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45155-2000Oct30.h
tml

Meanwhile, the Drudge Report boasts that in a new book Bill
Gertz of the Washington Times "is preparing to unleash top
classified reports that detail Communist China's vast efforts to
undermine and destroy the United States."  According to Drudge,
"sources close to Gertz fear" -- that is to say, they wish --
"he could ignite the first investigation after new legislation
criminalizing leaks of all 'properly classified' government
information is signed into law."  See:

        http://www.drudgereport.com/china.htm

Finally, in what is only the latest of dozens of editorials from
around the country opposing the leak statute, the St. Petersburg
Times today says, "Veto it, Mr. Clinton."  See:


http://www.sptimes.com/News/103100/Opinion/Over_classifying.shtm
l

******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this comman
d in the body of the message:
        subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this command in the body
of the message:
        unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                     Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:31:17 -0500
Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived


Listfolk:

Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
physicist John Lowke:

"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

How pathetically laughable. This poor soul clearly knows nothing
of the insights that pelican science has now afforded us, namely
that

(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
liars

(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
phenomenon

and

(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

Can you imagine that any reputable scientist would argue that a
phenomenon exists simply because people claim to have seen it on
many occasions? Pelican science reveals to us that millions of
years of evolution in perceptual mechanisms - the very organs on
which physical survival depends - have come to nothing. A
pelicanist on this list even has shown that multiple and
independent witnesses who reported seeing a hovering
submarine-shaped, metallic structure with flashing search light
-- over a 300-second period of observation - were only observing
a fireball. Given what pelican science has told us, we should
all appreciate what a miracle it is that we can even cross a
street without getting flattened by a truck - or that somebody
could even negotiate the driving of a truck to start with.

In the words quoted above, Lowke is trying to sell us on his
belief in a nonexistent phenomenon called by the credulous "ball
lightning." Consider this preposterous anecdotal testimony by
British scientist Alexander Russell in Nature (November 23,
1930):

"Many years ago" - we can safely disregard the sighting at once,
since pelican science tells us that memory of what happened
minutes or even seconds ago is unreliable - "I saw two globes of
lightning." Of course we know that even scientists are
unreliable observers, and some are even liars. "They were
reddish-yellow in color and appeared to be rotating." Given how
our perceptual apparatus so often fails us, this description is
none we need take seriously. "One of them struck a building and
burst with a loud report" - probably caused by a firecracker,
not some absurd, undocumented phenomenon such as this obviously
dubious character wants us to believe. "As there was no trace of
anything the [building's inhabitants] looked bewildered." As why
shouldn't they, since nothing happened outside the fertile
imagination/lying tongue/failed perceptual mechanisms of this
unreliable alleged scientist? "The other drifted slowly away."
What "drifted slowly away" was no doubt a cloud with sunlight
reflecting off it. "Globular lightning makes a slight noise ...
compared with the purring of a cat." So deluded is this
unreliable witness that he couldn't even discern that what he
was hearing _was_ the "purring of a cat," which in his ignorance
of pelicanist principles he was led to associate with the aerial
phenomenon he mistakenly thought he was seeing.

Thank you, pelican science, for your many contributions to human
enlightenment. We can now remain confident that everything that
could be known is known and that all claims to the contrary can
be easily disposed of. You have shown that no rational human
being, on being made aware of the principles of pelican science,
could possibly believe in what occultists disguised as
scientists call "ball lightning."

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:33:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:59:27 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >However, instead of playing silly little games and wasting a
 >lot of time, here is my response.

I agree, we are sort of just going round and round about this,
now.

<snip>

Unidentified Flying Object = UFO. This means that an object is
in the air, flying or stationary and is not readily identifiable
such as an airplane, bird or conventional object. Nor is it
identifiable through astronomical means. I really could go on
and on with a definition, but we'll just stick with common sense
and common language. Unidentified means just that.

OK, I can go with this definition. I would have said that this
would better be described as a "UFO report", but OK.

 >Also, UFO, even though pop-culture deems it so, does not
 >translate into aliens, space brothers or anything
 >extraterrestrial. The existence of UFOs does not prove the
 >existence of extraterrestrials.

Agreed, again. (Hey, we might end up in agreement on something)

 >Bob, would you like me to send you all the video I have and all
 >the literature regarding the subject? Of course you wouldn't.
 >You expect me to give you an answer in an e-mail.

Well I probably had hoped that maybe you could have boiled down
you evidence to an e-mail, just one good proven case would do.

 >I have a tape of something I recorded from my backyard.
 >Though it is not as dramatic as some UFO (Unidentified Flying
 >Object) video, it is indeed an Unidentified Flying Object. Let me
 >try this one more time: its in the air, its flying and it isn't
 >identifiable as a conventional object. I actually have two UFO
 >videos that I took, the first I already mentioned and the second
 >is of a set of three lights flying silently at low altitude in the sky.
 >Again this is an unidentified flying object, UFO.

Actually, I would be very interested in seeing your video and
your explanation as to why you think these things are
unidentifiable. Is there any chance you could copy the two video
segments on a tape and send it to me. I'll be happy to reimburse
you for the postage and the tape. I can report to the List about
my review of the tape. The address is PO Box 371, Harrisburg PA
17108-0371.

<snip>

 >Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >ergo a UFO.

UFO, here, does not necessarily mean unknowable. You accept the
statement of the Government, here, but doubt the Government when
it doesn't support your wish for unkowns. This is really
inconsistent. Did it occur to you that glitches in radar are
something most air forces are not about to talk about? Do you
have a citation for these two government repots? There were a
lot of sightings during the flap in those years.

 >How about the Iran UFO encounter in 1976. This is where Iran's
 >topgun and another pilot went up in F-4 Phantoms against a UFO.
 >When the pilots went to red to engage the object both the jets'
 >weapons malfunctioned. The object sent out a smaller object to
 >engage the jets and this smaller object literally flew circles
 >around one jet while it was performing an evasive dive. This was
 >seen by people in the air, on the ground and was recorded on
 >radar. By the way, this information is from a U.S. government
 >report - the last people who want to admit anything about UFOs -
_unidentified_ flying objects.

And what is your opinion about the investigation of this
incident conducted by avionics expert Philip J. Klass, who
tracked down an American technician responsible for maintenance
of the aircraft? This is the principal skeptical investigation
of that incident. While you and I are unlikely to be able to
personally investigate such an incident on the spot, we should
at least consider the information provided by those who have.

 >Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.

Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begind the trees, and
practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

 >I will also be the first to say that most UFO reports do have
 >conventional explanations such as stars or misidentified aircraft.
 >I would be the last to say that no one has ever misidentified
 >Venus or another heavenly body for a UFO.

OK, well we're on the same track here.

 >What about Dr.Sturrock and his panel of _scientists_ that stated
 >UFOs were real in a press confernece last year?

No skeptical input was provided. The whole thing was loaded for
a pro-UFO result. Some participants, by the way, were unhappy
with the report and how it was handled.

 >Have you even taken the time to read his book, The UFO Enigma,
 >in which he presents the _scientific_ findings of his committee?

I've read the on-line report.

 >How about the Condon Report?

Read it long ago, and refer to it often. I now have my third
dog-eared copy. It's on-line now, by the way.

<snip>

 >UFOs do indeed exist.

Yes, but since only a tiny minority of UFO reports have been
competently examined by anybody, they will continue to exist, I
guess.

 >Maybe you're just shocked that I'm not claiming UFOs and
 >aliens are the same thing.

Nothing would shock me when it comes to this fascinating
subject.

 >Your turn to do some work. I can present all the data to you
 >through this e-mail, but if you fail to actaully follow up on
 >any of it, then your right to argue is forfeit by your own
 >unwillingness.

Which tidbit do you want me to leave out? All of Condon, maybe,
or just Case 27, the Great Harrisburg UFO Flap, in which the
investigators had all-sky cameras operating continuously for 17
days during which 100 UFO reports came in but no UFOs showed up
on the pictures. Our local astronomy club also manned three
observing spots at the Colorado researchers' request. They
didn't see anything, either. I discovered the explanation for
many of the sightings, oh, two or three minutes after looking at
a topographic map of the area.

 >You can choose whether or not to follow up and
 >actually do some work by analyzing the data.

Well, we could start by you sending me your two videos which
you've looking into and the results of your investigation, and
I'll provide a report of my investigation into the 1967
Harrisburg flap, which was one of the cases in Condon.

Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                Re: The Cydonian Imperative - 10-30-00 - Bara

From: Mike Bara <mbara@uswest.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:25:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:40:10 -0500
Subject: Re: The Cydonian Imperative - 10-30-00 - Bara


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:59:12 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: The Cydonian Imperative - 10-30-00

 >10-30-00

 >The Cydonian Imperative

 >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 >Predictions for New High-Resolution Cydonia Images

 >by Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

<snip>

 >Other Cydonian features suggesting artificiality include the
 >southwestern landform in the City, which is topped with
 >several intriguing morphologies invisible at Viking's
 >resolution. The "City Square,"while not as impressive as
 >expected by some, contains at least two small formations
 >worth a careful look, including what appears to be a collapsed
 >geometric structure of some kind. And of the "Mounds"
 >brought to >attention by Dr. Stanley McDaniel and Dr. Horace
 >Crater, both "P" and "E" exhibit internal and contextual
 >detail possibly best explained in architectural terms.

<snip>


It was Hoagland, not McDaniel and Crater, who first noted the
mounds.

Mike







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:42:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:48:56 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:05:13 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I noticed that you did not list the skeptical investigation of
 >>the incident by Philip J. Klass reported in two of his books,
 >>UFOs Explained, 1974, pp. 333-346, and two chapters in UFOs: The
 >>Public Deceived, pp. 135-160.

 >First, again, it's Jennie Zeidman, not Jennie Zeiden, suggesting
 >that you are as unfamiliar with the case as I suspected. Zeidman
 >went to some considerable lengths to address Klass's often
 >strange assertions about the sighting.

Sorry, it has to to with AOL's spell checker, get it wrong the
first time and it's wrong until the end.

 >If you want references to her thorough debunking of Klass's
 >allegations, I will happily provide you with references.

I would appreciate it.

 >Somehow, though, given your track record, I suspect you won't be
 >interested.

 >Second, for the record, I do cite all of Klass's "skeptical"
 >writings on the case. See the bibliography on page 257 of The
 >UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed. My word. I guess not knowing what
 >you're talking about doesn't stop you from having an opinion
 >cast in concrete.

Sorry if I don't have your encyclopedia here at my fingertips. I
got one set through interlibrary loan, I had hoped that you'd
have mentioned Klass' stuff here on the List for everyone.

<snip>

 >Hmm, Phil Klass as Santa Klaus? Well, I don't believe it.

Ha, the spell-checker. Sorry, my finger was just spasmodic at
that point.

 >Zeidman devoted considerable energy and a vast amount of print
 >to refutations of Klass's claims. I'm afraid there isn't much
 >left of them after her debunking.

Yiikes. You hang with debunkers?

 >It's Zeidman, not Zeiden, and it's Coyne, not Cony. I had it
 >right, and you actually _changed_ my spelling. My word. Why are
 >you even addressing this matter if you can't get the simplest
 >details right, or make your critic look as ill-informed as you
 >are?

Hey, well I don't get paid for this stuff.

 >>If Zeiden is accurate about the object being visible for five
 >>minutes, it would appear to rule out a fireball. The problem is
 >>that the story got better with the retelling. Only three days
 >>afterwards, pilot Cony was quoted by his second cousin,
 >>Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter John P. Cony, as saying that
 >>"seconds" after first seeing a red light they thought it was
 >>moving towards them. Then the object hovered over them only a
 >>few seconds, and then seconds later the object disappeared.

 >Interesting that you should take a secondhand newspaper account
 >over the witnesses' direct testimony to the contrary. You
 >clearly aren't familiar with Zeidman's painstaking attempt to
 >get the time line of the sighting as right as humanly possible.

Oh, and Zeidman's written report is not just a second-hand as
the reporter's, or Uncle Phil's, for that matter? Yours and mine
would even be third hand, or maybe even fourth.

<snip>

 >>Hardly enough evidence to place this incident among those that
 >>prove the visitation of alien spaceships in our skies.

 >Uh, now who exactly has mention "visitation of alien spaceships
 >in our skies" in this conversation -- besides you, I mean? I
 >thought we were talking about an unidentified flying object. Or
 >maybe you just want to change the subject.

True, but what's the point? Everybody knows that if we were only
talking about meteors, mystery planes or mirages, nobody would
care.

How do you stand on the ETH?

 >>Clear skies,

 >Apparently not in the atmosphere of the planet you live on.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Clark vs Evans - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:09:27 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:43:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Cuthbertson


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >Bruce wrote:

 >>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>unexplained.

 >There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >explanations.

Well, in a similar vein, do you consider continuing SETI a
worthless endeavor just because they haven't found one
intelligent signal yet in the millions of megabytes of data
they've already examined?

All it takes is one valid signal, or photograph, to prove the
case. So would you have us simply disregard all existing and
future photographic evidence because its probably mundane? If
so, that's ridiculous. If not, what's the point of your comment?
I don't really see one.

My 2 cents,

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Military Abductions? - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:12:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:45:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Salvaille


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:47:55 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Oct 30 2000 08:07 +0100

 >>>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 15:34:45 -0400
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

Hello John, Thiago and List

 >Ignoring the lack of substantiation, I don't think that
 >something as 'large scale' as this abduction phenomena can be
 >pulled off _worldwide_ *successfully (*keyword) without some
 >major league evidence of it appearing long before now. The sheer
 >number of personnel and expenditure of resources required to
 >pull it off would have -insured- that we'd all have known/heard
 >about it before now. Anything this big leaves a trail.

What is exactly the 'scale' of the abduction phenomena?

Regards,

Serge Salvaille



From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
To: updates@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >Bruce wrote:

 >>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>unexplained.

 >There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >explanations.

Well, in a similar vein, do you consider continuing SETI a
worthless endeavor just because they haven't found one
intelligent signal yet in the millions of megabytes of data
they've already examined?

All it takes is one valid signal, or photograph, to prove the
case. So would you have us simply disregard all existing and
future photographic evidence because its probably mundane? If
so, that's ridiculous. If not, what's the point of your comment?
I don't really see one.

My 2 cents,

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:10:09 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:48:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:26:01 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <<AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Wright
 >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:20:43 +0100

 >In response to the following...

 >>>When applied to UFO photographs there has not yet been one which
 >>>has been resolved to anything but 'normal' terrestrial or
 >>>astronomical phenomena.

<Bruce wrote:

 >>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>unexplained.

 >There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >explanations.


There is no "eventual transition from UFO to IFO" as if it is
some established and inexorable pattern or phenomenon of UFO
research - point me to some solid _global_ statistical studies
if you can.  First off, most "UFO" cases are never given what J.
Allen Hynek called a technically competent investigation.  They
remain as "UFO's" in name only, but neither are they IFO's, they
are indeterminate in status.  Better terminology is needed for
these pending status uninvestigated and partially investigated
cases, maybe call them Pending UFO (PUFO).

Of the cases that _are_ investigated the percentages vary
greatly.  At certain times USAF Project Blue Book claimed
"Unknowns" exceeded 20%, but later they diluted the statistics
with PUFO's, dishonestly treating them as IFO's, to get the
percentage of Unknowns down.

The Condon Committee deliberately suppressed statistics on its
investigations (don't tell me a dozen Ph.D.'s were incapable of
thinking of the idea).  Fortunately the Index to the Condon
Report gave it away by compiling a list of all of the
"Sightings, Unexplained."  I tallied up the statistics, I don't
have them in front of me, but it was something like 40 out of
about 90, or more than 40%.

Secondly, there are increasing numbers of cases of IFO's
"transitioning" back to UFO's as long-standing skeptical
landmarks on such major cases as the RB-47
radar-visual-electronic intelligence 1957 case, Bentwaters
radar-visual 1956 (I exclude the Lakenheath phase), and
Rendlesham 1980 get demolished with further research.

Finally, there are quite a few UFO photographic cases that have
not been conventionally explained after extensive technically
competent investigation, such as Bruce Maccabee's outstanding
work on the New Zealand radar-visual-photographic case which got
published in an established refereed scientific journal (Applied
Optics 18:2527, 19:1745), the Skylab 3 astronaut case of Aug 26,
1973, the White Sands phototheodolite tracking of April 27,
1950, and yes the Trent / McMinnville case which remains
unexplained after decades of investigation by Maccabee, me and
others.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:29:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:15:26 -0000

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:18:16 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Robert wrote:

 >>I would point out that probably anybody could hook up a pie pan
 >>or a mirror, shoot a picture of it, and make the claim its a
 >>replication of the Trent photos. Just like a modern painter can
 >>copy an old master and claim its a replication. Bottom line is
 >>its not the original, nor will it correctly represent the
 >>original circumstances and conditions that the original came
 >>about in. Nor does the "replication" mean the original painter
 >>was a fraud/hoaxer etc etc.

 >I agree Robert. But if the hoax hypothesis is to be taken
 >seriously replication is the first step. At least then it would
 >be known how easy/difficult it was to replicate. Just saying
 >'wow', unexplained, how super - which is about all I've seen on
 >this list on the pro side - is rather pathetic and answers
 >nothing at all.

And the above is a, shall I say, pathetic or at least uninformed
comment? It's not as if the hoax hypothesis, with some idea of
how the photos might have been created, has never been
discussed.

I pointed out a way to replicate the photos years ago... with
a paper model. Now it is claimed that some object just lying
around, presumably, would be sufficient, although we don't know
if said object (truck mirror) was just lying around. The
assumption of availability adds another factor to the
"probability equation" discussed below.

The truck mirror adds one thing that a pie pan doesn't have,
namely a post or tiltable support on the back. On the _center_
of the back, by the way. ON the other hand, "pot lid" was
another earlier suggestion... and there are small knobs on small
pot lids.

But what is really being argued here is the relationship between
'difficulty' and 'probability'. The skeptical formula is:
Probability of a hoax varies inversely as the difficulty of the
hoax. This means the probability is _higher_ if Trent could grab
some object that was lying around (bottle cap, pie pan, truck
mirror with the back support attached), tie a string to it,
throw the string over the power wire and stand back and take two
photos from one location than it _would_be_ if Trent had to make
an object, select a thread to match the sky background, create a
special suspension means that did not mean hanging the object
directly under the wires and then take two photos from two
different positions.

Unfortunately this formula is more like a ratio for which the
actual values of probability are not known, only that one is
"more probable" than the other.

Similar analyses have been applied to other cases involving
photos. One from England that I was involved with was the series
of Peter Beard photos back in August(?) of 1987. Oddly enough I
was providing the analysis that was used as "proof" of a hoax
for this case at the same time I was being criticized for
accepting the Ed Walters photos, even though I was applying
similar criteria to both: the more difficult the photo, the less
probable it was a hoax.

In Beard's case I determined that the object could well have
been a paper cutout on the window and all motion ascribed to the
object was actually due to Beard photographing from different
locations.

This was accepted as "proof" the photos were a hoax. However, I
did not prove they were a hoax. I did show that it would have
been "easy" to create such a series of photos, however.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:31:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:56:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000


 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:26:01 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >In response to the following...

 >>>When applied to UFO photographs there has not yet been one which
 >>>has been resolved to anything but 'normal' terrestrial or
 >>>astronomical phenomena.

 >Bruce wrote:

 >>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>unexplained.

Andy wrote:

 >There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >explanations.

It is reasonable to suggest... which is similar to the
suggestion that all sightings can be explained.

Just don;'t go the debunker route for which "suggestion" is
tantamount to proof: 95% can be explained, therefore 100% can be
explained, QED, that's all she wrote and good night (and don't
"knock me up" in the morning)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                           Rendlesham Book Update

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:05:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:58:21 -0500
Subject: Rendlesham Book Update


YOU CAN�T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest Mystery

By Georgina Bruni
With Foreword by Nick Pope

�UFOs? You must get your facts right, and you can�t tell the
people.� Margaret Thatcher to Georgina Bruni 21st May 1997

THE INCIDENT

This December marks the 20th Anniversary of the Rendlesham
Forest mystery. In the height of the Cold War, RAF
Bentwaters/Woodbridge in Suffolk, England, was leased to the
United States Air Force (USAF), serving as a twin NATO military
installation.

During Christmas week 1980 the Woodbridge base was visited by
several UFOs, two of which landed on the perimeter of the base
in Rendlesham Forest. Numerous air force personnel witnessed
these events, which were so extraordinary that it prompted the
British liaison officer to instruct the deputy base commander to
write an official memorandum to the Ministry of Defence.

At the same time a similar incident was taking place less than
30 miles away, at RAF Watton, home to the Royal Air Force.

THE AFTERMATH

Trees in Rendlesham Forest were quickly felled at the site of
the landings and the area burnt.Local witnesses were asked not
to talk to anyone and the surrounding area was blocked off to
the public by USAF patrols.

Local prisons were put on alert and for days following the
incident the American bases used �Flash� calls, which are only
ever used in emergencies.

Photographs and video film taken at the scene were swiftly
transported to Ramstein Air Base, the USAFE headquarters in
Germany.

THE COVER-UP

Witnesses claim they were interrogated by special agents and
threatened into silence. For years the witnesses suffered
terrible nightmares and were under surveillance by the Air force
Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI), an agency that polices
the USAF.

For three years the USAF and MOD denied the incident, but in
1983 an American research group managed to obtain a memorandum
(composed by the deputy base commander, Lt Colonel Charles Halt)
which detailed the incidents. However, the USAF and the MOD
continue to claim that the incident was of �no defence
significance� and there was not enough evidence to prove there
was a case.

THE EVIDENCE

You Can�t Tell The People presents vital new evidence which
proves that the incident should have been of major concern to
Britain�s defence agencies � evidence that the MOD must have �
or should have been aware of twenty years ago.

Some of the information contained in the book.......

1.A letter written by an RAF squadron leader and addressed to
the MOD, which is titled �Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)�.
This is supported with an exclusive interview.

2.Documents that claim to be official witness statements. The
author interviewed witnesses who claim they did not type these
statements, which appear to be disinformation mixed with facts.

3. USAF photographs taken the morning after the initial incident
which show a British police officer and a USAF officer examining
three ground indentations, each with a marker. Enlargements of
the photographs depict indentations of what appear to be the
UFO�s landing marks as well as a scuffed up area, which was
reported twenty years ago by witness Lt Colonel Charles Halt.

4.A transcript of the master copy of an original audio tape
recording of the second major event that involved Lt Colonel
Halt. A bad copy of this tape was leaked to researchers in 1984.
The tape reveals vital new information.

5.An interview with a former NCO who was in charge of the
telecommunications at the time of the incident.

6.A compelling interview with a former NCO who claims to have
been interrogated by special agents and forced to admit that the
UFO was the beam from the local lighthouse.

7.A testimony from a former NCO who claims he was interrogated
by special agents who used drug-induced hypnosis to silence him.

8. A local civilian witness speaks out about his encounter with
one of the UFOs and tells how four of his USAF friends were
called back to the base on a �Red Alert�. The witness also
described what one of his friends had told him about the
incident in the forest, which involved alien entities repairing
a space ship.

9.A former MOD secretary reveals that there was a cover-up and
witnesses were given new identities and there were those who
simply disappeared.

10.Interviews with the former AFOSI deputy commander at
Bentwaters/Woodbridge, and his wife who also witnessed the UFO.

Bruni has interviewed more than one hundred people, including
Major General Gordon Williams, the commander of the
installations; several high-ranking officers; NCOs and regular
airmen; police and MOD employees and civilians.

Margaret Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister at the time of the
events, told the author in 1997, that she can�t tell the people
about UFOs, but Bruni went on to investigate Britain�s most
famous UFO case and her book reveals the story of the incident,
the aftermath and the cover-up.

At last the truth can be told......

Available on the web at www.amazon.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                   Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:31:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:05:06 -0500
Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:08:29 -0800


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:32:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview
 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:13:19 -0800

 >>>I find it interesting that you've supplied us with this
 >>>interview, without explaining why you chose to believe Chris and
 >>>not Larry Warren. Larry says he and others saw and were within a
 >>>few feet of a UFO, on Dec. 29 (1980) around 1:30 A.M. in
 >>>Rendlesham forest:

 >>Good Morning all -

 >>How about the fact that Larry Warren said that he wasn't there
 >>for the first two days of activity because he was on assignment
 >>to Germany. It was then that he invented the third day so that
 >>he could plug himself into the case.

 >I'm not familiar with that information. Can you fill us in? All
 >I know about Rendlesham comes from reading 'Left At East Gate'
 >and from the many interesting posts on Updates.

I outlined it all, at length in 'Project Moondust'. Russ Estes
had a copy of the interview that was taped on February 16, 1993
Halt, Warren and Robins had apparently met to discuss the case,
with, I suppose, Warren and Robins looking for additional
information for the book they would write.

Halt told Warren, "You're aware that the story you've told or
the stories you've told through the years don't fit in with what
I recollect and other witnesses recollect..."

Warren agreed, but they said he had talked to others and it was
like a traffic accident in which the various witnesses remember
the events differently.

Halt then asked if Warren had taken a polygraph. Warren said,
"No," but that he had taken a Voice Stress given by Larry
Fawcett. Well, as I was listening to the tape of Warren, I
realized that I could call Larry Fawcett. He said that he had
never given Warren a VSA. So, we have a major crack in the tale
right there.

Russ Estes also interviewed Warren on video tape. The very first
thing that Warren told Estes was that he hadn't been in
Bentwaters on the first two nights. He had only been there for
the third. Halt disputed that, suggesting that Warren had the
chronology all screwed up.

As I say, all of this is outlined, at length, in the book.

 >It's a very
 >complicated incident. That's why I asked Peter and Larry if Mike
 >could do a voice stress analysis on some of their tapes. They
 >agreed and sent Mike the tapes and he did an analysis on their
 >conversations. The quality was poor, but what Mike was able to
 >analyze seemed free of deception. If a person were lying, it
 >seems to me that the last thing they would want is their lies
 >analyzed by someone they were convinced could separate truth
 >from lies, as Mike is able to do

Except that it seems that people often believe that they can
beat the machine. They often agree to these sorts of exams, only
to be surprised when the results come back in the negative. Next
time you have a change watch one of the talk shows where they're
using the lie detector and listen to the reactions of the people
as they're caught.

 >>How about Warren telling Col. Halt, in a taped interview that he
 >>thought that everything he knew might be an invention and that
 >>there was no physical reality for his participation.

 >I don't know, for sure, which interview you're referring to but
 >I'd be glad to check it out if you'll let me know where to find
 >it. Is it in 'Left At East Gate'?

As I say, it is in PROJECT MOONDUST.

 >>How about Halt, on the same tape, repeatedly telling Warren that
 >>his memory of the events was faulty, inaccurate and untrue?

 >Yes I know that Halt disputes Larry. I would like to VSA the
 >entire cast of characters.

 >>This is just a few reasons for questioning the statements made
 >>by Warren.

 >Yes I understand your concern. But Jacques Vallee felt Larry was
 >credible and Larry had enough belief in himself to submit to
 >VSA.

Unfortunately on this point Dr. Vallee is in error. Warren in
not reliable.

And I think you hit the nail on the head. Warren thought enough
of himself to believe that he could beat the machine.

I find the Bentwaters case much easier to understand when Warren
is removed from it.

KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:50:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:07:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:19:16 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:30:50 -0400

Hello Bob and List,

<snip>

 >Thanks for clearing this up. Since I've never made one nickel as
 >the result of my 30 years of investigating UFO reports, and
 >never did any on company time, I'm glad that I couldn't possibly
 >be considered one of the two mysterious loony career debunkers
 >of whom you write.

<snip>

Now you are telling me that in 30 years you have not seen a
single UFO case that didn't turn out to be an IFO case.

You thus assume that all the witnesses you have encountered
during those 30 years fall in one or many of the following
categories:

Loony, stupid, hallucinating, liar, misperceiving, mentally ill,
unreliable, hoaxer, incompetent, joking, deceiving, mistaking,
dishonest, etc.

You may have never encountered a true UFO case. But, since 1947,
a few other good and honest investigators have, and your broad
perception of their work and the witnesses they contacted thus
fall in one or many of the following categories:

[copy and paste please]

You're probably Mr. Nice Guy and you never said that. OK. You
just inferred it.

In the name of what please?

<snip>

 >Nothing here about intellectual honesty, is there? No opinions
 >allowed from people who have done years of research unless they
 >are the accepted answers you're looking for?

<snip>

Before I drop a tear on your feelings being hurt because your
intellectual honesty is in question, allow me a minute of silence
for all the witnesses of all the UFO cases since 1947 who have
been directly and/or indirectly qualified as:

[copy and paste please]

, sometimes laughed at, by people like you who, obviously,
_cannot_ accept the idea that a honest to goodness human being
can report something that is, in his view, and in anybody's view
who would have been in his place, out of this world.

<snip>

 >I only mention this because it almost seemed that the difference
 >between a "researcher bringing a different point of view to the
 >subject" and a Loony career debunker might only be based upon
 >nothing more that what one or the other says they believe about
 >UFOs.

<snip>

In a debunker's view, UFOs _cannot_ exist, and _nothing_ can
oppose this belief, _your_ belief, _a_ belief, especially not the
witnesses who can only oppose their _knowledge_ of what they
_saw_ to your _certitude_ that they _cannot_ have seen it.

The 'matter of opinion' is only on your side.

Regards,

Serge Salvaille








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:55:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:10:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Friedman


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:39:44 -0000

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:06:24 -0300

 >Stanton wrote:

 >>Nothing like another proclamation. I take it, Andy, you believe
 >>that the Vancouver Island, Yungay, Heflin, Trinidade, Salt Lake
 >>City, Cluj, Hawaii, etc photos have all been explained by
 >>careful investigation and shown to be normal terrestrial or
 >>astronomical phenomena.

 >Nowhere have I said that Stanton - perhaps you could provide the
 >quote which even hints at that. Do you know what they?

What Andy conveniently snipped was his claim Oct. 29:

"When applied to UFO photographs there has not yet been one
which has been resolved to anything but "normal" terrestrial or
astronomical phenomena".

 >>I suppose one might consider
 >>intelligently controlled ET spacecraft "normal phenomena" since
 >>they are observed so often,

 >!
 >?

 >Where is your evidence and proof that: 'intelligently controlled
 >ET spacecraft' are seen at all, never mind 'often'

 >Really Stanton - you don't read the on-going arguments correctly
 >and then you have the bottle to make such ludicrous statements
 >as the above. I'll repeat - where is your evidence and proof?

Did I misquote Andy? Seems he said... Not one photograph is
anything but normal terrestrial or astronomical phenomena.
Where is there any evidence that any of the photos I noted are
either. And if there is no evidence, his statement is false.

 >>but presumably that isn't what was
 >>meant. I might add that in normal rich gold ore, 99.99% isn't
 >>gold either. But given a choice, I would take the gold and you
 >>can have the dross.

 >Fine by me but what's that analogy got to do with your
 >contention that:

 >'intelligently controlled ET spacecraft' are observed 'often'?

 >Really!

The fact that many photos may be explainable as normal
terrestrial or astronomical phenomena, does not mean all can be.
Some such as the ones I noted may be gold.

How convenient to ignore the total lack of basis for his
extraordinary claim about photographs.I cited several. Are they
normal terrestrial or astronomical phenomena???

People have often seen manufactured objects,( based on their
appearance), behaving in ways that the airborne vehicles made on
earth (especially many years ago) cannot duplicate. Hence they
were manufactured somewhere else.. doesn't say where, why, how.
Only not made on Earth. If they had been, earthlings would no
longer be building F-16,17,18, Mig 29, Mirage 6 etc.

 >Happy Trails

 >Andy


Tell us about your (or anybody else's) evaluation of the noted
photographs, Andy. You make it sound as though if I can't
produce an alien spacecraft for you complete with alien pilot,
that means there are none here. How absurd.


Stan Friedman

By the way what does "having the bottle to make such statements"
mean in English.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: I Feel Much Better Now That I've Given Up -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:56:51 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:12:54 -0500
Subject: Re: I Feel Much Better Now That I've Given Up -


 >From: Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland" <ufofinland@saunalahti.fi>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: I Feel Much Better Now That I'Ve Given Up - Laajala
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:51:34 +0200

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:47:13 EDT
 >>Subject: I Feel Much Better Now That I'Ve Given Up
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>There are large numbers reading UpDates posts. There are very
 >>few actually making submissions. This mail is addressed to you.
 >>Are you here to learn? Most likely. But in every learning
 >>experience I've ever encountered, there was the need to ask
 >>questions.

 >>Why then, are so many of you non-participants? Have you no
 >>questions of the experts on this venue? Is there nothing you
 >>wish to ask the experts here?

 >Dear Jim, Dear List, Dear EBK!

 >Regards from soon snowing Finland! Yess, snowballs, yess... ;-D

 >Jim grabbed to a phenomenon, that I think appears on almost
 >every posting-group, althouhg I hope I�m wrong. But I wouldn`t
 >be able to read all the mail I got from 10 groups, if they would
 >send even "only" ten mails/group. My blessing is, that in every
 >group there seems to be a few (= I mean really few!) active
 >writers, and God-only-knows-how-many "listeners".

Dear Minna, bListers and EBK,

Thankfully, there is just this one list for me. Say, what's a
sweetheart like you - doin' in a dump like this? (From a Bob
Dylan song, don't no one get upset). If as with you, I had ten
to go thru, I would have to consider suicide. And whilst I am at
it, haven't we met somewhere before? Don't answer that. I
already know where we met. And I am happy to meet you here.

 >On the other hand, I must agree with Jim; sometimes I also feel
 >bad, that in the Finnish ufo-discussion-group I�m helping my
 >husband to moderate, seems to have only the same "faces" on
 >loud, even the discussions are many times very interesting.

It's like that almost everywhere. Just a few make all the noise,
or do all the work, or otherwise drink all the Gripple. My
purpose was to invite greater participation, mostly because I
believe there may actually be greater wisdom out there, in the
minds and memories of experiencers than in the paradigms of
reseasrchers.

 >So Jim, I dare boldly to say I guess I know how you feel...

Thank you. And I am serious.

 >From my point of you, all susbcribers of to UFO UpDates are
 >"innocent" to my silence. Here are the reasons that keeps me
 >often quiet:

 >1) Language.

 >Even my English would sound perfect (= he he very funny...) my
 >mails are often written with hours of work. If I want you folks
 >to understand what I`m trying to say, I usually have to spend a
 >long time with my mail. But I�m stubborn; when I really want to
 >say, I�ll do it - somehow. And when I�m finally ready, someone
 >faster has already said the same - with better english!

There is nothing wrong with your English. Nor is there anything
wrong with your being understood. I think it fair to say that
some of us could take lessons from you. I can only half imagine
the mess I would make on a German, French or Italian list. Some
of you think I embarrass myself sufficiently in English. Little
do you know.

 >2) I`m not alone.

 >The more information I want to include to my mails, the more
 >I�ll collect "sitting-hours". And there`s some queue to our
 >computer, I can�t sit by it all by myself, not minding my
 >furious family...;-)

The heck with 'em if they can't take a joke. Just kidding.

 >3) Time and efforts.

 >I am a working lady, I work by standing. When I�ll get home at
 >19 pm my feets yell peace and rest, my stomach something to fill
 >it with, and I`m too tired to read all my mails every day.

Me too. I went back to work last month. Retirement isn't my cup
of tea. Now, I do everything else, shop, clean the house, cook,
do my work, write a book and make a stink on UpDates whenever I
can. I understand Minna. Quite well. And I like to chuckle when
I hear of some guys out there who are married, come home to a
home cooked meal, a clean house and fresh sheets. Poor babies. I
now know how working mothers with families feel. But it suits me
better than merely being a housefrau.

 >4) Chickening?

 >I�m not afraid to say what I need to say. But in a big group
you >very often find out, that the thing you planned to say, is
said >by one or ten other persons. So why bother to say it
again?

Because you say it uniquely. As do I. As do each of us. Our
opinions and comments are born in a special language which is
unique to our individuality. From my part, whilst many of us
have the same thing to say, many of us say it in such a manner
as to bare greater (or lessor) meaning along with the words.
Does that make sense to you?

 >5) Different opinions.

 >When I�m on balance with myself about my opinions, I don�t
 >always have a need to comment other`s opinions. I�ve noticed
 >it�s even better not to comment every mail.

But it is best to comment when one has something to add. Or
to subtract. Some people detract from the sum total of human
knowledge whenever they speak.

 >6) Many subjects.

 >As UFO UpDates is very active List, we readers get more subjects
 >to read, than time for them (= at least some of us). Many
 >subjects are richness, but for me impossible to be interested in
 >every subject. Sometimes I`m interested enough to read if
 >someone has some new thoughts to offer, but don�t feel a need to
 >reply them "Yes, I agree... Yes, I agree...".

True

 >7) Fighting.

 >I must admit I have burned my sleeves too time to time too, but
 >when I�m not involved in any fight, or if I�m attacked with no
 >reasonable cause, I`ll stop writing. I have learned though, that
 >where is people and their opinions, there`s fighting time to
 >time. The more someone "yells", the less I feel intress to
 >irritate myself with trying to discuss with someone, who
 >obviously won�t be able to "listen".

You are wise. However, defense of self is tantamount to defense
of truth. For your truth is paramount and when someone attacks
you, they attack you truth. Such must always be defended.

Having spent sufficient time here, I now have the answer to the
question asked by the Shadow. I now know what evil lurks, in the
hearts of some men.

 >Minna L from Finland


Jim from hunger.

PS: I do believe that a man named Carlson, champion rally driver
for SAAB in the early days, was from Finland. If so, this is yet
another reason to appreciate hearing from that country. If not,
well, he shoulda been, as only a Finlander can drive a three
cylinder, two stroke engine with only 850cc the way Carlson did.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                              Posting Protocol

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:15:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:15:03 -0500
Subject: Posting Protocol

Posting Protocol

UpDates is a manually operated E-mail List.

Each message is highlighted, copied, pasted, re-formatted and
posted to the List by the moderator/operator - functions that are
similar to those of people in print who edit and lay-out 'Letters
To The  Editor'. Creating easy to read 'style', uniform layouts,
catching most of the typos, avoiding most nastiness, off-topic
messages and spam are the objectives.

A subscription does not automatically mean a message you send
for posting will appear on the List, particularly if the
submission does not conform to the formatting requirements.

UpDates is a free service - you pay nothing. In return, if you
choose to post to the List, you are asked to abide by the
following:

   1.    Do _not_ use the 'formatted text' features of your e-mail
program. No colours, no fancy fonts, no italics or bolding, no
fancy quoting designs or html styling. Plain ASCII is what
UpDates uses. Messages that are not plain text will not be
posted.

   2.    Line-length

Please make your lines no more than 65 characters long

--------------------This line is 65 characters-------------------

Longer lines are wrapped by various pieces of software along the Net
and leave awkward
and eye-jarring line lengths.


   3.    Attribution

When responding to a message from the List, _always_ include the
four line 'header' from the body of that message at the start
of _your_ message - eg.:

  >Date: 13 Feb 99 00:00:01 EST
  >From: Genghis@mukluk.com <Bobb Grunge>
  >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
  >Subject: UFO UpDate: Grays are Grey Area

Again - it's at the beginning of the 'body' of the message you
are responding to and below the UpDates headers.


   4.    Quoting

_Always_ quote from the message to which you are responding.

Quotes should come _before_ you key your response.

Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the
first character. It should look like this:

  >Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the
  >first character. It should look like this:

No spaces before or after the '>'

Please remove the '>' from blank lines.

Keep quoted material from previous messages to a minimum:  Just
quote enough text to let people know what you are referring to.

Messages that do not conform to the required quoting protocol or
contain excessive quoting will not be posted to UpDates.

Most modern E-Mail software will allow the user to click a
'Reply' button and automatically open a new window, with the
message being responded to inserted with universal quote-mark
(>) at the beginning of each line.

When 'Reply' is clicked, some E-Mail software will insert a line
which reads:

'On 13 Feb 99 at 00:00:01 EST, UFO UpDates [or 'you'] wrote: '

If your program does this, please remove it - UFO UpDates did
not _write_ the message - it merely passed it to the List.


   5.    Don't send 'personal' responses to the list that should
be sent directly to the original author.  Send a message to the
list only if it contains new information that you want
_everyone_ to see.

Messages that contain what the Moderator considers to be
personal attacks or 'flames' will not be posted to the List.


   6.    URLs (Web Site addresses)  _must_ include 'http://' and
be on one line. The Archive software will make the URL a
'click-able' link to that address in your archived message.

   7.     Opinions or beliefs may be stated, _once_ - _only_. In
the past, repetition has led to endless posts reiterating the
already stated.

   8.    To un-subscribe, send a _new_ message with 'Un-subscribe'
as the 'Subject: '

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



\_______________________________________________/

   UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@sympatico.ca
   A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated
   by Errol Bruce-Knapp

   UFO UpDates Archives are available at:
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates

   The MUFON Ontario Homepage is at:
   http://www3.sympatico.ca/updates/mufon/index.htm

   'Strange Days...Indeed' - available live via
   RealPlayer 9:00 Eastern, Sunday nights at:
   http://cfrb.com/

   and archived at:
   http://members.xoom.com/strangedaysi/sdix.htm

   To un-subscribe send your first and last names
   to: updates@sympatico.ca with Un-Subscribe as
   the subject.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Mundy

From: Brian Mundy <mundy-b@home.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:48:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:19:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Mundy


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:23:08 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 >Hi All:

 >I am trying to replace the records that I had up to a few years
 >ago, regarding UFO related incidents in the Quinte Area (Oshawa
 >to Brockville including all of Lake Ontario).

 >If anyone has any records of sighting reports in this region,
 >could you please forward them to me at:

 >sliddle@chalktv.com

 >Thanks.

 >If I ever catch up with the boob who took my files and never
 >returned them, 'Bam, Boom, Zoom to da moon!' (and if you want to
 >know the name of this weasel, or why QAPRA folded, contact me
 >privately via email and I'll let you know).


I don't know where Quinte is, but Monday night a friend and I
were about halfway to Ottawa,coming from Brockville, when we saw
4 bright stationary lights high in the air.

It was twilight, and one of the lights, a slightly smaller one,
turned out to be a plane.

They were to the left of the highway and as we passed the plane
flew over us, but these other 3 never moved.

They were way too big for stars and too high up for a microwave
tower, or such. It was still light enough to have seen any
structures, anyway.

Looking back, there were only 2 of them, just before we lost
sight of them. (We never stopped driving, just kept craning our
heads around as we passed 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:10:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:22:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:39:50 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 15:34:45 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>It is purely speculative on my part but, (if) the gubbamint
 >>was aware of the alien presence here, and their apparent
 >>involvement with ordinary citizens, it makes sense to me
 >>that they would conduct a clandestine 'monitoring' of some
 >>select individuals in order to gather intelligence. Just a guess.

 >>Regards,

 >>John Velez

Gary responded:

 >John,

 >Having had several cases where govverment activity was claimed
 >to be present, it seems that in addition to monitoring, some
 >gov't. entity moves to carefully contain other activity within
 >active sightings and anomaly areas.

That one declaration from you raises ten questions!

Which "government entity" are you referring to Gary? And what
are the activities that they are containing? What do you mean
by; "carefully contain other activity within active sightings
and anomaly areas." How does one "contain" an "active sighting?"
Maybe you just worded that poorly.

 >Abductees are assumed to be around each of the few hotspot areas
 >we know of

Who has made that "assumption" Gary?

 >plus there is other strange activity, strange animals
 >for example, that the gov't. attempts to hide in addition to
 >monitoring through certain individuals.

The government is "hiding strange animals?" What kind of
"animals" are you referring to? What is the connection to the
"government?"

 >The monitoring is for recovery of individual experiences and
 >possible contact with the "other" activity so that it can be
 >contained.

How do you know this Gary?

 >Abductees in these types of situations are usually
 >only partially aware of the scope of the monitoring.

And just what _is_ the "scope" of this government monitoring?

 >This type of case is rare but the most significant of all cases.

More significant than a case reporting contact with intelligent
extraterrestrial life forms?

Look forward to hearing your replies to my inquiries. Thank
you for taking the time.

John Velez, Student of Life

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                Upcoming UFO Webcast - Richard Dolan - Author

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:48:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:25:04 -0500
Subject: Upcoming UFO Webcast - Richard Dolan - Author


Forwarded from 'alt.ufo.reports'.

Stig

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

Subject: Upcoming UFO Webcast - Richard Dolan - Author
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:51:28 GMT
From: "George Smith" <george.smith@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports

Richard Dolan, Author of UFOs and the National Security State:
An Unclassified History. Volume One: 1941 to 1973.

He will be on my webcast Friday, November 3rd at 10:00pm EST.
The format is interactive allowing listeners to participate in
the debate by live post or toll free phone line.  I invite you
to participate in this very current, serious debate about the
history, current state, evidence and lore of UFO's.

The URL is

http://www.essentialtalk.com

My name is George Smith and I am the host of "The Big Brain
Show" which is the tech/sci-fi show on the network running
weekdays at 10:00pm EST.

Tune in and have fun!

bigbrain@essentialtalk.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Stats - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:44:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:27:15 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Stats - Hatch


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:24:02 -0000
 >Subject: UFO Stats

 >Y'all,

 >Last week someone, can't recall who, queried the suggestion that
 >the majority of UFO cases were easily resolved. This led to a
 >brief interchange about what sources of information would be
 >acceptible to demonstrate this.

 >Unlike most of the list I'm always happy to do my homework and
 >to that end contacted BUFORA for their 'clear-up rates.

 >Their Director of Investigations, Gloria Dixon, sent me the
 >following reply (and let's not forget that although I think
 >BUFORA are a waste of time and space they have been in the
 >saucer business for 30+years).

 >This is a brief excerpt from what Gloria said.....

 >>My Response.....

 >>A bit of a difficult question this one, as it depends
 >>on several factors.

 >>About 70-80% of perceived unidentified aerial
 >>phenomena can be explained by BUFORA investigators
 >>and about 90% plus can be explained when
 >>they are reported quickly (within a couple of
 >>days) and followed up immediately

 >Form that I think we can safely say that 'most' UFO cases are
 >resolved into IFOs and the quicker they are investigated the
 >faster this process is achieved.


Hello Andy:

If there is/was some disagreement, it might simply be confusion
over which population of UFO reports is being referred to.

If we are talking about raw unfiltered UFO sightings as called
in to a UFO group, or emailed to some website, then yes. The
figures given by BUFORA seem quite reasonable, at least to me.

Far and away the majority of "sightings" emailed to me as a
result of my website sound quite mundane on the face of it. Not
every witness wants to hear this naturally, and I refer the USA
cases to the NUFORC in Seattle, and let them deal with it.

[I hasten to add that I do no operate any sort of UFO reporting
center, but cases still come in.]

A well filtered database of sightings should have a smaller
proportion of easily identifiable ( mundane ) causes by
definition. How much smaller is arguable.

I've pondered long and deep about how much of my data is junk,
and cannot begin to give you numbers. The best I can offer is my
assurances that I throw out junk listings when and where
possible. The hard work of unsung heroes in the field makes this
possible at times.

Nevertheless, everything hinges on which set(s) of data we are
trying to triage.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:44:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:29:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Hi All,

 >>Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >>The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >>family of five, two adults and three  children.

 >>Any help would be appreciated.

 >>Regards,

 >>Roy..

<snip>

 >Hello Roy:

 >The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
 >rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

<snip>

 >This and 63 other "attributes" enables me to sift and sort cases
 >all sorts of ways for obvious reasons, and for purposes yet
 >unforeseen.


Hey Laroo,

Is your list of "attributes" posted anywhere? If not, (and you
have it in a form that can be converted for posting) would you
post it to the List? It would be educational. I'm really
interested in learning about what criteria would be most
useful/helpful in sorting through some of the stuff I have on
hand. Strictly for archival purposes.

If it's not too big a hassle to post, I for one would appreciate
seeing it. If it turns out to be a goodun' I'm planning to 'lift
it' (rip you off) wholesale and use it myself! :)    <LOL>

Thanx in advance,

John Velez, Inquiring minds want to know!  ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                   Re: Whitley on Coat to Coast AM - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:54:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:31:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Whitley on Coat to Coast AM - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Whitley on Coat to Coast AM
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:07:48 -0800

 >I listened to Whitley Strieber on Coast to Coast AM the other
 >night talking about a bull that had been mutilated a few years
 >ago in California. Some unusual findings of this case were
 >several small, rounded black droplets found on the body of the
 >animal. These droplets were later determined to be pure
 >hemoglobin.

 >The only reason I am bringing this up is that Whitley stated the
 >bull had no blood left in its body at all. This is simply not
 >true as I was the field investigator on this case and discovered
 >the black droplets. This goes back to more miscommunication in
 >the field and furthering the weird factor in mutilation cases.
 >Not every animal encountered in a mutilation case is completely
 >drained of blood. The animals I have examined have all had blood
 >in them. This isn't to say that this is so with all cases, just
 >the ones I've seen...


Hello Royce:

This is one good instance (there are plenty of others) of
Strieber, and most especially the (former) Art Bell show
providing entertainment in place of valid information.

Even I will tune in on the way home from work if the regular
news channel gets dull.

I was tempted to fax in a question:

"Dear Mr. Siegel: Isn't it soul destroying to constantly pretend
you agree with all those obvious BS artists? "

I thought better of it, and I don't have a real fax machine
anyhow.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: 1 Nov 2000 08:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:20:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:48:39 EST
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >It seems to me that we have to be very cautious before jumping
 >to any conclusion.

 >There a several hypotheses to consider.

 >A major one could the be military surveillance of alien
 >abductions. That makes sense to me.

 >If there are alien abductions at all, it should be a very
 >important goal for military and intelligence forces to try learn
 >as much as possible about them.

 >And perhaps to prevent them. Isn't their job to protect
 >citizens?

 >The idea of some sort of cooperation with some alien groups is
 >much more hypothetical. However, there are some hints of that in
 >certain books. For instance the book of karla Turner "Taken",
 >presents cases of that sort. She wrote (pages 244 and 245):

 >"..seven of the women saw other apparently human people in their
 >encounters, working with the aliens aboard craft as well as in
 >the terrestrial facilities. And in six cases, the humans were
 >perceived as military personel".

 >In one case, a female alien tells the abductee that she is
 >member of an alien dissident group which disapprove of what is
 >being done, and they work with humans to help them!

 >However, there is yet another hypothesis, the one of hybrid
 >humans, or apparently human beings who may not be of terrestrial
 >origin! This idea has been proposed by David Jacobs.

 >So, The question is very complicated.


Hello Gildas,

Very interesting points.

I will make a little research about MILABs and them write to
everybody. About the hybrids, yes, it is a possibility, but why
they would be dressed like militaries?

I agree that the military's job is to protect us, but if they
are present in the moment of the abduction and are seeing the
pain and the horror in the eyes of the victim, why they didn't
do nothing? To find a way out is really necessary all that pain?

Let's see.

Best regards,

Thiago Ticchetti








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Weds, 1 Nov 2000 08:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:27:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti


 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:47:55 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >Hola Thiago,

 >Greer first made that absurd claim about five years ago. Because
 >of my personal interest in the subject UFO/abductions I called
 >Dr. Greer to ask him 'where' he got those numbers from, and what
 >'evidence' (if any) he had that such a thing was actually going
 >on.

 >(The whole exchange was published on UpDates sometime in 1995 or
 >96. It triggered a thread that brought Greer and CSETI under
 >scrutiny of the List members at that time. If I recall it was a
 >hum dinger of a thread. Lots of strong emotions on both sides of
 >the CSETI issue.)

 >I never got a straight answer out of Greer. In fact, he gave me
 >a 'song and dance' routine that was right out of a Rogers &
 >Hammerstien musical!
 >
 >I'm a simple, blunt, direct, but completely honest man. I'm
 >sorry but I just don't trust people that can't look you dead in
 >the eye when they're talking to you and give a straight, simple
 >answer to a straight, simple question. Greer was incapable of
 >it.

 >To date, no one (Greer or other) has provided anything
 >substantial that will validate or justify the outrageous claim
 >that 98% of all reported abductions (and presumably unreported
 >as well) can be laid at the doorstep of the US military/
 >Intelligence community.

 >Ignoring the lack of substantiation, I don't think that
 >something as 'large scale' as this abduction phenomena can be
 >pulled off _worldwide_ *successfully (*keyword) without some
 >major league evidence of it appearing long before now. The sheer
 >number of personnel and expenditure of resources required to
 >pull it off would have -insured- that we'd all have known/heard
 >about it before now. Anything this big leaves a trail.

 >Also, I now have many _hundreds_ of individual reports (sent to
 >me privately) that have been collected over five + years from
 >abduction experiencers all over the Globe. You name the country
 >and I have letters from someone who is a native to that land. In
 >all that time I have only received -2- count em, (two) reports
 >that had a military anything, 'component' (where soldiers or
 >other "official" appearing or uniformed humans were allegedly
 >present or participating -during- the encounter.)

 >Not to cast aspersions, but; the two reports I did receive were
 >accompanied by a host of "government conspiracy" theories and
 >banter, (in one case ALA: "Cooper" YIKES!) which
 >suggests/indicates that the person reporting has already arrived
 >at a set of conclusions/beliefs regarding the nature of their
 >own experiences. And that they attribute them to the covert
 >activities being conducted by agencies of our own government.
 >Ok, fine, now show me the same evidence that convinced you that
 >this is true. Nobody has. (Currently) nobody can!

 >I already said in one of my last postings that it's not hard for
 >me to imagine that; (If) the government is aware of the alien
 >presence here, it is not too far fetched a concept that they
 >would choose some (well suited to their purposes) individuals
 >and try to 'monitor' them for the purpose of gathering
 >"intelligence" as to what the "Aliens" are up to.

 >That they, (government agents) are responsible for 98% of all
 >abductions is just an as yet unsubstantiated absurdity. As I
 >mentioned, I have letters from folks all over the planet; in the
 >Netherlands, South America, Canada, UK, Japan, you name it. Now
 >try to sell me the idea that Americans are kidnapping Swedish
 >citizens in the middle of the night. Or inside the borders of
 >_any_ of the other countries I mentioned.

<snip>

 >Cuidate mi hermano, y nunca dejes de peliar la lucha buena. No
 >creas _nada_ que te dicen hasta que te offrecen una buena
 >prueba!  ;)

 >John Velez, Good Soldier, not; El Bobo de la lluca!  <LOL>

Si mi amigo, nosotros tenemos mucho a aprender para poder
concluir alguna cosa con respeito a las abduciones.

I never known, as you, where some researchers got those numbers.
What I believe is that something is happening. People are being
abducted by aliens but we have no conclusions about that.
Indeed, we have great researchers doing their jobs to try to
find an answer, but is just speculation to say that more than 6
million people have been abducted.

Thiago Ticchetti









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:33:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:32:33 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:23:50 EST
 >Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:43:13 +0200
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:05:53 -0400
 >>Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>Some time ago, a casual glance at the book 'The Hynek UFO
 >>Report' lead me to a puzzling finding about Hynek's research on
 >>the Elmood Park (Illinois) case of Nov. 4th, 1957 - see "The
 >>Squad Car and the Glowing Sphere" in Chapter 8.

 >>Hynek stated that "according to the men the moon was out that
 >>night, but to the _East_, whereas the object at that same time
 >>was toward the _West_" (emphasis added). Nothing more is said
 >>about this specific point. In fact, it can be verified that the
 >>moon was indeed to the _West_ near the horizon!

 >>This could be a good explanation of the sighting, provided that
 >>the observers had a _clear_westerly_view. Can anyone check
 >>this?

 >Dear Manuel Borraz, List:

 >You may be right.

 >The time given for the incident in Hynek's book (p. 172) is 3:00
 >A.M. and the location was Elmwood Park, Ill. The witnesses said
 >that, "The object slowly decended and hovered a few feet off the
 >ground" to the West.

 >I went to the U. S. Naval Observatory website, "Sun and Moon for
 >a Day", at:

 >http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html#forma

 >and found that the waxing gibous, 92% illuminated Moon
 >set at 3:32 A.M. It would have been perhaps 5 degrees or so
 >above a true horizon thirty-two minutes before setting, and
 >depending upon horizon obstructions could have appeared
 >nearly at ground level.

 >This reminds me of an incident that I investigated, here near
 >Harrisburg, a couple years ago. The witness swore that the Moon
 >was in the East and that he saw an object toward the West, on
 >either side of a cloud in a bank of mammaform clouds which
 >filled the sky. I asked him repeatedly about the directions and
 >he was certain that the Moon was to the East because it was
 >illuminating the clouds in that direction.

 >Of course the Moon would be illuminating the clouds all over the
 >sky. It was also exactly in the direction that the witness said
 >that he saw an object, which set soon after. It boggled my mind,
 >but was just a matter of being confused that it was not the moon
 >becaus he was mistaken about the moonlight. The witness also
 >said that his sister had seen the same thing in a nearby city.
 >The mammaform cloud formation was also over that place and the
 >lighting would have been the same.



Hello all:

1) The Naval Observatory link above looks highly useful.
Hopefully, discrepancies between this and my algorithms will be
small.

2) The Reference and page number is also useful; The Hynek UFO
Report,  1977 J.A. Hynek pg. 172.

Here I read that there were two cops and a fireman for
witnesses. The object "moved down the alley - but above it of
course - and the patrol car spotlight dimmed lower than a candle
so that they had to use a flashlight to investigate a suspicious
open window on some business place there.

"The object descended and hovered just a few feet off the
ground"... only to re-ascend very fast, "50 or 60 MPH " when one
policeman turned on his high beams.....

[...]

"The object cavorted from curb to curb, {again above I presume
-LH} back and forth "as if playing with them."

[...]

Having lost the object, they made a U-turn. Now headed East on
Belmont Street, the object reappeared on their _left_ - emphasis
mine,  the object now came from the North! - and passed right
over the squad car.

There are more details in the book, and its a nice case to pull
out and read again.

The moon was out, and to the West. I don't think the policemen's
description matches the moon however.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Aveley Encounter? - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:51:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:33:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Randles


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Hi All,

 >>Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >>The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >>family of five, two adults and three children.

 >Hello Roy:

 >The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
 >rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

 >The events supposedly took place 27 OCT 1974 starting around
 >22:20 hrs in or about Aveley, Essex, England.

 >The car conked out (presumed EME), and the radio not smoked (or
 >got smoked as I might say.)

 >The story goes that at least two people in the car were beamed
 >up to some UFO. I have this pigeon-holed as a Saucer or roundish
 >craft. Inside, they were examined by batlike figures and
 >possibly pseudo-humans. There was also some sort of telepathic
 >communication.

 >My two sources, with all the Halloween details are:

 >FSR Volume 24 #1, _and_
 >Randles, Jenny: Alien Abductions -- The Mystery
 >Solved. Page 29.

 >I vaguely recall a message from Jenny indicating that this
 >rather unlikely title, at least the last part, was foisted on
 >her by the publishers.


Hi,

Yes, the case was investigated in great depth by the original
UFOIN and appears across two issues (taking up many pages) of
FSR. The investigators were Andy Collins and Barry King - both
still around. Andy is now a leading light in the 'ancient
mysteries' writing school - a close colleague of the likes of
Hancock and co - and has written numerous books - his most
recent being 'Gateway to Atlantis'. Barry King edits the weird
conspiratorial journal 'The Voice' and claims to have had
involvement in a covert UK project.

The case is indeed described in my book. The title you quote is
the US one that was foisted onto it by the US publisher.

The original UK version of the book (and the title it had in its
paperback and several foreign language translations) was
'Abduction'. This was - BTW - five years before John Mack used
that title.I believe the US publishers felt that 'Abduction' was
too understated and might have implied criminal acts to US
readers - not aliens. In the UK we are quite happy with modest
titles!

(The same thing happened last year - with the same UK publisher
Robert Hale. My UK title for this book about pilot encounters is
'Something in the Air' - but the US publisher insisted on
renaming it to the highly subtle 'UFO danger in the air')

I reckon this says a lot about the difference between the US and
UK UFO communities. Rather like the excellent l960s UK movie
that first clearly presents the abduction theme - called here
'The Night Caller'. Needless to say the U S film industry felt
such a title too understated and renamed it quite hilariously -
'Blood beast from outer space'.

Its one of the best social commentaries on UFOs and culture that
I know, but mirrored by these two books.

Anyhow, back to the Aveley case. I met the witnesses and also
attended one of the hypnosis sessions that occurred between late
l978 and early l979. It was in fact instructive and first made
me wary of this technique. The two adults were both regressed.
The children were not.

I very much doubt this case was a hoax. The consciously recalled
testimony was shared by all five of them. It featured a light in
the sky, a bank of green mist into which they drove suddenly,
the EM effects on the car and suddenly being dropped back down
onto the road some distance down the way and - as they later
discovered - some time ahead of their last recall.

This scenario is a classic of the literature. There are dozens
almost exactly like it. However, there is also an enormous
assumption applied to them. That is that there was a period of
missing time during which something happened that the witnesses
have forgotten. Ergo the regression is used to coax out this
recall. Often too - as here - this is complicated by months or
years or nightmares in which the mind plays on the story and
also seeks to plug the gap. Here there were dreams of ugly
monsters and tall Nordic type entities (no greys) - but also
some clear suggestions that the then popular Sci Fi series 'Dr
Who' was a trigger for some of these images.

The regression exacerbated this and produced a semi coherent
story of an on board trip (in an out of body state) - but with
the two adults telling different versions of what happened
because they were supposedly separated. The 'abduction' story
that emerged was not like your typical case. They were given a
guided tour, shown the engine room, given a history lesson in
alien pollution control and told that we were their long term
experiments! But there were few of the trappings of an abduction
as you will find reported today - such as implants or medical
exams.

Also noteworthy were the major lifestyle changes on this family.
The father went off to make pots and they all became early
environmentalists. Indeed this case parallels the NDE phenomenon
in a number of crucial ways - featuring as there a car
'accident', out of body states, seeing vague forms in some
'other place' and recovering with a very different outlook on
life that brings about major changes of behaviour. Substitute
alien for dead relative in this case and it would be hard to
tell what kind of case it was.

My opinion is that this is a genuine 'paranormal' experience but
that it wasn't an alien abduction. And by paranormal I mean only
a phenomenon not yet scientifically identified but certainly
amenable to some resolution in terms of the laws of physics.

I think it is a type of case that is far more common than
ufologists will admit where a recognisably consistent experience
has occurred - the road encounter with the electrical mist - and
where distortions of time and space follow as a natural physical
consequence. But that everything beyond that - the nightmares,
tale of the alien contact fostered by the hypnosis, and the
belief in this as an abduction is effectively a mutual delusion
between us all. Myself included - because I saw it this way too
for years.

This is not to argue there are never any abductions. There may,
or may not, be. But it is to argue that many cases assumed to be
abductions are in reality something else entirely IMO. A
fascinating and real experience. Just nothing to do with ETs.

I have been researching what they might instead be (not not NDEs
- as I think some NDEs - like some abductions - are also this
'third way') . Exactly what I mean here will become clear soon
when I am ready to risk the undoubted backlash.

Stay tuned.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:05:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:48:56 -0600

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:05:13 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Bob,

 >>Interesting that you should take a secondhand newspaper account
 >>over the witnesses' direct testimony to the contrary. You
 >>clearly aren't familiar with Zeidman's painstaking attempt to
 >>get the time line of the sighting as right as humanly possible.

 >Oh, and Zeidman's written report is not just a second-hand as
 >the reporter's, or Uncle Phil's, for that matter? Yours and mine
 >would even be third hand, or maybe even fourth.

You take a single newspaper quote over an investigation which
took years to complete (and about which you obviously know
somewhere between little and nothing). I suggest that you
familiarize yourself with the evidence at issue before you make
sweeping pronouncements based on Klass's paltry inquiry and
highly misleading claims about this crucial case.

 >>>Hardly enough evidence to place this incident among those that
 >>>prove the visitation of alien spaceships in our skies.

 >>Uh, now who exactly has mention "visitation of alien spaceships
 >>in our skies" in this conversation -- besides you, I mean? I
 >>thought we were talking about an unidentified flying object. Or
 >>maybe you just want to change the subject.

 >True, but what's the point? Everybody knows that if we were only
 >talking about meteors, mystery planes or mirages, nobody would
 >care.

I have no idea how one would "prove" - whatever you mean by that
very pliable verb - from the Coyne case that UFOs are
extraterrestrial spacecraft. As you, of course, know well, which
is why you raise this irrelevant point. The real issue is
whether the event in question was anomalous, and to all
available evidence and no contrary evidence, it was.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:06:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:42:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:31:17 -0500
 >Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived


Previously, Jerome wrote:

 >Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
 >in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
 >pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
 >sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
 >physicist John Lowke:

 >"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
 >that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

 >How pathetically laughable. This poor soul clearly knows nothing
 >of the insights that pelican science has now afforded us, namely
 >that

 >(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
 >liars

 >(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
 >disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
 >phenomenon

 >and

 >(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

Hellooo, Jerry!

For all I know "hot plasma" is a holiday drink for vampires. I
take no stand one way or the other about the subject. However,
your insights into what you deem "pelicanism" are off the mark.

You wrote:

 >(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
 >liars

No one has said that they are "likely" to be closet liars.
However, as you just pointed out, they are only "thought" to be
honest. Without validation, there is no proof that they are
telling the truth or not. Do you prefer to "assume" they are
telling the truth every time they open their mouths, no matter
how fantastic their claims, and cast aside anything resembling
an unbiased, objective view?

You wrote:

 >(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
 >disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
 >phenomenon

On the contrary, eyewitness testimony has incredible value once
it has been validated. Without validation, however, testimony is
indistinguishable from a bold faced lie. Do you have a special
insight that tells you who is telling the truth and who isn't
without proof? Or do you prefer to "assume" they are telling the
truth every time they open their mouths, no matter how fantastic
their claims, and cast aside anything resembling an unbiased,
objective view?

You wrote:

 >(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

Do you define a "credible or reliable" observer as someone whose
word does not have to withstand validation? If so, then please
point to a specific UFO case where you can stake your reputation
that you are 100% sure what the "credible observer" saw was an
ET craft. Or do you prefer to "assume" they are telling the
truth every time they open their mouths, no matter how fantastic
their claims, and cast aside anything resembling an unbiased,
objective view?

If being a "pelicanist" means asking hard questions about things
that you prefer to assume are true without validation, then I
guess I must be the king of the pelicanists.

King Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                    Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:19:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:44:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Salvaille


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:48:56 -0600

Bob, Jerome and List,

 >>Interesting that you should take a secondhand newspaper account
 >>over the witnesses' direct testimony to the contrary. You
 >>clearly aren't familiar with Zeidman's painstaking attempt to
 >>get the time line of the sighting as right as humanly possible.

 >Oh, and Zeidman's written report is not just a second-hand as
 >the reporter's, or Uncle Phil's, for that matter? Yours and mine
 >would even be third hand, or maybe even fourth.

Sorry to jump in. I would have liked to start a new thread
titled "Pain in the a**", but EBK would surely have edited it.

The _complete_ Zeidman report (117 pages) is online at:

http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Zeidman/toc.html

[GREAT job from the Journal of Scientific Exploration site]

BTW, let's talk about intellectual honesty and the temptation
never resisted by debunkers to ultimately attack the messenger -
in this case Zeidman.

Another thing. What is your assessment of Klass' explanation of
the case?

An rigorous mind like yours will surely be unable to dodge the
last question.

Dissipating fog,

Regards,


Serge Salvaille









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                  Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived -

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:55:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:46:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived -


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600

 >Listfolk:

 >Thank you, pelican science, for your many contributions to human
 >enlightenment. We can now remain confident that everything that
 >could be known is known and that all claims to the contrary can
 >be easily disposed of. You have shown that no rational human
 >being, on being made aware of the principles of pelican science,
 >could possibly believe in what occultists disguised as
 >scientists call "ball lightning."

 >Jerry Clark


Listfolk,

In ufology we have to deal with two rules:

1) For the believer, no evidence is needed.

2) For the skeptic, no evidence exists to convince them.

Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo


Miami UFO Center  (Espaol)   http://ufomiami.nodos.com
Miami UFO Reporter (English)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
Depredador de Sangre(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
Hemo Predator (English)  http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espaol)   http://patagrande.homestead.com/index.html









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                     Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:59:28 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:48:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:59:27 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >Unidentified Flying Object = UFO. This means that an object is
 >in the air, flying or stationary and is not readily identifiable
 >such as an airplane, bird or conventional object. Nor is it
 >identifiable through astronomical means. I really could go on
 >and on with a definition, but we'll just stick with common sense
 >and common language. Unidentified means just that.

 >OK, I can go with this definition. I would have said that this
 >would better be described as a "UFO report", but OK.

Bob, you are quite correct that this is merely the definition of
a UFO "report." As Hynek explains it, Condon mistakenly used
this as his definition of a UFO and as a result wasted time and
resources investigating worthless cases - because it allowed
witnesses _alone_ to define a scientific issue and decide what
was "unidentified." As Hynek pointed out in 1972 the proper
definition of a UFO must be a case that remains unexplained
after a technically competent investigation. Most witnesses are
not capable of carrying out a technically competent
investigation of their own sightings.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                       Re: Aveley Encounter - Anthony

From: Gar Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:54:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:56:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter - Anthony

 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:31:51 -0500
 >Subject: Aveley Encounter?

Hi All + Roy,

Roy wrote:

 >Hi All,

 >Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >family of five, two adults and three  children.

 >Any help would be appreciated.


 >Regards,

 >Roy..

This case has been done to death Roy. It is mentioned in
numerous UFO books in the United Kingdom, two recent ones which
spring to mind are Jenny Randles' 'The Complete Book of Aliens
and Abductions' (p40), also Philip Mantle gives a brief rundown
of the case in his book 'Without Consent'.

It was investigated by Andy Collins and Barry King. Currently I
am trying to locate their original case file and report (mail me
back in a few months and I will try to elaborate further for
you, if I can find a copy of this report).

All best regards

Gary Anthony










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:00:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:16:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:55:10 -0600

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600

 >In ufology we have to deal with two rules:

 >1) For the believer, no evidence is needed.

 >2) For the skeptic, no evidence exists to convince them.

And the rest of us are left with the daunting task of weighing
all evidence, pro and con, as objectively as we can as fallible
humans. The believers and the debunkers have it easy.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:05:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:38:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:09:27 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

Brian wrote, in response to one of my rants....

 >Well, in a similar vein, do you consider continuing SETI a
 >worthless endeavor just because they haven't found one
 >intelligent signal yet in the millions of megabytes of data
 >they've already examined?

Well, yes, I do consider SETI a complete waste of time, full
stop. The vast sums of money wasted on this endeavor could be
far better spent on improving life on earth. I've never really
understood the excitement space, and the things which may or may
not dwell there, seems to trigger in people. IMNSHO it's pure
escapism and there are far more interesting mysteries on earth
than any suggested by space.

(Cue tirade by lots of people.......)

 >All it takes is one valid signal, or photograph, to prove the
 >case. So would you have us simply disregard all existing and
 >future photographic evidence because its probably mundane? If
 >so, that's ridiculous. If not, what's the point of your comment?
 >I don't really see one.

Not at all. Whilst I think SETI is a waste of time and money I
think ufology is a worthwile pursuit because of what it tells us
about humans and human belief and perception, both now and in
the past.

And if people had read any of my posts correctly they would have
seen (are you listening Stanton, Bruce & Jerry) that all I am
saying is that:

* given the pattern we have seen so far (ie since 1947) most UFO
photo cases are resolvable
* therefore it is reasonable to suggest that process will
continue because it appears to be a pattern

And again, had you been paying attention, you would have read my
post about UFOIN having an interesting 'UFO' video case under
investigation even as we speak. I think each and every case and
photo should be examined to the best of our abilities.

The thrust of this thread (which started with Trent) was that
there are clearly a great number of highly educated people on
this list who are driven by their belief that genuine solid
craft from another place or time (as per Bruce M's quote) are
visiting earth.

When faced with reasonable questions by a few sceptics, based on
*what we know* (not what we imagine, or would like, Bruce,
Stanton & Jerry) these believers have resorted to:

* Persistently ignoring questions
* Distorting the known facts
* Making silly asides because they are unable to prove their
   belief

Just banging on about a few photos or cases which cannot be
resolved 'at this time' means nothing. At least the sceptics are
making reasonable suggestions, based on experience and fact, and
actually trying to _solve_ UFO cases rather than being engaged
in some bizarre sci-fi fantasy which should have been left
behind in childhood.

This happens time and time again on this list, any attempt at
sceptical discussion doomed to attract the (blind) faithful who
will rant and rave as to why perfectly reasonable queries, based
on know facts and resolved cases, have no bearing on their
beloved true UFOs, or whatever the current phrase is. Whilst
this is highly entertaining for the sceptics it doesn't really
do many of the ufologists on this list - especially the 'big'
names who make a portion or all of their living from the
subject- any good at all.

Happy Trails

Andy
off to see a rock'n'roll band for some reality









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:06:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:41:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:12:12 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:47:55 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Date: Oct 30 2000 08:07 +0100

 >>>>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 15:34:45 -0400
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >Hello John, Thiago and List

 >>Ignoring the lack of substantiation, I don't think that
 >>something as 'large scale' as this abduction phenomena can be
 >>pulled off _worldwide_ *successfully (*keyword) without some
 >>major league evidence of it appearing long before now. The sheer
 >>number of personnel and expenditure of resources required to
 >>pull it off would have -insured- that we'd all have known/heard
 >>about it before now. Anything this big leaves a trail.

 >What is exactly the 'scale' of the abduction phenomena?

 >Regards,

 >Serge Salvaille

I meant "worldwide" Serge. The people who perpetrate the
government conspiracy theories regarding military involvement in
abductions always neglect to explain 'who' is conducting the
abductions in other countries. That was the point.

Lets say for arguments sake that the American military or
intelligence community _is_ responsible for what people recall
as abductions. Are they also responsible for the phenomenon in
other countries? That's what I meant by; I don't think that they
could 'pull off' (physically) such a large scale operation as
the abduction phenomenon appears to be. I already mentioned that
I have letters from abductees from just about any country you
can think of. The numbers of personnel that would be have to be
involved, the hardware, resources, and planning are just way
beyond anything that the government gould get away with without
somebody having 'leaked' something long before now.

There must be plenty of aging, retired, maybe even disgruntled
former government abductors out there collecting a pension by
now. It's just implausible that something as 'worldwide' in
scale like this, and considering how many people, and how much $
would have to be involved, would have escaped detection
completely all this time.

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 1

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:07:41 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:44:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Young


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:10:09 EST
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >There is no "eventual transition from UFO to IFO" as if it is
 >some established and inexorable pattern or phenomenon of UFO
 >research - point me to some solid _global_ statistical studies
 >if you can. First off, most "UFO" cases are never given what J.
 >Allen Hynek called a technically competent investigation. They
 >remain as "UFO's" in name only, but neither are they IFO's, they
 >are indeterminate in status. Better terminology is needed for
 >these pending status uninvestigated and partially investigated
 >cases, maybe call them Pending UFO (PUFO).

Brad, Andy, this is an important point. But, shouldn't PUFO
maybe be reserved to uninvestigated and partially investigated
incidents which have received Publicity, as in Publicized,
partially investigated UFO?

 >Of the cases that _are_ investigated the percentages vary
 >greatly. At certain times USAF Project Blue Book claimed
 >"Unknowns" exceeded 20%, but later they diluted the statistics
 >with PUFO's, dishonestly treating them as IFO's, to get the
 >percentage of Unknowns down.

 >The Condon Committee deliberately suppressed statistics on its
 >investigations (don't tell me a dozen Ph.D.'s were incapable of
 >thinking of the idea). Fortunately the Index to the Condon
 >Report gave it away by compiling a list of all of the
 >"Sightings, Unexplained." I tallied up the statistics, I don't
 >have them in front of me, but it was something like 40 out of
 >about 90, or more than 40%.

It cuts both ways. Case #27, the Harrisburg UFO flap, actually
involved 100 sightings, none of which turned out to be
important. This, alone, would bring the Condon total to 40 out
of about 190, or about 21%.

 >Secondly, there are increasing numbers of cases of IFO's
 >"transitioning" back to UFO's as long-standing skeptical
 >landmarks on such major cases as the RB-47
 >radar-visual-electronic intelligence 1957 case, Bentwaters
 >radar-visual 1956 (I exclude the Lakenheath phase), and
 >Rendlesham 1980 get demolished with further research.

Then, of course, there are those that go the other way.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                   Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:06:22 -0500
Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science


Listfolk:

Recent developments in pelican science have opened up whole new
vistas to UFO research. Through its insights we are able to look
at old cases with new eyes.

Take, for example, the story told by LeRoy, Kansas, rancher Alex
Hamilton, who famously claimed that on the evening of April 19,
1897, he, his son, and a cowboy in his employ witnessed the
rustling of a calf by the otherworldly crew of a mysterious
airship.

In 1976 I investigated the case and secured the testimony of
a very old woman in a nursing home. She claimed that she
had been in the Hamilton household the day the elder Hamilton
came home and boasted to his wife about a story he and his
friends had made up concerning interplanetary livestock theft.
I also learned of an article in a 1943 issue of an obscure
Kansas weekly newspaper, in which the man who'd edited
the paper in which Hamilton's story first appeared claimed it
was a joke concocted by locals, who in the subsequent
printed account, and in the tradition of frontier tall-tale humor
(of which 1897 newspapers provide many other examples),
pretended to endorse the claim.

If there is one thing we have learned from our pelicanist
colleagues, it's that memory - even if measured in minutes,
even seconds - cannot be replied upon. Yet here we are being
asked to credit testimony offered 46 and 79 years after the fact
as something we ought to believe. We are also being asked to
believe that persons who know a witness have anything worthwhile
to tell us about that individual's honesty, and pelicanists have
already demonstrated that they don't.

Therefore, I am sorry to have to report that when I published my
findings, which rushed to the clearly unjustified conclusion
that the story was a hoax, nearly all of my colleagues agreed
that Hamilton's story could no longer be taken seriously.

It is clear that a great injustice has been done. Outside this
anecdotal testimony - and pelicanists have let us know just how
worthless that is - there is no reason to listen to undocumented
claims from old people testifying to an alleged event that
occurred many years earlier. Besides memory problems,
pelicanists have assured us that people lie all the time, and
for no reason. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these
latterday informants were not so much confused as consciously
dishonest.

Our pelicanist friends, who are nothing if not consistent and
even-handed, will, I am certain, join me in agreeing that the
Hamilton story is now very much an open question.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:34:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:09:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Weds, 1 Nov 2000 08:26 +0100

 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:47:55 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Hola Thiago,

 >>Greer first made that absurd claim about five years ago. Because
 >>of my personal interest in the subject UFO/abductions I called
 >>Dr. Greer to ask him 'where' he got those numbers from, and what
 >>'evidence' (if any) he had that such a thing was actually going
 >>on.

 >>(The whole exchange was published on UpDates sometime in 1995 or
 >>96. It triggered a thread that brought Greer and CSETI under
 >>scrutiny of the List members at that time. If I recall it was a
 >>hum dinger of a thread. Lots of strong emotions on both sides of
 >>the CSETI issue.)

 >>I never got a straight answer out of Greer. In fact, he gave me
 >>a 'song and dance' routine that was right out of a Rogers &
 >>Hammerstien musical!

 >>I'm a simple, blunt, direct, but completely honest man. I'm
 >>sorry but I just don't trust people that can't look you dead in
 >>the eye when they're talking to you and give a straight, simple
 >>answer to a straight, simple question. Greer was incapable of
 >>it.

 >>To date, no one (Greer or other) has provided anything
 >>substantial that will validate or justify the outrageous claim
 >>that 98% of all reported abductions (and presumably unreported
 >>as well) can be laid at the doorstep of the US military/
 >>Intelligence community.

 >>Ignoring the lack of substantiation, I don't think that
 >>something as 'large scale' as this abduction phenomena can be
 >>pulled off _worldwide_ *successfully (*keyword) without some
 >>major league evidence of it appearing long before now. The sheer
 >>number of personnel and expenditure of resources required to
 >>pull it off would have -insured- that we'd all have known/heard
 >>about it before now. Anything this big leaves a trail.

 >>Also, I now have many _hundreds_ of individual reports (sent to
 >>me privately) that have been collected over five + years from
 >>abduction experiencers all over the Globe. You name the country
 >>and I have letters from someone who is a native to that land. In
 >>all that time I have only received -2- count em, (two) reports
 >>that had a military anything, 'component' (where soldiers or
 >>other "official" appearing or uniformed humans were allegedly
 >>present or participating -during- the encounter.)

 >>Not to cast aspersions, but; the two reports I did receive were
 >>accompanied by a host of "government conspiracy" theories and
 >>banter, (in one case ALA: "Cooper" YIKES!) which
 >>suggests/indicates that the person reporting has already arrived
 >>at a set of conclusions/beliefs regarding the nature of their
 >>own experiences. And that they attribute them to the covert
 >>activities being conducted by agencies of our own government.
 >>Ok, fine, now show me the same evidence that convinced you that
 >>this is true. Nobody has. (Currently) nobody can!

 >>I already said in one of my last postings that it's not hard for
 >>me to imagine that; (If) the government is aware of the alien
 >>presence here, it is not too far fetched a concept that they
 >>would choose some (well suited to their purposes) individuals
 >>and try to 'monitor' them for the purpose of gathering
 >>"intelligence" as to what the "Aliens" are up to.

 >>That they, (government agents) are responsible for 98% of all
 >>abductions is just an as yet unsubstantiated absurdity. As I
 >>mentioned, I have letters from folks all over the planet; in the
 >>Netherlands, South America, Canada, UK, Japan, you name it. Now
 >>try to sell me the idea that Americans are kidnapping Swedish
 >>citizens in the middle of the night. Or inside the borders of
 >>_any_ of the other countries I mentioned.

 ><snip>

 >>Cuidate mi hermano, y nunca dejes de peliar la lucha buena. No
 >>creas _nada_ que te dicen hasta que te offrecen una buena
 >>prueba!  ;)

 >>John Velez, Good Soldier, not; El Bobo de la lluca!  <LOL>

Thiago responded:

 >Si mi amigo, nosotros tenemos mucho a aprender para poder
 >concluir alguna cosa con respeito a las abduciones.

*For non-spanish speaking Listmembers; Thiago said that he
agrees with me that there is still much to learn about
abductions before we can arrive at any firm conclusions.

I am in complete harmony with that.

 >I never known, as you, where some researchers got those numbers.

(Se lo sacan del aire!) Apparently 'some of them' are pulling
their figures out of the air!  :)

 >What I believe is that something is happening. People are being
 >abducted by aliens but we have no conclusions about that.
 >Indeed, we have great researchers doing their jobs to try to
 >find an answer, but is just speculation to say that more than 6
 >million people have been abducted.

I assume that you are using the 'Roper Poll' numbers for your
estimate of six million. The validity of that poll has been
argued so much (and convincingly from both sides!) that I don't
know if it's possible to use its results/findings with any
degree of certainty or reliability.

I have no idea 'how many' people are being abducted. I do know
it's a lot! By myself, over five or six years, I have
accumulated _hundreds_ of letters from people all over the
planet that are reporting UFO/alien abduction. Budd must easily
have ten or twenty times that number. Add that to what other
equally visible people such as; Jacobs, Mack, Fowler etc. must
have and you start to get into some significant numbers just
from those who have already reported to somebody.

I don't know about "millions" but easily thousands. Maybe tens
of thousands if you consider the ones who have not reported. It
is still an impressive enough number of people that you'd think
it would not be ignored by the mainstream research community the
way that it has.

Jerry Clark once said that (I paraphrase) in the future, the
lack of interest and response from modern science to the UFO
phenomenon would be viewed as one of its biggest
failures/shortcomings.

I agree.

Un placer conocerte mi hermano. Es un placer tenerte como un
miembro the este grupo. ;)

Siceramente,

John Velez

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

*For Thiago and any other Spanish speaking List members:

Ay un borracho parado en una esquina meando. Viene la policia y
le dice, "Que lindo ah?" El borracho le contesta: "Verdad que
parece una munequita!"

<LOL> JV  ;)
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:41:07 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:11:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:31:17 -0500
 >Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

 >Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
 >in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
 >pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
 >sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
 >physicist John Lowke:

 >"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
 >that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

Jerry:

Are you suggesting that the Coyne helicopter incident involved
ball lighting?  Hm, never thought about that.

<snip>

 >A pelicanist on this list even has shown that multiple and
 >independent witnesses who reported seeing a hovering
 >submarine-shaped, metallic structure with flashing search light
 >-- over a 300-second period of observation

Can you name any members of the helicopter crew who said that
they observed the object for five minutes?  If you know of such
a claim, what is its date?


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                    Re: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:32:35 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:13:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:05:28 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >You take a single newspaper quote over an investigation which
 >took years to complete (and about which you obviously know
 >somewhere between little and nothing). I suggest that you
 >familiarize yourself with the evidence at issue before you make
 >sweeping pronouncements based on Klass's paltry inquiry and
 >highly misleading claims about this crucial case.

Two weeks later, November 1, 1973, on the Dick Cavett TV show
Coyne said that the whole incident took place "in about a
minute's time."

When the co-pilot was interviewed in 1977 he estimated that the
he watched the object for 30 second to a minute. A third crew
member gave the longest time estimate when he said that he had
watched the light for a minute before reported it coming toward
them. The object was only "over" the helicopter for a few
seconds and then disappeared seconds later, according to their
accounts.

I would like to track down Zeidman's reply to Klass' book
chapter and see if the two competing sets of claims can be
reconciled, if you have a reference.

Thanks,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                       Re: Aveley Encounter - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:53:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:15:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter - Randles


 >From: Gar Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:54:58 -0000

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:31:51 -0500
 >>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >Hi All + Roy,

 >Roy wrote:

 >This case has been done to death Roy. It is mentioned in
 >numerous UFO books in the United Kingdom, two recent ones which
 >spring to mind are Jenny Randles' 'The Complete Book of Aliens
 >and Abductions' (p40), also Philip Mantle gives a brief rundown
 >of the case in his book 'Without Consent'.

 >It was investigated by Andy Collins and Barry King. Currently I
 >am trying to locate their original case file and report (mail me
 >back in a few months and I will try to elaborate further for
 >you, if I can find a copy of this report).


Hi,

Gary if you get the two FSR issues in which the case appears (it
dominates both issues) you will have the case report as this is
reproduced virtually in its entirity in these two l979 FSR
issues - along with additional photos and sketches.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               UpDates Posters Using AOL Version 6.0 - Don't!

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:13:34 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:20:59 -0500
Subject: UpDates Posters Using AOL Version 6.0 - Don't!


As a courtesy to those who have recently begun using AOL 6.0 and
who like to post here on UpDates, I would issue a caveat or two.
As one of those who were assisting with the Beta analysis of
this new AOL, I can tell you that you should _not_ use it at
this time, despite AOL releasing it to the public. There are
still some bugs in it which preclude installation in some
machines and some terribly silly lapses in brainpower by some of
us. We forgot to remind AOL about things because frankly, we
imagined that they would have thought of it themselves. And the
cheque is in the mail.

First, you cannot strictly follow the posting rules on Errol's
UpDates with AOL ver. 6.0. You cannot use Internet style quoting
at this moment without great difficulty, and an hour on the
phone with AOL technical customer service.

This is a caveat, a warning. Wait until they straighten out what
we Beta Testers forgot to tell them. Don't blame AOL. Blame me.
I was then on mood altering Gripple and unable to comprehend
write from erase and friend from jackass. It was a terrible time
for me. But like all terrible times, I lernt from it. I can
honestly say that now, I know who my friend is.

My mommy.

Jim Mortellaro










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                   Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:58:46 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:24:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Ledger


 >From: Brian Mundy <mundy-b@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:48:57 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:23:08 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >>Subject: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 >>Hi All:

 >>I am trying to replace the records that I had up to a few years
 >>ago, regarding UFO related incidents in the Quinte Area (Oshawa
 >>to Brockville including all of Lake Ontario).

 >>If anyone has any records of sighting reports in this region,
 >>could you please forward them to me at:

 >>sliddle@chalktv.com

 >>Thanks.

 >>If I ever catch up with the boob who took my files and never
 >>returned them, 'Bam, Boom, Zoom to da moon!' (and if you want to
 >>know the name of this weasel, or why QAPRA folded, contact me
 >>privately via email and I'll let you know).

 >I don't know where Quinte is, but Monday night a friend and I
 >were about halfway to Ottawa,coming from Brockville, when we saw
 >4 bright stationary lights high in the air.

 >It was twilight, and one of the lights, a slightly smaller one,
 >turned out to be a plane.

 >They were to the left of the highway and as we passed the plane
 >flew over us, but these other 3 never moved.

 >They were way too big for stars and too high up for a microwave
 >tower, or such. It was still light enough to have seen any
 >structures, anyway.

 >Looking back, there were only 2 of them, just before we lost
 >sight of them. (We never stopped driving, just kept craning our
 >heads around as we passed them.)

Hi Brian,

Be advised that sometimes you will see aircraft that are on
"long final" for an airport, [in this case, perhaps, Ottawa]
with their landing lights on.

They might begin this approach with lights 50 or 100 miles back
from the AP. When they are sliding down the glideslope, they
appear to be fixed in the sky.

Some of these heavies are displaying half million candle power
lights, as much for high visibility in congested control zones
as for landing. I've witnessed more than a few of these myself.

It seems to take forever for them to get to you. When you are in
the air with them they are quite brilliant but much more evident
as to their identity. The brilliance of the landing lights quite
often will blank out their red,green and white navigation
lights/strobes.

Any chance that this is what you saw?

You have not provided much in the way of details. Colour of
lights, approx. distance, directiopn, duration of sighting etc.
I note that one of the lights turned out to be an aircraft, the
one which seemed to be fixed for a time in the sky then you saw
that it was a plane.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                  Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:15:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:27:32 -0500
Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:31:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: The Chris Armold Interview
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>I'm not familiar with that information. Can you fill us in? All
 >>I know about Rendlesham comes from reading 'Left At East Gate'
 >>and from the many interesting posts on Updates.

 >I outlined it all, at length in 'Project Moondust'. Russ Estes
 >had a copy of the interview that was taped on February 16, 1993
 >Halt, Warren and Robins had apparently met to discuss the case,
 >with, I suppose, Warren and Robins looking for additional
 >information for the book they would write.

 >Halt told Warren, "You're aware that the story you've told or
 >the stories you've told through the years don't fit in with what
 >I recollect and other witnesses recollect..."

Yes, I've found that interview, pgs. 351-366, 'Left At East Gate'.
Right after that quote, Larry explains that he has evidence -
records that refute Halts claims

 >Warren agreed, but they said he had talked to others and it was
 >like a traffic accident in which the various witnesses remember
 >the events differently.

Yes, that's understandable. Everyone has part of the truth in
situations like this. If everyone who was there could be
interviewed, we could put all the parts together and come up
with a collective solution. Since that's apparently not
possible, we might listen carefully to those witnesses who are
willing to talk. Larry's testimony is important.

 >Halt then asked if Warren had taken a polygraph. Warren said,
 >"No," but that he had taken a Voice Stress given by Larry
 >Fawcett. Well, as I was listening to the tape of Warren, I
 >realized that I could call Larry Fawcett. He said that he had
 >never given Warren a VSA. So, we have a major crack in the tale
 >right there.

Larry then says, in a response to Halt's asking if he has taken a
polygraph:

"Not a lie detector test. I took a VSA through Fawcett, three
times, through the Connecticut State Police, actually."

Since he readily agreed to take one again, with Mike Kemp, I
don't know what to think about Fawcett's claim.

 >Russ Estes also interviewed Warren on video tape. The very first
 >thing that Warren told Estes was that he hadn't been in
 >Bentwaters on the first two nights. He had only been there for
 >the third.

Yes, that's what Larry claims; so what? That's what happened. He
wasn't there for the first two nights, but he was there for the
third night. But he had been in the area, not in Germany. He
wasn't on duty the first two nights.

 >Halt disputed that, suggesting that Warren had the
 >chronology all screwed up.

Halt needs to take a VSA since his so-called facts about Larry
have proven to be false. Why believe Halt? He's a government
man! Why would anyone believe anything that he says? He might be
telling the truth but then again he might not. His testimony
certainly can't be used as a beacon in this discussion.

 >Except that it seems that people often believe that they can
 >beat the machine. They often agree to these sorts of exams, only
 >to be surprised when the results come back in the negative. Next
 >time you have a change watch one of the talk shows where they're
 >using the lie detector and listen to the reactions of the people
 >as they're caught.

I wouldn't take the time. Yes, some might believe that they
might be able to beat a polygraph or VSA; but not anyone with
any brains and not after reading Mike Kemp's VSA analysis of
Col. Corso. Would you like to try? I have some questions that
I'd like to ask.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:31:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:29:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Balaskas


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:09:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:52:18 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO - Young
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Fate: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:31:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Re-investigating The Adamski UFO

<snip>

 >>>http://www.net.yu/~djordjen/Nazi2.gif

<snip>

 >>Where did you find this page?

<snip>

 >As for the image presented, anyone with an old typewriter could
 >have faked that gem up, quite possibly somebody with a name like
 >Djorjen.

Hi Larry.

The owner of this web site, 14 year old (1998) Djordje Nikolic,
got the drawing of the Brown/Adamski looking flying saucer found
in his NAZI UFO's (sic) page from his friends Dan and Dirk.

I was able to find identical drawings of this Haunebu II flying
saucer in several other different web sites (many in German
which I cannot read) but with no additional information on the
origins of this alleged 1943 NAZI German flying saucer document.
In a past post to UFO UpDates post, Tim Matthews considers
accounts of the Haunebu flying saucers to be lies based on fake
documents. Kevin McClure's Internet article 'More Lies Than
Secrets', which was also reproduced on UFO UpDates by a friend,
also seems to agree that the Haunebu flying saucers came from
the realm of science fiction.

I do not think Djordje faked this document himself (I am waiting
for his reply to my e-mail asking for further details). If this
1943 NAZI German flying saucer document is not real, then I
would still like to know when and by whom it was created. Why
risk dismissing something which could turn out to be of great
value in our understanding of UFOs based simply on gut feelings
or on our suspicions that Haunebu flying saucer stories are all
fictitious accounts. If this document is a fake, does it predate
Brown's nearly identical flying saucer model and Adamski's
photos of his similar looking flying saucer or was it possibly
inspired by these?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

              Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners

From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:38:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:34:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600

 >Listfolk:

 >Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
 >in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
 >pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
 >sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
 >physicist John Lowke:

 >"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
 >that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

<snip>

 >"Many years ago" - we can safely disregard the sighting at once,
 >since pelican science tells us that memory of what happened
 >minutes or even seconds ago is unreliable - "I saw two globes of
 >lightning." Of course we know that even scientists are
 >unreliable observers, and some are even liars. "They were
 >reddish-yellow in color and appeared to be rotating." Given how
 >our perceptual apparatus so often fails us, this description is
 >none we need take seriously. "One of them struck a building and
 >burst with a loud report" - probably caused by a firecracker,
 >not some absurd, undocumented phenomenon such as this obviously
 >dubious character wants us to believe. "As there was no trace of
 >anything the [building's inhabitants] looked bewildered." As why
 >shouldn't they, since nothing happened outside the fertile
 >imagination/lying tongue/failed perceptual mechanisms of this
 >unreliable alleged scientist? "The other drifted slowly away."
 >What "drifted slowly away" was no doubt a cloud with sunlight
 >reflecting off it. "Globular lightning makes a slight noise ...
 >compared with the purring of a cat." So deluded is this
 >unreliable witness that he couldn't even discern that what he
 >was hearing _was_ the "purring of a cat," which in his ignorance
 >of pelicanist principles he was led to associate with the aerial
 >phenomenon he mistakenly thought he was seeing.

<snip>

 >Thank you, pelican science, for your many contributions to human
 >enlightenment. We can now remain confident that everything that
 >could be known is known and that all claims to the contrary can
 >be easily disposed of. You have shown that no rational human
 >being, on being made aware of the principles of pelican science,
 >could possibly believe in what occultists disguised as
 >scientists call "ball lightning."

 >Jerry Clark


Any takers on this outlook? This should light some fires under
some people!

Personally, in Montana, ball lightening happens quite a bit.
Been there, seen it, and I do not make a habit of lying.

In the summer, August 10, 1967, ball lightening went down the
middle of our street and took out a University of Southern
California vehicle. No problem. Several people saw it and we all
agreed on the perception. It was quite a thing to see.

Any others?

Jean or G'ma whichever you prefer

Oh, yes. Been called a liar before, so it don't really bother
me, been around too long.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:39:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:40:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:05:01 -0000

 >YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE

[...]

 >THE AFTERMATH

 >Trees in Rendlesham Forest were quickly felled at the site of
 >the landings and the area burnt.

There was constant logging activity in the sizeable forest -
weren't there three saw-mills concerned with the forestry
management and wasn't the area surrounding our 'UFO landing'
already earmarked for tree felling?

 >Local prisons were put on alert and for days following the
 >incident the American bases used "Flash" calls, which are only
 >ever used in emergencies.

The 'High Point prison', in Suffolk, 'alert' was a story told by
George Wild, who lived locally and was statedly a 'UFO
enthusiast'. His claim, as reported by Tony Dodd, was that on
27th December, 'High Point' staff had been told they may have to
evacuate the prison due to an anticipated 'incident' later that
night.

There was never any verification of the claim, no known
connection with 'UFOs', as if there would be, and no rationale
why it might be thus connected.

Do you have any evidence to make a proven association with
'UFOs'? If so, why would only local prisons be alerted? Do you
have any evidence of a more realistic, widespread concern?


This contemporary 'flash traffic' was first revealed in the
newsletter I published in April, 1999:

Staff Sergeant William A. Kirk Jr., was "NCOIC of the
Telecommunications Facility located next to the Commanders hut".

Also published for the first time is his account as told to me
of the apparent high-level communications traffic after the
'UFO' incident. He wasn't sure which of the two incidents this
followed, however, it was recalled:

"At the time, I was posted on temporary duty to RAF Bentwaters
from RAF Martlesham Heath.

When I showed for duty, communications was running at a peak,
and stayed that way. Many users complained because of busy
signals or being 'bumped'.

Radio traffic between RAF Bentwaters and RAF Martlesham Heath
was full. Switch Techs at Martlesham complained to me of a great
deal of 'Flash' traffic.

Radio Communications Techs at Bentwaters complained about the
amount of traffic. Bentwaters Switchboard Operators remarked
about how 'busy' it was.

I noted increased personnel traffic into the commanders office.
I naturally assumed that an alert or recall was possible or
starting. NATO seemed to have a great deal of them over the
previous year. Whatever the reason, it was a very busy day for
telecommunications traffic".

I asked William he could clarify the nature of 'flash traffic'
and he helpfully obliged:

"American military telephone traffic (AUTOVON = automatic voice
network) has some small differences to regular telephone
communications. The telephone set is push button (long before
the general public had push buttons). 4 extra buttons are
located to the left of the 1 - 4 - 7 - * buttons. They are
labelled P, I, F, FO (P = priority, and is located next to 1),
(I = immediate, located next to 4), (F = flash, located next to
7), (FO = flash override, next to *). VERY few people had access
to autovon phones and usually there was about one to two per
office area. Usually they were contained at a desk with a person
of higher rank. EVEN fewer were given the power to use the
buttons. Just because you had them did not mean you could use
them. The more important you were, the higher power you had to
'bump'.

If you were talking on a normal telephone call, just like if you
were to pick up the telephone right now and call a friend, and I
called you, I would hear a busy tone. Well... if I had the
power, I would hang up, push the P button, touch in the number
again, and BANG, you were disconnected from your friend, you
would get a special ring, and there I would be. Your friend
would be high and dry.... HOWEVER if your friend had the power
to call on an Immediate precedence, he could "bump" me. If I had
flash.... well you get the point by now. Few people had an
autovon telephone, fewer had the use of the P button, even fewer
had the use of the I button, less the F (usually commanders),
and only the President and such had use of the FO button". [END]

Wasn't the Bentwaters/Woodbridge complex, a major NATO base, on
an alert status because of the 'Solidarity' situation in Poland?
Also, this was amidst the soon to be resolved Iran hostage
crisis.

William was unaware of any direct connection to a 'UFO' crisis!

Do you have any evidence otherwise? I note you don't mention it.


 >Photographs and video film taken at the scene were swiftly
 >transported to Ramstein Air Base, the USAFE headquarters in
 >Germany.

Col. Halt is adamant there was no video footage, as he told
respected journalist Salley Rayl:

'Despite rumors, "No video or motion picture film was taken,"
says Halt.

And from a separate, online interview/conference:

RAYL: Okay. We have already gotten questions in, even before we
went on the air tonight, about rumors that there was video and
film taken that night. So, I'd like you to address that question
now, as long as we're talking about evidence...

HALT: There was no video. There was no film taken that night to
my knowledge. Now, it is possible that one of the young airman,
back at a distance because they weren't allowed to approach
close we're talking about the group that was back at the
light-alls... Somebody may have had a camera back there, but I
don't believe so because they were on duty and they would have
had to go through guardmount. Somebody could have snuck a small,
35mm or Instamatic or something in their pocket. It's possible
somebody may have had something, but there was no obvious overt
video filming, etc., done that night. None.

RAYL: There was no official video or film taken.

HALT: None. No, nothing official. No.
[END]


 >You Can't Tell The People presents vital new evidence which
 >proves that the incident should have been of major concern to
 >Britain's defence agencies  evidence that the MOD must have
 >or should have been aware of twenty years ago.

What does Nick Pope have to say about this? I'll tell you in a
moment!

 >Some of the information contained in the book...

 >1.A letter written by an RAF squadron leader and addressed to
 >the MOD, which is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)".
 >This is supported with an exclusive interview.

Which doesn't add any meaningful substance - correct?


 >2.Documents that claim to be official witness statements. The
 >author interviewed witnesses who claim they did not type these
 >statements, which appear to be disinformation mixed with facts.

A quite extraordinary accusation.

There are five testimonies, which were requested within a week
of the events by then Lt. Col. [subsequently Col.] Charles Halt.

Do all five participants claim their testimonies were 'altered',
as part of a supposed and quite ridiculous 'cover up'?

I'm sure the answer is 'no, actually they don't'...

Isn't it?

The issue here is that those inaugural statements were requested
by Halt and if they had been 'doctored', then only Halt could
have been responsible.

Nonsense, of course, yet you have previously proclaimed that
Halt isn't trustworthy. However, you have declared these
statements to be genuine, as you said on the public, CompuServe
'UFO' forum -

16 September, 1988:

"The witness statements which have been quoted so often are
merely watered down versions and although genuine, they are not
official Air Force documents".

Do you believe they're genuine or not?

Disparaging Halt's credibility, you also wrote on that forum -

20 September, 1998:

"I know what he maintains, but due to my research findings I'm
afraid I cannot agree. Over the years Charles has been a naughty
boy - he has made numerous statements regarding the case and the
witnesses - these have not always been correct".

Again, on the same day you implied those statements were in fact
trustworthy:

"I spoke to Barry Greenwood several weeks ago and he assured me
that the statements were indeed genuine but were _not_ official
Air Force documents. Apparently, from what I gather the
statements were written for the then Lt Colonel Charles Halt, at
his request. These were/are 'private property' and that's
probably why Halt was up-tight when I told him they were in the
public domain. Well at least one of them has been placed on the
Internet [without Halt's comments]. Halt wrote hand written
comments on these statements which included his concern that he
felt one of the witnesses was not revealing all. There is
probably no conspiracy involved in why these statements were not
published sooner, suffice to say that they were personal. By
the time these were written, the witnesses had already been
debriefed by 'Intelligence' and advised by their superiors to
play down the incident. The statements are important in the case
inasmuch as they are proof that the witnesses were under
pressure to play it down. Witness, Jim Penniston informed me
that what they saw was nothing to do with any lighthouse. I
believe the guys are going to get together to explain those
statements themselves - and when they do it will surely knock
down the sceptic's theories once and for all.

Another prime witness has informed me that they were
interrogated and threatened. He was forced to admit that what he
saw was 'a lighthouse beam' when in fact he saw a landed craft
of unknown origin. I have spent much time talking with him and
I believe this witness is credible.

I've met Charles Halt personally, and have communicated with him
via phone and e-mail and I find him a charming and intelligent
person. However, due to my investigation of this case I have
every reason to believe that he is suppressing vital
information. He is also protecting the names of certain people
who were involved. Whilst this is an honourable thing to do, one
must also be aware that should he disclose their names, he must
then disclose his own involvement. From what I understand that
involves much more than the sighting of a few lights in the sky.
Halt told a source of mine that he hopes his forthcoming book'
will put the lid on the case once and for all', I doubt it. I
don't believe he will reveal the names of those he's been
protecting and I don't think he'll tell the whole story of his
role in all of this.

I am waiting for Halt's book before publishing my research
findings. What he doesn't tell - we will."
[END]

Presumably you couldn't wait any longer for Halt's first-hand
account, reportedly due in December.


 >3. USAF photographs taken the morning after the initial incident
 >which show a British police officer and a USAF officer examining
 >three ground indentations, each with a marker. Enlargements of
 >the photographs depict indentations of what appear to be the
 >UFO's landing marks as well as a scuffed up area, which was
 >reported twenty years ago by witness Lt Colonel Charles Halt.

Published in last Sunday's 'News of the World' - see:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4084862

the interesting photo of our purported 'landing site' reveals
significant new evidence, which, I trust permissible under 'fair
extract' rules, can be seen in an enhanced version on my website
at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/site2.jpg

A mainstay of Staff Sgt Jim Penniston's later tales - contrary
to the fact he originally testified never being closer than 50
meters to the source of 'anomalous' lights perceived, a somewhat
momentous, documented, discrepancy - told of the 'UFO':

"It was triangular in shape, like a pyramid, about 9 feet, by 9
feet, by 9 feet, approximately 6, 7 feet tall."

[...]

And related to Salley Rayl, from the published 'Into the Night'
article:

"The craft moved up off the ground, about three feet, still with
absolutely no sound. It started to move slowly, weaving back
through the trees at a very slow pace, maybe a half a foot per
second. It took about a couple of minutes for it to manoeuvre
itself back to a distance of about 100 to 150 feet, then it rose
up just over the trees, about 200 feet high. There was a
momentary pause -- and then literally with the blink of an eye
it was gone. All with no sound. That still boggles my mind".

As can be evidence from this photograph of the subsequently
determined 'landing marks', which both the local forester and
police determined to be the work of rabbits - there were
apparently rabbit droppings therein - isn't it evidently
impossible for any object, which was the size clearly indicated,
to have moved through the trees as Penniston claims?

Aside from that, the 'object' must have demonstrably been much
larger than Penniston alleges. He should have at least got that
much right, latterly telling a story if how he spent some 20
minutes examining it:

"I observed the craft probably for about 15 minutes, 20 minutes
on the ground. I was checking it out, encircling it".

Where were Burroughs and Cabansag during this time and why,
given this exceptional opportunity to examine a purported 'alien
craft, did neither Burroughs or Cabansag see it!

As I confirmed in 'Rendlesham Unravelled':

"We asked Burroughs to describe the UFO with more detail and he
responded that it looked like "a bank of lights, differently
colored lights that threw off an image of like a craft. I never
saw anything metallic or anything hard."

Source: 'Bentwaters, Part III: The Testimony of John Burroughs',
by Antonio Huneeus, Fate 46, No 9, September 1993, pp 70-71.

And subsequently in 'Resolving Rendlesham':

Another indication that neither Burroughs, Cabansag nor even
Penniston ever witnessed a 'nut's n' bolts' object comes from
the archives of 'ParaNet', a computer 'bulletin board' and
messaging system.

On 12 Aug 91, Jim Speiser, a respected researcher and frequent
ParaNet contributor wrote of the then forthcoming 'Unsolved
Mysteries' coverage:

"Another witness, John Burroughs, will also be featured.
Burroughs lay low for many years after the sighting, but came
forward to me back in 1989. He has since spoken to several
researchers, and together we are spearheading an effort to
re-focus public attention to the case".

"Burroughs has agreed to be interviewed for an exclusive ParaNet
release".

On 20 September, 1991, Speiser published on ParaNet the
transcript of a brief series of questions which Burroughs had
answered. Amongst these was the following dialogue regarding the
'Unsolved Mysteries' broadcast :

[John Powell]: "Regarding one of the last clips shown, which
depicted one or two airmen prone as a very nearby and clearly
craft-like object rose from a landing position and took off, do
you know if there were any ground traces of this?"

[Burroughs]: "First of all, we did not see a structured 'craft'
as was depicted. All we saw were lights that seemed to imply a
structure of some kind. Later inspection showed three round
depressions at that spot, forming an equilateral triangle. The
British Police explained these as 'rabbit holes'".
[END]


 >'Halt at first said Bustinza wasn't with him, but I later came
 >across a tape with Bustinza's voice on it.'

Sgt. Adrian Bustinza wasn't a member of Halt's 'assembled team
of [UFO] specialists' in the forest that second night, as
recorded on the 'Halt tape'.

Which tape are you therefore referring to?

[...]

 >8. A local civilian witness speaks out about his encounter with
 >one of the UFOs and tells how four of his USAF friends were
 >called back to the base on a "Red Alert". The witness also
 >described what one of his friends had told him about the
 >incident in the forest, which involved alien entities repairing
 >a space ship.

The actual, documented participants refute encountering 'aliens
repairing a spaceship' - presumably this relates to the 'second
night' and where Halt acknowledges:

"I never saw anything as far as an alien being or anything that
could be considered human, humanoid, or anything of that nature,
although I had a distinct feeling, in fact I'm permanently
convinced, the objects we saw were under some type of
intelligent control".

Than again, you indicate Halt is not to be trusted.


 >9.A former MOD secretary reveals that there was a cover-up and
 >witnesses were given new identities and there were those who
 >simply disappeared.

Good grief... we'd better tell Nick Pope!

Clearly this mere secretary knows more than our media promoted
'man at the UFO desk' did. After all, wasn't it Pope who
confirmed:

Interview dated 5 May 1996
Conducted by Mark Ian Birdsall and Vivienne Olbison [for 'UFO
Magazine - possibly the first, 'virgin' interview given]:

UFO: In 1980 one of the most extraordinary incidents involving a
UFO occurred in Suffolk, just a few hundred yards from the joint
USAF/RAF bases at Bentwaters and Woodbridge. DS8 was the name of
the MoD's UFO department at that time who handled the case. Your
thoughts on this one?

Nick Pope: Rendlesham is the 'Holy Grail' of British Ufology
isn't it?

UFO: It was bigger than DS8 could handle - isn't that true?

Nick Pope: I believe Rendlesham has an extraterrestrial
explanation. I am convinced on the first night of the activity a
small remote craft was seen by the guard patrol. As we all know,
trace evidence was found. Colonel Halt wrote his memorandum to
Whitehall...

UFO: On this insistence of a British officer?

Nick Pope: Yes, but on each joint USAF/RAF base there is an RAF
Commander; but it's really only a nominal title; these
facilities are basically USAF bases. I believe for legal reasons
they must have an RAF Commander who acts as the conduit between
the USAF and the Ministry of Defence. My best assessment of what
happened next is - absolutely nothing! The report was written on
the 13th January and when it arrived at Whitehall, whoever was
doing the job didn't have the faintest idea what to do with it,
probably took one look at it and said, what am I supposed to do?
I am afraid to say it simply ended up in a file.

[...]

UFO: Does this not indicate that DS8 wasn't even a minor player
in the events that followed next. Bentwaters was on full alert
anyway due to the problems in Europe?

Nick Pope: I believe we had just had the situation in Poland
with the trade union Solidarity, and this heightened
international tension.

[...]

UFO: Was there a cover-up?

Nick Pope: No. Not in the MoD - I think the MoD's response was
just ineffective.

UFO: That's a very big statement?

Nick Pope: Yes, but if something of that magnitude was reported
and simply placed on file, then what else can you say?

[END]

Oh... I don't know... you could always write the forward for a
book which asserts the entire scientific world and just about
everyone else should 'wake up' to 'reality'. As proclaimed by
proponents who statedly believe 'crop circles' are also made by
'aliens'.


 >Margaret Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister at the time of the
 >events, told the author in 1997, that she can't tell the people
 >about UFOs

I understand we should read your book and what Thatcher actually
said, rather than your 'interpretation', our your publishers'
marketing and that the farcical contention our government is
'covering up' evidence of 'alien contact' is then duly exposed,
as logically expected.

 >At last the truth can be told...

'ufology' incarnate...


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

             Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans]

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:27:50 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:03:11 -0500
Subject: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans]


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:05:31 -0000

 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:09:27 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000


Andy,

I had concluded some days ago that responding to you is only
encouraging you, so I beg the indulgence of all patient and
gentle listfolk. Something that you imply about a friend of
mine has set me off, and that's the only reason for this
post.

 >Just banging on about a few photos or cases which cannot be
 >resolved 'at this time' means nothing. At least the sceptics are
 >making reasonable suggestions, based on experience and fact, and
 >actually trying to _solve_ UFO cases rather than being engaged
 >in some bizarre sci-fi fantasy which should have been left
 >behind in childhood.

 >This happens time and time again on this list, any attempt at
 >sceptical discussion doomed to attract the (blind) faithful who
 >will rant and rave as to why perfectly reasonable queries,

"Rant and rave," of course, being a pelicanist's synonym for
dissent from pelicanist doctrine. Your faith is as touching as
your polemics are repellent.

 >based
 >on know facts and resolved cases,

"Know" (sic) by whom? You and everybody who agrees absolutely
with you?

 >have no bearing on their
 >beloved true UFOs,

What is a "beloved" true UFO? Does this phrase have any meaning
at all? Or is the adjective here as meaningless in Andy-speak as
"radical" is when placed in front of "misperception"?

 >or whatever the current phrase is. Whilst
 >this is highly entertaining for the sceptics

though not nearly so amusing as you pelicanists are to us more
open-minded souls, who actually think truth is no simple issue
to be defined and declared by fiat.

 >it doesn't really
 >do many of the ufologists on this list - especially the 'big'
 >names who make a portion or all of their living from the
 >subject - any good at all.

And here is where, at last, you take us straight to the bottom
of the barrel. Exactly what do you mean by this last statement?

Or is this the sort of dreary ad hominem someone who is losing
an argument - and yes, unlike you, I do not hesitate to name
names, yours in this instance - are relegated to?  Do those
"ufologists on this List -- especially the 'big' [why the scare
quotes, by the way?] names [-] who make a portion of their
living from the subject" and who do no "good at all" include
your co-author Jenny Randles?

Is your point that because Jenny, for whom the more rational and
restrained among us have great respect, has made money on UFO
books (not all that much, I can tell you from personal
experience in the UFO book-writing business; in comparison,
authors of midlist literary novels are millionaires), she has
done us no good and deserves no respect?

Let me be blunt about it: your remark is despicable. Jenny is
among the most honorable and worthy individuals I have ever
known in this field, and her contributions to this field exceed
just about anybody's (I include here both yours and mine) in the
long history of this subject. And few have sacrificed as much as
she has in the interest of digging out the difficult and elusive
truths of this extraordinarily complex and elusive phenomenon.

 >off to see a rock'n'roll band for some reality

Oh, brother.

If you still think "rock 'n' roll" still exists (in fact it was
essentially a product of the mid-50s to early 60s; I grew up
with it, recall it vividly, and know far more about it now than
I did then) and if you think that the posturing, soulless pop
music (rejected even by my kids) that you're hearing these days
is "rock 'n' roll", I think we know how seriously to take your
definition of "reality" - about as seriously, to be specific, as
your definition of "radical misperception."

As a ufologist, I fear, you're not even a good music critic. As
I always say, there's no accounting for no taste.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                            Re: UFO Stats - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 05:47:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:04:59 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Stats - Hale


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:24:02 -0000
 >Subject: UFO Stats

 >Form that I think we can safely say that 'most' UFO cases are
 >resolved into IFOs and the quicker they are investigated the
 >faster this process is achieved.


Andy,

I think you have just done Allaster Campbell out of a job, best
ring the PM' editing like the above may serve well in the next
election!

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

              Re: Credible Witnesses Get It Wrong Again - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:11:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:07:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Credible Witnesses Get It Wrong Again - Hale


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Credible Witnesses Get It Wrong Again
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:17:45 -0000

 >However, before I go and watch Coronation Street some problems
 >immediately spring to mind, with at least two of these cases,
 >which should set your brain cell alight with thought.

Andy,

Let me answer before I sit down and watch Eastenders.
You may have that half cell enlightened!

 >Steve Michalak - It's unexplained to this day but not without
 >its problems.


Thank you. The next Case was:


 >Templeton Case -  (will post exact details if you like).

Please do.

Roy..

Keep Smiling...  <royjhale@netscapeonline.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                          La Rete - Italian Webzine

From: Alfredo Lissoni - CUN <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:33:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:54:15 -0500
Subject: La Rete - Italian Webzine


Only in Italian:

E' on line - c'est on line
The following are on line

La Rete 293
http://web.tiscalinet.it/lareteufo/rete293.htm
Speciale cerchi nel grano (sur les circles dans la bl)
About Italian crop circles

La Rete 294
http://web.tiscalinet.it/lareteufo/rete294.htm
Ancora UFO nei cieli italiani - Nuovi pianeti - Conferenze - Siti

OVNI dans les ciels d'Italie - Nuovelles plantes - Congrs - Web Pages
UFOs over Italian skies - New planets - Meetings - Web Pases (Halloween,
USAC, CISU about Figuet, Teleragna)


Best wishes
Alfredo Lissoni
National UFO Center, Italy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:42:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:56:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:44:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>Hi All,

 >>>Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >>>The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >>>family of five, two adults and three  children.

 >>>Any help would be appreciated.

 >>>Regards,

 >>>Roy..

 ><snip>

 >>The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
 >>rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

 ><snip>

 >>This and 63 other "attributes" enables me to sift and sort cases
 >>all sorts of ways for obvious reasons, and for purposes yet
 >>unforeseen.

 >Hey Laroo,

 >Is your list of "attributes" posted anywhere? If not, (and you
 >have it in a form that can be converted for posting) would you
 >post it to the List? It would be educational. I'm really
 >interested in learning about what criteria would be most
 >useful/helpful in sorting through some of the stuff I have on
 >hand. Strictly for archival purposes.

 >If it's not too big a hassle to post, I for one would appreciate
 >seeing it. If it turns out to be a goodun' I'm planning to 'lift
 >it' (rip you off) wholesale and use it myself! :)    <LOL>

 >Thanx in advance,

 >John Velez, Inquiring minds want to know!  ;)


Hello John!

I have responded offlist. The two pages it would take are too
long and wide for list posting here.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:11:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:00:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:51:48 -0000

 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>Hi All,

 >>>Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >>>The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >>>family of five, two adults and three children.

 >>Hello Roy:

 >>The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
 >>rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

 >>The events supposedly took place 27 OCT 1974 starting around
 >>22:20 hrs in or about Aveley, Essex, England.

 >>The car conked out (presumed EME), and the radio not smoked (or
 >>got smoked as I might say.)

 >>The story goes that at least two people in the car were beamed
 >>up to some UFO. [snip] Inside, they were examined by batlike
 >>figures and possibly pseudo-humans.
 >>There was also some sort of telepathic communication.

 >>My two sources, with all the Halloween details are:

 >>FSR Volume 24 #1, _and_
 >>Randles, Jenny: Alien Abductions -- The Mystery
 >>Solved. Page 29.

 >>I vaguely recall a message from Jenny indicating that this
 >>rather unlikely title, at least the last part, was foisted on
 >>her by the publishers.


 >Hi,

 >Yes, the case was investigated in great depth by the original
 >UFOIN and appears across two issues (taking up many pages) of
 >FSR. The investigators were Andy Collins and Barry King - both
 >still around. Andy is now a leading light in the 'ancient
 >mysteries' writing school - a close colleague of the likes of
 >Hancock and co - and has written numerous books - his most
 >recent being 'Gateway to Atlantis'. Barry King edits the weird
 >conspiratorial journal 'The Voice' and claims to have had
 >involvement in a covert UK project.

 >The case is indeed described in my book. The title you quote is
 >the US one that was foisted onto it by the US publisher.

<snip>

Hello Jenny!

Yes, American publishers do like to shout out their wares from
the book racks. I suppose the public is partially to blame, they
reward all this by buying the loudest titles.

It makes me wonder how British publishers promote their books.
Are they dipped in chocolate or something?

With all the study, effort and quality ink devoted to the Aveley
case, I could not simply ignore it.

Nevertheless, and for my purposes as a compiler of strictly UFO
cases, this was truly a messy one.

I do not catalog NDEs, religious phenomena, forteana,
crypto-biology (chupacabras etc.) and so forth unless there is a
direct UFO connection. Even abductions make me squirm a bit.

Hopefully, this will partially explain why I assigned a low
credibility rating to the matter.



Very best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

             'Chupacabra' Skull Subjected To Scientific Scrutiny

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:19:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:03:48 -0500
Subject: 'Chupacabra' Skull Subjected To Scientific Scrutiny


SOURCE: www.terra.com
DATE: November 1, 2000, 17:56 hrs

ALLEGED CHUPACABRAS SKULL SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY

** The animal was hunted by a peasant who preseved its skull as
a trophy. The skull subsequently fell into the hands of
researchers **

October 30, 2000 (Terra). Scientists of the Universidad Austral
de Chile are dumbfounded by an enigmatic animal skull, since
they are at a loss to ascertain to what animal or species it
belongs. The animal was apparently last January in the Arique
Sector of Antihue (Tenth Region) by a farmer who had reported
the strange deaths of a large number of birds, particularly
geese. Last May, the same farmer reported that he had killed a
strange creature.

The hunter preserved the only the head as a trophy and cast the
rest of the body into a river. He later reported that since that
day, he hears the sound of distant howling in the evening. It is
his belief that [the source of the howling] is the lonely female
that accompanied the animal and continues prowling the region in
search of her mate.

The skull was ultimately delivered to Universidad Austral.
However, after four months of intense research, in which DNA
samples were connected, it now turns out that the skull has left
scientists dumbfounded, as they have been unable to determine
the exact nature of the beast in question.

The discovery of this species has been qualified as "very
interesting" by the scientific community itself, because "we are
dealing with a medium-sized animal which would have gone
unnoticed by science for approximately one century."

SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES:
http://www.terra.cl/especial/ovni_2000/ovni_noticias.cfm


Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales/Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                    Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:49:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:08:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >However, instead of playing silly little games and wasting a
 >lot of time, here is my response.

I agree, we are sort of just going round and round about this,
now.

 >>How about the Iran UFO encounter in 1976. This is where Iran's
 >>topgun and another pilot went up in F-4 Phantoms against a UFO.
 >>When the pilots went to red to engage the object both the jets'
 >>weapons malfunctioned. The object sent out a smaller object to
 >>engage the jets and this smaller object literally flew circles
 >>around one jet while it was performing an evasive dive. This was
 >>seen by people in the air, on the ground and was recorded on
 >>radar. By the way, this information is from a U.S. government
 >>report - the last people who want to admit anything about UFOs -
 >>_unidentified_ flying objects.

 >And what is your opinion about the investigation of this
 >incident conducted by avionics expert Philip J. Klass, who
 >tracked down an American technician responsible for maintenance
 >of the aircraft? This is the principal skeptical investigation
 >of that incident. While you and I are unlikely to be able to
 >personally investigate such an incident on the spot, we should
 >at least consider the information provided by those who have.>

I talked to the same guys that Klass talked to. His explanation
was temporary failure of the radr combined with
misidentification of Jupiter, as I recall. There is no way
Jupiter could have accounted for the initial sighting by the
radar controller of an object hovering low over Tehran. One of
the pilot's didn't chase Jupiter at a high speed toward
Afghanistan. The radar guy I talked to indicated that the radar
sets were OK after the incident Hence a "rare ' (we hope)
indicance of self-repair of the radar. Klass dd not address the
loss of communication within the jets. Nor the ejection of a
bright object by the main object, etc.

One of the UFO TV shows (Sightings, Encounters, whatever) had a
good report on it maybe 5 years ago, featuring several of the
principle witnesses (who escaped from Iran after the Ayatollah
took over)

 >>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.>

 >Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

At Malmstrom Air Force Base an object that was seenhovering ove
a missile silo caused jets to be scrambled. Sabotage alert teams
phoned in the report of the objet and said it went dark as the
jets approached. Then it rose straight upwards and was tracked
by radar that lost it at 200,000 ft. As I recall the official
NORAD log called this an "unknown" (See 'Clear Intent' or other
references)

 >>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begind the trees, and
 >practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
f>riend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

I spoke to one of the guards many man years ago. He said the
object that he saw an orange glowing object over the base. In
the official documentation it was called a "helicopter" for lack
of a better term. Hahaha. The guy did not seem to be crazy as a
loon.

 >>I will also be the first to say that most UFO reports do have
 >>conventional explanations such as stars or misidentified aircraft.
 >>I would be the last to say that no one has ever misidentified
 >>Venus or another heavenly body for a UFO.

 >OK, well we're on the same track here.

 >>What about Dr.Sturrock and his panel of _scientists_ that stated
 >>UFOs were real in a press confernece last year?

 >No skeptical input was provided. The whole thing was loaded for
 >a pro-UFO result. Some participants, by the way, were unhappy
 >with the report and how it was handled.

Actually the evaluating committee indicated that everything
could have been explained one way or another, but that it was
worth examing UFO sightings to find out if new phenomena were
being seen. So far as I know, I was te only person to write a
rebuttal to the evaluating team led by Von Eschleman. (See
Atmosphere or UFOs" at the web site of the Journal of Scientific
Exploration, www.jse.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:26:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:11:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:41:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:31:17 -0500
 >>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived


Bob,

 >Are you suggesting that the Coyne helicopter incident involved
 >ball lighting? Hm, never thought about that.

It's interesting that over the years assorted pelicanists
(including Philip J. Klass, who proposed a particularly
extraordinary form of it and was severely criticized by the
Condon Committee for the resulting pseudoscience) have tried to
"explain" UFOs as ball lightning, with - of course - no sense
of irony or shame whatever. Am I right in assuming that as a
believer in pelicanist principles, you reject the existence of
ball lightning?

 >>A pelicanist on this list even has shown that multiple and
 >>independent witnesses who reported seeing a hovering
 >>submarine-shaped, metallic structure with flashing search light
 >>-- over a 300-second period of observation

Please study the details of the sighting, which involved the
approach of a moving light until it appeared in front of the
helicopter, where it was observed as a submarine-shaped
structure. The entire sighting, from the appearance of the light
to its close approach to the helicopter to its disappearance,
occurred over a period of approximately 300 seconds. The same
submarine-shaped UFO in close proximity to the Ohio National
Guard helicopter was observed by ground witnesses.

You're playing lawyer games here, Bob.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:12:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:32:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:05:28 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Bob,

 >>You take a single newspaper quote over an investigation which
 >>took years to complete (and about which you obviously know
 >>somewhere between little and nothing). I suggest that you
 >>familiarize yourself with the evidence at issue before you make
 >>sweeping pronouncements based on Klass's paltry inquiry and
 >>highly misleading claims about this crucial case.

 >Two weeks later, November 1, 1973, on the Dick Cavett TV show
 >Coyne said that the whole incident took place "in about a
 >minute's time."

Extremely misleading quote. Coyne is referring to the
close-encounter phase of the incident. The entire incident, as
Zeidman documents and as Coyne and other crew members agree,
took place in something like 300 seconds, from the appearance of
an anomalous approaching light to the disappearance of the
submarine-shaped UFO. As Klass did not, Zeidman interviewed the
entire crew - each one separately - and meticulously
reconstructed the time line. She and Coyne together reenacted
the incident, counting the seconds as they did so. Klass, up to
his usual ax-grinding, has nothing of interest to say about this
case. Zeidman, the only one to conduct a real investigation, is
the authority here

 >I would like to track down Zeidman's reply to Klass' book
 >chapter and see if the two competing sets of claims can be
 >reconciled, if you have a reference.

A full bibliography of documents relating to the case, including
Klass/Zeidman's early debate in Fate, appears on page 257 of the
second edition of my encyclopedia. Zeidman's final statement,
after years of work on the case, appears in the 1989 MUFON
symposium proceedings.

Interestingly, the crew rejected Klass's strained effort to
explain their sighting. (As I recall, one quaintly said Klass
was "full of beans," an amazingly polite putdown under the
circumstances.) In typical Klass fashion, that's when the
character assassination started. He began to intimate that they
were shading the truth - get this - out of a desire to preserve
their status as "UFO celebrities," though there is no evidence
that the crew either sought such a dubious honor or exploited it
and no one except Klass has ever accused them of dishonesty. As
we have observed on this list, mere dissent from pelicanist
doctrine is seen as sufficient reason to cast aspersions on the
dissenter's character, motives, and honesty. Some things, alas,
never change.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:58:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:39:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:59:27 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Unidentified Flying Object = UFO. This means that an object is
 >in the air, flying or stationary and is not readily identifiable
 >such as an airplane, bird or conventional object. Nor is it
 >identifiable through astronomical means. I really could go on
 >and on with a definition, but we'll just stick with common sense
 >and common language. Unidentified means just that.

 >OK, I can go with this definition. I would have said that this
 >would better be described as a "UFO report", but OK.

I don't think this qualifies as a UFO report per say. Let's add
something to it such as "may or may not display unconventional
aerial movement(s)." By the way Bob, all of this agreeing or
coming close to agreeing between us is scaring me. ;-)

 >Actually, I would be very interested in seeing your video and
 >your explanation as to why you think these things are
 >unidentifiable. Is there any chance you could copy the two video
 >segments on a tape and send it to me. I'll be happy to reimburse
 >you for the postage and the tape. I can report to the List about
 >my review of the tape. The address is PO Box 371, Harrisburg PA
 >17108-0371.

Let me whirl off a copy and get it to you. Maybe you'll have
some insight into what's on the tape.

 >>Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >>announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >>early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >>second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >>U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >>The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >>ergo a UFO.

 >UFO, here, does not necessarily mean unknowable. You accept the
 >statement of the Government, here, but doubt the Government when
 >it doesn't support your wish for unkowns. This is really
 >inconsistent.

I never accused the government of anything nor have I at anytime
during this thread. This your assumption that since I am of the
opinion that UFOs exist that I must also believe the government
is hiding all knowledge of the entire universe in some secret
room or secret base. This goes back to the cultural assumption
that UFO equals aliens. Not everyone who believes in UFOs
believes there's a conspiracy.

 >Did it occur to you that glitches in radar are
 >something most air forces are not about to talk about? Do you
 >have a citation for these two government repots? There were a
 >lot of sightings during the flap in those years.

There was obvious no radar glitches here considering the radar
clearly shows to object dropping and there are records from the
jets of this incident as well. The Belgian military to this day,
and to my knowledge, still do not know what the object was. This
would then make it unidentified. Also, I don't think the pilots
chased a radar glitch for over, what, 40 minutes?

 >>How about the Iran UFO encounter in 1976. This is where Iran's
 >>topgun and another pilot went up in F-4 Phantoms against a UFO.
 >>When the pilots went to red to engage the object both the jets'
 >>weapons malfunctioned. The object sent out a smaller object to
 >>engage the jets and this smaller object literally flew circles
 >>around one jet while it was performing an evasive dive. This was
 >>seen by people in the air, on the ground and was recorded on
 >>radar. By the way, this information is from a U.S. government
 >>report - the last people who want to admit anything about UFOs -
 >_unidentified_ flying objects.

 >And what is your opinion about the investigation of this
 >incident conducted by avionics expert Philip J. Klass, who
 >tracked down an American technician responsible for maintenance
 >of the aircraft? This is the principal skeptical investigation
 >of that incident. While you and I are unlikely to be able to
 >personally investigate such an incident on the spot, we should
 >at least consider the information provided by those who have.

I agree that all info should be evaluated. But did Klass ever
fully explain what the pilots encountered? I don't think so.
Also, Klass is the guy who fell asleep during the MUFON
symposium in Seattle. Not too credible with me for a guy who
says there are no UFOs but can't stay awake long enough to hear
what someone has to say about them..... Again, this is another
unidentified craft. The Iran report from the U.S. came out of
GSW and CAUS' lawsuit for the CIA to release all its documents
on UFOs.

 >>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.

 >Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begind the trees, and
 >practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
 >friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

This is why the U.S. military deemed the objects as "unknown
entities." Again, unidentified. Why would the military send up
fighters to intercept Venus - I have a hard time believing that
Venus would cause all of this...

Also, not to question your friend's integrity, but it didn't
happen at one base and a number of guys that were at these bases
have gone on record in the past about this event.

 >>What about Dr.Sturrock and his panel of _scientists_ that stated
 >>UFOs were real in a press confernece last year?

 >No skeptical input was provided. The whole thing was loaded for
 >a pro-UFO result. Some participants, by the way, were unhappy
 >with the report and how it was handled.

If no skeptical input was involved with the review, then why
were several UFO cases that were presented to the panel
rejected? Why would Robert Bigelow waste thousands and thousands
of his dollars if there's nothing to the information. Bigelow's
a business man and wouldn't waste a dime on anything without it
having merit.

 >>Have you even taken the time to read his book, The UFO Enigma,
 >>in which he presents the _scientific_ findings of his committee?

 >I've read the on-line report.

 >>How about the Condon Report?

 >Read it long ago, and refer to it often. I now have my third
 >dog-eared copy. It's on-line now, by the way.

So then, the committee was wrong about McMinnville all these
years along with the rest of us suckers?

 >>UFOs do indeed exist.

 >Yes, but since only a tiny minority of UFO reports have been
 >competently examined by anybody, they will continue to exist, I
 >guess.

Then UFOs exist, period. And what exactly defines a competent
examination. It's just like the crop circle phenomena, everyone
wants to blame Doug and Dave but no one wants to look at the
evidence. While many may be hoaxed, there are several that are
not.

 >>Your turn to do some work. I can present all the data to you
 >>through this e-mail, but if you fail to actaully follow up on
 >>any of it, then your right to argue is forfeit by your own
 >>unwillingness.

 >Which tidbit do you want me to leave out? All of Condon, maybe,
 >or just Case 27, the Great Harrisburg UFO Flap, in which the
 >investigators had all-sky cameras operating continuously for 17
 >days during which 100 UFO reports came in but no UFOs showed up
 >on the pictures. Our local astronomy club also manned three
 >observing spots at the Colorado researchers' request. They
 >didn't see anything, either. I discovered the explanation for
 >many of the sightings, oh, two or three minutes after looking at
 >a topographic map of the area.

I'm not saying all UFO reports are anomalous, but there are
those that indeed are unidentified. I feel that I have proven my
case to you. Simply being able to turn a UFO into an IFO doesn't
make all UFOs IFOs. And someone simply not seeing a UFO for 17
days doesn't prove anything at all. UFOs aren't like meteor
showers, there's no time table for when they'll show up. Perhaps
the problem here for 'science' is that they do not readily have
access to one in a laboratory setting for study at their
convenience. But what got lost in all of this was my original
thought; How many UFO investigations had Jill Tarter completed
before drawing her conclusion about UFOs?

 >>You can choose whether or not to follow up and
 >>actually do some work by analyzing the data.

 >Well, we could start by you sending me your two videos which
 >you've looking into and the results of your investigation, and
 >I'll provide a report of my investigation into the 1967
 >Harrisburg flap, which was one of the cases in Condon.

I'll send you the videos. I'll pass on your report, thanks for
the offer anyway.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy - "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it...again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:46:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans]
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:27:50 -0600

[Note Jerry's _original_ header above, Andy - _not_ the
  UpDates --ebk]

Jerry wrote at some length.....

 >I had concluded some days ago that responding to you is only
 >encouraging you, so I beg the indulgence of all patient and
 >gentle listfolk. Something that you imply about a friend of
 >mine has set me off, and that's the only reason for this
 >post.

<snip>

 >And here is where, at last, you take us straight to the bottom
 >of the barrel. Exactly what do you mean by this last statement?

I meant exactly what I said. Which, if you'd like it put in a
different order, is that... anyone who sells UFO books and/or
makes money out of ufology has a duty not to sell unrpoven
delusions and nonsense to the public, I would have thought.

The 'big' (not scare quotes Jerry) names on this list have on
many occasions done just that. The touching belief held by -
certainly Stanton and Bruce M, (and I suspect yourself if you
could be honest and less evasive) that real, solid craft from
elesewhere or elsewhen (cf Bruce's email) are visitng earth
('often' according to Stanton) - is a baseless delusion. Yet
they have made money out of spreading that illusion.

 >Or is this the sort of dreary ad hominem someone who is losing
 >an argument

But Jerry, unlike the majority of your posts, which always seem
to include the 'key' phrases I listed several days ago - I am
not arguing. Responding to questions and giving my opnions is
not 'arguing'.

 >Is your point that because Jenny, for whom the more rational and
 >restrained among us have great respect, has made money on UFO
 >books (not all that much, I can tell you from personal
 >experience in the UFO book-writing business; in comparison,
 >authors of midlist literary novels are millionaires), she has
 >done us no good and deserves no respect?
 >Let me be blunt about it: your remark is despicable.

Yes, yes Jerry. I'm sure Jenny would be the first to agree that
she has, on occasion, published some right old tripe in her
books. I'm sure also that Jenny would agree that she has
published and added to the 'mysteriousness' of cases which have
subsequently been or are being resolved. I will happily provide
chapter and verse if you wish. Just because I have written a
book with Jenny and because I consider her a friend doesn't mean
she, like you, me or anyone else in the subject, is above
criticism.

 >among the most honorable and worthy individuals I have ever
 >known in this field, and her contributions to this field exceed
 >just about anybody's (I include here both yours and mine) in the
 >long history of this subject. And few have sacrificed as much as
 >she has in the interest of digging out the difficult and elusive
 >truths of this extraordinarily complex and elusive phenomenon.

Hope you've got oxygen for this trip up the moral high ground
Jerry!

 >If you still think "rock 'n' roll" still exists (in fact it was
 >essentially a product of the mid-50s to early 60s; I grew up
 >with it, recall it vividly, and know far more about it now than
 >I did then) and if you think that the posturing, soulless pop
 >music (rejected even by my kids) that you're hearing these days
 >is "rock 'n' roll", I think we know how seriously to take your
 >definition of "reality" - about as seriously, to be specific, as
 >your definition of "radical misperception."

Ho and indeed ho Jerry. If listers may alow me some further
indulgence I'd like to point out that the term rock'n'roll is
commonly used (certainly in the UK) by music afficianados to
describe particularly hot rock music. Having actually been a
music journalist and co-owner of a small record label, promoter
of gigs by 'famous people' and manager of bands, I think I can
lay some claim to knowing what I'm talking about here Jerry.
Again chapter and verse if you wish. In point of fact the band I
went to see play music written by the writers connected to
Grateful Dead sphere of music and are the very epitome of
rock'n'roll Jerry. And they _rocked_ last night.

Happy Trails

Andy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 44

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:42:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:51:44 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 44


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 44
November 2, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


GIANT UFO ABDUCTS TWO
PEOPLE IN NORTHERN CHILE

       On Thursday, October 19, 2000, at 7 p.m., teacher
Joan Rojas Moffett was chatting with some colleagues
in a second-floor classroom at the Escola San Francisco
(school) in Chiu-Chiu,  village in northern Chile about
40 kilometers (25 miles) from Calama, when he saw a
bright light in the dark sky.
       "It appeared in the northeast, split in two and then
lost itself in the south," Rojas said, "I thought, What the hell!?
but didn't comment on it to anyone until later in the evening
when everyone saw the object and heard the noise."
       That was the beginning.
       Three hours later, at 10 p.m., 35 adults,
members of the local branch of the General Center of Parents
and Attorneys (a kind of Chilean PTA--J.T.), were holding a
meeting at the school.  Twenty children were playing in the
schoolyard, waiting for the meeting to end.  They heard a weird
sound, and then the UFO appeared.
       "Students Rene Calpa Carranza and Walter Anza Vilca
stated that the object, which was predominantly white in color
with blue, red and yellow flashing lights" hovered above the
schoolyard.  "A number of the children also recalled 'a burning
odor.'"
       As the UFO hovered overhead, a panel slid open on the
underside of the craft, and a dazzling light beam stabbed
downward, bathing two people in its unearthly glow-.
       Struck by the beam were Sra. Fresia Vega, the school
custodian, and student Valentina Rojas Espinoza, age 8.
The pair instantly vanished.
       "According to Monica Espinoza Fernandez (the girl's
mother--J.T.), 'the children were outdoors and were the
witnesses, although not in the same way as Fresia and
Valentina, and they (the other children) called for the
meeting to end and the parents to come outside and see
for themselves what was taking place.  However, at this
precise moment, we heard an enormous blast, much louder
than the shattering of glass.  It was not an earthquake
or explosives or anything like that.  The meeting went was
ended, and everyone went outside for a look.'"
       The stunned adults saw "a spaceship that was hovering
no higher than 'a four-story building' (40 feet or 6 meters
above the schoolyard--J.T.)"  The eye-dazzling beam
then switched off, and the UFO zoomed away "to the
south and disappeared as it reached the Chiu-Chiu cemetery."
       Fresia Vega and Valentina Espinoza were found, dazed
and shivering, a short distance away.
       In an interview with the newspaper El Mercurio de Calama,
Fresia Vega said, "It was a very large ship, about the size of
a soccer field, surrounded by lights of every imaginable color.
In the middle of it there was a door from which there came a light
that blinded me and left me paralyzed.  I felt myself being
sucked in through the door, and I felt a tingling sensation
all over my body.  Voices became far, far away, and I froze.
That's when I realized I must have passed out because I
remember nothing at all.  I then felt the door was being shut
with a sound like that or iron, and the shop looked like it was
surrounded by light.  Twenty-four hours have gone by, and
I still haven't recovered from it."
       "Much like the custodian," Valentina Rojas Expinoza
said, "I felt cold, and my blood froze.  I was very scared, and
I hid behind Fresia, but then I looked up and everything was
clear, as when day breaks.  I would speak to Sra. Fresia
but she didn't answer me.  She couldn't speak, and it was as
if she had gone away.  I was very scared."
       There is an intriguing time discrepancy in the accounts
of the eyewitnesses.  Both Fresia and Valentina reported being "in
the light for two or three minutes."  But the children in the
schoolyard said they were "gone for two or three seconds."
       Monica Espinoza Fernandez, who was still
inside the school, reported, "I felt nothing, but my daughter
(Valentina) who was with the children and suddenly came in to
tell me.  I paid her no mind until I saw that Fresia was
frightened."
       UFO reports poured into the
regional office of the Carabineros (Chile's national police--J.T.)
from all over El Loa province, also known as the Second
Region.
       "Parmedic Enrique Alvarez said, 'My colleagues in
Ayquina and Caspana also saw the object.'"
       Earlier, at 7 p.m., "a veritable flood of sightings took place
in the towns of El Loa province, particularly in Calama,
Chuquicamata and the towns bordering Argentina," such as
San Pablo de Atacama.
       "In Calama and Chuquicamata, there was a single sighting
at 10 p.m. of a spacecraft the size of a soccer field that
filled the area with light and turned night into day."
        "In Caspana, in the foothills of the Cordillera, a witness
suffered a nervous breakdown after seeing the craft."
       ""Eyewitness accounts forced the Carabineros to open
an investigation which is being conducted with great
secrecy.  But there are police officers who were in the
middle of their rounds who had seen the lights."  (See the
Chilean newspapers El Mercurio of Valparaiso for
October 22, 2000, "UFO causes commotion in the
northern region;"  El Mercurio de Calama for October 21,
2000, "School custodian beamed up by a huge spaceship;" and
La Estrella del Loa for October 21, 2000, "Massive UFO
sightings on the Loa River."  Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries
y Forbidden Mexico, a y tambien a Dr. Virgilio Sanchez
Ojedo y Lilliana Torres para esos articulos de diario.)
(Editor's Note:  Calama is where three Chupacabras
were reportedly captured by the Chilean army earlier
this year.  See UFO Roundup, volume 5, number 23,
"Chileans say NASA took custody of captured
Chupacabras," page 1.)

UK TEACHER TRAINEE SPOTS
TEARDROP-SHAPED UFO

       On Tuesday, October 24, 2000, teacher trainee
Jenny Cook, 18, of Osbourne Road, Hartlepool, UK
"looked out her car window and watched as an object
made of metal fell from the sky."
       "The Hartlepool teenager was an eyewitness to a
drama yesterday (October 24) when a five-foot
(1.6 meter) piece of silver metal was spotted
plunging to earth."
       "Jenny was waiting in her car for a friend yesterday
morning when the mystery object fell to ground near
houses in Sunderland."
       "Sunderland University student Jenny said, 'I was
just looking out my car window, not staring into space,
and I saw what looked like a teardrop-shaped piece of
silver metal falling from the sky.'"
       "The 18-year-old teacher trainee added, 'It almost
looked like a piece of blown glass, but it was about the
size of a small car.  I thought it might have been a small
model plane, but it was larger than that.'"
       "'It was coming down from the sky to the left of me
really, really fast and was burning white-hot at the tip.  I
seemed to be watching it for four or five seconds before
it disappeared behind the building.  This was not an aeroplane
or anything like that.'"
       "Jenny added, "I think it might have been something
that had fallen from an aeroplane or something like that, but I
really don't know what it was.'"
       "Inspector Pat MacDonald of the Hartlepool Police said
they were investigating the report of an object falling from
the sky in the Hendon area."
       Inspector MacDonald said, "Officers were sent out to
make enquiries and to make a search of the area, but nothing
was found.  The investigation is continuing."  (See the
Hartlepool Mail for October 25, 2000, "Is it a bird? Is it a
plane?  No, it's a UFO!"  Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for
this newspaper article.)

KANSAS FARMER FINDS
ROCKET DEBRIS IN FIELD

       "Locals report mysterious sightings, streaks of bright
lights and plumes of smoke zooming through the sky."
       "A central Kansas farmer finds flattened and charred
chunks of debris."
       "This isn't science fiction."
       "Paul Wereb, an adjunct faculty member at Butler and
Cowley Community College says Rush County farmer Craig
Nixon found fragments of a Russian rocket."
       On Friday, October 13, 2000, a spectacular fireball was
seen by thousands of people in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
and Nebraska.  There were initially reports of "a UFO
crash" in Hammond, Oklahoma.  But last week NASA
said the fireball was caused by a Russian Proton rocket
burning up on re-entry.
       "Wereb, who is also a space science educator, at the
Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson,"
a city on Highway 50 about 60 miles (100 kilometers)
northwest of Wichita, "was called on to identify the space junk."
       "Nixon said he saw the pieces in the sky but didn't
have any idea where they fell until days later."
       "'I was out fixing fence and stumbled across it,' he
said, 'It was in a place you couldn't drive with the pickup.'"
       "Nixon said the charred fragments caught his attention
because they looked so unusual."
       "'It didn't look like it should be there,' he said, 'I thought
it might have been part of what flew over.  That was the
first thing that crossed my mind.'"
       "Nixon called Rush County Sheriff Jack Mendenhall,
who had seen the sky light up (October 13) while at a high
school football game in LaCrosse (population 1,450)."
       "'Everybody in the stadium saw it,' Mendenhall said
of the phenomenon that lit up the sky.  'Pieces of it
flared off the sides like a Roman candle.'"
       "Mendenhall thought it was an aircraft dropping flares,
but as it passed overhead, he saw a big smoke trail."
       "After Mendenhall got Nixon's call, he shipped the
sample to Wereb, who had identified many meteorites,
and to astronomy teacher Rob Kuhn, director of the
McConnell Air Force Base branch of Butler and
Cowley County Community College."
       "Wereb said the largest piece measured a foot
and a half(18 inches or 45 centimeters--J.T.)  and
eight inches (20 centimeters) wide.  A second piece was
10 inches (25 centimeters) long and six inches (15
centimeters) wide.  Numerous small fragments were
scattered on the ground."  (See the New York Daily News
for October 25, 2000,  "Farmer finds space junk."
Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. and George A. Filer
for this newspaper article.)

CHENEY MAKES SURPRISE
RETURN TO ROSWELL

       ""It was probably inevitable that Republican vice
presidential candidate Dick Cheney would have a close
encounter of the strange kind during a campaign stop
in Roswell," New Mexico.
       The city of Roswell is "the legendary site where
some say a spaceship crashed in (July) 1947.  So
when he arrived at the Chaves County courthouse for
a rally Wednesday," October 25, 2000, "he was greeted
by a sign that depicted a little green man with a heart
and the name 'Cheney'--as in 'Space Aliens Love
Cheney.'"
       "UFO cultists revere Roswell as the place where
they say a spaceship with a crew of five aliens crashed,
killing all the extraterrestrials.  The Army is said to have
covered up the event for all these years.  The TV series
The X-Files often has dealt with 'the Roswell incident.'"
       "(USA) Defense Department Area 51, a secret base,
is near Roswell.  Conspiracy theorists have long said that
the military has projects there relating to human-alien
relations."
       "Cheney, as Defense Secretary from 1989 to 1993,
was privy to Area 51's secrets, but he didn't reveal
them to the (Republican) partisan crowd of 2,500."
(See USA Today for October 26, 2000, "Cheney woods
'alienated' voters in Roswell," page 4A.)
(Editor's Comment:  I find it very interesting that Cheney
flew into Roswell just a day after the mysterious mass
death of 24 cattle in that community.  Was he on some
kind of clandestine mission for the Pentagon?  Fore more
on the mysterious cattle deaths, see UFO Roundup,
volume 5, number 43 for October 26, 2000,
Mysterious mass death of cattle in New Mexico,"
page 3.),

HOVERING UFO SEEN BY FIVE
NEAR SEDONA, ARIZONA

       On Friday, October 6, 2000, the male witness and
his family arrived at a cabin near Sedona, Arizona for
a week's vacation.  He re[ported, "As soon as I arrived,
at about 7:15 p.m., I was at my (car) trunk, removing
luggage, and looked to my right (west) and saw something
very bright in the sky, which got real large and small
again and repeated."
       "My brother, Mom, and her two friends also saw this.
It looked like it could be a plane but was two or three times
brighter and was low on the horizon."
       Until the family left on Friday, October 13, 2000,
"each night we looked for it, and while we were looking
at it, it was as if someone had flipped the switch to off,
but it would reappear in another location."
       "Through binoculars it appeared to be red on the
underside but didn't look like a craft."
       "When I got back, I was listening to the Whitley
Streiber show and some guy called and described
the same incident in Phoenix.  He said the same
thing--that he couldn't tell if it was a craft.  Did you
hear anything about this?"  (Many thanks to
George A. Filer of MUFON for this report.)

UFO PACES COUPLE'S CAR
ACROSS EASTERN TEXAS

       On Friday night, October 27, 2000, Awais M.
reports, "My girlfriend was driving to San Antonio to
pick me up when this unidentified object flew towards
her car.  At first the thing might have looked like a
plane, but after closer inspection, it seemed otherwise, and she
could not decipher (identify--J.T.) the object."
       "The unidentified object hovered and it came very
near her car.  It seemed like it was targeting her for
several seconds.  She wanted a closer look at it, but
driving made things difficult.  She also saw a white
light and red flashes along the side."
       "While we were coming back to Corpus Christi,
she saw it again and pointed the object out to me."
       He described the UFO as "stagnant
(stationary--J.T.) and hovering perfectly.  The object
seemed to follow us back to Corpus, and before
heading to my house I saw it up high."
       "The next day (October 28, 2000), I saw it again
and wondered what the origin was.  So I called the naval
station (U.S. Navy base in Corpus Christi--J.T.) and
not surprisingly, they had no idea what it was."
(Email Form Report)

MICHIGAN BOWHUNTER SEES
A FAST-MOVING UFO

       On Saturday, October 7, 2000, during the early
morning hours, the witness, a 16-year-old male student
at Howell High School, climbed into his hunting blind
in the woods off Layton Road between Howell and
Fowlersville, Michigan.  He had his bowhunting permit,
his compound bow and waited for the first whitetail
deer of the season to come into range.
       But while sitting quietly in the blind, located on a platform
about "15 to 20 feet above ground," the young man
"fell asleep in his blind.  Then something occurred just
after 4 a.m.  When he awoke, it was still dark.  The
weather was cold and overcast."
       "Suddenly, he became aware that a bright red light
of some size approached his position from the
northwest, heading in a southeasterly direction at
a very high speed.  He estimated that the object was
75 yards (225 feet or 70 meters--J.T.) away from his
location and was moving just above treetop level
(60 feet or 18 meters) and traveling at incredible
speed.  He said the object covered his entire field of
view in less than one second."
       "In estimating the size, he said the object
appeared to be the size of a half-dollar (USA 50-cent
coin--J.T.) at arm's length.  The object itself had a
bright red light in the center, and the light seemed to
diffuse to the edges of the object, as though it was a
translucent sphere of some kind."  (Many thanks to
Doug Parrish for this report.)

SCIENTISTS FIND FOUR NEW
MOONS ORBITING SATURN

       "Four new moons have been discovered in orbit
around Saturn, giving the giant planet a total of
22 moons, a group of astronomers announced Thursday,"
October 26, 2000.
       "A telescope device which amplifies light helped
the astronomers spot faint pinpoints of light in orbit off
Saturn," a gas giant with bright orbiting rings located
two billion miles (3.2 billion kilometers) from Earth,
"that is the second largest planet in our solar system."
       "If the discovery is confirmed by others, it will mean
that Saturn has one more moon than the 21 known to
orbit Uranus, the third largest planet in the solar system."
(Editor's Note:  Sunlight reaching Uranus is so dim
that standing on the planet's equator at high noon on
Midsummer Day, you would get as much light as standing
in a pitch-dark room with only a lit match for
illumination.)
       "The astronomers estimate that the new moons,
based on the amount of light they reflect (also known as
albedo--J.T.), are six to 30 miles (9 to 48 kilometers)
in diameter.  They are seen only as faint dots of light
moving around the planet."
       "The discovery team included Joseph Burns and Philip
Nicoison of Cornell University; Brett Gladman of the Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique in France; Jean-
Marie Petit and Hans Scholl of the Observatoire de la
Cote d'Azur in France; J.J. Kavelaars of McMaster
University in Canada and Brian Marsden of the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA."  (Many thanks to Steve Wilson
Sr. for this news release.)

IBIBATE: A MYSTERIOUS
PYRAMID IN BOLIVIA

       In the southeastern corner of Bolivia, a land-
locked nation in the middle of South America, lie
vast tracts of jungle called La Selva.  For years,
archaeologists have ignored the region, preferring to
concentrate their efforts in the Andes.  However,
recent developments have persuaded them to take
a second look, particularly at the region known as
the llanos de Mojo (Plains of Mojo).
       Instead of "just oppressive jungle, biting bugs
and primitive tribes," scientists now believe that
"much of scientific significance" lies "hidden under
the lush greenery."
       "We are now learning that some of these Amazon
(Basin) peoples were extraordinary earthmovers.  Having
little stone to work with, they matched the achievements
of the Incas in the (Andes) mountains just to the west
with many miles of earthen causeways.  Canals just as long
were dedicated to fish-farming.  Huge mounds rising above
the floodplains supported villages."
       "Even the mounds hold mysteries.  One of them,
named Ibibate, has been described by anthropologist
W. Baiee as being, 'as close to a Mayan pyramid as
you'll see in South America...Beneath the forest cover is
a 60-foot (18-meter) human-made artefact.'"
       "Ibibate is only one of many such mounds in the
Bolivian Amazon.  Called 'lomas,' they are obviously
quite distinct from any Mayan pyramid we know of.
Rather, the lomas are enormous islands of pottery
shards mixed with black soil.  Hundreds of these mounds
prove that a large population once occupied this region
of Bolivia called the Llanos de Mojos."
       "Anthropologist C.L. Erickspon and a team from
the University of Pennsylvania have discovered that the
Llanos de Mojos once supported a Precolumbian
complex of societies linked together by networks of
communication, trade and alliances."
       "Erickson asserts that these cultures erected
'thousands of linear kilometers of artificial
earthen causeways and canals...large urban
settlements and intensive farming systems.'"
       "Indeed, aerial photographs of this immense
region show patterns of canals and causeways that
stretch from horizon to horizon.  This is truly a
remarkable, if virtually unexplored region of ancient
human endeavour."  (See Science Frontiers #132
for November-December 2000, "Earthmovers of the
Amazon," page 1.  Many thanks to William R.
Corliss for this news story.)

from the UFO Files...

1886: LUMINOUS UFO APPEARS
            IN VENEZUELA

       One of the strangest UFO incidents of the Nineteenth
Century--a true Close Encounter of the Second Kind--took
place on the shores of Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela back
in October of 1886.
       Here is the text of the actual report Warner Cowgill,
USA Consul in Maracaibo, to the magazine Scientific
American.
       "During the night of the 24th of October last
(1886), which was rainy and tempestuous, a family of
nine persons, sleeping in a hut a few leagues from
Maracaibo, were awakened by a loud humming noise
and a vivid, dazzling light which brilliantly illuminated
the interior of the house."
       "The occupants, completely terror-stricken, and
believing, as they relate, that the end of the world
had come, threw themselves on their knees and
commenced to pray, but their devotions were almost
immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and
extensive swellings commenced to appear in the
upper part of their bodies, this being particularly
noticeable about the face and lips."
       "It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not
accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was
a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell."
       "The next morning (October 25, 1886) the swellings
had subsided, leaving upon the face and body large
black blotches.  No special pain was felt until the ninth
day (November 1, 1886_ when the skin peeled off and
these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores."
       "The hair of the head fell off upon the side which
happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred,
the same side of the body being, in all nine cases, the
more seriously injured."
       "The remarkable part of the occurrence is that the
house was uninjured, all the doors and windows being
closed at the time."
       "No trace of lightning could afterward be observed in
any part of the building, and all the sufferers unite in
saying that there was no detonation, but only the loud
humming already mentioned."
       "Another curious attendant circumstance is that
the trees around the house showed no signs of injury
until the ninth day, when they suddenly withered,
almost simultaneously with the development of the
sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house."
       "This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is
remarkable that the same susceptibility to electrical
effects, with the same lapse of time, should be observed
in both animal and vegetable organisms."
       "I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of
the hospitals of this city and although their appearance is
truly horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the
injuries prove fatal."
(See Scientific American volume 55, page 389 for 1886,
"Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela" by Warner Cowgill.
Reprinted in Strange Phenomena, Volume I by
William R. Corliss, The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm,
Maryland, 1974.)
(Editor's Comment:  We know a lot more about radiation
today than we did in 1886.  It almost sounds like a
miniature neutron bomb, doesn't it?)

       Readers in the USA, don't forget to vote in the
election next Tuesday.  At stake is the big prize--
the Oval Office itself.  It's the Republicans versus the
Democrats...Texas governor George W. Bush versus
USA Vice President Al Gore...or, as some put, "The
Texecutioner" versus "The Great Prevaricator."

       Join us again next week for more UFO and paranormal
news from around the planet Earth, brought to you by
"the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup."  See
you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2000 by Masinaigan
Productions, all rights reserved.  Readers may post
news items from UFO Roundup on their websites or
in newsgroups provided that they credit the newsletter
and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

             Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:57:16 -0500
Subject: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

UFO Research List - http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/

From: SHnSASSY1@aol.com
Mailing-List: list RealUFOs@egroups.com
Subject: [RealUFOs] Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_102803.html

Alien abduction hypnotisers deny planting subliminal ads

A US firm that promises to hypnotise people to make them think
they have been abduted by aliens has been accused of planting
subliminal adverts in their customer's minds at the same time.

Alien Abductions Inc promises to provide "personalised,
realistic memories of the alien abduction that you have been
waiting for your entire life".

But its team of '"doctors, hypnotists and memory implant technicians" have
been accused of implanting paid-for adverts for companies.

Abductees are then said to be magnetically drawn to use the
advertised products thanks to the subliminal messages implanted
in their brains.

Adverts implanted are said to include two for firms who sponsor
AAI's website.

The company is denying "advertising implantation" for profit but
admits it has implanted certain ads that "increase the
effectiveness" of the experience.

"We have implanted customers with the desire to visit the Bug
Jar (in Rochester, NY) not because of any monetary arrangement,
but because as "Your Bar on Earth," the atmosphere at the Bug
Jar works to enhance the Abduction Experience," the firm says on
its website.

"Likewise, the compulsion to seek out and promote the work of
certain design firms, such as Bullet Graphics (also of
Rochester), is implanted because these firms incorporate special
"trigger images" into their work."

AAI offers personally customized abductions, including
"interspecies breeding," medical experimentation and alien sex
fantasies.

A statement from the company says: "Making people believe that
they've been abducted by aliens is more than just a business to
us ... it's our way of giving something back to the world."

It says: "Thousands of individuals are abducted by
extraterrestrial beings each year" and goes on to add: "So why
wait?"

Last updated: 15:46 Wednesday 1st November 2000.


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder

http://www.oklahomasky.com
IRC Undernet #horizons
ICQ #7524076








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                      Credible Witnesses/Investigators?

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:23:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:01:10 -0500
Subject: Credible Witnesses/Investigators?


Hi,

Further to the on-going, if distasteful to some, discussion
about witness and/or investigator credibility, I'd like to give
information culled from an article in Wednesday's Independent
(UK newspaper).

The article, titled:

Lie Detector Test To Uncover False Rape Allegations

dealt with the somewhat-more-serious-than-saucers subject of
rape. And it made three very significant points all of which
have implications for ufology.

* Between 10 and 41 percent of rape allegations are made up by
the victim

* The research indicated that '...police officers who rely on
their detective skills and intuition when examining a statement
made by an alleged rape victim are no better than a member of
the public at idetifying a genuine complainant from a false
one.'

* A new interviewing technique, know as Statement Vailidy
Analysis has increased the success rate in identifying genuine
rape cases to between 72 and 100 percent.

Forget for a moment the emotive subject the article deals with
and reflect on what it says about witnesses and investigators.

Police departments go to far greater lengths to investigate rape
cases and to catch rapists, than ufologists do to investigate
UFOs. If they are coming up against a large body of fabricated
complaints and (if this research is genuine) their usual
detective skills are far from adequate - what does that tell us
about UFO witnesses and UFO investigators?

The research was drawn from an article in the Legal and
Criminological Psychology Journal, which may be worth checking
out. Of the new interview techniqe the study notes:

'SVA is not intended to replace the detective but it can be used
as a significant aid in the assessment of complex and emotional
victim and witness testimony.'

Sounds as though it should be in every ufologists' tool box and
I'll be trying to track it down.

Happy Trails

Andy










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 2

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:26:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:03:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:39:47 -0000


James Easton

I haven't read all what you have written but advise you to take
that picture off your website immediately. Anything on the
NOTW's pages is copyright and that picture is in the book which
has not yet been published. You have no right to lift things and
publish them on your site without permission, for which you
would not get.

I shall inform my publishers immediately

The old material you have quoted (cut and pasted) is very
outdated and before I began researching the case in earnest, so
it's old news.

Best thing for you to do is read the book, you might learn
something.

Meanwhile, please remove that picture without delay.

Georgina Bruni







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                 Jeff Rense on Mr. Wiesenthal's 'Hate List'

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:36:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:56:10 -0500
Subject: Jeff Rense on Mr. Wiesenthal's 'Hate List'


Regarding: http://www.sightings.com/general5/wies.htm

As regards this unfortunate, ill advised, and ignorant turn of
events, Mr. Rense,I would assume that this is an error on an
honored Mr. Wiesenthal's part, that he's acting on some bad
advice, or that he has not taken time to familiarize himself
with your total content.

You regularly publish (from both sides of the aisle, as I can
personally attest) dicey stories that are not heard anywhere
else. Don't be wounded by this unfortunate splatter of otherwise
useful paint. I'm sure it is a tragic mistake; you have a
balance that you are not being given credit for. You are a
credible venue in an incredible field of twitchy subject matter,
and should not have to bear this kind of accusation.

I'll bet that your site is soon removed from that list, but have
written Mr. Wiesenthal, regardless, to precipitate that
eventuality.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.com
                  **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at a
skepti-feebroid 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                 Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:21:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:58:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Strickland


 >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:45:49 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation'


Dear Listers, Fran and Gary,

Fran wrote:

 >How could an abductee or someone who has perceived himself to
 >be one, assimilate the events into their everyday lives without
 >assistance?

I read that and thought to myself, "Well, how do you do it? How
well do you think you've fared through the years, Sue?" About
average, maybe a little above.

First of all, Fran and Gary, the events and experiences become
like so many jars of canned food on the back shelves of your
mind. So, you only think about those "cans" when and if
something triggers the memories. That's how I've managed to
function on an everyday basis. It's _not_ terribly effective,
and I would have liked to have been able to pull some of those
jars off the shelf with the help of an competent, dedicated
hynotherapist, psychologist or psychiatrist.

When I have ventured into the "storeroom" with either a
psychologist or psychiatrist (3 different docs), they seem to be
so overwhelmed, their own minds can't fathom the enormity of
what they see in those "cans." So, like most "normal" people,
they distance themselves quickly, rationalize that I have
somehow drawn them into a psychotic episode, or some such
nonsense, and begin to laugh at themselves for being so easily
manipulated. Meanwhile, I'm still back in the storeroom and
_feel_ and sometimes _hear_ the barely-controlled laughter of
the so-called professional standing outside, while I'm still
standing looking at what's in those "cans." I feel more alone
than ever. If that's the only kind of help MHPs can offer,
thanks but no thanks! I can almost hear y'all..."Been there,
done that!" in agreement.

It's easy to be glib about what and how MHPs should act and
respond. Put them _even_ close to the experiences and they can't
handle it. They remain curious, but hope to find some mentally
anamolous link to which they can logically and rationally
explain away what they have just heard and secondarily
experienced, both for their client and for themselves. And, they
are noticeabily relieved when they ask the client in the
following session if they've had any more "visits," and the
client lies and responds, "No." Then the MHP wonders why after a
few more sessions, the client suddendly decides to end the
"therapy."

We are _really_ tired of such people, Fran and Gary. Really
tired. None of _us_ have the answers, so why do we expect the
MHPs to have any? We don't. We just want someone to listen and
not laugh. Is that too much to ask?

I, for one, manage to cope on an everyday basis pretty well. Not
much scares us either anymore, at least not in this dimension.

Sincerely,

Sue







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                          Secrecy News -- 11/02/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:11:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:00:56 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/02/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 2, 2000

CONTROVERSY OVER "LEAK" STATUTE APPROACHES A CLIMAX

Opposition to the anti-"leak" statute -- and support for a veto
-- are mounting, as the November 4 deadline for a Presidential
decision approaches.  The pending legislation, approved by
Congress on October 12, would make it a felony to disclose any
information that the executive branch says is properly
classified.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) urged his colleagues to support a
veto at a press briefing yesterday.  "This bill attempts to
protect our national security in such broad and vague terms, and
without regard for the potential of rampant overclassification
of government information, that it will have profound effects on
the ability of an informed citizenry to keep our government
honest," he said.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/schumer.html

The Chicago Tribune editorial board added its voice to the
national chorus this morning:  "Making this measure law clearly
threatens to protect government errors and misdeeds by keeping
the public ignorant. It deserves a veto."  See:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/article/0,2669,SAV-00
11020252,FF.html

"This is a bizarre moment," writes Lars Erik Nelson in the New
York Daily News. "Ten years after the end of the Cold War, we
are about to enact Sovietstyle secrecy  laws. What is worse, we
are doing it with Sovietstyle legislation, drafted in secret,
with no public hearings."  See:


http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-8
6679.asp

The CIA should henceforth be known as the C.Y.A. (as in "cover
your ass"), writes columnist William Safire in the New York
Times.  The new law, he writes, is an "assault on free speech
under the phony cover of national security."  See:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/opinion/02SAFI.html

Independent-minded former director of central intelligence R.
James Woolsey spoke out against the leak statute in an interview
with Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder News Service.  "It seems
to me that it sweeps overly broadly," he said.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/kr110200.html

Ironically, Republican congressmen spoke out yesterday in praise
of the media's ability to report on classified activities in the
executive branch.  The topic was the dubious allegation that the
Vice President had secretly and improperly acquiesced in Russian
arms sales to Iran.

"While the Congress was working in good faith to stop
proliferation of technology to Iran, Vice President Al Gore was
allowing that technology to flow to Iran and never told the
Congress," complained Rep. Curt Weldon, somewhat inaccurately.
But he went on to add:  "Thank goodness we have a media that is
willing to stand up and expose this kind of action."

"We only found out about it 5 years later because a New York
Times writer got a copy of this memo and spread the story out on
the front page of the New York Times."

Under the new law, Rep. Weldon's remarks might be interpreted as
incitement to commit a felony.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/h110100.html

Washington Post cartoonist Herblock weighed in with an editorial
cartoon on the new secrecy bill, which should eventually be
posted here (look for the November 2 cartoon):


http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/herblock/herblock.htm

Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post reported
that the leak statute will be the subject of a White House
meeting today.  See:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60549-2000Nov1.ht
ml

The Post also alluded to an alternative proposal supported by
House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss that would
only criminalize disclosures of "sensitive compartmented
information" (i.e. intelligence information) rather than all
"classified information."

While this proposal would be much narrower in scope and effect,
it contains the same essential flaw as the present legislation:
It would endow the executive branch with unilateral authority to
define the boundaries of what information is protected by law.


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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:58:35 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:03:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young


 >From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:38:28 -0700

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600

<snip>

 >>Thank you, pelican science, for your many contributions to human
 >>enlightenment. We can now remain confident that everything that
 >>could be known is known and that all claims to the contrary can
 >>be easily disposed of. You have shown that no rational human
 >>being, on being made aware of the principles of pelican science,
 >>could possibly believe in what occultists disguised as
 >>scientists call "ball lightning."

 >Personally, in Montana, ball lightening happens quite a bit.
 >Been there, seen it, and I do not make a habit of lying.

 >In the summer, August 10, 1967, ball lightening went down the
 >middle of our street and took out a University of Southern
 >California vehicle. No problem. Several people saw it and we all
 >agreed on the perception. It was quite a thing to see.

 >Any others?

Jean, List:

My wife's uncle once described something similar to me. Lighting
had struck a power pole in front of his house and a ball of
light had bounced down the street. I once spoke to an airline
pilot who told me that after lighting had apparently struck the
nose of his aircraft, ball lighting had flouted back down the
isle and into the passenger area, where it disappeared.

The thing about ball lighting is that there are pictures of it
and there has been lots of work done on plasmas, which are the
best bet, I gather, for an explanation. Science has moved
forward on the matter of ball lightning in the last 50 years.

The other thing is that I don't recall anybody on this list
suggesting that witnesses of ball lightning are liars, other
than Jerry. I think that he may be worried that the matter of
the changing stories of the Coyne helicopter incident are now
out of control so he has decided to create a straw man to draw
our attention away, and has put words into its mouth.

Of course, this is all headed toward his nemesis, Philip J.
Klaus, who's first book on the subject, UFOs Identified,
focused on the ball lightning explanation. I think that old
uncle Phil started out like many of us when we first got into
this subject: we were naive about witness accuracy (not to
say truthfulness) and also often thought that we had found
_the one explanation for the UFO mystery. Most UFO
investigaters still think they've found The One answer: ETH.

Of course, back in the late 60s the alleged connection of UFO
reports with power lines, etc. (remember the power blackouts?)
was a hot topic. He mentioned the oft-repeated tale of UFOs
being reported above power lines. Of course, these UFOs,
including some astronomical objects, were seen in the skies, and
distant power lines tend to be close to the horizon.

Klass's later books take a much more realistic view of witness
reliability, due most likely to his later experiences, I
imagine, investigating UFOs. Anybody who has investigated real
UFO sightings develops as healthy respect for the vagaries of
witness accounts.

To get back to the subject of fireballs, as in th Coyne case:
Astronomer Frank Drake tried to track down reports of fireballs
to try to recover meteorites back in the early 60s when he was
at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. He
wrote of this in his paper, "On the Abilities and Limitations of
Witnesses of UFO's and Similar Phenomena", in UFO's A Scientific
Debate, Edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, Norton, 1972, p.
254.

He reported, "The first fact we learned was that a witness's
memory of such exotic events fades very quickly. After one day,
about half the reports are clearly erroneous; after two days,
about three quarters are clearly erroneous; after four days,
only ten percent are good; after five days, people report more
imagination than truth."

Doesn't mean that people are necessarily lying, only that they
are human, like the rest of us.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                  Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:45:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:06:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada -  Balaskas


 >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:58:46 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 >>From: Brian Mundy <mundy-b@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:48:57 -0800

<snip>

 >>I don't know where Quinte is, but Monday night a friend and I
 >>were about halfway to Ottawa,coming from Brockville, when we saw
 >>4 bright stationary lights high in the air.

 >>It was twilight, and one of the lights, a slightly smaller one,
 >>turned out to be a plane.

<snip>

 >Be advised that sometimes you will see aircraft that are on
 >"long final" for an airport, [in this case, perhaps, Ottawa]
 >with their landing lights on.

 >They might begin this approach with lights 50 or 100 miles back
 >from the AP. When they are sliding down the glideslope, they
 >appear to be fixed in the sky.

 >Some of these heavies are displaying half million candle power
 >lights, as much for high visibility in congested control zones
 >as for landing. I've witnessed more than a few of these myself.

 >It seems to take forever for them to get to you. When you are in
 >the air with them they are quite brilliant but much more evident
 >as to their identity. The brilliance of the landing lights quite
 >often will blank out their red,green and white navigation
 >lights/strobes.

 >Any chance that this is what you saw?

 >You have not provided much in the way of details. Colour of
 >lights, approx. distance, directiopn, duration of sighting etc.
 >I note that one of the lights turned out to be an aircraft, the
 >one which seemed to be fixed for a time in the sky then you saw
 >that it was a plane.

<snip>

Hi Don and Brian.

I agree with Don that distant aircraft approaching towards you
at night can be extremely bright and appear to be stationary
too, but this may not apply in this case since Brian said these
UFOs were "... stationary lights high in the air...". I also
agree with Don that unless more information is provided by
Brian, it may be impossible to come up with a likely prosaic
explanation and thus these unexplained lights will continue to
be thought of as UFOs.

A large number of the brightest stars are visible in this season
and at that time of Brian's UFO sighting so he may have simply
noticed a few of these very bright stars (some which are more
closely grouped together in one part of the sky than others).
Since Brian also said the lights were "... too big for
stars...", my guess would be that the lights he saw were the
exceptionally brighter planets Jupiter and Saturn which are also
now present in the sky. These planets, near some of these
brightest stars, combined with the curvatures of the highway
(Hwys 401 and 416?) in the Brockville to Ottawa area, may have
been responsible for this UFO report. Of course we will not know
for sure unless Brian can provide us with more information.
Completing one of our MUFON Ontario UFO sighting forms would be
a good start.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science -

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 2 Nov 2000 10:52:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:09:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science -


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600

 >Listfolk:

 >Recent developments in pelican science have opened up whole new
 >vistas to UFO research. Through its insights we are able to look
 >at old cases with new eyes.

 >Take, for example, the story told by LeRoy, Kansas, rancher Alex
 >Hamilton, who famously claimed that on the evening of April 19,
 >1897, he, his son, and a cowboy in his employ witnessed the
 >rustling of a calf by the otherworldly crew of a mysterious
 >airship.

 >In 1976 I investigated the case and secured the testimony of
 >a very old woman in a nursing home. She claimed that she
 >had been in the Hamilton household the day the elder Hamilton
 >came home and boasted to his wife about a story he and his
 >friends had made up concerning interplanetary livestock theft.
 >I also learned of an article in a 1943 issue of an obscure
 >Kansas weekly newspaper, in which the man who'd edited
 >the paper in which Hamilton's story first appeared claimed it
 >was a joke concocted by locals, who in the subsequent
 >printed account, and in the tradition of frontier tall-tale humor
 >(of which 1897 newspapers provide many other examples),
 >pretended to endorse the claim.

 >If there is one thing we have learned from our pelicanist
 >colleagues, it's that memory - even if measured in minutes,
 >even seconds - cannot be replied upon. Yet here we are being
 >asked to credit testimony offered 46 and 79 years after the fact
 >as something we ought to believe. We are also being asked to
 >believe that persons who know a witness have anything worthwhile
 >to tell us about that individual's honesty, and pelicanists have
 >already demonstrated that they don't.

Seriously (somber mood injected), witness memory is a problem.
Recognition memory seems to fair better than recall. When one
sees a face again, it stimulates recognition, but to recall the
details of your friend's face has its problems. Try to imagine a
friend or relative's face and write down details: hair color,
eye color, shape of nose, distinquishing marks and then compare
it to your real world view. Accuracy of recall will vary from
one individual to another so I am sure we can devise a short
test for short-term and long-term recall and then better judge
the testimony when taken. The higher percentage scored on such a
test would be weigh testimony higher and more reliable.
Psychological testing of this sort is already being done and may
be adapted for use by UFO investigators.

 >Therefore, I am sorry to have to report that when I published my
 >findings, which rushed to the clearly unjustified conclusion
 >that the story was a hoax, nearly all of my colleagues agreed
 >that Hamilton's story could no longer be taken seriously.

Seriously again, should we take Hamilton's story seriously? No,
I think what you originally found is the true case. Not my
ancestor.

 >It is clear that a great injustice has been done. Outside this
 >anecdotal testimony - and pelicanists have let us know just how
 >worthless that is - there is no reason to listen to undocumented
 >claims from old people testifying to an alleged event that
 >occurred many years earlier. Besides memory problems,
 >pelicanists have assured us that people lie all the time, and
 >for no reason. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these
 >latterday informants were not so much confused as consciously
 >dishonest.

 >Our pelicanist friends, who are nothing if not consistent and
 >even-handed, will, I am certain, join me in agreeing that the
 >Hamilton story is now very much an open question.

Are the pelicanists in flight yet?

Have you added this term to the Ufologist glossary?

Bill Hamilton
(returning to the list after 3 years)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

             Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:04:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:14:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600

 >Listfolk:

<snip>

 >If there is one thing we have learned from our pelicanist
 >colleagues, it's that memory - even if measured in minutes,
 >even seconds - cannot be replied upon. Yet here we are being
 >asked to credit testimony offered 46 and 79 years after the fact
 >as something we ought to believe. We are also being asked to
 >believe that persons who know a witness have anything worthwhile
 >to tell us about that individual's honesty, and pelicanists have
 >already demonstrated that they don't.

 >Therefore, I am sorry to have to report that when I published my
 >findings, which rushed to the clearly unjustified conclusion
 >that the story was a hoax, nearly all of my colleagues agreed
 >that Hamilton's story could no longer be taken seriously.

 >It is clear that a great injustice has been done. Outside this
 >anecdotal testimony - and pelicanists have let us know just how
 >worthless that is - there is no reason to listen to undocumented
 >claims from old people testifying to an alleged event that
 >occurred many years earlier. Besides memory problems,
 >pelicanists have assured us that people lie all the time, and
 >for no reason. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these
 >latterday informants were not so much confused as consciously
 >dishonest.

 >Our pelicanist friends, who are nothing if not consistent and
 >even-handed, will, I am certain, join me in agreeing that the
 >Hamilton story is now very much an open question.

 >Jerry Clark

Jerry, perhaps if you lay down in a dark room for a few hours it
would help. These increasingly febrile rants are getting me
worried.


--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:16:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:35 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans]
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:27:50 -0600

 >[Note Jerry's _original_ header above, Andy - _not_ the
 > UpDates --ebk]

 >Jerry wrote at some length.....

 >>I had concluded some days ago that responding to you is only
 >>encouraging you, so I beg the indulgence of all patient and
 >>gentle listfolk. Something that you imply about a friend of
 >>mine has set me off, and that's the only reason for this
 >>post.

 ><snip>

 >>And here is where, at last, you take us straight to the bottom
 >>of the barrel. Exactly what do you mean by this last statement?

 >I meant exactly what I said. Which, if you'd like it put in a
 >different order, is that... anyone who sells UFO books and/or
 >makes money out of ufology has a duty not to sell unrpoven
 >delusions and nonsense to the public, I would have thought.

 >The 'big' (not scare quotes Jerry) names on this list have on
 >many occasions done just that. The touching belief held by -
 >certainly Stanton and Bruce M, (and I suspect yourself if you
 >could be honest and less evasive) that real, solid craft from
 >elesewhere or elsewhen (cf Bruce's email) are visitng earth
 >('often' according to Stanton) - is a baseless delusion. Yet
 >they have made money out of spreading that illusion.

I hope that you feel better now. Apparently, your view is that
everybody who doesn't share your views is delusional and greedy.
A harsher critic than I might find this evidence of narcissism.
Being more charitable my nature, I'll just call it the sort of
extremism that makes you unable to imagine that somebody could
disagree with you and yet be rational and honest. I have no
question about your own honesty. Beyond that, the opinions you
express above are neither original nor interesting.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                    Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:19:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:24:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:24 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:32:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:05:28 -0600
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:03 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Bob,

<snip>

 >>Two weeks later, November 1, 1973, on the Dick Cavett TV show
 >>Coyne said that the whole incident took place "in about a
 >>minute's time."

<snip>

 >Jerry Clark

Hello Jerry, Bob, and List subscribers,

I don't want to jump in the middle of this thread that started
regarding Jill Tarter's ignorance of UFO evidence. That led into
a further thread concerning Bob Young's claims regarding a low
percentage of UFO cases that have not been resolved into IFOs. I
do want to throw in my comments regarding a couple of cases that
were mentioned and throw in an additional case. I have always
had a particular interest in the Coyne case, as at one time I
used to fly the same type of helicopter in the Army and I could
easily imagine myself in his position. All I can say is that in
every helicopter when the collective stick is up the helicopter
goes up, and when it is down the helicopter goes down. I don't
think Coyne was mistaken about the helicopter acting against
that principle. That is like forgetting that your car turns left
when the steering wheel turns left. Some other force was acting
on the helicopter to cause it to act against that principle of
pitch in the rotor blades. Bob, do you think Coyne was mistaken?

The Michalak case was also discussed. I'd like to know what
irregularities in the case have been proposed elsewhere. Other
than his sole testimony, I would like to hear how a debunker can
explain his burns. Bob, what do you think? Were they self
inflicted? How?

Another case that I am rather passionate about is the Cash -
Landrum incident. To my knowledge it has never been resolved and
is still a UFO, whether possibly from our military or anyone
else. That is a case not often mentioned on this list and was
not included in the recent 10 best cases. Bob, do you want to
propose any irregularities in that case? How do you propose they
received their horrible injuries?

I don't want to get myself involved in defending the above
cases. I would like to hear any evidence, not conjecture, that
would answer my questions.

Thanks,

Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:03:47 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re:  Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:49:28 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >>>Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.>

 >>Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >>of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >>many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >>astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >>concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >>"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >At Malmstrom Air Force Base an object that was seenhovering ove
 >a missile silo caused jets to be scrambled. Sabotage alert teams
 >phoned in the report of the objet and said it went dark as the
 >jets approached. Then it rose straight upwards and was tracked
 >by radar that lost it at 200,000 ft. As I recall the official
 >NORAD log called this an "unknown" (See 'Clear Intent' or other
 >references)

 >>>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >>Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begird the trees, and
 >>practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
 >>friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >>Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

 >I spoke to one of the guards many man years ago. He said the
 >object that he saw an orange glowing object over the base. In
 >the official documentation it was called a "helicopter" for lack
 >of a better term. Hahaha. The guy did not seem to be crazy as a
 >loon.

Hi, Bruce:

There were many sightings at Loring. Klass claimed that a
helicopter was being used in the area and that may have
accounted for some of the sightings.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:18:21 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:11:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:26:08 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:41:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >It's interesting that over the years assorted pelicanists
 >(including Philip J. Klass, who proposed a particularly
 >extraordinary form of it and was severely criticized by the
 >Condon Committee for the resulting pseudoscience) have tried to
 >"explain" UFOs as ball lightning, with - of course - no sense
 >of irony or shame whatever. Am I right in assuming that as a
 >believer in pelicanist principles, you reject the existence of
 >ball lightning?

Nope.

 >You're playing lawyer games here, Bob.

I didn't tell my cousin, a newspaper reporter, three days later
that the thing was seen for seconds, and then Dick Cavett, on
national TV two weeks later, that the entire incident lasted
about a minute, Jerry.

The pilot did that.

There does seem to be a distinct difference, here. I would be
very much interested in trying to reconcile the views of the pro
and con investigators of the incident, if it's possible.

Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                       Re: Military Abductions? - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:19:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:15:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Hart


 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:10:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >Which "government entity" are you referring to Gary? And what
 >are the activities that they are containing? What do you mean
 >by; "carefully contain other activity within active sightings
 >and anomaly areas." How does one "contain" an "active sighting?"
 >Maybe you just worded that poorly.

John,

Based on my own research: the agents' association is unknown.
All vehicles are unmarked, all agents have no obvious
identifying emblems but they do operate in historically cyclical
sightings areas.

Area activities seen by witnesses include sightings of craft or
craft/entity contact with area residents or other physical
objects. In other words, if entities are seen walking around,
agents go in to attempt to stop it.

 >>Abductees are assumed to be around each of the few hotspot
 >>areas we know of

 >Who has made that "assumption" Gary?

I have. It stands up in all the cases I actively work with. And
yes, it is strange. It often seems as if certain persons are
moved by the ETs to occupy anomaly areas were sightings are
commonly seen. Seems to be a clear strategic action on the part
of both ETs and group surveilling them.

 >>plus there is other strange activity, strange animals
 >>for example, that the gov't. attempts to hide in addition to
 >>monitoring through certain individuals.

 >The government is "hiding strange animals?" What kind of
 >"animals" are you referring to? What is the connection to the
 >"government?"

"Hiding" by shutting down activity by electronic means.

Monkeys, huge worms, bug-like creatures, large cat/dog
combinations are some examples. The agents try to stop activity
perhaps by closing dimensional doorways that can be keyed-open,
though I admit this is only educated supposition based on
observations of a range of unusual phenomena that is similar,
the same really, at each location.

 >>The monitoring is for recovery of individual experiences and
 >>possible contact with the "other" activity so that it can be
 >>contained.

 >How do you know this Gary?

The stated logic fits the observed conditions.

 >>Abductees in these types of situations are usually
 >>only partially aware of the scope of the monitoring.

 >And just what _is_ the "scope" of this government monitoring?

Witnesses are not familiar with concepts of electromagnetic
monitoring of areas so when they see helicopters the just see
helicopters but I assume that monitoring of area activity is
taking place if helicopters are seen with extended booms, for
instance, or that anomalous fields are being produced by the
helicopter itself if a person takes a picture of it and light is
bent to instead make a picture of the person's feet.


 >>This type of case is rare but the most significant of all cases.

 >More significant than a case reporting contact with intelligent
 >extraterrestrial life forms?

 >John Velez, Student of Life

These are all start as UFO cases of a particular type. All life
forms we are studying are either extraterrestrial or
inter-dimensional though we do not know where to draw a line to
separate one from the other.

Gary









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:23:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:20:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Randles


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:35 -0000

 >Yes, yes Jerry. I'm sure Jenny would be the first to agree that
 >she has, on occasion, published some right old tripe in her
 >books. I'm sure also that Jenny would agree that she has
 >published and added to the 'mysteriousness' of cases which have
 >subsequently been or are being resolved. I will happily provide
 >chapter and verse if you wish. Just because I have written a
 >book with Jenny and because I consider her a friend doesn't mean
 >she, like you, me or anyone else in the subject, is above
 >criticism.


Hi,

Oooh, bet you knew I'd jump in here!

Seriously, I'd probably quibble with the word tripe - but I
guess its a question of one Yorkshireman's tripe is a Bury black
pudding across the other side of the Pennines (don't worry if
you didn't understand that - 99% of British Listers who live
'down south' won't either - just think 'war of the roses' and
realise Andy is from Yorkshire and I was born in Lancashire).

Yes, there are undoubtedly various things in 46 books where I
have speculated a bit wildly and some things where I got facts
wrong. I recall in 'Pennine UFO mystery' for instance doing a
simple sum wrong and spending a couple of pages twittering on
about some daft idea I created around George Adamski based on
that.

If that's what Andy means he's right, of course. As to 'adding
to the mysteriousness of cases' - what I guess he means here is
that I consider some cases less solved than he does.

And, of course, its inevitably true that some cases get resolved
as time goes by and once we might have thought that they would
not become IFOs. The trick is to own up when they do and move on
accordingly. Ufology is after all about solving cases. That's
what most cases are in the long run - solved (or on the way to
being solved - even if that process takes anything from five
minutes to 50 years).

The difference of opinion comes as and when you argue that
because many cases have been resolved - even some that looked
for a long time very promising - all cases must thus fall in due
course if one offers greater expenditure of effort. Or if on the
other hand, as I do, you legitimately argue that some UFOs may
not fall because they represent real anomalies.

Andy's debate about misperception and the trend visible in the
evidence right now for seemingly high quality cases to be
diminishing in value is indeed relevant. It should not be run
away from. But there are also good grounds to believe that there
is a difference between solved cases and some of the unsolved
cases that infer there is a real UFO mystery.

Research such as the work by Battelle comparing solved and
unsolved cases parameter for parameter (indicating clear
statistical differences) and the GEPAN study of how IFOs
increase as atmospheric clarity decreases, whereas UFOs increase
as atmospheric clarity increases are keys to this IMO since they
do not support the null UFOs / all IFOs theory.

But, again, yes, there are instances where cases that I once
took seriously and wrote about (like Williamette Pass) have
since been found wanting and you learn from this and try to
apply the lessons to the next case.

But whilst you do not fail to consider the consequences (and one
of these is - of course - the possibility that all cases may one
day fail) - I don't think it is irresponsible to work on the
premise that the UFO mystery is thus defeated.

You certainly must accept that no case - no matter how grand it
seems - is unimpeachable. All may potentially fall, even if
right now they seem rock solid UFOs. But I think you have to
temper that with a realistic expectation that some cases may
never fall because they are genuine anomalies.

After all to think that we know everything about the universe,
or even our own environment, is a brand of arrogance to which
skeptics are uniquely prone. Science teaches that we often think
we have no surprises to come - usually the day before the next
big surprise comes knocking at your door. In that respect, I
often think, it is more objective to suspect that Ufology may
hide new anomalies than it is to assume it reflects nothing.

I don't think any writer on a subject as complex and contentious
as Ufology is ever going to be right even most of the time (and
that applies to skeptics too!) - but the test is really whether
they 'try' to get it right and if - when they do get it wrong -
they own up, tell their public and move onto the next level as a
better ufologist having had this experience.

I would say Andy's comments properly apply to any UFO writers -
if he thinks there are some - who wilfully misrepresent the
facts, knowing that they are wrong and yet believing that to
present them in a more sensational manner will win the kudos and
dollars.

Is he implying there are some of those on this list?

But that's a whole different matter to any UFO writer who
honestly presents the facts as they understand them,
legitimately argues around ideas they consider plausible and are
worth debating and does not try to impose bogus realities or
manipulate their audience with in effect a deception.

We can all have different perspectives on the evidence and
attack cases in whatever way we chose. Ufology is the richer
from our not being a choir of unified voices all singing the
same note - for we learn more by assessing such tones of
opinion.

However, whilst I guess it is possible that some people are in
this field for suspect reasons and use it as a stepping stone to
fame and fortune despite knowing that the sermons they preach
are bogus, I have to say in my experience most ufologists are
not like that. Many are misguided. Quite a few are in my view
wrong to believe what they do. But most are sincere. And that's
the only thing we can reasonably expect of our colleagues...
Along, of course, with some modicum of desire to investigate
with the quest for answers (even unpalatable ones that differ
with their personal beliefs) uppermost in mind.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:24:09 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:21:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:24 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:32:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:05:28 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Clark

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:58:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Bob,

<snip>

 >A full bibliography of documents relating to the case, including
 >Klass/Zeidman's early debate in Fate, appears on page 257 of the
 >second edition of my encyclopedia. Zeidman's final statement,
 >after years of work on the case, appears in the 1989 MUFON
 >symposium proceedings.

Jerry:

Thanks for this info.  I'll see if I can locate this stuff.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sawyer

From: Tom Sawyer <ThSawyer@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:47:15 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:24:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sawyer


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Credible Witnesses/Investigators?
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:23:26 -0000

Regarding Statement Validity Analysis, Andy Roberts wrote, in
part:

 >Sounds as though it should be in every ufologists' tool box and
 >I'll be trying to track it down.

Well, Kevin Randle discusses it on his web site, in "The Randle
Report," in the course of an essay discussing the Jim Ragsdale
"testimony" in the Roswell case. In the same essay, he mentions
a technique called "Fact Pattern Analysis."

Tom Sawyer









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:11:19 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:27:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:26:58 -0000

 >I haven't read all what you have written but advise you to take
 >that picture off your website immediately.

Tizzy not...

As you know, on receipt of a personal copy of your request, the
'offending' item was unavailable.

It's a pity you would object to research material being shared.

If I hadn't made know the existence of those fundamental,
original witness testimonies - documenting the inaugural 'UFO'
excitement and subsequent pursuit of a "lighthouse" - then
obviously, we would never had realised what truly occurred, or
understood this 'UFO' case. And what would have become of your
book...

When the contents of those documents were revealed, I
intentionally excluded Halt's hand-written comments, which I
realised were obviously personal and also as they were not
entirely complimentary assessments of those involved that first
night.

Ufological banter is one thing, inherent to the subject and its
adherence to beliefs in all manner of nonsense being evidence
that ET is here, demonstrably masquerading as birds or driving
large rear-view mirrors, etc. However, this should duly 'halt'
when more earthly and practical issues are encountered, for
example, Halt noting on one of the statements that the person
had a 'drink problem'.

I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for publicising
something like this, especially in a book, and dread to think
what the person in question and his family might resultantly
endure if I did.

And all justified because a 'UFO' tale was supposedly proof of
an absurd 'cover up'?

That's grim.

As you have published the witness statements inclusive of Halt's
personal comments, were either Halt, or the UFO group which
provided you with copies, in accordance with this?

You did ask...?

Incidentally, I would have thought any 'copyright' concerns
should be more about additional material published in your book.

 >Best thing for you to do is read the book, you might learn
 >something.

If I wasn't aware of the contents, I wouldn't have commented on
your extraordinary, bizarre and contradictory claims.

Suffice to say that contrary to proclamations, notably from Nick
'what cover up?' Pope, there is _absolutely_nothing_ contained
in your book which alters the fact those original statements
confirm the abortive lighthouse chase.

Nor is there any refutation that Burroughs subsequently
explained how only 'strange lights' were seen and indisputably
not a 'craft', which is also, significantly, what Halt confirms.

The 'real proof' you claim exists, you acknowledge being unable
to obtain and realistically, given the facts which had already
been unravelled about 'Rendlesham', there was little, if any,
possibility you would be able to find some meaningful evidence
otherwise.

However, well done on locating Ed Cabansag, although it's
disappointing that given his potentially pivotal contribution,
so many obvious questions still remain unanswered, or perhaps
weren't asked.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:13:50 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:30:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Randle


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Credible Witnesses/Investigators?
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:23:26 -0000


Good Evening -

 >SVA is not intended to replace the detective but it can be used
 >as a significant aid in the assessment of complex and emotional
 >victim and witness testimony.'

 >Sounds as though it should be in every ufologists' tool box and
 >I'll be trying to track it down.

Ah, at last something that I can use to promote 'The Roswell
Encyclopedia'. I have an entry about it in the book.

And now, to prove that I have lousy marketing sense, here is the
entry:

SVA is an established method in forensic psychology for
evaluating the credibility of witness reports. It is a
systematic procedure for assessing the credibility of memory
reports and has been used for decades in Germany. SVA consists
of a criteria- based content analysis (CBCA). An analysis is
made of the verbal report. Nineteen CBCA criteria have been
proposed to reflect the qualitative and quantitative differences
between credible reports and fabrications.

Tests of CBCA have produced positive results. In a study in
which forty child abuse statements were analyzed, twenty
confirmed by admissions of guilt or corroborating physical
evidence and twenty considered doubtful, CBCA differentiated
between the two groups. The results of the test have been
challenged by some, suggesting the single-rater method precludes
any firm conclusions about the validity. The psychological
literature does provide limited support for the SVA technique in
analyzing the credibility of verbal reports.

I will note here that the SVA and CBCA methods have been applied
to a single Roswell witness, Jim Ragsdale. Specifically it was
used to evaluate the second of the Ragsdale stories, that is,
the one told to Max Littell of the International UFO Museum.
According to the results of the tests, and a fact pattern
analysis, Ragsdale's second story was either a fabrication or a
false memory.

I will also note, in case it is not clear that I am not
endorsing SVA or the other methods, merely reporting on what the
psychological literature contains, and what the results were
when the Ragsdale tale was tested.

I will note that the first Ragsdale story was also tested, but
the original interview was so disjointed and confused, including
too much dialogue from the investigator, that no conclusion
could be drawn.

Hope this helps.

KRandle






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                        The Great Harrisburg UFO Wave

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:40:50 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:34:57 -0500
Subject: The Great Harrisburg UFO Wave


The Great Harrisburg UFO Wave (Condon Report Case 27)
By Robert R. Young

Adapted from Stardust, the newsletter of the Astronomical
Society of Harrisburg, Pa., Inc., May, 1997


The summer of 1967 saw The Great Harrisburg UFO Wave, enshrined
in local UFOlklore by being included as Case #27 in the report
of the University of Colorado Project (the "Condon Report")
which ended United States Air Force involvement in UFO
investigations (The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects, E. U. Condon, et. al., Bantam edition, 1969, pp. 23,
46, 60, 332).

After widespread publicity, which included more than 2,000 radio
news reports and 14 detailed visitations recounted in the paper,
thousands of excited residents were often lining roads and high
spots around town at night throughout that hot summer. One of
our two newspapers sprinkled UFO stories among news of space
launches, race riots, burning U.S. cities and GIs fighting off
human wave attacks overseas. People saw things.

In 1967 the two Harrisburg newspapers, The Evening News and The
Patriot, had the same owner but separate editorial staffs.
Curiously, The Patriot printed almost nothing on UFOs during the
flap.

As described in the Colorado report, a Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory all-sky meteor camera on the roof of Holy Spirit
Hospital took thousands of pictures over 17 days while 100
reports were received by a phone hotline at Olmstead AFB in
Middletown. Experienced observers from ASH responded to a
request by Colorado scientists by manning three observing
stations, including a society member's observatory overlooking
the sighting hotbed at nearby Summerdale, nicknamed "UFO Hill".

What happened? Not much, really. ASH observers never saw
anything of interest. Just the sky and air traffic, including
nightly "UFO patrols" by small planes. On cloudy nights there
were almost never UFOs reported. Most turned out to be stars.
Only two "interesting" photo images were taken during the 100
sightings reported to Colorado Project researchers. One probably
was a plane and the other a meteor.

At least two "landings" were reported that summer. One
suspiciously close to "UFO Hill" was a hoax. A newspaper
reporter (who along with the members of a local flying saucer
club was largely responsible for stimulating the "flap")
reported stumbling over an electric extension cord in the woods
when investigating strange lights. Returning back later along
the path he noticed that the cable was mysteriously gone.

Years later I encountered a man who told me about how he, his
brother and friends, all in junior high or high school, had
created a fake landing with lights and power cords. they had
been caught by the cops, but since they had done nothing
illegal, they were just sent home with a warning.

Another landing, the so-called "Manor Hill" or "Hall Manor"
incident, was probably a mistaken star or aircraft seen by
residents of a public housing project. After local saucer
"investigators" trampled the nearby woods with flashlights for
hours, they returned in the morning to find a flattened, swirled
area of grass. A reported "high" radiation reading was never
confirmed or repeated, nor is it clear what this meant. This
incident became a classic "Close Encounter of the Second Kind"
(physical trace) case.

A compilation (notice that I didn't write "investigative
report") which lists this among hundreds of others has been
cited by ufologists, including the late astronomer and Air Force
UFO consultant J. Allen Hynek, as impressive evidence that
something important was going on (Ted Phillips, 1975, Physical
Traces Association With UFO Sightings, Center for UFO Studies).
The sole source Phillips cited for including the Manor Hill
landing was an article in a flying saucer magazine ("The
Remarkable Skies of Harrisburg", Flying Saucers UFO Reports,
Dell, No. 4, 1967, pp. 50-53). Even though the New York
City-based magazine had sent a reporter here, it inexplicable
illustrated the article with a photo taken by two boys 65 miles
away in Shamokin!

North of the city, near Elizabethville, UFOs were said to have
been in the air almost nightly, causing more than 60 reports.
These, in turn, launched "saucer patrols" by pilots of small
planes, which, of course, caused more sightings. Finally, after
so much nonsensical "research" by adults, some resourceful
teenagers with a car followed and recovered a prank plastic
laundry bag-balloon lighted by candles, blowing off the lid.

Many reports of UFOs that summer had them buzzing downtown
telephone microwave antennas. A quick check of a map shows that
from the popular "UFO Hill" viewing site the downtown Bell
Telephone of Pennsylvania headquarters, with its large, then
newly installed microwave horn antennae, lies in a direction
which puts it just between then Olmstead Air Force Base at
Middletown and the old Harrisburg airport at New Cumberland.
 From "UFO Hill" the building was also directly in a line with
Olmstead's landing and takeoff path.

It seems that the explanation also owes a lot to an absurd and
typically costly bit of American war-making. Through the pork
barrel-rolling efforts of powerful U.S. Senator Hugh Scott,
major overhauls of the military's Chinook twin-rotor choppers
were performed at New Cumberland Army Supply Depot, adjacent to
the public airport. Not only were they brought from Europe but
also shot-up choppers were flown all the way from Viet Nam to
Harrisburg in large military transports. Then they were lifted
across the river to New Cumberland (I kid thee not) by giant Sky
Crane helicopter's, based at Olmstead just for the purpose. At
the time rumors had it that this was done only at night to hide
it from the eyes of war protesters, and taxpayers, but actually
it was done day and night for years. It's no wonder the Vietnam
War nearly bankrupted us and doomed further manned space
efforts.

These were the "UFOs" buzzing Bell Telephone. I suppose that in
today's paranoid parlance they would be called "black
helicopters". If this all strikes you as a hard-to-believe
explanation dredged up just to debunk the '67 sightings,
consider the alternative.

That is, that over a period of weeks dozens of alien spaceships
hovered over Second and Pine Streets in downtown Harrisburg, and
except for an enterprising Evening News reporter, local saucer
investigators, and crowds of wannabees on a hill five miles
away, nobody noticed.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:10:07 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:37:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:03:07 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:18:16 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>What you snipped out of my message was your earlier comment
 >>about how "the hoax suggestion is clearly a front runner." To
 >>which I pointed out that was nothing new and incredible, for
 >>those of us who have been around. Personally I don't have any
 >>problems with it being troted out. Years ago we were assured it
 >>was absolutly a pie pan. Now its mirrors. Who knows, perhaps in
 >>five or so years the next theory that will be troted out is a
 >>combination of pie pan and mirrors.

 >Nope. Pelicans and mirrors all the way!

Hmm (brainstorming here) What about pelican droppings, as they
were falling, a mirror on the ground was reflecting sun light on
them, causing a poor witness on the ground to think they saw ET
space craft. The pelicanologist's and mirrorologist's may not be
enamored with this one..... :)

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:40:28 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:40:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Gates


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:26:58 -0000

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:39:47 -0000


 >James Easton

 >I haven't read all what you have written but advise you to take
 >that picture off your website immediately. Anything on the
 >NOTW's pages is copyright and that picture is in the book which
 >has not yet been published. You have no right to lift things and
 >publish them on your site without permission, for which you
 >would not get.

 >I shall inform my publishers immediately

 >The old material you have quoted (cut and pasted) is very
 >outdated and before I began researching the case in earnest, so
 >it's old news.

 >Best thing for you to do is read the book, you might learn
 >something.

 >Meanwhile, please remove that picture without delay.

Gee, could it be said that James "Pelicanized" the picture......

Hmm, the shoe fits..... :)

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:21:22 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:44:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates


 >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:06:41 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:31:17 -0500
 >>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

 >Previously, Jerome wrote:

 >>Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
 >>in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
 >>pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
 >>sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
 >>physicist John Lowke:

 >>"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
 >>that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

 >>How pathetically laughable. This poor soul clearly knows nothing
 >>of the insights that pelican science has now afforded us, namely
 >>that

 >>(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
 >>liars

 >>(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
 >>disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
 >>phenomenon

 >>and

 >>(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

 >Hellooo, Jerry!

 >For all I know "hot plasma" is a holiday drink for vampires. I
 >take no stand one way or the other about the subject. However,
 >your insights into what you deem "pelicanism" are off the mark.

 >You wrote:

 >>(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
 >>liars

 >No one has said that they are "likely" to be closet liars.
 >However, as you just pointed out, they are only "thought" to be
 >honest. Without validation, there is no proof that they are
 >telling the truth or not. Do you prefer to "assume" they are
 >telling the truth every time they open their mouths, no matter
 >how fantastic their claims, and cast aside anything resembling
 >an unbiased, objective view?

I see what you are saying. We are just assuming that Roger Evans
is honest, but we have no validation as to whether he is telling
the truth or not. Perhaps we should assume for sake of
discussion that Roger is not honest and has all sorts of
alterior motives to say and do the things he does.

Lets take it a step further. Can we even prove that a dude name
Roger Evans exists?

What about a drivers license? Well they can be hoaxed (i.e.
counterfit)

What about a birth certificate? IF the certificate is real, it doesn't mean
that the Roger Evans mentioned on the birt certificate is the same Roger
Evans of today.

Well what about bank accounts, utility bills etc? Doesn't mean a
thing. What about fingerprints? Only if he happens to have been
finger printed in the past and that still doesn't guarantee that
some dude claiming to be Roger Evans got fingerprinted years
back.

Gosh, since we can reasonably/rationaly explain away everything,
the only thing left is the testimony of others, i.e. his parents
and or neighbors he grew up with. Ooops, sorry, the testimony of
others really doesn't mean anything, especially if you are
attempting to prove the existance of Roger Evans only on the
technical evidence.

 >You wrote:

 >>(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
 >>disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
 >>phenomenon

 >On the contrary, eyewitness testimony has incredible value once
 >it has been validated. Without validation, however, testimony is
 >indistinguishable from a bold faced lie. Do you have a special
 >insight that tells you who is telling the truth and who isn't
 >without proof? Or do you prefer to "assume" they are telling the
 >truth every time they open their mouths, no matter how fantastic
 >their claims, and cast aside anything resembling an unbiased,
 >objective view?

How do we validate the testimony of a rape victim, if their is
no camera that conviently photographed the attack and no DNA
evidence? All that left is the testimony of the witness, her
friends and family, those that knew her and any others who might
have seen her just after it happened.

 >You wrote:

 >>(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

 >Do you define a "credible or reliable" observer as someone whose
 >word does not have to withstand validation? If so, then please

Tell us what your criteria is for 'validation' of the existance
or non existance of UFOs. For example if the criteria is a UFO
landing during half time at the super bowl, that only validates
the existance of *one* UFO that has visited the earth. It would
not validate the existance of any other alleged events. The
skeptics would instantly claim and rationalize away the landing
as some kind of grand deception and or secret govt craft, and or
mass dellusion and or hoax and or practical joke on a grand
scale.

The point being is that even if you have _absolute_ proof in
your hands, the skeptics can rationalize away absolutly anything
and sound rather scientific and convincing while they are doing
it.

Or, said in another way, can you personally prove the existance
of the 1966 Cobra? Whatever photos you come up can be explained
away as hoax, whatever testimony you can come up with can be
explained away as unreliable, and even if you come up with a
real, functioning car, a true pelicanist can explain that away
as some kind of modern hoax, they just can't quite prove how it
was done. Alas, when you make the claim that all the evidence
(photos, testimony and actual working model) all point to the
existance of said car, the pelicanist can rationalize it all
away as being meaningless because a true pelicanist knows the
principle 'it can't be so therefor it isn't.'


Cheers,

Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:32:19 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:49:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates


 >From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:38:28 -0700

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600

 >>Listfolk:

 >>Loyal readers of this list will be aware of recent breakthroughs
 >>in the scientific discipline known as pelicanism. Noted
 >>pelicanists have devastatingly exposed pseudoscientific
 >>sentiments such as those expressed by Australian plasma
 >>physicist John Lowke:

 >>"Though... I have never seen the phenomenon personally, I feel
 >>that there is no question that [it] 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 hundreds of observations that appear in the literature."

 ><snip>

 >>"Many years ago" - we can safely disregard the sighting at once,
 >>since pelican science tells us that memory of what happened
 >>minutes or even seconds ago is unreliable - "I saw two globes of
 >>lightning." Of course we know that even scientists are
 >>unreliable observers, and some are even liars. "They were
 >>reddish-yellow in color and appeared to be rotating." Given how
 >>our perceptual apparatus so often fails us, this description is
 >>none we need take seriously. "One of them struck a building and
 >>burst with a loud report" - probably caused by a firecracker,
 >>not some absurd, undocumented phenomenon such as this obviously
 >>dubious character wants us to believe. "As there was no trace of
 >>anything the [building's inhabitants] looked bewildered." As why
 >>shouldn't they, since nothing happened outside the fertile
 >>imagination/lying tongue/failed perceptual mechanisms of this
 >>unreliable alleged scientist? "The other drifted slowly away."
 >>What "drifted slowly away" was no doubt a cloud with sunlight
 >>reflecting off it. "Globular lightning makes a slight noise ...
 >>compared with the purring of a cat." So deluded is this
 >>unreliable witness that he couldn't even discern that what he
 >>was hearing _was_ the "purring of a cat," which in his ignorance
 >>of pelicanist principles he was led to associate with the aerial
 >>phenomenon he mistakenly thought he was seeing.

 ><snip>

 >>Thank you, pelican science, for your many contributions to human
 >>enlightenment. We can now remain confident that everything that
 >>could be known is known and that all claims to the contrary can
 >>be easily disposed of. You have shown that no rational human
 >>being, on being made aware of the principles of pelican science,
 >>could possibly believe in what occultists disguised as
 >>scientists call "ball lightning."

 >>Jerry Clark

 >Any takers on this outlook? This should light some fires under
 >some people!

 >Personally, in Montana, ball lightening happens quite a bit.
 >Been there, seen it, and I do not make a habit of lying.

 >In the summer, August 10, 1967, ball lightening went down the
 >middle of our street and took out a University of Southern
 >California vehicle. No problem. Several people saw it and we all
 >agreed on the perception. It was quite a thing to see.

Hi Jean,

Using the theories of pelicanism, they would first claim that
just because you thought you saw ball lightning, doesn't mean
that you actually saw it.

Then it would be said, this has to be proved on the technical
evidence (i.e. analysis of a small particle of said ball
lightning) Since you weren't able to get a sample, that would be
suggestive of hoax.

Next the pelicanists would then make the claim that any/all
witness testimony is unreliable because you need more evidence,
and since no further evidence is available.

Lastly if you produced a photo you happened to take, it would be
argued that you hoaxed it.

You see, in Pelican science, absolutly _any_and_all_ evidence
points to 'it can't be so therefore it isn't.'

 >Any others?

 >Jean or G'ma whichever you prefer

 >Oh, yes. Been called a liar before, so it don't really bother
 >me, been around too long.

Since Pelicanists tend to disbelive and doubt witness testimony,
I am sure the Pelicanists would likely be claiming that you saw
something extraordinary, other then what you said you saw.


Cheers,

Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research Center?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:40:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:54:41 -0500
Subject: Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research Center?


I am a member of the International UFO Museum & Research Center
in Roswell, New Mexico. Although it is not yet online, I
recently received my November 2000 IUFOMRC Newsletter. The
IUFOMRC is apparently undergoing some interesting changes I want
to share with this list.

Carol Syska has apparently been replaced as the Director of the
museum. The November 2000 IUFOMRC Newsletter states:

"As of October 11, 2000, the Executive Committee of the IUFOMRC
appointed Julie Shuster as interim director, subject to the
Board of Directors decision at their October 26, 2000 Meeting.
Julie is Walter Hauts' daughter."

For updated information, you may want to monitor the IUFOMRC
website at:

http://www.iufomrc.com/

I have sent e-mail to the museum requesting information
regarding the results of the October 26, 2000 meeting.

Perhaps more tellingly, the Newsletter states the lecture for
January 13, 2001 (entitled "What Part does the FOIA Play in UFO
Research") will be given by Dennis Balthaser. As many of you may
recall, Dennis is a former member of the museum's Board of
Directors, was the museum's Operations Manager, and most
recently its UFO Investigator. He was fired by Glenn Dennis on
October 28, 1998, and told he "was not to be affiliated with the
Museum anymore." See:

http://ufoinfo.com/news/balthaser.html
(Subj: FIRED FROM THE MUSEUM
Date: 98-10-29 10:17:31)

Dennis' website, Truth Seeker at Roswell, is located at:

http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/

The aforementioned changes appear to confirm information I
learned during September, when I attended a MUFON Orange County
meeting. The speaker was Donald R. Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt is an
Advisor to the IUFOMRC's Board of Directors. I was thinking of
sharing with the List a review of his presentation (as well as
other presentations, in case anyone is interested), but was
holding off until I could purchase a videotape (which is not yet
available) so that I could double check my facts.

However, I do want to share with you what Mr. Schmitt said about
the museum.

The following is my best recollection, but I do plan on
purchasing the videotape of the event as soon as it is available
(which will probably be mid-November).

During the question and answer period, I told Mr. Schmitt about
my recent visit to the museum, and that I: (a) was worried about
the museum's intellectual integrity; and (b) found certain
exhibits to be very troubling in that they omitted any mention of
inconsistent or contradictory evidence.

The examples I gave, in detail (and relying on the work done by
Kevin Randle), concerned the museum's uncritical acceptance and
presentation of both the Ragsdale crash site story and the Glenn
Dennis story about the nurse, without presenting any of the
conflicting and contradictory evidence.

I asked Mr. Schmitt what he felt about that as an Advisor to
IUFOMRC's Board of Directors, and what, if anything he could do
about it.

Mr. Schmitt responded that he was glad I asked the question, he
agreed with me regarding both examples, and that changes were
going to be made at the museum. He indicated the museum's
management was going to be changed.

He also stated that he was scheduled to go through the museum (I
believe it was during November 2000, but it may have been during
January 2001), and essentially audit (my word, not his) the
exhibits stating what should stay, what should be changed, and
what should go. He made it clear that he was going to make sure
the museum exhibits fairly present all of the available evidence
on all sides of the relevant issues.

I think we may be seeing evidence of change at the museum.

__________

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1888) Oxford University
Press, Book II, Part III, pg. 415.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:14:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:58:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:42:29 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:44:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:52 +0000
 >>>>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Aveley Encounter?

 >>>>Hi All,

 >>>>Can anyone throw any info on the following case my way?

 >>>>The Aveley Abduction October 1974. I believe that it involved a
 >>>>family of five, two adults and three  children.

 >>>>Any help would be appreciated.

 >>>>Regards,

 >>>>Roy..

 >><snip>

 >>>The *U* Database has that case listed with high strangeness and
 >>>rather low credibility for the number of witnesses/experiencers.

 >><snip>

 >>>This and 63 other "attributes" enables me to sift and sort cases
 >>>all sorts of ways for obvious reasons, and for purposes yet
 >>>unforeseen.

 >>Hey Laroo,

 >>Is your list of "attributes" posted anywhere? If not, (and you
 >>have it in a form that can be converted for posting) would you
 >>post it to the List? It would be educational. I'm really
 >>interested in learning about what criteria would be most
 >>useful/helpful in sorting through some of the stuff I have on
 >>hand. Strictly for archival purposes.

 >>If it's not too big a hassle to post, I for one would appreciate
 >>seeing it. If it turns out to be a goodun' I'm planning to 'lift
 >>it' (rip you off) wholesale and use it myself! :)    <LOL>

 >>Thanx in advance,

 >>John Velez, Inquiring minds want to know!  ;)

 >Hello John!

 >I have responded offlist. The two pages it would take are too
 >long and wide for list posting here.

 >Best!

 >- Larry Hatch


Hi Larry,

Got em! Thank you for the info and the speedy response. ;)

I haven't had a chance to crack em open yet (just got them
today) but it's on my priority list. Without realizing it I have
acquired a 'archive' worth of material over the years that has
never been properly catalogued. (Something I used to get on
Budd's case about and here I am doing the same thing!) I plan to
make it a 'spare time' project until I get it all whipped into
decent shape. I'll use as many of your criteria as I am able to
apply to what is strictly a 'abduction' related pile of raw
data. It's a heap of stuff.

One other bit that you might be able to advise me on; I plan on
using a piece of HTML authoring software that allows me to
create (and access easily) any archive that I create. I also
have "Sherlock II" which I can use in conjunction with it. (I'm
on a Mac. Sherlock II is a fast and powerful search engine.)

Sherlock will be used as the 'search engine' once all the data
on the hard drive has been properly catalogued. If you are aware
of a good stand alone piece of software that will do both jobs
for me (archival and search functions) that is available for the
Mac OS/platform, please let me know.

It'll be nice to find things easily (or even in the same day)
for a change! <LOL>

Thanx again Mssr. Hatch. You're a gentleman.


John Velez
Have computer, will travel  ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

             Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 02:13:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:02:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal


 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >UFO Research List - http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/

 >From: SHnSASSY1@aol.com
 >Mailing-List: list RealUFOs@egroups.com
 >Subject: [RealUFOs] Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_102803.html

 >Alien abduction hypnotisers deny planting subliminal ads

 >A US firm that promises to hypnotise people to make them think
 >they have been abduted by aliens has been accused of planting
 >subliminal adverts in their customer's minds at the same time.

 >Alien Abductions Inc promises to provide "personalised,
 >realistic memories of the alien abduction that you have been
 >waiting for your entire life".

 >But its team of '"doctors, hypnotists and memory implant
 >technicians" have been accused of implanting paid-for adverts
 >for companies.

 >Abductees are then said to be magnetically drawn to use the
 >advertised products thanks to the subliminal messages implanted
 >in their brains.

 >Adverts implanted are said to include two for firms who sponsor
 >AAI's website.

 >The company is denying "advertising implantation" for profit but
 >admits it has implanted certain ads that "increase the
 >effectiveness" of the experience.

<snip>

Hello Bobbie:

Well, this is a new twist! I went to the website you gave, and
that referred me (with no mention of subliminal ads of course)
to the original AAI website:

http://www.alienabductions.com

Apparently, it is their belief that they can make a profit from
people who would like to be abducted but haven't yet, and feel
left out.

For the AAI company at least, there seem to be enough people
like this to make up a market for a business.

Maybe this be a put-on by some skeptical group. I suppose its
simple enough to call their bluff in that case.

If this in an actual for-profit enterprise, it must tell us
something about their (AAI) perception of the abduction scene
regardless.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS: The "implants" were apparently some sort of post-hypnotic
suggestion, rather than any physical object like a chip or
whatever. At least one of them was for an interesting sounding
pub.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:45:18 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:52:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:58:23 -0800

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>Unidentified Flying Object = UFO. This means that an object is
 >>>in the air, flying or stationary and is not readily identifiable
 >>>such as an airplane, bird or conventional object. Nor is it
 >>>identifiable through astronomical means. I really could go on
 >>>and on with a definition, but we'll just stick with common sense
 >>>and common language. Unidentified means just that.

 >>OK, I can go with this definition. I would have said that this
 >>would better be described as a "UFO report", but OK.

 >I don't think this qualifies as a UFO report per say. Let's add
 >something to it such as "may or may not display unconventional
 >aerial movement(s)." By the way Bob, all of this agreeing or
 >coming close to agreeing between us is scaring me. ;-)

Royce,

OK.

 >>Actually, I would be very interested in seeing your video and
 >>your explanation as to why you think these things are
 >>unidentifiable. Is there any chance you could copy the two video
 >>segments on a tape and send it to me. I'll be happy to reimburse
 >>you for the postage and the tape. I can report to the List about
 >>my review of the tape. The address is PO Box 371, Harrisburg PA
 >>17108-0371.

 >Let me whirl off a copy and get it to you. Maybe you'll have
 >some insight into what's on the tape.

 >>>Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >>>announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >>>early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >>>second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >>>U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >>>The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >>>ergo a UFO.

 >>Did it occur to you that glitches in radar are
 >>something most air forces are not about to talk about? Do you
 >>have a citation for these two government repots? There were a
 >>lot of sightings during the flap in those years.

 >There was obvious no radar glitches here considering the radar
 >clearly shows to object dropping and there are records from the
 >jets of this incident as well. The Belgian military to this day,
 >and to my knowledge, still do not know what the object was. This
 >would then make it unidentified. Also, I don't think the pilots
 >chased a radar glitch for over, what, 40 minutes?

Depends, since we have to take the Governments' words for it.
But my point was that there could be lots of reasons for either
Government to not tell the entire truth, and they could be
legitimate and not related to UFOs at all.

 >>>How about the Iran UFO encounter in 1976.

 >I agree that all info should be evaluated. But did Klass ever
 >fully explain what the pilots encountered? I don't think so.
 >Also, Klass is the guy who fell asleep during the MUFON
 >symposium in Seattle. Not too credible with me for a guy who
 >says there are no UFOs but can't stay awake long enough to
 >hear what someone has to say about them.....

You mean an 80 year-old You mean an 80 year-old skeptic can't
ever sleep? Man, you're tough. Maybe he found the MUFON meeting
boring. And, anyway, what does this have to do with the Iran
incident?

 >>>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >>>Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.

 >>Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >>of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >>many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >>astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >>concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >>"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >>>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >>Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begind the trees, and
 >>practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
 >>friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >>Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

 >This is why the U.S. military deemed the objects as "unknown
 >entities." Again, unidentified. Why would the military send up
 >fighters to intercept Venus were responding to information from
 >the airbase security?

 >I have a hard time believing that Venus would cause all of this...

Then, you don't know much about the history of the UFO
phenomenon. Just check out another post today, UFO Round Up, Vol
5, Number 44. The hovering UFO seen by five in the West over
Sedona, Arizona, and the object "pacing" a couple's car in Texas
(but always seen to the west) are so obviously Venus, now
brilliant in the Western evening sky, that it's a joke. This
stuff is just posted raw reports.

 >Also, not to question your friend's integrity, but it didn't
 >happen at one base and a number of guys that were at these bases
 >have gone on record in the past about this event.

He was at Loring, in Maine, and just because somebody goes on
record doesn't mean that they can't be wrong.

 >If no skeptical input was involved with the review, then why
 >were several UFO cases that were presented to the panel
 >rejected? Why would Robert Bigelow waste thousands and thousands
 >of his dollars if there's nothing to the information. Bigelow's
 >a business man and wouldn't waste a dime on anything without it
 >having merit.

What does this prove? You knock Klass for dozing but assume that
there must be something there just because a "business man"
spends some money on a subject in which he is interested?

 >So then, the [Condon] committee was wrong about McMinnville
 >all these years along with the rest of us suckers?

Their investigator, William Hartmann, agreed that he was
probably wrong on this one many years ago.

 >>>UFOs do indeed exist.

 >>Yes, but since only a tiny minority of UFO reports have been
 >>competently examined by anybody, they will continue to exist, I
 >>guess.

 >Then UFOs exist, period. And what exactly defines a competent
 >examination. It's just like the crop circle phenomena, everyone
 >wants to blame Doug and Dave but no one wants to look at the
 >evidence. While many may be hoaxed, there are several that are
 >not.

The problem is, one can never prove a negative, that several are
not hoaxed. One can prove a positive, by explaining how they
were made. Now _that_ would be a discovery. As far as I know
only Dave and Doug have demonstrated this.

 >I'm not saying all UFO reports are anomalous, but there are
 >those that indeed are unidentified.

I agree.

<snip>

 >Simply being able to turn a UFO into an IFO doesn't
 >make all UFOs IFOs.

That's also true.

 >And someone simply not seeing a UFO for 17 days doesn't
 >prove anything at all.

What Case 27 in Condon demonstrated was that all-sky meteor
cameras did not record any mysterious anomalous objects brighter
than 4th magnitude, other than meteors and airplanes, _during_
100 UFO sightings, and that visual observers who were familiar
with the local sky also did not see anything unusual during some
of this time.

This was, indeed, something very useful to learn. Again, one
cannot prove a negative, that is that UFOs did not appear to the
witnesses, but this largely unknown study was quite interesting
in what it showed about a "UFO flap."

 >UFOs aren't like meteor showers, there's no time table for
 >when they'll show up.

Please check Larry Hatch's excellent *U*UFO database for
information about when UFO sighting reports are more likely to
be made. Some of these patterns have been apparent for decades.
Also check Allen Hynek's book, The Hynek UFO Report.

 >But what got lost in all of this was my original
 >thought; How many UFO investigations had Jill Tarter completed
 >before drawing her conclusion about UFOs?

Who knows? Did you ever ask her before you called her a
moron? To be technical, that is what SETI does: investigate
anomalous radio signals.

 >I'll send you the videos. I'll pass on your report, thanks for
 >the offer anyway.

For the amusement of the List (although a few may not be
amused), I am going to post an article which described my look
into the 1967 Harrisburg flap, which is Case #27 in Condon.
Incidentally for anyone interested, the Condon Report is on the
web at - http://www.ncas.org/condon/

Looking forward to getting your video.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                                    Links

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:34:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:05:10 -0500
Subject: Links


Hi All,

A quaint gathering of web Site Links.

Roy..


http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/88/rockin.html

http://www.mindbodyspirit.org/lapisufo/

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m19-013.shtml

http://www.planetarymysteries.com/debunkery.html

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/LeHorla.html

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_II/dubious.html

http://www.jse.com/haisch/ufo.html

http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm

http://www.aspsky.org/education/pseudobib.html

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/skepindx.htm


Don't miss your chance on winning a mystery book.
Enter The Lost Haven Quiz!
http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/competion.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                    Leeds Conference 16th September 2000?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:40:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:40:23 -0500
Subject: Leeds Conference 16th September 2000?


Can Rory Lushman & Terry Rhodes please post their reviews of the
Chris Martin Lecture, given at the Leeds Conference 16th
September 2000?

Regards,

Roy..









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                'Winked Out' - UFOs Or High Tech Camouflage?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:46:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:46:15 -0500
Subject: 'Winked Out' - UFOs Or High Tech Camouflage?




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Source: Rense.com

http://sightings.com/general5/wink.htm



'Winked Out' - UFOs Or High Tech Camouflage?
By Brenda Livingston

Living-Tracer Enterprises
http://tracers.8m.com

11-2-00

Camouflage of aircraft has been the ongoing focus of the
military since the discovery of human flight. Hiding from the
enemy, protects pilot lives, military secrets and provides the
ability for sudden and highly effective strikes on targets. As
the number of sightings of "disappearing" aircraft and objects
increase, lines are becoming blurred as we attempt to delineate
between our true technological capabilities what may be a common
capability of the UFO (unidentified aerial device/vehicle).
Star-field and cloud/haze camouflage are now frequently reported
in addition to blending into the sky, using various techniques
and devices.

Increasing, UFO Researchers are witnessing what appears to be
aircraft at various altitudes suddenly and inexplicably vanish
from sight. George Filer in Filers Files relayed a report of two
MUFON members returning from the MUFON Symposium 2000 watching
as an apparent aircraft "winked out" before them. George Filer
also told of such an experience along the Eastern seaboard.
Other researchers and the public continue to relate to
Living-Tracer Enterprises similar sightings.

These sightings are so unusual that they have provoked the
consideration of two possible explanations: the common use of
ultra high tech military and civilian aircraft camouflage or
UFOs camouflaging as aircraft.

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

Human Made High Technology Explanation

One must consider both prosaic explanations and exotic Defense
R&D before concluding what some report seeing is taken as
conclusive evidence of alien technology. Electrochromatic panels
(tiny video sensors) on the skin of aircraft is one such exotic
technology which could explain as least some of the sightings
reported.

It might be enlightening to visit the Project Chameleo/Richard
N. Schowengerdt's website which presents papers, videos and
drawings explaining some of the more recent research projects
conducted by research scientist and the Air Force...

http://members.aol.com/rschowe173/chameleo.html

While the following patent does not prove the current use of
this technology, it does show interest and research into the
development of it:

Cloaking Using Electro-Optical Camouflage Patent No.
5,307,162 issued 26 April 1994 Patent Renewed in 1997
- Next Maintenance Fee Due 26 April 2001

An interesting report from Australia from Harry Mason points to
get another possible high tech explanation for disappearing or
"limited sight" aircraft (though it is not clear whether the
"object" seen by observers was indeed an aircraft):

Harry Mason writes, "I have some input for you on the
disappearing aircraft technology?" I have a friend in a foreign
country who is their top English language translator. I will not
name the country for her safety. In the early 1980s, she went
with a foreign military delegation from her country to the USA
to meet with top US Military. She translated for both sides. One
aspect of their visit was to observe film and hard technology of
the operation of a "cloaking device." This made ships, aircraft,
or airfields totally invisible in reflected light and radar
wavebands. It was being offered to her country as an inducement
to back US policy.The device was capable of retrofitting to any
aircraft etc. There is "eyewitness" evidence of such a device in
operation at an RAF-NATO airbase on the Mull of Kintyre in
Scotland.

One day a bunch of golfers noticed a 'V' shape wave rushing
across the calm sea surface with a vague shimmering space in the
air above it -- similar to that seen in the movie "Predator."

The 'V' wave of unsettled water and the shimmering air shot
towards them at a fair speed and the shimmering went over their
heads accompanied by a loud roaring noise -- exactly in line
with the airstrip. They concluded that a high powered invisible
aircraft had approached low over the water and landed at the
airfield. Thanks to Harry Mason orbitx@iinet.net.au

Living-Tracers has received reports from reliable witnesses
sighting similar V-shaped "airwave" streams having no
accompanying sound or color-- with one astounding difference.
These "objects" were only a few hundred feet away and much
smaller -- having a basketball sized rounded "shape" in front of
the stream.

These reports indicate that the "airwaves" were similar to
seeing a small wake in a lake moving quickly by...only in the
air. Might these be the small spherical objects reported by so
many all over the world entering another state dimension?

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

Who Are 'They' ... And Who Are They Hiding From?

While it is possible that many experimental missions and varying
atmospheric conditions are occurring in our atmosphere and that
stealth tech/camouflage undoubtedly is being developed, one must
ask the following question:

What would be the purpose of using such stealth tech (if
economically and technologically feasible) in non-combat
situations in the skies above populated areas? If it is
feasible, why would it be necessary? Who are they hiding from?

Perhaps one explanation for my sighting of a blinking out
"craft" is the experimentation of 'emissions cloaking' along
with aircraft camouflage. Much R&D is taking place in radar
jamming and emissions control...but why would our military be
testing or using such cloaking devices over a populated area in
mid day?

Who are they hiding from?

The sudden and inexplicable disappearance, I personally
witnessed in December of 1999 was in a clear blue sky was
stunning. While I was intensely watching an oblong pinkish
object (which I at first assumed to be an aircraft) with a long
"dashing" persistent contrail the object along with the miles
long persistent contrail "winked out". I searched the clear blue
sky for a possible reappearance of the strange object or
aircraft and saw nothing but blue skies

While I have seen various "camouflaging" effects of aircraft -
white aircraft becoming darker in different lighting conditions,
aircraft moving through a thin haze becoming white then blue and
back again, even shadows bouncing in front of aircraft.this
sighting seemed to defy plausible common explanations.

What purpose would it serve for a military aircraft flying over
a populated area to be visible then suddenly become invisible
(in supposedly non-combat, non-experimental situations)? From
whom are they hiding?

Disappearances And Contrails

An interesting sighting report by George A. Filer (Eastern
Director of MUFON) in Filers Files #31, August 7, 2000 asks the
same probing question:

"The last few months the search for Unidentified Flying Objects
has taken on a new phase with dozens of reports of aircraft
disappearing in front of numerous eye witnesses. Sometimes the
craft appear to change color prior to disappearing, we have
reports of white, gray, red, and patchy blue or white aircraft.
In World War II, camouflage techniques lit up allied anti-sub
aircraft using soft lights to conceal them from Nazi
submariners.

I personally have 5000 flying hours. On July 3, I saw an
aircraft making heavy dark looking contrails that appeared quite
different from standard. They may have powder or impurities in
them that may come from the new jet fuels. The most amazing
thing that occurred is that when the spraying stopped the
aircraft disappeared. I searched the clear blue sky with
binoculars but no craft could be observed. An aircraft simply
does not vanish from a clear blue sky unless it has active
camouflage or crashes.

One possible way for an aircraft to vanish would be to use a
liquid screen similar to one used on a typical lap tap computer.
If hundreds of liquid screens were mounted on the underside of
aircraft it could be made to seem to vanish by videotaping the
sky above the aircraft and applying this same color to the
liquid screens covering the aircraft. To the naked eye the craft
would disappear.[but] why would these aircraft want to vanish?"


Report Of Disappearing Aircraft By MUFON
Members"Excerpted From Filers Files #30 July 31, 2000:

Driving home from the MUFON conference the Georgia State MUFON
director [Tom Sheets] who is a retired Chief of Police and other
witnesses observed a aircraft "wink out" suddenly. George Filer:
" These are high quality witnesses, they are not mistaken. I've
learned from other contrails experts this has happened before.
To my knowledge humans do not possess aircraft that can
disappear. The spraying is real, therefore I suspect that UFOs
are involved. I want to know what they are spraying and why"
(see http://tracers.8m.com/filer31.htm for similar reports)


Consider also the following reports:

Mark Cashmere MUFON CT. State Director reports that, "On
December 13, 1999, four witnesses observed two anomalous
phenomena at 3:30 PM." The observations lasted for a total of 40
minutes. The witnesses were two adult business owners 49 (Y) and
51 (F), and his son 12, and a woman business associate (W), 80.
The observations are broken into two phases.

Observation of an estimated five contrails in sequence
descending toward a ridge to the west. These contrails became
visible in each case after a bright star-like light appeared and
were the width of the light, and once reaching a specific length
retained that length without change. Each contrail displayed a
"puff" about halfway to the hill that acted as the horizon. The
witnesses also thought there was an orange flash as each light
passed below the tree-line. One contrail split into two. The
witnesses believed it was possible that the lights crashed on
the hill, though they heard no sound. The contrails dissolved,
including the puffs.

They observed two solid objects, gray in color, one
"bullet-shaped" with smoothly faired fins, and one spherical
with no seams or protrusions. One witness observed an apparent
seam on the bullet-shaped object. The objects, of large angular
size (3 inches at two feet), passed the witnesses at a
relatively close distance, and as they moved to the north
vanished in full view. The location of the second phase was
about thirty feet to the east of the first at 41.81120 (Lat.),
-72.92348 (Long).

A third "phase" was the observation of a number of aircraft
identified as commercial Short Skyvans believed looking or what
they had just observed. The two adult men seemed credible and
articulate but perplexed by the event. The child offered a
reasonable level of corroboration. A more detailed analysis can
be found at mcashman@temporaldoorway.com: Thanks to: Mark
Cashman.

Very visible -- then very invisible. What were possible
explanations of this activity if these were experimental
aircraft? Were these missiles gone astray? If so--what is a
plausible explanation for their location and the bright light in
front of the trails?

Consider a report with some similarities from Texas. Could a
light-producing propulsion system account for the appearing and
disappearing of this apparent UFO ?:

"On January 10, 1999 near Lewisville Texas -- I witnessed the
unexplainable... I was back out at my sighting post on the lake
just at sunset scanning the western skies when I suddenly caught
sight of a very strange orange trail on the horizon..zig-zagging
very low to the ground. Whatever was creating this trail was
moving toward the southeast -- moving toward me at an angle. I
kept my eyes on it as it proceeded closer and I still could not
make out a definitive shape in front of it -- though I thought I
saw something small and dark there a couple of times.

As it reached past I-35 (which is a major thoroughfare running
north and south through the Dallas area) -- I could see that
something was creating short bursts of contrail in a zig-zag
fashion. It was low-flying -- seeming to be between 500-700 feet
above ground.

Suddenly a bright light appeared several hundred feet in front
of a burst of orange trail. Then both the light and the trail
would disappear. The light would appear again and then the short
trail -- and both would disappear again. This pattern continued
for a few minutes until the light appeared without a contrail
and disappeared. The light repeated this behavior a few more
times before disappearing for the final time." (Living-Tracer
Enterprises)

If one takes into consideration that some rather odd-shaped
"aircraft" (eg. oval, teardrop, spherical, oblong) and unusual
fireballs and projectile-appearing objects (see NUFORC report of
two pilots sightings of an missile shaped object flying between
them) are reportedly flying through our atmosphere in proximity
to aircraft some creating persistent contrails themselves this
may provide a very good explanation for the sudden necessity for
both aircraft and UFOs to make a sudden "disappearance" for
stealth or protection. (also see
http://tracers.8m.com/aircraft.htm)

We just may be witnessing aircraft and UFOs and their
projectiles, using some high and higher tech camouflage in the
open 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:50:21 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:48:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:19:30 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >Hello Jerry, Bob, and List subscribers,

 >I don't want to jump in the middle of this thread that started
 >regarding Jill Tarter's ignorance of UFO evidence. That led into
 >a further thread concerning Bob Young's claims regarding a low
 >percentage of UFO cases that have not been resolved into IFOs. I
 >do want to throw in my comments regarding a couple of cases that
 >were mentioned and throw in an additional case. I have always
 >had a particular interest in the Coyne case, as at one time I
 >used to fly the same type of helicopter in the Army and I could
 >easily imagine myself in his position. All I can say is that in
 >every helicopter when the collective stick is up the helicopter
 >goes up, and when it is down the helicopter goes down. I don't
 >think Coyne was mistaken about the helicopter acting against
 >that principle. That is like forgetting that your car turns left
 >when the steering wheel turns left. Some other force was acting
 >on the helicopter to cause it to act against that principle of
 >pitch in the rotor blades. Bob, do you think Coyne was mistaken?

Hi, Josh:

It's good to get your insight as a helicopter pilot. I think the
issue is that Phil Klass suggests that Coyne just didn't
remember pulling up on the controls, afterwards, but had just
done it automatically. Doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

 >The Michalak case was also discussed. I'd like to know what
 >irregularities in the case have been proposed elsewhere. Other
 >than his sole testimony, I would like to hear how a debunker can
 >explain his burns. Bob, what do you think? Were they self
 >inflicted? How?

Don't know. Have you ever seen a medical report on his injuries?

 >Another case that I am rather passionate about is the Cash -
 >Landrum incident. To my knowledge it has never been resolved and
 >is still a UFO, whether possibly from our military or anyone
 >else. That is a case not often mentioned on this list and was
 >not included in the recent 10 best cases. Bob, do you want to
 >propose any irregularities in that case? How do you propose they
 >received their horrible injuries?

Regarding their horrible injuries, I know that Betty Cash had
cancer. I believe that she sued the U.S. Government. Has there
ever been a medical report available on any of their "injuries"?

 >I don't want to get myself involved in defending the above
 >cases. I would like to hear any evidence, not conjecture, that
 >would answer my questions.

So would I. I'm not a doctor and it would be worth while to get
some medical evidence or reports before commenting.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Crop Circles 'Amaze' NASA Space Station Project

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:53:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:53:12 -0500
Subject: Crop Circles 'Amaze' NASA Space Station Project



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Source: Rense.com

http://sightings.com/general5/crop.htm


Crop Pictograms In The United Kingdom
By Alan Holt <explorvector@msn.com>

11-2-00


By Alan Holt <explorvector@msn.com M.S. Physical Science
(astrophysics) Alan Holt is currently a Project Manager for
NASA's International Space Station: This article does not
necessarily reflect the views of NASA and are the sole views of
Alan Holt link 11-2-00


In July of this year (2000) I had the opportunity to visit the
United Kingdom for a couple weeks. The primary purpose for my
trip was to spend some time with my companion Hildi who lives in
Glastonbury, England. Since I knew the timing of my visit would
allow me to see and hopefully visit some "crop circles" I did a
little exploration of web sites before I left.

I was absolutely amazed at the patterns which I saw, and was
wondering why these developments hadn,t surfaced in the general
press in the U.S. After my visit and discussions with various
people in the UK, it is now clear to me that crop "circles" or
pictograms have suffered the same fate that UFOs and other
phenomena have which do not fit the current paradigm.

Upon arriving in London on July 20, I was picked up by my
companion and a friend and on the way back to Glastonbury we
stopped at the Barge Inn. The Barge Inn is located along one of
the many canals crisscrossing England, and is a meeting place
and informal headquarters for crop "circle" researchers and
visitors. Photos of the latest crop "circles" are tacked up on a
bulletin board.

Outside looking toward nearby hills a simple crop "circle" could
be seen. After getting something to eat, we went up to the
circle and entered it. The plants on the floor of the circle
were woven into a basket like pattern. Unlike the few hoaxed or
manmade "circles", the stalks of the plants were not broken but
looked like they had suddenly decided to bend down and grow in a
horizontal direction. My assessment after visiting several crop
pictograms, is that the man-made "circles" are relatively few,
which are composed of simple forms having very poor geometric
precision compared to the amazing pictograms.

There are other factors which clearly delineate a man-made
circle from the absolutely amazing pictograms, which can be
learned from the web sites, and several books. I would recommend
the book "Crop Circles: The Greatest Mystery of Modern Times" by
Lucy Pringle,1999, Harper Collins Publishers, ISBN 07225 3855 3,
$27.00. I had an opportunity to talk with Lucy at the
Glastonbury Crop Circle Conference held in July 28 -30 during my
visit. She personally flies out over the fields and takes
photos.

Since I have for many years used enhanced intuitive capabilities
to pick up additional information, I did sit in the crop circle
near the Barge Inn and picked up some interesting impressions
pertaining to the future. In addition, I put out the thought,
somewhat as a test but really a request, that I would like to
see a crop pictogram appear which could provide me some insight
into the direction I should pursue in my advanced
transport/field physics research activities.

We then went on to Glastonbury, to London, and then back to
Glastonbury. Eight days later, we went back out into crop circle
country and again visited the Barge Inn. On the bulletin board,
was an astounding new pictogram (see the web sites:

http://cropcircleconnector.com/2000/aveburytrusloe/aveburytruslo
e2000a.html and http://cropcircleconnector.com/2000/2000.html).
The pictogram was shaped like a bar magnet, with magnetic field
lines coming out of the north and south poles. The pictogram had
appeared on July 22 two days after my arrival in the England
(and my first visit to the Barge Inn). We determined its
location, visited the pattern and spent a lot of time exploring
it.

The precision and intricacy of the pattern was stunning. Even
the farmer whose field the pattern had appeared in was
overwhelmed by this pictogram. He indicated that there had been
other patterns in his field before, but he had still harbored
some doubts concerning who or what had made them. But with the
appearance of this pictogram, he knows now that this is a true
mystery. From his perspective there is NO possibility that this
was made by humans or our technology, and I agree with him.

While in the pattern, I recalled the thought which I had sent
out for a pictogram to appear which could provide some direction
for my research activities. I have to conclude that whatever
intelligence is responsible for these patterns, it has
connections with or links with our human consciousness.

There is truly an astounding phenomena unfolding in England and
elsewhere in the world. Its very unfortunate that the
unscientific thinking, and perhaps deliberate disinformation, of
a few individuals have been picked up and accepted by a naive
press world-wide. As a result millions of people have been
deprived of the opportunity to experience a consciousness
expanding phenomena. It is our civilization,s loss; but
fortunately the apparently successful attempt to ridicule or
"debunk" crop circles will do nothing stop what may be a major
transformation ahead for humanity.

 From my perspective, there is also a warning or "be prepared"
message coming through the crop pictograms as well. We have not
been very good stewards of the planet on which we are living. We
have recklessly depleted resources; contaminated water, air and
Earth; threatened the foundation of Earth,s viability with the
use and testing of nuclear weapons (and perhaps other exotic
technology) and continue to waste at least one-half of what we
produce (especially here in the U.S.). The Earth can compensate
for some of our mistakes, but it too goes through
transformations. If our care of our planet is not dramatically
improved soon, we may not have many more years to enjoy the
beauty and nurturing environment which even now the Earth still
provides (the year 2012 could be a turning point).

�2000 by Alan Holt

For further updates please see:

http://home.sprintmail.com/~rigoletto/Sanctuary_Of_The_Birds.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:59:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:54:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:03:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:49:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

<snip>

 >Hi, Bruce:

 >There were many sightings at Loring. Klass claimed that a
 >helicopter was being used in the area and that may have
 >accounted for some of the sightings.

Did Klass conclusively prove it was a helicopter or did he just
assume this? Did or may have are completely two different
things. Just wondering...


Royce J. Myers III
eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy - "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it...again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

             Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:54:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:56:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal


 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >UFO Research List - http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/

 >From: SHnSASSY1@aol.com
 >Mailing-List: list RealUFOs@egroups.com
 >Subject: [RealUFOs] Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_102803.html

 >Alien abduction hypnotisers deny planting subliminal ads

 >A US firm that promises to hypnotise people to make them think
 >they have been abduted by aliens has been accused of planting
 >subliminal adverts in their customer's minds at the same time.

 >Alien Abductions Inc promises to provide "personalised,
 >realistic memories of the alien abduction that you have been
 >waiting for your entire life".

<snip>

 >AAI offers personally customized abductions, including
 >"interspecies breeding," medical experimentation and alien sex
 >fantasies.

 >A statement from the company says: "Making people believe that
 >they've been abducted by aliens is more than just a business to
 >us ... it's our way of giving something back to the world."

 >It says: "Thousands of individuals are abducted by
 >extraterrestrial beings each year" and goes on to add: "So why
 >wait?"
 >
 >Last updated: 15:46 Wednesday 1st November 2000.

 >Bobbie "Jilain" Felder


Hello "Jilain",

I read your post and asked myself what the H*** is this? I looked
up the Alien Abductions, Inc. website and saw that it was an
obvious prank. It ranks down there with the American Computer
Company in the stupid pranks book. I imagine people who really
feel they were abducted (whatever the cause) won't find it very
funny.

At times when this list gets too testy with anger between
participants I throw in my own screwball humor. It is so silly
that I don't expect anyone on the List to take it seriously.
Even my pet cats don't find it funny but I am sure there are
some list members who have as twisted a sense of humor as I do.
Unlike Jim Mortellaro I don't drink Gripple to alter my senses.
I'm just plain weird.


Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                       The Real X-Files, November 2000

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:54:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:59:25 -0500
Subject: The Real X-Files, November 2000


Hello and welcome to the November 2000 issue of the Real X-Files
Hot Gossip UK www.hotgossip.co.uk

October was a busy month for two of the UK�S most well-known
researcher/authors; both Nick Pope and Tim Good had books
published.

TIM GOOD�S BOOK LAUNCH PARTY

Tim invited friends to his book launch at his agent�s London
home. Andrew Lownie is also agent to Nick Pope, Nick Redfern and
little old me. I have to say that he�s one of the best agents in
London, really gets things done. Anyway, it was a pleasant
get-together and I met Graham Sheppard, a former civilian pilot
and friend of Tim�s. It was interesting to hear about Graham�s
strange experience with a UFO, which is covered in Tim�s latest
book UNEARTHLY DISCLOSURE. I will be reviewing it very soon.

ABDUCTION IN MY LIFE: A NOVEL OF ALIEN ENCOUNTERS

Dr. Bruce Maccabee who recently published a good book on the FBI
UFO files is soon to be publishing a novel; well it is based on
fact. Bruce�s book tells the story of Joseph and his friend who
experienced an encounter with a UFO and a weird grey alien, only
to find that they had probably been abducted. Keep a look out
for the book that is expected to be published early Next year.

BIG BROTHER IN CYBERSPACE

According to latest reports the British government is going to
be able to tap into our on-line activities. A new legislation
(the Regulation of Investigatery Powers Bill) will grant the
right of authorised persons to read private e-mail without
having to obtain a warrant. Now that is scary stuff!

SPOOKY STORIES

Nick Pope and I were recently invited to tell spooky stories at
a Kensington Arts Club function in London, which took place on
Friday 13th. According to Nick, the audience jumped when I
clapped my hands in front of the microphone to give the effect
of a big bang. A few days earlier I had received a call from
Louise Robey of FRIDAY 13th film fame, it appears she�s about to
record a new album with her band. Louise is married to the Earl
of Burford, so that makes her a countess (has to be the
trendiest one I know). The time we had Louise on our front cover
we were bogged down with fan mail, it seems she has a cult
following after her performance in Friday 13th.

OPERATION LIGHTNING STRIKE

I don�t usually read fiction but this book is very good, and
very well written. Nick bases the story on what could be a
factual event which takes place in the near future, when alien
spaceships invade the UK. While the government tries desperately
to strike up some kind of agreement with the intruders, a shadow
group known as the Enterprise (shades of MJ12) set out to
destroy the aliens, which causes major problems, not least
because they have more powerful technology than we have. It is
an exciting story, filled with important details, even covering
the evacuation of the Prime Minister and Royal family. But where
will they go?

What I found interesting was a piece on page 50, where the
books, 'The Day After Roswell' and 'Open Skies, Closed Minds'
are alleged to have been part of a project initiated by the
Enterprise to inform the public to an extraterrestrial reality.
The shocked CDI then points out: �Wait a minute, you�re bringing
one of our people into this now� So, is our friend Nick Pope,
author of Open Skies, Closed Minds, a member of the Enterprise?
Now that would be a story! Operation Lightning Strike published
by Simon & Schuster.

YOU CAN�T TELL THE PEOPLE

This month sees the publication of my own book on the famed
Rendlesham UFO Forest case. You Can�t Tell The People produces a
mass of new information which has never been published
before.Sidgwick & Jackson Available in all UK bookshops and on
www.amazon.co.uk

Until next month

Georgina Bruni

London November 2000










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                   Nick Pope'S Weird World - November 2000

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:54:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:01:59 -0500
Subject: Nick Pope'S Weird World - November 2000


NICK POPE�S WEIRD WORLD
www.hotgossip.co.uk

Welcome to the November round-up of news, views and gossip from
the weird and wonderful world of UFOs and the paranormal.


Mussolini UFO Revelation

Italian researchers Roberto Pinotti and Alfredo Lisoni have
uncovered papers from the Italian government, revealing that
Mussolini took an active interest in the UFO phenomenon,
following a series of sightings in the Thirties (including a
case from 1936 where a cigar-shaped UFO was seen over an air
base at Mestre, and another case where an object described as an
�air torpedo�, with windows, flew over another military
establishment. Mussolini ordered a covert investigation into
these matters and intelligence analysts said that the incidents
seemed genuine. Mussolini was concerned at the possibility that
the UFOs were secret British or French aircraft, in which case
his entire air force would have been rendered obsolete. The fact
that he later threw in his lot with Hitler suggests he concluded
that the UFOs weren�t operated by the air forces of his enemies.
Check out www.cun-italia.net for more details. These revelations
came just months after the Italian Air Force gave a presentation
at the San Marino UFO conference organised by Roberto Pinotti,
and held on 3 - 4 June this year (see my July column and my
article in the July/August issue of UFO Magazine for further
details). It just goes to show what can happen when ufologists
forge a relationship with government and military officials,
instead of demonising them as the bad guys of ufology, up to
their eyes in cover-ups and conspiracies.


Roswell High

It sounded as if it was going to be tacky nonsense: three
American high school kids in Roswell, who happen to be aliens in
human form. Surprisingly, Roswell High is actually a pretty good
series, and handles in an entertaining and at times poignant way
the aliens� quest to discover their own identity, whilst trying
to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Teen angst meets
ufology, and yes, there �s some romance thrown in too. It�s
worth a look, as are the books that accompany the series, and
would make a good Christmas present for ufologists and sci-fi
fans alike. There are five books available, each costing �5.99,
published by Pocket Books.


UFO Magazine

The November/December edition of UFO Magazine went on sale at
the end of October, and should be in the shops now. It contains
the usual fascinating mixture of features, interviews, reviews
and photographs, including a full report on the 19th Leeds
International UFO Conference, where the speakers included Larry
Warren, Peter Robbins, Martyn Stubbs, Dr Steven Greer, Dr Rob
Wood, Ryan Wood and L. L. Wille. Check out their website at
www.ufomag.co.uk for further details.


Near Earth Objects Task Force Report

In my last column I commented on the publication of the Near
Earth Objects Task Force report, which gives a scientific
assessment of the threat posed to the Earth by comets and
asteroids, and makes detailed recommendations for action. The
issue was raised formally in Parliament on 28 September, by
means of a Written Question in the House of Lords. Lord Grenfell
asked �What progress there has been on the report of the Near
Earth Objects Task Force, which was appointed in January by the
Minister for Science�. The Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury
of Turville, replied as follows: �The report was published on 18
September. It is a valuable contribution to the debate on this
important issue. I am considering its recommendations carefully
before coming to a view on what action to take. I will inform
the House when I have done so. Copies of the report have been
placed in the Libraries of both Houses�.

This is taken from Hansard, which records the details of
parliamentary proceedings.

If you want to see the report, check it out for yourself at
www.nearearthobjects.co.uk.


British Government UFO Files To Be Made Public?

Talking of parliament, now the summer recess is over,
politicians will continue the process of getting a UK Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) onto the statute books.

This has excited ufologists, who are hoping that this will open
the floodgates and lead to many more UFO files being released.
Under the terms of the two Public Record Acts around 30 UFO
files are currently open to scrutiny at the Public Record
Office.

But there are around 240 files in total, so what the public have
seen is just the tip of the iceberg. The unseen files - dubbed
by some �the real X-Files� - are the ones that I worked on from
1991 to 1994, when I carried out my official Ministry of Defence
research and investigation into the UFO phenomenon and other
potentially related mysteries. Some of the files open to the
public contained papers classified at the secret level, together
with reports from military personnel, and cases where UFOs were
tracked on radar and where jets were scrambled in unsuccessful
attempts to intercept craft which turned out to be capable of
speeds and manoeuvres way ahead of anything in our own
inventory. But to coin a phrase, �you ain�t seen nothing yet�.
If, once we get our FOIA, the rest of the files are made public,
you�ll see what turned me from a sceptic to a believer.

As far as the files are concerned, the truth is in there.


Scientific Evidence For Life After Death?

Dr Peter Fenwick from the Institute of Psychiatry and Dr Sam Parnia from
Southampton
Hospital have just published the results of their experiments into near
death experiences.

Interviews were conducted with 63 survivors of heart attacks. 56
had no recollection of what happened while they were
unconscious, and of the seven that did, four had been declared
clinically dead. These people claimed that they could recall a
sensation of peace and joy, coupled with a bizarre sensation
that time was somehow speeded up. They also reported the bright
light that has often been reported by those who have had near
death experiences. Dr Fenwick said �If the mind and brain can be
independent, then this raises questions about the continuation
of consciousness after death�. This story broke just as I was
putting the finishing touches to this column, so I don�t have
any further details, but try an Internet search for Peter
Fenwick. Those with an interest in this should also check out
the book The Scole Experiment by Grant and Jane Solomon,
published by Piatkus. Check out their website at
www.piatkus.co.uk for details of this book and other titles on
the paranormal.

Nick Pope�s four books, Open Skies, Closed Minds, The Uninvited,
Operation Thunder Child and Operation Lightning Strike are
available from all good bookshops and from the usual Internet
book sites. His British publishers are Simon & Schuster. In
America, his first two books are published in hardback by The
Overlook Press and in mass-market paperback by Dell Publishing.


Nick Pope

London
November 2000







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                          Secrecy News -- 11/03/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:17:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:03:14 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/03/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 3, 2000

**      WAITING FOR A DECISION ON THE "LEAK" STATUTE
**      POLYGRAPH TESTING AND THE DOE NATIONAL LABS
**      SYMPOSIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY SCHEDULED


WAITING FOR A DECISION ON THE "LEAK" STATUTE

Senior Administration officials failed to reach a consensus
yesterday concerning the legislation to criminalize disclosures
of classified information that is awaiting a Presidential
signature or veto by tomorrow.

The status of the issue and some of the confusion over what the
bill actually means were described by Walter Pincus in the
Washington Post today:


http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4284-2000Nov2.html

"This is an Official Secrets Act," Senator Daniel P. Moynihan
told the New York Times.  "It is my expectation that the
president will say no," he added optimistically.  A veto of the
Intelligence Authorization Act, which contains the leak statute,
would also block adoption of the Public Interest
Declassification Act, a provision sponsored by Moynihan which he
has sought for years.  See:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03SECR.html

The New York Times editorial board blasted the leak statute and
urged a Presidential veto for the third time in about three
weeks, helping immensely to raise the stakes and to clarify the
national importance of the issue.  See:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/opinion/03FRI3.html

While the congressional intelligence committees serve as proxies
for the CIA, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James
Woolsey is opposing their determined efforts to increase the
power of the executive branch.  Woolsey incisively critiques the
leak statute in today's Wall Street Journal and argues for a
veto.  "President Clinton is concerned about his legacy.  He
has, here, an opportunity to enhance it substantially in the
minds of all those who care about civil liberties."

Daniel Ellsberg, the prototypical public interest leaker writing
in Salon magazine yesterday, asks "Would Clinton Ban Release of
the Pentagon Papers?"  Ellsberg urges a veto, but adds: "If the
bill is approved by Clinton, I hope that other people will
violate the law under the same circumstances that I did."  See:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/11/02/ellsberg/index.html

(Weirdly, a filing cabinet from the office of Ellsberg's
psychiatrist that was burgled at President Nixon's behest will
be on display at an exhibit on The American Presidency at the
National Museum of American History that opens November 15.)

Attorney General Janet Reno defended the leak statute, somewhat
anemically, at her weekly press briefing yesterday.
Significantly, she admitted that the new law "would not result
in a dramatically increased number of prosecutions" because the
law did not even address the government's real problem with
leaks, which is "the ability to determine who leaked the
information."  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/reno110200.html


POLYGRAPH TESTING AND THE DOE NATIONAL LABS

When President Clinton signed the Defense Authorization Act on
Monday, he blasted the Congress for surreptitiously inserting
language that will impose polygraph tests on thousands of
additional personnel in the Department of Energy nuclear weapons
complex.

"I am deeply disappointed that the Congress has taken upon
itself to set greatly increased polygraph requirements that are
unrealistic in scope, impractical in execution, and that would
be strongly counterproductive in their impact on our national
security," the President stated.  See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/defauth.html

"The Congressional requirement for polygraph testing has
arguably diminished both science and security," writes Steven
Aftergood in an essay on "Polygraph Testing and the DOE National
Laboratories" in the November 3 issue of Science magazine,
published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science.  See:

        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5493/939


SYMPOSIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY SCHEDULED

"Government Secrecy in a New Administration and a New Century"
is the topic of a day-long symposium to be held in Washington on
Tuesday, December 5.

Speakers and panelists include outgoing White House Chief of
Staff John Podesta, former Director of Central Intelligence R.
James Woolsey, Newsweek Managing Editor Evan Thomas, Washington
Times reporter Bill Gertz, and more.

The event is jointly sponsored by the federal Information
Security Oversight Office and the nonprofit James Madison
Project.  A brochure and registration form (300k in PDF format)
may be downloaded here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/symposium.pdf


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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:28:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:14:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:11:19 -0000


To James Easton

You have not read the book because it is not published yet. So,
obviously you have been told certain things from someone who had
a review copy, which this person should not have shared with you
because it was embargoed until publishing date.

Try as you will to debunk it, the facts will speak for themselves.

Now, please stop trying to write yourself into the story. Your
bitterness shows through.

The statements you go on about are but a small section of the
book, which is a total of 450 pages, and your suggestion that
you had any part to play in my research is absolutely nonsense.
Really!! For your information Halt had denied he wrote the
notes, so much for knowing so much!

I have not used anything from your ramblings, you can be sure of
that.

I am really too busy to respond to your posts, but felt
the record should be set straight here.

Georgina Bruni










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:28:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:16:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:40:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Gee, could it be said that James "Pelicanized" the picture.....

Yes, he certainly did, Robert. Enhanced it, made it to suit his
beliefs.....

All the pictures and everything else will be gladly shared after
publication date.

Georgina Bruni









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                    Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:21:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Ticchetti


 >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:34:32 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >I assume that you are using the 'Roper Poll' numbers for your
 >estimate of six million. The validity of that poll has been
 >argued so much (and convincingly from both sides!) that I don't
 >know if it's possible to use its results/findings with any
 >degree of certainty or reliability.

 >I have no idea 'how many' people are being abducted. I do know
 >it's a lot! By myself, over five or six years, I have
 >accumulated _hundreds_ of letters from people all over the
 >planet that are reporting UFO/alien abduction. Budd must easily
 >have ten or twenty times that number. Add that to what other
 >equally visible people such as; Jacobs, Mack, Fowler etc. must
 >have and you start to get into some significant numbers just
 >from those who have already reported to somebody.

 >I don't know about "millions" but easily thousands. Maybe tens
 >of thousands if you consider the ones who have not reported. It
 >is still an impressive enough number of people that you'd think
 >it would not be ignored by the mainstream research community the
 >way that it has.

 >Jerry Clark once said that (I paraphrase) in the future, the
 >lack of interest and response from modern science to the UFO
 >phenomenon would be viewed as one of its biggest
 >failures/shortcomings.

<snip>

Hello John,

Yes, I was talking about the 'Roper Poll'. It's amazing wonder
that over '6 million' people have been abducted, and the
authorites do nothing, or better, they tell us so.

The abduction enigma is a world problem. We can check around the
world that people have that experiences, wich have the same
proceeding and also others actions in common.

It's very difficult to try to fake such subject.

I read the book called 'The Abduction Enigma', by Kevin Randle.
An amazing book. I think that is very important to understand
the subject. We know several opinions about it. Some things in
the book I agree with, others I don't. I told that to Kevin.

I never studied a case of abduction. I'm first learning all I
could about the phenomenon, and they I will start to do my
researchers.

The abduction phenomenon is the most interesting subject in
ufology.

That's it.

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti

El placer es todo mio. Nosotros podriamos cambiar muchas otras
informaciones sobre el fenomeno.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

              Re: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers... - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:52:53 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:22:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers... - Cuthbertson


 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >UFO Research List - http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/

 >From: SHnSASSY1@aol.com
 >Mailing-List: list RealUFOs@egroups.com
 >Subject: [RealUFOs] Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_102803.html

 >Alien abduction hypnotisers deny planting subliminal ads

 >A US firm that promises to hypnotise people to make them think
 >they have been abduted by aliens has been accused of planting
 >subliminal adverts in their customer's minds at the same time.

 >Alien Abductions Inc promises to provide "personalised,
 >realistic memories of the alien abduction that you have been
 >waiting for your entire life".

 >But its team of '"doctors, hypnotists and memory implant
 >technicians" have been accused of implanting paid-for adverts
 >for companies.

 >Abductees are then said to be magnetically drawn to use the
 >advertised products thanks to the subliminal messages implanted
 >in their brains.

Perversity piled on perversity. One only hopes that researchers
like Hopkins, Mack, and other serious workers don't get swamped
with pseudo-abductees resulting from such craziness. Hopefully
such folks would be few and far between, and easily filterable.

Since this is all so laughable anyway, may I suggest the
following abduction memory implant option:

The wannabe abductee recalls being lifted into a saucer and
examined by aliens in the presence of Phil Klass, who warns the
victim that nobody will believe him if he remembers and tries to
tell his story. And a subliminal Gripple advert is implanted
before release.

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

               Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:07:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:24:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Credible Witnesses/Investigators? - Sandow


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Credible Witnesses/Investigators?
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:23:26 -0000

 >Hi,

 >Further to the on-going, if distasteful to some, discussion
 >about witness and/or investigator credibility, I'd like to give
 >information culled from an article in Wednesday's Independent
 >(UK newspaper).

 >The article, titled:

 >Lie Detector Test To Uncover False Rape Allegations

 >dealt with the somewhat-more-serious-than-saucers subject of
 >rape. And it made three very significant points all of which
 >have implications for ufology.

 >* Between 10 and 41 percent of rape allegations are made up by
 >the victim

 >* The research indicated that '...police officers who rely on
 >their detective skills and intuition when examining a statement
 >made by an alleged rape victim are no better than a member of
 >the public at idetifying a genuine complainant from a false
 >one.'

<snip>

 >Police departments go to far greater lengths to investigate rape
 >cases and to catch rapists, than ufologists do to investigate
 >UFOs. If they are coming up against a large body of fabricated
 >complaints and (if this research is genuine) their usual
 >detective skills are far from adequate - what does that tell us
 >about UFO witnesses and UFO investigators?

Very little. Rape is a highly charged area, to make a great
understatement, and charges of rape have their own psychological
and sociological profile. I'd be very cautious in drawing any
lessons or any parallels, to ufology or anything else. What
would be more relevant, in my non-professional opinion, would be
a figure for all complaints to police. How many of _all_
complaints are fabricated?

And even then we're not guaranteed a parallel to UFO reports.
How many bird watchers lie in their reports? How many alleged
witnesses to ball lightning? How many amateur astronomers? How
many scientists, for that matter?

I stressed that my opinion here is non-professional because all
of us are straying here into areas we aren't qualified to say
much about. Social scientists deal with these questions
professionally. To discuss them without reference to social
science research is kid stuff, no matter which side of the UFO
debate any of us take.

Greg Sandow








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:27:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600

As Jerry persists in replying, although with less and less to
say, I'm pleased to do him the service of explaining myself to
him.

 >I hope that you feel better now. Apparently, your view is that
 >everybody who doesn't share your views is delusional and greedy.

As usual Jerry you have failed to actually read and understand
my posts and instead have chosen to interpret them in your own
unique way. I didn't say the above, nor do I think it.

I did, however, say that I believe UFO authors have a duty not
to publish material in their books which imply we are being
visited by 'aliens' (use your own choice of word here) in
'craft' (ditto), when the evidence for this is non-existent. It
may make money but it's unethical. Simple as that. When you or
any of the others have some cast iron proof then, go for it.
Until then you must expect all the scepticism which can be
mustered.

 >A harsher critic than I might find this evidence of narcissism.

I didn't realise you _were_ critical Jerry!

 >Being more charitable my nature, I'll just call it the sort of
 >extremism that makes you unable to imagine that somebody could
 >disagree with you and yet be rational and honest. I have no
 >question about your own honesty. Beyond that, the opinions you
 >express above are neither original nor interesting.

If that's what you choose to think, that's fine. But it really
says very little about what we have been trying to discuss. A
discussion of which your friend Jenny said:

 >Andy's debate about misperception and the trend visible in the
 >evidence right now for seemingly high quality cases to be
 >diminishing in value is indeed relevant. It should not be run
 >away from.

And your constantly evasive replies suggest to me that you are
'running' Jerry. Very fast indeed.

I believe that the last couple of weeks' debate on this List has
made it abundantly clear that you, Jerry, and various others who
clearly (whether overtly stated or subtly implied) believe that
'aliens' (or whatever) are visiting earth have absolutely
nothing to offer in the way of arguable evidence.

Indeed, the reasonable debate about witness testimony,
investigator testimony, the UFO to IFO resolution, has only
served to demonstrate this fact.

I must here quote again from Jenny's post:

 >Ufology is after all about solving cases. That's
 >what most cases are in the long run - solved (or on the way to
 >being solved - even if that process takes anything from five
 >minutes to 50 years).

That's what I have been saying all along. With addition that if
that is the case then it is reasonable to suggest that all UFO
cases will be resolved to IFO.

Not just asserting this, but demonstrating by reasoned argument
and the provision of cases which prove that even most
complicated 'UFO' event can be resolved. Not to mention offering
serious studies of witness perception conducted outwith the tiny
area which we occupy in ufology.

And much more.

And will continue to do so as long as I hear tripe about craft
coming 'often' (Friedman) from 'elsewhen' (Macabee) or the like.

And yet Jerry, all you and your cohorts have been able to muster
against this wealth of sceptical argument are some rather weak
jokes about pelicanism (it's a great term, thanks for giving it
to us, we use it all the time now), some 'ad hominem' attack
(despite the fact you constantly accuse everyone else of it) and
the bald stating of case names in some bizarre litany as though
they have been pulled from a medieval grimoire and the mere
repetition of their names will cause sceptics to fall silent.

Which they won't.

So it's all rather unimpressive. This list is a very good list
for ufologists.

We have some hot debates. It's a pity that in this instance the
heavy guns of the Kings Own ETH Brigade have proved somewhat
rusty in the face of sceptical research into what I still
consider to be the greatest mystery going.

So, as John Rimmer sagely suggested, have a lie down. Listen to
some Emmy Lou, and come back when you have something which
genuinely counters any of the points raised by myself and others
sceptics over the past couple of weeks.

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:20:09 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:30:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:23:49 -0000

<snip>

 >Research such as the work by Battelle comparing solved and
 >unsolved cases parameter for parameter (indicating clear
 >statistical differences) and the GEPAN study of how IFOs
 >increase as atmospheric clarity decreases, whereas UFOs increase
 >as atmospheric clarity increases are keys to this IMO since they
 >do not support the null UFOs/all IFOs theory.

<snip>

Hi, Jenny:

This is an interesting statistical tidbit. Suggests that there
may be some astronomical IFO awaiting ID among the UFO
residuals.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:16:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:49:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:19:43 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:10:13 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Which "government entity" are you referring to Gary? And what
 >>are the activities that they are containing? What do you mean
 >>by; "carefully contain other activity within active sightings
 >>and anomaly areas." How does one "contain" an "active sighting?"
 >>Maybe you just worded that poorly.

 >John,

Hi Gary,

You respond:

 >Based on my own research: the agents' association is unknown.
 >All vehicles are unmarked, all agents have no obvious
 >identifying emblems but they do operate in historically cyclical
 >sightings areas.

Oh Gary, you give me so much to work with I hardly know where to
begin to tell you what is wrong with this mouthful you have laid
on us. Your response illustrates how 'rumor' can morph into
accepted, albeit unquestioned/unexamined, 'fact.' And then
eventually into firmly held belief. All without offering one
shred of supportive anything.

Gary, other than this personal research that you refer to;
(which you do BTW without elucidating as to 'what' that research
was or 'how' it was conducted) - how do you know that 'they'
(whomever the "they" is that you are referring to) are "agents"
at all? In your private research did you have occasion to
interview one of these "agents"? What kind of proof did he/she
provide to convince you that they were in fact a "agent" and
working for the government undercover?

You imply that: Government agents are driving around UFO hot
spots in unmarked cars chasing away the aliens and any UFO
investigators in the vicinity.

Honest to Hossanah Gary, I'm not saying that such a thing
isn't possible, it's just that every time I ask somebody who
is pitching the old Government Conspiracy theory to share
their 'evidence' for such activity, all I ever get are more
rumors, unchained speculations and pure hearsay.

That, is what I perceive to be one of the major glitches with
ufology in general. The 'noise level' is so high that some of
the voices we could be listening to get drowned out in the din.

Serious individuals that would otherwise lend their knowledge,
experience and talents are repelled by the storm of
unsubstantiated claims and just plain rumors that are a
'constant' with this subject. Who can blame them.

It's the preponderance of 'rumors' that makes ufologists as a
group, seem like undiscriminating whacko's to the uninitiated.

When we make claims that we are unable or unwilling to back up,
we _hurt_ the field (ufology) not help it. We, maybe more than
others need to apply solid, rational, thinking to our chosen
subject and be very careful that what we are collectively
putting 'out there' is what we think we know and can prove. As
you are well aware, there isn't a whole lot of that. The few
truths we are in possession of are buried so far under a heap of
Internet propagated dung that _few_ are willing to dig deep
enough to find it.

That's no excuse to 'fill in the gaps' with pure speculation,
conspiracy theories, and the like. You have proof? Lay it on the
table brother. Most of us here brought our open minds. But
please,... don't spread even more unfounded rumors.

Gary I'm just going to let you re-read your own responses to me.
I hope that now that there's a little distance between your
writing of it and this reading, it will allow you to see it a
bit more objectively. Just listen to the kinds of things that
you are putting 'out-there'. Mind you, if you had accompanied
the remarks with good solid supportive evidence, I'd be
listening, not talking.

You tell me, are the following contributions from you helping or
hurting us as a group that wishes to be taken seriously? I'll
leave it to you.

I know that you are a sincere guy, Gary. That your motives are
honest and that you genuinely wish to make a contribution to
ufology. All that comes through loud and clear. What I would
like for you to focus on for a moment is 'how' you are going
about it. You could be an effective 'agent' for ufology one day.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful - to aid that
metamorphosis. This is meant to be educational for you, not a
put down.  ;)

Here are your own words/claims:

Take deep breath here and just listen to yourself. Ruminate
about how another may be interpreting/evaluating/perceiving your
remarks:

 >Area activities seen by witnesses include sightings of craft or
 >craft/entity contact with area residents or other physical
 >objects. In other words, if entities are seen walking around,
 >agents go in to attempt to stop it.

you go on.....

 >>>Abductees are assumed to be around each of the few hot spot
 >>>areas we know of

I asked: Who has made that "assumption" Gary?

You respond:

 >I have. It stands up in all the cases I actively work with. And
 >yes, it is strange. It often seems as if certain persons are
 >moved by the ETs to occupy anomaly areas were sightings are
 >commonly seen. Seems to be a clear strategic action on the part
 >of both ETs and group surveilling them.

You continue with:

 >>>plus there is other strange activity, strange animals
 >>>for example, that the gov't. attempts to hide in addition to
 >>>monitoring through certain individuals.

I asked: The government is "hiding strange animals"? What kind
of "animals" are you referring to? What is the connection to the
"government"?

You respond:

 >"Hiding" by shutting down activity by electronic means.

[Are you implying that "government agents" are employing
something like a Klingon cloaking device in order to hide UFO
avtivity?]

 >Monkeys, huge worms, bug-like creatures, large cat/dog
 >combinations are some examples.

Ok. Not much I can say to that one that everyone reading this
isn't already mumbling to themselves.  ;)

 >The agents try to stop activity perhaps by closing dimensional
 >doorways that can be keyed-open,

Check please!

Keerist Gary, can't you see what gobbledy-gook all these claims
of "government agents" keying in/opening and closing
"dimensional doorways" in order to keep a few MUFON investigator
trainees in the dark, is simply laughable. And unless 'some
kind' of evidence is proffered, it stands as a purely ridiculous
and outrageous claim.

You say the following as if it was a well known and proven fact:

 >>>The monitoring (government of abductees) is for recovery
 >>>of individual experiences and possible contact with the
 >>>"other" activity so that it can be contained.

I asked: How do you know this Gary?

 >The stated logic fits the observed conditions.

Gary, there is no "logic" to any of this. You don't make it any
easier or clearer when you respond to requests for evidence with
more outrageous rumors and speculation. None of which you are
able to justify in any measure at all. Not even a little. You do
not make a convincing or even a good argument for your self.

Again, if you have _anything_ that will induce any interested
third party that; government agents are running around in the
corn fields of the great American mid-west zapping open and then
closing dimensional doorways (while simultaneously hiding the
whole operation with a Klingon cloaking device) I'm all eyes and
ears.

We all are.

Gary, proving _any_ one of the claims that you've made would
ensure your place in the history books!

Just share with us this "research" that you conducted that has
convinced _you_ that what you have claimed above is true. You're
dealing with an open-minded crowd here. You won't find a better
or more attentive audience anywhere. If you have _anything_
solid, I for one (and I'm sure I speak for others), will take
the time to give it and you serious consideration and thought.

If not.....

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:57:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600


Andy,

 >As usual Jerry you have failed to actually read and understand
 >my posts and instead have chosen to interpret them in your own
 >unique way. I didn't say the above, nor do I think it.

As usual, you take a lot of space to express your contempt for
all who are not wise enough to agree absolutely with you. And in
Andy-speak, failure "to actually read and understand" your posts
translates as failure to agree with them. I do admire your
touching belief, though, that to understand Andy is to concur
with him utterly. I wish I had that same faith in my own wisdom.
Or, on second thought, I'm glad I don't. The beginning of wisdom
is the knowledge that one could be wrong. So far as I can see,
where wisdom is concerned you have not begun.

 >I did, however, say that I believe UFO authors have a duty not
 >to publish material in their books which imply we are being
 >visited by 'aliens' (use your own choice of word here) in
 >'craft' (ditto), when the evidence for this is non-existent. It
 >may make money but it's unethical. Simple as that. When you or
 >any of the others have some cast iron proof then, go for it.
 >Until then you must expect all the scepticism which can be
 >mustered.

Of course "skeptics" are under no obligation to write
responsible books, are they? And they have certainly
demonstrated that lack of responsibility over the years, haven't
they? Even the Condon Committee (more specifically, a panel of
plasma physicists it assembled) condemned a Klass book as an
exercise in absurd pseudoscience, and James McDonald did the
same with Menzel's works. We may rest assured that you, in
common with other active pelicanists, have never breathed a word
of criticism Klass's and Menzel's way. One standard for your
side, another for ours. So what else is new?

The evidence for alien visitation is "nonexistent" only in your
dreams, Andy. Reasonable people may disagree about the strength
of that evidence, but only in the sloppy polemical sense that
characterizes so much of your discourse is it absent. You don't
believe it yourself; otherwise, you wouldn't be debating us, and
we'd deem you the sort of fool who actually felt compelled to
argue against something for which there really _is_ no evidence,
such as the existence of Santa Klaus.

People a lot smarter than you or me - Clyde Tombaugh, Allen
Hynek, James McDonald, Peter Sturrock, and a whole host of
others - came to the conclusion that alien visitation is a
reasonable interpretation of the UFO phenomenon, and they have
raised questions even Andy Roberts is incapable of answering -
except, of course, by the sort of chest-thumping bombast we see
above and elsewhere.

All writers, pro or con, should endeavor to get things right. I
know I have. That doesn't mean that I feel any obligation
whatever, however, to write only those books that you agree
with. My books have won a number of scholarly awards, so
apparently those who aren't rabid partisans in the Andy Roberts
mold think I am doing something right.

 >But it really
 >says very little about what we have been trying to discuss. A
 >discussion of which your friend Jenny said:

 >>Andy's debate about misperception and the trend visible in the
 >>evidence right now for seemingly high quality cases to be
 >>diminishing in value is indeed relevant. It should not be run
 >>away from.

One could write a book based simply on these two sentences
above. I respect my friend Jenny's opinion, but I doubt that
most experienced ufologists would accept her assertion as
unquestioningly as you do. I follow things fairly closely. So do
my esteemed colleagues at CUFOS, with whom I spent last
Saturday, and none of them has noted such a trend. I suspect
that she's extrapolating from some rather limited evidence.

 >And your constantly evasive replies suggest to me that you are
 >'running' Jerry. Very fast indeed.

Running from what? The body of UFO evidence that you choose to
declare, by fiat, nonexistent? No, Andy, I'm standing in place.
I won't move until you learn to restrain the rhetoric,
acknowledge that you no more know all the answers than any of
the rest of us do, and start acting like a colleague instead of
a self-glorifying, self-righteous streetcorner preacher.

 >I believe that the last couple of weeks' debate on this List has
 >made it abundantly clear that you, Jerry, and various others who
 >clearly (whether overtly stated or subtly implied) believe that
 >'aliens' (or whatever) are visiting earth have absolutely
 >nothing to offer in the way of arguable evidence.

In your dreams, guy. Remember, you're the man who has been
consistently unable to demonstrate your extraordinary claims
about the frequency of radical misperception. And I'll bet you
anything that you're a true believer in ball lightning. One
stand for your side, another for ours, right?

 >Indeed, the reasonable debate about witness testimony,
 >investigator testimony, the UFO to IFO resolution, has only
 >served to demonstrate this fact.

See my earlier posting on ball lightning. And again, let me
recommend David J. Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night,
a book I am sure you will never seek out because it so
effectively undercuts just about every article of faith on which
you operate. Hufford is very tough on guys who think like you,
with some pretty horrifying and instructive examples.

 >I must here quote again from Jenny's post:

 >>Ufology is after all about solving cases. That's
 >>what most cases are in the long run - solved (or on the way to
 >>being solved - even if that process takes anything from five
 >>minutes to 50 years).

 >That's what I have been saying all along. With addition that if
 >that is the case then it is reasonable to suggest that all UFO
 >cases will be resolved to IFO.

Why? What's your evidence? Hilariously, the same argument could
be used against ball lightning and may have been so used, for
all I know. One of the world's leading BL authorities, physicist
James Dale Barry, noted in a classic book on the subject that
the majority of ostensible BL cases can be explained
conventionally. He went on to observe that most alleged photos
of the phenomenon are known or suspected hoaxes. He did not then
go on, as you do, to argue that because most sightings and
photos are explainable, it follows that the rest are, too. Only
in pelican science is this sort of "reasoning" applied. In
science the signal-to-noise issue is the subject of a vast
literature, and only to pelicanists are ufologists' views in
this area unreasonable or unique.

 >Not just asserting this, but demonstrating by reasoned argument
 >and the provision of cases which prove that even most
 >complicated 'UFO' event can be resolved. Not to mention offering
 >serious studies of witness perception conducted outwith the tiny
 >area which we occupy in ufology.

David Hufford's devastating debunking of claims about witness
misperception is one of those serious studies you should be
reading, Andy, even if it tells you a whole lot of things you
can't stand to think about.

I'm sure that in person you are a perfectly nice guy, but in
your postings you come across as someone whom it is difficult to
take seriously. You have opinions set in concrete, hold those
who disagree in contempt, and are free with unflattering
adjectives and adverbs, not so good with reasoned argument or
intellectual restraint. In other words, a more or less typical
self-described skeptic. I am not impressed. James McDonald
impresses me. Andy Roberts does not.

 >And yet Jerry, all you and your cohorts have been able to muster
 >against this wealth of sceptical argument are some rather weak
 >jokes about pelicanism (it's a great term, thanks for giving it
 >to us, we use it all the time now),

Good to hear it. So do we. It's pleasing to know that one has
placed at least one phrase or word into the common discourse.
Actually, I've had two. The other one, which I coined to
characterize Bill Cooper-style paranoia and conspiracy theory,
is "Dark Side". I see that all the time now. It pleases me
mightily that both pelicanists and anti-pelicanists are using my
more recent word. Please feel free to continue to do so.

 >So, as John Rimmer sagely suggested, have a lie down.

What is a "lie down"? Is this some form of Britspeak?

 >Listen to
 >some Emmy Lou,

I would if I were familiar with her work. Or are you referring
to somebody who spells her first name Emmylou? Ah well, always
fun to pick a nit.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 3

             Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:27:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:00:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Velez

 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 2 Nov 2000 10:52:55 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600

 >>Listfolk:

 >>Recent developments in pelican science have opened up whole new
 >>vistas to UFO research. Through its insights we are able to look
 >>at old cases with new eyes.
 >Are the pelicanists in flight yet?

 >Have you added this term to the Ufologist glossary?

 >Bill Hamilton
 >(returning to the list after 3 years)

Hi Bill!

Just want to take the op to warmly welcome back an old friend.
Mr Bill, what's the latest and the greatest with the Phoenix
"triangle craft" sighting from 1997?

Was Ms. Barwood ever elected to office?

Good to see your name at the bottom of a post again.  ;)

Warm regards, say hi to Tommy King for me if you see him! Tell
him I lost his e-mail address.

John Velez
Still in there, swinging away. ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 4

                                    Test

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:48:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:48:33 -0500
Subject: Test

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:57:06 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:20:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cuthbertson


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600

 >As Jerry persists in replying, although with less and less to
 >say, I'm pleased to do him the service of explaining myself to
 >him.

 >>I hope that you feel better now. Apparently, your view is that
 >>everybody who doesn't share your views is delusional and greedy.

 >As usual Jerry you have failed to actually read and understand
 >my posts and instead have chosen to interpret them in your own
 >unique way. I didn't say the above, nor do I think it.

 >I did, however, say that I believe UFO authors have a duty not
 >to publish material in their books which imply we are being
 >visited by 'aliens' (use your own choice of word here) in
 >'craft' (ditto), when the evidence for this is non-existent.


Non-existent evidence:  some recent cited list examples ...

* Barney & Betty Hill
* Travis Walton
* Iranian air force UFO encounter (1976)
* Cash Landrum sighting and subsequent severe radiation injury.
* Filer's Files (years' worth of list postings; ever read it?)
* UFO Roundup (ditto)

Controversial?

Sure.

Open to analysis & debate?

Always. (which tends to result in books, you know)

Non-existent?

Ridiculous. Get real.

Learn to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof". There is a
difference. You apparently confuse the two. Or maybe you just
like to stir up mud. Or both.

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science -

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 3 Nov 2000 12:54:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:25:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science -


 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:27:34 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 2 Nov 2000 10:52:55 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science
 >>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600

 >>>Listfolk:

 >>>Recent developments in pelican science have opened up whole new
 >>>vistas to UFO research. Through its insights we are able to look
 >>>at old cases with new eyes.
 >>Are the pelicanists in flight yet?

 >>Have you added this term to the Ufologist glossary?


 >Just want to take the op to warmly welcome back an old friend.
 >Mr Bill, what's the latest and the greatest with the Phoenix
 >"triangle craft" sighting from 1997?

Read all about it soon when my book on the Phoenix Lights is launched
as an e-book. Will let you know.

 >Was Ms. Barwood ever elected to office?

No, she was not elected. She subsequently moved nearer to Prescott.

 >Good to see your name at the bottom of a post again. ;)

 >Warm regards, say hi to Tommy King for me if you see him! Tell
 >him I lost his e-mail address.

I don't see Tom much anymore since I moved back to Palmdale,
Calif.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:42:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:27:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:21:22 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Gates

 >>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:06:41 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

This could get complicated, there are so many players here. But I'll try
to be brief.

Previously, Jerome Clark had written:

 >>>(1) even people thought to be honest are likely to be closet
 >>>liars

I replied:

 >>No one has said that they are "likely" to be closet liars.
 >>However, as you just pointed out, they are only "thought" to be
 >>honest. Without validation, there is no proof that they are
 >>telling the truth or not. Do you prefer to "assume" they are
 >>telling the truth every time they open their mouths, no matter
 >>how fantastic their claims, and cast aside anything resembling
 >>an unbiased, objective view?

Robert says:

 >I see what you are saying. We are just assuming that Roger Evans
 >is honest, but we have no validation as to whether he is telling
 >the truth or not. Perhaps we should assume for sake of
 >discussion that Roger is not honest and has all sorts of
 >alterior motives to say and do the things he does.
 >
 >Lets take it a step further. Can we even prove that a dude name
 >Roger Evans exists?

 >What about a drivers license? Well they can be hoaxed (i.e.
 >counterfit)

 >What about a birth certificate? IF the certificate is real, it
 >doesn't mean that the Roger Evans mentioned on the birt
 >certificate is the same Roger Evans of today.

 >Well what about bank accounts, utility bills etc? Doesn't mean a
 >thing. What about fingerprints? Only if he happens to have been
 >finger printed in the past and that still doesn't guarantee that
 >some dude claiming to be Roger Evans got fingerprinted years
 >back.

 >Gosh, since we can reasonably/rationaly explain away everything,
 >the only thing left is the testimony of others, i.e. his parents
 >and or neighbors he grew up with. Ooops, sorry, the testimony of
 >others really doesn't mean anything, especially if you are
 >attempting to prove the existance of Roger Evans only on the
 >technical evidence.

Robert, I haven't got a clue what your point is with the above
diatribe. All I pointed out is that perceptions about other
people are only just that; "perceptions". A person is honest
until they are not. A car part is good until it fails. A balloon
floats until it doesn't. Things change. Even a person that you
are 100% SURE is 100% honest is totally capable of telling a
falsehood under the right circumstances. There is nothing to
prevent it. If there was, then courtrooms would not have full
dockets as we could rely on such a mechanism to give us straight
answers to complicated issues.

As far as my existence or honesty goes, assume what you wish. I
could care less.

Continuing, Jerry has written:

 >>>(2) eyewitness testimony means nothing and can be safely
 >>>disregarded if it attests to the sighting of an unorthodox
 >>>phenomenon

I replied:

 >>On the contrary, eyewitness testimony has incredible value once
 >>it has been validated. Without validation, however, testimony is
 >>indistinguishable from a bold faced lie. Do you have a special
 >>insight that tells you who is telling the truth and who isn't
 >>without proof? Or do you prefer to "assume" they are telling the
 >>truth every time they open their mouths, no matter how fantastic
 >>their claims, and cast aside anything resembling an unbiased,
 >>objective view?

Robert writes:

 >How do we validate the testimony of a rape victim, if their is
 >no camera that conviently photographed the attack and no DNA
 >evidence? All that left is the testimony of the witness, her
 >friends and family, those that knew her and any others who might
 >have seen her just after it happened.

You are quite right. Thanks for validating my position that
"perceptions" are only that; they are not proof. And, by the
way, don't think for a second that false rapes or other crimes
aren't reported. Not wanting to trivialize the issue of rape or
any other violent crime, but I can't think of anything more
dangerous than someone being believed, without validtion, when
they accuse someone else of such a hideous act. Believe me,
there are many forms of 'rape' in society, and not all of them
are sexual in nature. I believe if you want to pursue this logic
further, you need to get off the subject of rape. It doesn't
even compare to the issues at hand.

Continuing, Jerry wrote:

 >>>(3) there is no such thing as a credible or reliable observer.

I responded:

 >>Do you define a "credible or reliable" observer as someone whose
 >>word does not have to withstand validation? If so, then please

Robert says:

 >Tell us what your criteria is for 'validation' of the existance
 >or non existance of UFOs. For example if the criteria is a UFO
 >landing during half time at the super bowl, that only validates
 >the existance of *one* UFO that has visited the earth. It would
 >not validate the existance of any other alleged events. The
 >skeptics would instantly claim and rationalize away the landing
 >as some kind of grand deception and or secret govt craft, and or
 >mass dellusion and or hoax and or practical joke on a grand
 >scale.

 >The point being is that even if you have _absolute_ proof in
 >your hands, the skeptics can rationalize away absolutly anything
 >and sound rather scientific and convincing while they are doing
 >it.

 >Or, said in another way, can you personally prove the existance
 >of the 1966 Cobra? Whatever photos you come up can be explained
 >away as hoax, whatever testimony you can come up with can be
 >explained away as unreliable, and even if you come up with a
 >real, functioning car, a true pelicanist can explain that away
 >as some kind of modern hoax, they just can't quite prove how it
 >was done. Alas, when you make the claim that all the evidence
 >(photos, testimony and actual working model) all point to the
 >existance of said car, the pelicanist can rationalize it all
 >away as being meaningless because a true pelicanist knows the
 >principle 'it can't be so therefor it isn't.'

Again, Robert, I don't have a clue what your point is as it
relates to my position regarding validation. I don't set the
standards for what constitutes validation. On the other hand,
overzealous UFO proponents don't really care if any exists at
all. I do not consider myself a skeptic. I believe in the
existence of UFO's and ET life forms. The fact that I happen to
ask some of the same questions as a skeptic has maybe confused
you a bit.

So, if you've been debating with me from the standpoint that I
am a skeptic because I happen to talk like one, then that proves
my point to the bone. You can't trust "perceptions".

King Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:36:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:29:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:58:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:38:28 -0700

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600


Bob,

 >My wife's uncle once described something similar to me. Lighting
 >had struck a power pole in front of his house and a ball of
 >light had bounced down the street. I once spoke to an airline
 >pilot who told me that after lighting had apparently struck the
 >nose of his aircraft, ball lighting had flouted back down the
 >isle and into the passenger area, where it disappeared.

Ah, yes, anecdotal testimony from persons who, pelicanists would
tell us if they truly had the courage and consistency of their
stated convictions, were probably fooled by some conventional
stimulus; if not that, they were probably making the stories up.
Misperceptions and hoaxes abound in alleged BL sightings, as
even true believers in its reality concede.

 >The thing about ball lighting is that there are pictures of it

Just as there are pictures of UFOs. And, according to James Dale
Barry (author of the classic Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning),
the overwhelming majority of pictures of BL are fakes. What is
your point -- other than, of course, the obvious one: that you
hold people you agree with to one standard, the rest of us to
another?

 >and there has been lots of work done on plasmas, which are the
 >best bet, I gather, for an explanation. Science has moved
 >forward on the matter of ball lightning in the last 50 years.

Nope. Various theories have been offered, and all have been
judged unsatisfactory for one reason or another. One important
reason some scientists still deny that BL exists. In the end,
scientists interested in and sympathetic to BL point to
sightings -- you know, anecdotal testimony -- as the reason for
their belief in the phenomenon. The quote I used earlier, from
Australian plasma physicist John Lowke, was in direct response
to a question from Scientific American on why he thinks BL is
real. As listfolk may recall better than Bob does, Lowke said he
believes in it because people he judges credible claim to have
seen it.

 >Of course, this is all headed toward his nemesis, Philip J.
 >Klaus, who's first book on the subject, UFOs Identified,
 >focused on the ball lightning explanation.

Klaus? Again? Well, I recently misspelled Santa's last name the
same way, so I guess I'll give you a pass on Klass's last name.
I think you're getting us both confused.

That aside, your pelicanist credentials are well in order, I
see. UFOs Identified, the book you alluded to here, was exposed
as an exercise in ludicrous pseudoscience by _both_ James
McDonald and the Condon Committee*. And you are actually citing
it as if it's something we ought to be taking seriously? One
standard for your side, another for ours. Could anything be more
predictable?

Jerry Clark

*Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Bantam
edition, 748-50.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:31:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600

 >See my earlier posting on ball lightning. And again, let me
 >recommend David J. Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night,
 >a book I am sure you will never seek out because it so
 >effectively undercuts just about every article of faith on which
 >you operate. Hufford is very tough on guys who think like you,
 >with some pretty horrifying and instructive examples.

Jerry, you are constantly referring to a book called "The Terror
that Comes in the Night" by someone called David Hufford, in the
apparent belief that this demolishes what you term the
'pelicanist' approach to ufology. Now I have read a book with
the identical title, by someone, coincidentally, also called
David Hufford which seems to be saying something rather
different to the book you have read. Perhaps you could give me
the full bibliographical details for your version, and I will
have my team of highly-trained uber-librarians track it down.

OK, joke over, we're talking about the same book. You may
remember that I reviewed it very favourably in Magonia (or was
it even in MUFOB days?) shortly after it came out. In my reading
of the book Hufford is critical of people who have looked at
phenomena such as the "Old Hag" and have treated them as
'legends'. 'stories', mere 'folktales' and so on; and have
indeed conducted a form of literary criticism on them. The value
of Hufford's book is that he demonstrates that the Old Hag is an
actual _experienced_ phenomenon, and information about it can be
gleaned from listening to the people who have personally
experienced it.

What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that there is an
actual physical being called the Old Hag which sneaks into
people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they sleep and
tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in his approach
which does not also apply to the type of sceptical, psychosocial
approach of our beloved pelicans.

No critical ufologists is saying that people do not _experience_
UFO events or, despite what you seem to think in your recent
laboured fantasies, that accounts of individuals personal
experiences do not tell us important things about the UFO
experience. There is no determined effort to ignore everything
that witnesses say, only a realisation that individual testimony
is not the _only_ source of data for UFO accounts. Surely any
competent investigator will check witnesses' own accounts with
such basic information as weather reports, a survey of the
environment where the experience occured, a check on relevant
astronomical data, and so forth. Doing this does not imply that
from the start that you are doubting the witness's account or
suggesting they are a liar. But if the additional data you
uncover in your investigations starts to contradict the witness,
the time will surely come when you must start to doubt at least
part of that original testimony.

I don't really see what the relevance of Hufford is to all this,
except that he confirms that anomalous experiences, such as
UFOs, such as abductions, such as the Old Hag, _do_ happen to
ordinary people in circumstances which also appear to be
ordinary; and that these are descriptions of real experiences,
not literary constructs or folktales. Hufford doesn't think the
Old Hag is a real, evil old woman who creeps into windows. Do
you? I don't think that UFOs are real extraterrestrial
spaceships. Do you?

 >Why? What's your evidence? Hilariously, the same argument could
 >be used against ball lightning and may have been so used, for
 >all I know.

I think you are being a little too sanguine about the level of
scientific acceptance of ball lighting. It is still a
controversial subject. Personally I feel that James Dale Barry's
comments on ball lighting (which you describe below) make quite
a good case _against_ it being a real phenomenon rather than a
collection of different things which have been given a
convenient, catch-all, name.

 >One of the world's leading BL authorities, physicist
 >James Dale Barry, noted in a classic book on the subject that
 >the majority of ostensible BL cases can be explained
 >conventionally. He went on to observe that most alleged photos
 >of the phenomenon are known or suspected hoaxes. He did not then
 >go on, as you do, to argue that because most sightings and
 >photos are explainable, it follows that the rest are, too. Only
 >in pelican science is this sort of "reasoning" applied. In
 >science the signal-to-noise issue is the subject of a vast
 >literature, and only to pelicanists are ufologists' views in
 >this area unreasonable or unique.

 >David Hufford's devastating debunking of claims about witness
 >misperception is one of those serious studies you should be
 >reading, Andy, even if it tells you a whole lot of things you
 >can't stand to think about.

I don't know if Andy's read it or not, but I have and I found
little to disagree with in it.

 >I'm sure that in person you are a perfectly nice guy,

No he isn't, he's a right Yorkshire bastard!

 > >So, as John Rimmer sagely suggested, have a lie down.

 >What is a "lie down"? Is this some form of Britspeak?

Sometimes, Jerry, as Sigmund Freud so wisely observed, a cigar
is just a cigar, and a lie down is just a lie down. Go into a
dark room, lie down quietly (none of that nasty rock'n'roll
playing, maybe just a quiet Chopin nocturne), perhaps a damp
cloth to cool your fevered brow, and in an hour or two you'll
feel a lot better.

 >Cheers,

 >Jerry Clark

Lots of love

--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:02:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:33:20 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:33:12 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:23:50 EST
 >>Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:43:13 +0200
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:05:53 -0400
 >>>Subject: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>>Some time ago, a casual glance at the book 'The Hynek
 >>>UFO Report' lead me to a puzzling finding about Hynek's
 >>>research on the Elmood Park (Illinois) case of Nov. 4th,
 >>>1957 - see "The Squad Car and the Glowing Sphere" in
 >>>Chapter 8.

<snip>

 >>>In fact, it can be verified that the
 >>>moon was indeed to the _West_ near the horizon!

 >>>This could be a good explanation of the sighting, provided
 >>>that the observers had a _clear_westerly_view. Can anyone
 >>>check this?

 >>Dear Manuel Borraz, List:

 >>You may be right.

 >>The time given for the incident in Hynek's book (p. 172) is 3:00
 >>A.M. and the location was Elmwood Park, Ill. The witnesses said
 >>that, "The object slowly decended and hovered a few feet off the
 >>ground" to the West.

 >>I went to the U. S. Naval Observatory website, "Sun and Moon for
 >>a Day", at:

 >>http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html#forma

 >>and found that the waxing gibous, 92% illuminated Moon
 >>set at 3:32 A.M. It would have been perhaps 5 degrees or so
 >>above a true horizon thirty-two minutes before setting, and
 >>depending upon horizon obstructions could have appeared
 >>nearly at ground level.

<snip>

 >Hello all:

 >1) The Naval Observatory link above looks highly useful.
 >Hopefully, discrepancies between this and my algorithms
 >will be small.

 >2) The Reference and page number is also useful; The Hynek
 >UFO Report,  1977 J.A. Hynek pg. 172.

<snip>

 >The moon was out, and to the West. I don't think the
 >policemen's description matches the moon however.


Hello Larry,

I see that the lunar explanation didn't convince you. I'll take
a little time to elaborate further on, hoping this could help.

The witnesses described the object as:

"a bright spherical object"

"like an iridescent orange beach ball except much larger"

"the color and brightness never changed throughout the
entire episode"

"bright but not hard on the eyes, and very beautiful"

"It seemed to glow and its color was compared by both
men to the color of a setting sun, but not as bright"

All of this apply quite well to the Moon's disk near the horizon.
If you aren't convinced yet, read the following!

"... they agreed that if I [Hynek] brought in a balloon painted
bright orange and of a size of about an ordinary moon, and held
it in the sky, that it would look very much like the object they
remembered"

By the way, the object didn't remain circular all the time. For
a moment, it "lost its circular shape and took on a cigar shape
surrounded by a fogginess which seemed to emanate from the
object itself". Afterwards, it "resumed its circular shape, and
sucked up the fogginess around it". I've seen a similar display
myself when observing the Moon playing with clouds.

Now you can be tempted to think: OK, the object ressembled the
Moon, but it moved in strange ways all the time, so it's clear
that it couldn't be the Moon.

I think this would be to miss the core of the problem.
In fact:

-The object ressembled the Moon.

-It was most (if not all) of the time to the west, where the
Moon was (this latter being unnoticed there...!!).

-It disappeared around the time at which the Moon did set.

-And it disappeared just as the Moon would do ("the object
disappeared as though a person pulled a black shade up from the
bottom, or as though one were filling the spherical object with
a black ink").

Hence it seems reasonable to admit that the three men probably
saw the Moon indeed, despite the apparent strangeness of the
reported movements.

These latter should be carefully analized from this point of
view. In the same way that the description of the object's look
is not imaginative, I think that the account of the movements
isn't imaginative either, and could be traced back to some
perceptive illusions. Of course, there could also be some
inaccuracies (in fact, we know for sure that the witnesses were
in error when placing the Moon to the East).

So the Moon seems to cast a new light on a case with many
peculiar features: multiple and "reliable" witnesses, the
endorsement by an experienced ufologist (Hynek), apparent "EM
effects" (dimming of the spotlight and the headlights), its
occurrence the day after the Levelland case.....

And it could be also the day that the police shot the Moon,
close to a cemetery!  (One of the agents "wanted to shoot at it,
but was cautioned by Officer _____ not to shoot until he knew
more about it").

Manuel Borraz








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:17:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:35:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:50 +0100

 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:34:32 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>I assume that you are using the 'Roper Poll' numbers for your
 >>estimate of six million. The validity of that poll has been
 >>argued so much (and convincingly from both sides!) that I don't
 >>know if it's possible to use its results/findings with any
 >>degree of certainty or reliability.

 >>I have no idea 'how many' people are being abducted. I do know
 >>it's a lot! By myself, over five or six years, I have
 >>accumulated _hundreds_ of letters from people all over the
 >>planet that are reporting UFO/alien abduction. Budd must easily
 >>have ten or twenty times that number. Add that to what other
 >>equally visible people such as; Jacobs, Mack, Fowler etc. must
 >>have and you start to get into some significant numbers just
 >>from those who have already reported to somebody.

 >>I don't know about "millions" but easily thousands. Maybe tens
 >>of thousands if you consider the ones who have not reported. It
 >>is still an impressive enough number of people that you'd think
 >>it would not be ignored by the mainstream research community the
 >>way that it has.

 >>Jerry Clark once said that (I paraphrase) in the future, the
 >>lack of interest and response from modern science to the UFO
 >>phenomenon would be viewed as one of its biggest
 >>failures/shortcomings.

 ><snip>

 >Hello John,

 >Yes, I was talking about the 'Roper Poll'. It's amazing wonder
 >that over '6 million' people have been abducted, and the
 >authorites do nothing, or better, they tell us so.

Whether it's 6 million or 6 thousand the "authorities" as you
call them _should have_ gotten involved. I would have much
preferred reporting my abduction to the FBI rather than Budd
Hopkins. The difference between the two is; Budd wouldn't have
laughed me off the telephone or had me committed for
observation! About the only thing I think the feds would do is
start a new 'whacko' file.  ;)

 >The abduction enigma is a world problem. We can check around the
 >world that people have that experiences, wich have the same
 >proceeding and also others actions in common.

Yes Thiago. The fact that so many of the reports contain the
same details and sequences of events is (IMHO) significant. If
it was _any_other_subject_ it would be referred to as
"corroborative testimony" from independent witnesses. Because we
are talking about reports of UFO abduction, rather than
significant testimony it is labelled; the result of mass media
contamination and suggestion from the UFO/ET protagonists.

These are the two extremes of opinion that have precipitated
from the single source of abduction reports. I suspect (like
just about everything else) that the truth lies somewhere in the
middle.

 >It's very difficult to try to fake such subject.

Tell that to the people who insist (without taking the time to
get to know us,) that we are not only 'fakers', but liars, and
worse.

I often wonder how well many of them would take to being
dismissed out of hand and considered mentally deficient, or a
needy liar, and without a fair hearing?

That's what we have to endure if we want to speak out about what
is happening to us. I'm not going to live out my life hiding in
fear of ridicule, or in miserable and lonely isolation with this
"monster" because it makes a few folks squeemish. As abductees
it is every bit as challenging and uncomfortable for us to have
to deal with them, as it is for them to have to contend
with/deal with us.

Tough cookies all around!

 >I read the book called 'The Abduction Enigma', by Kevin Randle.
 >An amazing book. I think that is very important to understand
 >the subject. We know several opinions about it. Some things in
 >the book I agree with, others I don't. I told that to Kevin.

Yeah, I've read it. I have several "opinions" about it too, but
we won't open that can of worms here.  :)

 >I never studied a case of abduction. I'm first learning all I
 >could about the phenomenon, and they I will start to do my
 >researchers.

Let me know where you are located Thiago. If anyone from your
area should contact me, I'll ask them if they will speak with
you. If the person is amenable to it, you can start from there.

 >The abduction phenomenon is the most interesting subject in
 >ufology.

I guess to the uninitiated it could be viewed as "interesting."
To witnesses/experiencers it can terrifying, disturbing, and
very disruptive to the course of ones life.

 >El placer es todo mio. Nosotros podriamos cambiar muchas otras
 >informaciones sobre el fenomeno.

Si lo puedo hacer en Ingles! Yo puedo leer y escribir en espanol
un poco para defenderme. Pero Ingles es el idioma que me viene
mas facil, y donde tengo facilidad.  ;)


Warm regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Walton

From: Fran Walton <LWalton55@cs.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:47:32 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:37:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Walton


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:21:55 -0700

Hi Sue, Errol, and List

 >Fran wrote:

 >>How could an abductee or someone who has perceived himself to
 >>be one, assimilate the events into their everyday lives without
 >>assistance?

If I have offended you, I apoligize. My comment was not meant
to be addressed to all abductees as such. I am sure that many
do go on living healthy, productive, lives without any
_professional_ assistance.

My concerns center around the scenario as you painted it. I am
appalled at the number of people who _believe_ they are either
qualified at all or so totally qualified to _treat_ people, who
have no clue as to what the client/patient is talking about. For
a MHP to dismiss the possibility, out of hand, is deplorable.

Yes, I have no doubts that there are many _suggestable_
individuals who have identified with these experiences enough to
take them as their own. That is not blanket license for the
smugness and arrogance of some MHPs.

All the more reason, in my humble albeit inexperienced opinion,
that there is such a desperate need for the participation of
ufology educated professionals for those who have no, and have
not in the past, had somewhere safe to turn.

Equally as important, again, in my opinion, if not even _more_
important, is the need for a Universal Code of Ethics amongst
all researchers and counsellors of any type in the field of
UFOlogy.

 >It's easy to be glib about what and how MHPs should act and
 >respond. Put them _even_ close to the experiences and they can't
 >handle it.

I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks or position as glib.
They were in no way intended that way. Your expression of
feelings are reinforcement for the rights and well being of
abductees to be the first and foremost concern of any
nonabductee individual attempting to ascertain information.

 >We are _really_ tired of such people, Fran and Gary. Really
 >tired. None of _us_ have the answers, so why do we expect the
 >MHPs to have any? We don't. We just want someone to listen
 >and not laugh. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all, Sue. Not at all.

Sincerely,

Fran









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                     Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 23:58:55 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:44:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:03:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:49:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>>>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>>>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>>>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>>>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>>>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>>>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>>>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>>>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>>>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >>>>Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.>

 >>>Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >>>of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >>>many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >>>astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >>>concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >>>"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >>At Malmstrom Air Force Base an object that was seenhovering ove
 >>a missile silo caused jets to be scrambled. Sabotage alert teams
 >>phoned in the report of the objet and said it went dark as the
 >>jets approached. Then it rose straight upwards and was tracked
 >>by radar that lost it at 200,000 ft. As I recall the official
 >>NORAD log called this an "unknown" (See 'Clear Intent' or other
 >>references)

 >>>>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >>>Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begird the trees, and
 >>>practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
 >>>friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >>>Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

 >>I spoke to one of the guards many man years ago. He said the
 >>object that he saw an orange glowing object over the base. In
 >>the official documentation it was called a "helicopter" for lack
 >>of a better term. Hahaha. The guy did not seem to be crazy as a
 >>loon.

 >Hi, Bruce:

 >There were many sightings at Loring. Klass claimed that a
 >helicopter was being used in the area and that may have
 >accounted for some of the sightings.

No kidding? Helicopters around the largest AF base in
northeastern US. Now there's a revelation.

You gotta give it to Phil. No lack of technical acumen there.
Master of the snooty putdown though.

Did he mention B-52s as well?

The anomaly would have been if there were no helicopters around
Loring. I'll bet you even money that the locals [those preceived
hicks in Phil's mind] were better at spotting the choppers than
Phil was in his office at AW, and could tell you the model by
the rotor noise. They probably didn't even have to look up.

best

Don









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              The Cydonian Imperative: The 'Cliff' - What We'll

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:46:53 -0500
Subject: The Cydonian Imperative: The 'Cliff' - What We'll


11-3-00

The Cydonian Imperative

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The "Cliff": Predictions for Future High-Resolution
Images

by Mac Tonnies

(For linked, illustrated version, please visit

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

and select #9 from the Journal section.)


If the Cydonian feature dubbed "the Cliff" is an artificial
construction, as suggested by the Artificiality Hypothesis (AH),
then certain deductions on its appearance at high-resolution
should be capable of being forecasted with an appreciable degree
of accuracy. This is the attractive aspect of forming a
hypothesis: testability. The Artificiality Hypothesis is no
exception.

In the previous essay I outlined the difficulties involved when
dealing with potential artifacts left by a civilization about
which we know nothing. Nevertheless, scientific verification of
secondary features on the Face demonstrates that making such
predictions isn't impossible and that Cydonia falls within the
arena of scientific methodology.

[image]


The Cliff seen in context with "splash" crater.

1.) Context

The "Cliff" is actually an approximately two-mile long tapered
wedge that rests on the surface of a "splash"-style crater.
Numerous investigators have observed that if the Cliff feature
had been present prior to the meteor impact that produced the
crater, it would have been destroyed, effectively buried under a
shockwave of mud. No known geological mechanism exists that
could explain how such an isolated., clearly defined formation
could have emerged from the debris apron surrounding the crater.
The Cliff certainly doesn't appear to be "ripple" in the ejecta
blanket.

(Not only does the Cliff defy geological explanation in its
clear-cut appearance, but its axis of symmetry is set at a
geologically implausible ninety degrees to the crater. In this
writer's opinion, the Cliff constitutes one of the most glaring
anomalies in Cydonia, equal to or surpassing the Face.
Curiously, it remains one of only three primary candidate
formations (others being the D&M Pyramid and Rounded Formation)
not photographed by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS).

[image]


Close-up of the Cliff. Note apparent facial features.

2.) Morphology

Daniel Drasin was the first to note that the Cliff's unusual,
bisymmetric shape appears intriguingly face-like, with apparent
lidded eyes, mouth, and elongated cheeks; the overall affect is
similar to that of an African ritual mask. And as mentioned in
the article about the Tholus (see previous page), viewing the
Cliff from an elevated southern perspective would have the
effect of "compressing" the facial features into more
anthropomorphic proportion.

Thus, the Cliff seems to represent a second Cydonian Face. If
it's artificial, then new photos taken at resolutions comparable
to that of the MGS should show stylized detail consistent with
the anthropomorphism evidenced by the Viking data. Specifically,
will the eye-like features, "nose" and "mouth" remain present
when seen in MGS-quality resolution, or will they vanish upon
close inspection? If they are indeed actual features, can they
be explained in geological terms?

It should be stressed that the Cliff's apparent humanoid
characteristics appear decidedly abstract. But ignoring it
because it doesn't strictly correspond to human anatomy could
amount to a major investigative error. After all, we humans
create all sorts of facial sculptures that don't conform to
anatomical reality; are we really prepared to assert that
"Martians" would necessarily differ from us in this respect?
Even if the candidate facial features were absent, the Cliff's
geomorphology and proximity to the "splash" crater demand a
closer examination, if only to ascertain how Martian
geology--thought to be comparable to Earth's--could produce it.

3.) Summary: What to Expect

By applying the Artificiality Hypothesis, it can be logically
argued that the following features will be verified or
discovered:

a.) Stylized facial motif, possibly but not necessarily
including heightened detail corresponding to "mouth," "eyes,"
"chin," etc.

b.) Reasonable bisymmetry. Even if the Cliff itself proves
somewhat less that symmetrical, the facial features, if that is
indeed what they are, should appear along a common access of
symmetry.

c.) Possible evidence of construction. Already, the "plowed"
terrain visible to the immediate right of the Cliff and
extending to the crater rim suggests a possible mining
operation. Faintly visible directly below the Cliff is a bright,
ruler-straight line that appears to descend the crater's ejecta
blanket to the desert floor. If this is a real feature, then we
might expect it to constitute a ramp of some sort, either
emplaced to assist in the Cliff's construction and/or for a
cultural purpose. The Cliff's conspicuous relationship with the
Tholus adds weight to the theory that that Cliff was designed
for aesthetic reasons.

In summary, a properly enhanced, high sun-angle image of the
Cliff is especially desirable in the continuing effort to
discern potential artifacts on the Martian surface. Should the
MGS have a chance to reimage Cydonia before concluding its
mapping mission, I hope the Cliff is made a high-priority target
and is released to the public in a forthright manner.

Note: In this essay have deliberately excluded detailed
speculation on the Cliff's precise function. Richard Hoagland,
for example, has proposed that the Cliff might have served as a
backdrop for the Face when viewed from the City area.

--end--








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                          Big Story On Crop Circles

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:49:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:49:41 -0500
Subject: Big Story On Crop Circles


Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-4nov2000-50.htm

British man arrested for faking crop circles
Sat, 4 Nov 2000
ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] News


A 29-year-old British man has been arrested after being
photographed creating crop circles, the intricate patterns which
appear in fields overnight and are seen by some as evidence of
alien life.

Matthew Williams, from Wiltshire in western England, has been
charged with causing criminal damage, becoming the first person
in Britain to be arrested for creating crop circles.

He was picked up after pictures of him and an accomplice
flattening a field of wheat were passed on to police.

The arrest provides evidence the crop circles, which have
fascinated fans of the paranormal for years, are nothing but an
intricate hoax.

� 2000 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:35:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:51:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:50:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:19:30 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>Hello Jerry, Bob, and List subscribers,

 >>I don't want to jump in the middle of this thread that started
 >>regarding Jill Tarter's ignorance of UFO evidence. That led into
 >>a further thread concerning Bob Young's claims regarding a low
 >>percentage of UFO cases that have not been resolved into IFOs. I
 >>do want to throw in my comments regarding a couple of cases that
 >>were mentioned and throw in an additional case. I have always
 >>had a particular interest in the Coyne case, as at one time I
 >>used to fly the same type of helicopter in the Army and I could
 >>easily imagine myself in his position. All I can say is that in
 >>every helicopter when the collective stick is up the helicopter
 >>goes up, and when it is down the helicopter goes down. I don't
 >>think Coyne was mistaken about the helicopter acting against
 >>that principle. That is like forgetting that your car turns left
 >>when the steering wheel turns left. Some other force was acting
 >>on the helicopter to cause it to act against that principle of
 >>pitch in the rotor blades. Bob, do you think Coyne was mistaken?

 >Hi, Josh:

 >It's good to get your insight as a helicopter pilot. I think the
 >issue is that Phil Klass suggests that Coyne just didn't
 >remember pulling up on the controls, afterwards, but had just
 >done it automatically. Doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

 >>The Michalak case was also discussed. I'd like to know what
 >>irregularities in the case have been proposed elsewhere. Other
 >>than his sole testimony, I would like to hear how a debunker can
 >>explain his burns. Bob, what do you think? Were they self
 >>inflicted? How?

 >Don't know. Have you ever seen a medical report on his injuries?

 >>Another case that I am rather passionate about is the Cash -
 >>Landrum incident. To my knowledge it has never been resolved and
 >>is still a UFO, whether possibly from our military or anyone
 >>else. That is a case not often mentioned on this list and was
 >>not included in the recent 10 best cases. Bob, do you want to
 >>propose any irregularities in that case? How do you propose they
 >>received their horrible injuries?

 >Regarding their horrible injuries, I know that Betty Cash had
 >cancer. I believe that she sued the U.S. Government. Has there
 >ever been a medical report available on any of their "injuries"?

 >>I don't want to get myself involved in defending the above
 >>cases. I would like to hear any evidence, not conjecture, that
 >>would answer my questions.

 >So would I. I'm not a doctor and it would be worth while to get
 >some medical evidence or reports before commenting.


Hi Bob, Josh,

Just a note. Betty Cash passed away earlier this year. I believe
her death was directly related to the (radiation induced?)
illness she had been fighting since the sighting. Do either of
you know anything about the condition of the grandson or the
other female witness that was in the car? Were either of them
ever affected? Also, I know Betty had litigation pending against
the government. She was sueing them for her medical expenses.
Does anybody know what the outcome of that case was? Just
curious.

It is sad about Betty though. :(

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Military Abductions - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammondlizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:13:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:54:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions - Hammond


 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:19:43 -0600
 >To: UFO Updates - Torontoupdates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hartgeehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?


Gary, you stated:

 >Abductees are assumed to be around each of the few hot spot
 >areas we know of

You go on:

 >I have (made the assumption). It stands up in all the cases I
 >actively work with. And yes, it is strange. It often seems as
 >if certain persons are moved by the ETs to occupy anomaly areas
 >were sightings are commonly seen. Seems to be a clear strategic
a>ction on the part of both ETs and group surveilling them.

Gary, how many times have you seen this, and actively worked
with any of it? Have you photographed any of this? Or at least,
do you recognize any of the "Abductees" involved? Or the type of
"ET"? As an Abductee, this is frightening stuff your talking
about. ET involvement as well as humans in unmarked cars. What
is it the "Abductees do during all this, and when are they
returned?

Have you ever actually seen this happen? If so, where, and what
type of Alien was it?

 >Area activities seen by witnesses include sightings
 >of craft or craft/entity contact with area residents or
 >other physical objects. In other words, if entities
 >are seen walking around, agents go in to attempt to
 >stop it.

It's hard to believe that these "Witnesses" are not coming
forward about this. I know if I saw an "Alien" get out of his
craft and start walking around my yard I'd be on the phone in a
second! First to the police, second to the newspapers, third,
every Abductee I know close enough to get to my place quickly!

What exactly are these Agents going in to stop, by the way, and
how do they actually stop it? Who are they? Government Agents,
I'm presuming from what you write. But how do you know this? You
seem to state everything as emphatic fact, yet you seem to have
nothing with which to back up your claims.

You know I'm not a skeptic, Gary, but I also don't believe
everything someone throws at me just because its "Abductee
Related"

Looking forward to your answers, Gary,

Yours,

Liz









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:32:29 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:57:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gonzlez Manso


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600

Mr. Clark said:

 >People a lot smarter than you or me - Clyde Tombaugh, Allen
 >Hynek, James McDonald, Peter Sturrock, and a whole host of
 >others - came to the conclusion that alien visitation is a
 >reasonable interpretation of the UFO phenomenon.

I know about the others, but can you provide a reference fro Mr.
Tombaugh? I know that he did see a UFO, and maybe pointed to an
ET possibility, but I would like to know his arguments for it.

Luis R. Gonzlez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                        Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:41:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:01:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter? - Hatch

<snip>

 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:14:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Aveley Encounter?

 >Hi Larry,

 >Got em! Thank you for the info and the speedy response. ;)

 >I haven't had a chance to crack em open yet (just got them
 >today) but it's on my priority list. Without realizing it I have
 >acquired a 'archive' worth of material over the years that has
 >never been properly catalogued. (Something I used to get on
 >Budd's case about and here I am doing the same thing!) I plan to
 >make it a 'spare time' project until I get it all whipped into
 >decent shape. I'll use as many of your criteria as I am able to
 >apply to what is strictly a 'abduction' related pile of raw
 >data. It's a heap of stuff.

 >One other bit that you might be able to advise me on; I plan on
 >using a piece of HTML authoring software that allows me to
 >create (and access easily) any archive that I create. I also
 >have "Sherlock II" which I can use in conjunction with it. (I'm
 >on a Mac. Sherlock II is a fast and powerful search engine.)

 >Sherlock will be used as the 'search engine' once all the data
 >on the hard drive has been properly catalogued. If you are aware
 >of a good stand alone piece of software that will do both jobs
 >for me (archival and search functions) that is available for the
 >Mac OS/platform, please let me know.

 >It'll be nice to find things easily (or even in the same day)
 >for a change! <LOL>

 >Thanx again Mssr. Hatch. You're a gentleman.


Hi John:

Part of this may interest others, so its on-list.

When I started the *U* database (early 1980s) I wanted to save
certain bits of info in as efficiently as possible. After three
languages, and as many platforms (computers) it finally turned
into an exercise in C-language programming, as much as any
ufological project.

In short, I used no off-the-shelf database software at all, but
built a file-structure, compiled data, and hacked away at the
program to interpret, map and crunch the data as best I could.

All of this was done from scratch. The benefit is that info is
quickly retrievable via some 90-odd search paths, including the
64 attributes. There are other benefits of course, especially
the highly efficient use of memory. My whole product fits on a
single 1.44 MB 90cm (3.5-inch) diskette!

These diskettes are almost bursting at the seams, and that is
why I am inclined to pass on junk sightings, or even delist them
if something better comes to light.

The downside is that nothing but the *U* software can read the
*U* database main data file!

As it turns out, I know next to nothing about Apple, MacIntosh
and the software for those machines. Furthermore, I have never
bought nor used a commercial database application, so I cannot
help you there either!

The best person to ask those sorts of questions would be Mark
Cashman, a most knowledgeable and accomplished programmer. He
might be on this list, he is on the P-47 list.

The MacIntosh matter may be a stumbling block. I don't know if
Mark uses them, I sort of doubt it somehow, I could be wrong.


Hope this helps!

- Larry Hatch

PS: Those who haven't done so already, please see some *U*
Database maps and statistical screens at this URL. Allow
time for a good browse if possible.

Screens are fast loading, no junk or advertisements.

http://www.jps.net/larryhat/index.html

An interesting part of Mark Cashman's website is here:

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/catalog/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

             Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 03:09:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal


 >Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:54:03 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads


 >Hello "Jilain",

 >I read your post and asked myself what the H*** is this? I looked
 >up the Alien Abductions, Inc. website and saw that it was an
 >obvious prank. It ranks down there with the American Computer
 >Company in the stupid pranks book. I imagine people who really
 >feel they were abducted (whatever the cause) won't find it very
 >funny.

 >At times when this list gets too testy with anger between
 >participants I throw in my own screwball humor. It is so silly
 >that I don't expect anyone on the List to take it seriously.
 >Even my pet cats don't find it funny but I am sure there are
 >some list members who have as twisted a sense of humor as I do.
 >Unlike Jim Mortellaro I don't drink Gripple to alter my senses.
 >I'm just plain weird.

 >Josh Goldstein


Hello Josh!

On closer inspection, I'm inclined to agree with you that the
AAI website is a complete put-on.

The most telling thing is that they provide no telephone number
or address for their prospective customers! Any real biz will
all but tattoo their toll free 800 phone number on your forehead
and/or jam their address up your nose.

Where is the link you can click on to "find out more" i.e.
provide a sales lead?

None of that shows, and it speaks volumes.

All in all, its a hilarious website. Well done really, for those
who can take a joke.

I certainly understand why some of us might not find it amusing
at all. I hope they will understand why I think its a scream.

Here's a question for you cyber sleuths:

Who put it up?


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 11/03/00

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 04:05:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:07:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 11/03/00


 >Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:17:05 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
 >Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/03/00

 >SECRECY NEWS
 >from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
 >November 3, 2000

 >** WAITING FOR A DECISION ON THE "LEAK" STATUTE
 >** POLYGRAPH TESTING AND THE DOE NATIONAL LABS
 >** SYMPOSIUM ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY SCHEDULED


Thank you Steven for these timely and disturbing links.

For what little it may matter, I am strongly opposed to any such
legislation. This whole matter sounds pi radians opposed to the
freedom of information act, and the very spirit of the
principles behind such legislation.

Sadly, a similar bill is under consideration in Britain, where I
hope it is soundly defeated as well.

With the exception of special cases; highly sensitive
_technical_ information of a military nature - read atomic
secrets etc. - it is less secrecy needed, not more.

Unless I misunderstand, this bill is so broadly worded that
Monica Lewinski could be liable for opening her mouth - the
second time.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                    1st International Conference - Milan

From: Alfredo Lissoni - CUN <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:42:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:11:07 -0500
Subject: 1st International Conference - Milan


1st International Conference of Parapsycology - Mediumship -
UFOlogy 18 November 2000

Bonola Auditorium - Via Quarenghi 21 - 20151 Milano (Italy)
MM Bonola - Red Line

Conference programme

09.30-09.45 Ivette Rocco opens the programme - Michelle Chote
       (Maori) sings

09.50-11.25 Alan Stuttle, Mary Staddon (UK) "Contact with the
             Spirit World"

11.30-12.30 Alfredo Lissoni (Italian UFO writer) "UFO the best
             evidence" with documentation & films

12.40-13.30  Marjorie Tomkins (USA) "UFO - Crop circles"

13.30-14.30 break

14.30-15.20 Gary Schwartz (Rumania) "UFO science - Contacts"

15.30-16.20 Massimo Frisari (Italy) "Radionic healing from the
             Future"

16.20-16.40 break

16.40-17.30 Franz Winkler (Switzerland) "Mrkaba (body of
             light)"

17.40-18.30 Giuditta Dembech (Italy) "Angels"

18.40-19.00 Korinna Mueller (Germany) and Ananda (Philippines) -
             "The Vortexijah"

19-20 break

20.00-22.30 Alan Stuttle, Mary Staddon (UK) "Contact with the
Spirit World"

During the day, practitioners will be available privately:

11-22 Past lives and karma - Amrican medium Patty Pellicciotti
(During the breaks, Patty will be available to autograph her
latest book about Tibetan Aura "Convivere con L'aura")

14-19 Tibetan Geshe Losang Pende and Geshe Wanghiel
14-19 Medium Alan Stuttle (UK)
14-19 Medium Mary Staddon (UK)
14-19 Auric Photo with explanation - Rosella Acerbi (Italy)
14-19 Auric and Kirlian photography - Giuseppe Zanella (Italy)
14-19 Medium and ESP sensitive Renato Minozzi (Italy)

For info. mail oltrelaconoscenza@katamail.com
phone (0039)+66.88.575
(0039)+68.88.470 for english)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:03:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:12:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600

Hi Jerry,

As you appear to be repeating yourself over and over again, with
no content other than your obvious hatred of sceptics, I'll
leave you to it. With just one or two comments.......

I've made my point, giving examples where necessary. And as I've
said, when you have some counter evidence worthy of countering
the sceptical argument, I'd love to see it. Oh, yes, along ith
all those papers written by scientists you're always banging on
about (although I realise that's 'in the future' - ie never).

 >See my earlier posting on ball lightning. And again, let me
 >recommend David J. Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night,

Are you on commission?

 >James McDonald  impresses me.

I've noticed you're quite keen on McDonald. That's interesting,
because in a few weeks I'll be presenting evidence about a case
McDonald commented on -  and got hopelessly wrong. It will be
yet another example of a 'big' case crumbling to nothing. UFO to
IFO Jerry, as they all do.

 >What is a "lie down"? Is this some form of Britspeak?

Do people not lie down in the Americas?

Happy Trails

Andy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                         Crop Circle Hoaxer Revealed

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:09:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:15:52 -0500
Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer Revealed


Y'all,

Fans of hoaxes, crop circles and general ufological madness may
be interested in the following which is in many UK papers today.
These are extracts from the Independent:


Police Make First Arrest Over Crop Circles

A 29 year old Wiltshire Man last night became what is believed
to be the first person in Britain to be accused of the novel
crime of raiding a field and creating patterns out of flattened
wheat.

Matthew Williams... was arrested after photographs allegedly
showing him working with another man were sent annonymously to
detectives. He will appear before Devizes magistrates on Monday
charged with causing criminal damage  to an unspecified area of
pasture near Marlborough in July this year.


There's more, but you get the idea. When all this unravels - as
it surely will - it will be interesting to see which circles
Williams has hoaxed and what level of belief has been invested
in them and by whom.

Happy Trails

Andy











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                 Re: Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:04:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:20:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Change At Roswell UFO Museum & Research Center?
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:40:31 -0800

I received email from Julie Haut Shuster. She informed me of the
following. She will be in the Museum Manager position until the
end of January. At that time the Board will make a decision on
how to proceed. Ms. Shuster has been given specific jobs to
complete by that time, as well as the day to day operation of
the museum. The museum is in the process of changing some of the
displays, general fixing up, and getting ready for the opening
of a display on the 509th from Walker Air Force Base.

I also received email from Dennis Balthaser. Dennis informs me
that his January 13, 2001 IUFOMRC lecture is actually entitled,
"UFO Research: Sharing the Frustrations and Gratifications with
the 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              Webcast Archive: Bill Hamilton & John Greenewald,

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:15:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:24:14 -0500
Subject: Webcast Archive: Bill Hamilton & John Greenewald,


Horizons Radio Archive
Webcast 11/3/00

The archive of last night's webcast is now online. Lan Lamphere,
Horizons host, interviewed Bill Hamilton, Executive Director of
Skywatch International, and John Greenewald, Jr., of BlackVault
and co-host of Millenium Mysteries Radio show.

You can access the archive by clicking on the link from the
Horizons homepage at:

http://www.oklahomasky.com

Bill Hamilton discussed the Phoenix Lights sighting of March 13,
1997, and gave his thoughts on the history of ufology, including
the Adamski photos. He and Lan also discussed the Skywatch
Interntional Organization and the direction is it taking now. An
informative interview that no one should miss!

John Greenewald, Jr, the 19 year old "whiz kid" of the UFO field
gave another incredible interview. He and Lan talked about the
Freedom of Information Act, government coverup of UFO
information, and even discussed the DoD and a possible link to
the "mysterious chemtrails" that so many are talking about. As
always, an excellent discussion with one of the UFO field's most
knowledgeable and respected researchers.

Horizons also announced the move of our live radio show to KOMA
in Oklahoma. Horizons will be coming at you live with 50,000
watts of broadcasting power behind it. The ink is dry on the
contracts, and Lan gives an update on the expanding growth at
Horizons.

Our thanks to Bill Hamilton and John Greenewald, Jr, for a great
show!

Horizons Radio and webcast is a product of Three Horizons
Broadcasting.

Bobbie "Jilain" Felder

http://www.oklahomasky.com
IRC Undernet #horizons
ICQ #7524076








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

               A Truthseeker's View Of The Crop Circle Arrest

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@holman.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:16:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:28:51 -0500
Subject: A Truthseeker's View Of The Crop Circle Arrest


From: Jimmie L. Holman [mailto:holman@holman.net]
Sent: 04 November 2000 21:04
Subject: [UFOinfo] A TRUTHSEEKER'S VIEW OF THE CROPCIRCLE ARREST

A TRUTHSEEKER'S VIEW OF THE CROPCIRCLE ARREST

News of the arrest of 'circle maker' Matthew Williams (also
known as 'TruthSeeker'), came as no surprise. In recent days,
Matthew had expressed great concern and indicated much turmoil
within some 'sects' of the circlemaker community. Only a day
before his arrest, Matthew in private phone conversation, had
expressed in no uncertain terms that certain other divisions of
the 'crop circle community' were 'out to get him' personally in
any manner possible.

Over the last year or so I have been privileged to have had many
in-depth conversations with Matthew concerning the crop circle
and other issues. Remarkably these conversations came as a
direct result of Mr. Williams telling me that I probably didn't
understand what crop circles were all about. (I am a member of a
paranormal research group which meets in Dallas and although we
do not make formations, the purpose for meeting was much the
same as that of at least those he is closely associated with.
More on that later) With-in an hour it became quite clear that I
did indeed understand the issue and reasoning behind at least
some of the formations. During ALL this time, great concern was
expressed by Matthew Williams for what was becoming an important
distraction.

Matthew was always conscious and wary, even critical, of the
'hoaxers'.  He was also very conscious of the 'commercial
aspects (i.e. bus tours etc, and souviener sellers). He
repeatedly stated he wanted nothing to do with, and did not
consider himself a part of either. He did what he could to
distance himself from those as well. He was also conscious of
those alledged and well-known researchers who he had been in
close contact and attempted repeatedly to convey the real
meaning and purpose of the cropcircles. In fact I'm sure few
would be supprised to know the prominent names of persons
participating and personally involved in demonstrations.

More surprising might be however that the 'truthseeker',
Matthew, was these last many months, attempting to responsibly
reveal the underlying 'reasoning and purpose' behind the
construction of the crop circles and articulate the paranormal
events that often seem to accompany their creation. It was this
that has apparently led to the recent events. An analogy on this
might be compared to a witch publishing the grimoire of their
coven. In fact � the complexities of the issues are probably in
a way much the same but the threat caused was from those more
distant who maintain monitary motives and affiliations.
Interestingly, I have been informed that on at least one
occasion, the farmer was compensated in cash prior to the
construction of one of these 'circles'.

I find some points of this arrest very suspicious on the part
of the police. It has been reported that the event for which
Mr. Williams was arrested took place in July. During that time
period I happen to know Mr. Williams had repeated expressed that
the Wiltshire police were being heavily pressured to make at
least one arrest on this crop circle issue. Evidently they had
been funded and received extensive night-vision, infrared,
similar equipped helicopter equipment specifically for the
purpose of monitoring crop circle activity. The fact that
activity continued virtually unheeded even in the potential
'infrared light' of all this technology was very likely a major
embarrassment to the police and those demanding the funding for
such. Most suspicious though is the timeline of events
considering the action for which he is supposedly being arrested
is many months old. One must wonder and ask, 'Who's agenda is
being fuifilled?'

Matthew Williams and associate Paul Damon, have been well known
for their 'Truthseekers Review' online magazine
(www.ufon.org/truthseekers/) and their investigating of various
UFO, paranormal, and conspiracy issues over the years. Is it
just possible that there are at least 'some' who don't want the
full 'truth' to come out?

I sincerely hope over the immediate coming months we will have
ample opportunity to hear directly from Mr. Williams regarding
the full story and personal observations behind not only the
arrest but the issues and recent events within the circle maker
community. I know UFOn will welcome and gladly provide him that
avenue without reservation. I know at least some of us wish
Matthew well !

Jimmie Holman

UFOn.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                     Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers?

From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:30:20 -0500
Subject: Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers?


Would anyone refer me to an Australian UFO researcher,
enthusiast, or other warm body in Kilsyth, Australia? This
person doesn't have to be on-line, just in or near Kilsyth (a
suburb of Melbourne), and willing to briefly correspond about a
UFO sighting that occurred there in 1998.

Thank you for any help you may offer.


Ken Kelly







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                    Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update

From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 14:55:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:37:37 -0500
Subject: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update


A new book, 'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer Of The Saucers
-1952' by Wendy A. Connors and Michael D. Hall, is now
available.

ISBN: 0-9705055-0-7, 304 pages, 8 1/2 x 11 Perfect Bound, it
contains extensive notes, bibliography, appendicies and full
index. Profusely illustrated.

Three years in the making, this is the most documented account
of Captain Ruppelt and the rise of Project Blue Book ever
written. Containing new photographs of Capt. Ruppelt and the
people behind the military investigation of flying saucers. You
are taken in to the secret intrigue and drama behind the scenes
of the great Flying Saucer Wave of 1952, how Blue Book began and
how the CIA neutralized it forever. You'll learn what really
went on behind the scenes and the new information will change
your concept of Ufology forever.

If you think you knew the story of Ed Ruppelt and the rise of
Project Blue Book, you don't!

Order your copy today since availability is very limited with a
small press run. Cost is $27.95 plus $3 postage from:

ARCTURUS BOOKS, INC.
1443 S. E. Port St. Lucie Blvd.
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952

End of crass commercial announcement. <G>








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests Reported

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:14:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:14:58 -0500
Subject: CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests Reported



CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

November 4, 2000

_____________________________


CPR-Canada News is the e-news service of Circles Phenomenon
Research Canada, an affiliate of Circles Phenomenon Research
International, providing periodic e-mail updates with the latest
news and reports on the crop circle phenomenon in Canada and
around the world, as well as information on CPR-Canada-related
projects and events. CPR-Canada News is available free by
subscription (see below).

_____________________________


FIRST CROP CIRCLE RELATED ARRESTS REPORTED IN ENGLAND


Following is a report from Colin Andrews and a newspaper article
from The Independent in the UK. Thanks to Colin Andrews, Carol
Pedersen and Sheila Nethersole for forwarding this information.

Paul Anderson

____________________________


TWO MEN ARRESTED AND EQUIPMENT SEIZED. ONE CHARGED OF
MAKING CROP CIRCLE - OTHER INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY.

I received a telephone call from a British Journalist early this
morning to inform me of a newspaper article in today's "Western
Daily Press" regarding the arrest of two men under suspicion of
making a crop circle at West Overton (that which was allegedly
made by Matthew William's for Whitley Strieber and touted on his
radio program, "Dreamland").

I have spoken with Wiltshire Police who confirm that Matthew
William's has been arrested with another man who also lives at
the same address. Equipment and a computer have been seized by
police who will apply for William's to be remanded at a court
hearing set for Devizes Court on Monday 6th November. The police
told me that "it is likely other cases will be pursued but at
this moment he has been charged only with making the one
intricate crop circle construction at West Overton" (for Whitley
Strieber). According to police, they have been given
photographic evidence and are looking at a great deal of other
information.

I am considering flying over for the full court hearing when
that date is known. Monday's hearing will be adjourned after the
application for a remand is heard.

I believe that this is a significant development and one which
will lead to other arrests soon. The impact upon the events in
the fields will be seen next year and will probably prove the
extent to which people have been involved, (i.e. - my own
findings at least 80%).

I should make it clear, that these arrests came as a surprise to
me this morning and I am in no way involved with the police in
this matter. My job is research.

I thought you would appreciate knowing about this.

Best wishes

Colin

____________________________


Police Make First Arrest Over Crop Circles

By Cahal Milmo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Environment/2000-11/cropcircle041100.shtml

11-4-00


They have been a source of mystery and amusement to students of
the bizarre for years, but yesterday crop circles attracted the
attention of a new audience - the long arm of the law.

A 29-year-old Wiltshire man last night became what is believed
to be the first person in Britain to be accused of the novel
crime of raiding a field and creating patterns out of flattened
wheat.

Matthew Williams, of Bishops Cannings, near Devizes, was
arrested after photographs allegedly showing him working with
another man were sent anonymously to detectives.

He will appear before Devizes magistrates on Monday charged with
causing criminal damage to an unspecified area of pasture near
Marlborough in July this year.

The case threatens to blow the lid on what has long been
believed to be the prime cause of crop circles well-equipped and
highly adept hoaxers.

For years, fans of the paranormal had sought to explain the
weird and wonderful patterns of interlinked circles, squares and
diamonds as the work of aliens or freak weather conditions. But
some crop circle creators have recently come forward to confess
to their activities, carried out under cover of darkness using
an array of ladders, tethered barrels and ropes to work "magic".

Police arrested Williams earlier this week after searching his
home and recovering pieces of equipment allegedly used to sculpt
circles. A second man was also detained but later released
without charge.

News of the prosecution was welcomed by farmers in the rolling
countryside of Wiltshire - prime territory for crop circles,
with dozens appearing every summer.

Tim Carson, chairman of the National Farmers Union in the
county, said: "It's no different if someone comes into your
garden and causes damage. You spend a lot of time and effort
planting crops and then someone comes along and destroys them,
it's very annoying."

Andrew Naughton, who farms near Devizes, added: "Imagine you had
a green car and someone came along and sprayed pretty patterns
on the roof with white paint. That's the only way I can describe
it."


____________________________


To subscribe to CPR-Canada News, send your e-mail address to:
cprcanadanews-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe from CPR-Canada News, send your e-mail address
to: cprcanadanews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You can also subscribe, unsubscribe, custom modify your
subscription or browse the online archive of past issues on the
CPR-Canada News eGroups web site:

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews

See the CPR-Canada web site for complete listings of news
stories, reports and related information and links:

http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

For further information, submissions or inquiries, forward all
correspondence to:

CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH CANADA
Circles Phenomenon Research International

MAIN OFFICE
Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6J 1J4
Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

REPORTING HOTLINE
604.731.8522

_____________________________


� Circles Phenomenon Research Canada, 2000











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                Cash Landrum [Was: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe]

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:44:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:18:48 -0500
Subject: Cash Landrum [Was: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe]


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:50:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:19:30 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>I don't want to jump in the middle of this thread that started
 >>regarding Jill Tarter's ignorance of UFO evidence. That led into
 >>a further thread concerning Bob Young's claims regarding a low
 >>percentage of UFO cases that have not been resolved into IFOs. I
 >>do want to throw in my comments regarding a couple of cases that
 >>were mentioned and throw in an additional case. I have always
 >>had a particular interest in the Coyne case, as at one time I
 >>used to fly the same type of helicopter in the Army and I could
 >>easily imagine myself in his position. All I can say is that in
 >>every helicopter when the collective stick is up the helicopter
 >>goes up, and when it is down the helicopter goes down. I don't
 >>think Coyne was mistaken about the helicopter acting against
 >>that principle. That is like forgetting that your car turns left
 >>when the steering wheel turns left. Some other force was acting
 >>on the helicopter to cause it to act against that principle of
 >>pitch in the rotor blades. Bob, do you think Coyne was mistaken?

 >It's good to get your insight as a helicopter pilot. I think the
 >issue is that Phil Klass suggests that Coyne just didn't
 >remember pulling up on the controls, afterwards, but had just
 >done it automatically. Doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

 >>The Michalak case was also discussed. I'd like to know what
 >>irregularities in the case have been proposed elsewhere. Other
 >>than his sole testimony, I would like to hear how a debunker can
 >>explain his burns. Bob, what do you think? Were they self
 >>inflicted? How?

 >Don't know. Have you ever seen a medical report on his injuries?

 >>Another case that I am rather passionate about is the Cash -
 >>Landrum incident. To my knowledge it has never been resolved and
 >>is still a UFO, whether possibly from our military or anyone
 >>else. That is a case not often mentioned on this list and was
 >>not included in the recent 10 best cases. Bob, do you want to
 >>propose any irregularities in that case? How do you propose they
 >>received their horrible injuries?

 >Regarding their horrible injuries, I know that Betty Cash had
 >cancer. I believe that she sued the U.S. Government. Has there
 >ever been a medical report available on any of their "injuries"?

 >>I don't want to get myself involved in defending the above
 >>cases. I would like to hear any evidence, not conjecture, that
 >>would answer my questions.

 >So would I. I'm not a doctor and it would be worth while to get
 >some medical evidence or reports before commenting.


Hi Bob,

I suggest rgat you read Dr. John Scheusler's book on the Cash -
Landrum incident. He has been the primary investigator.

Josh











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-4-00

From: Rense E-News <e-news@the-i.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:53:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:22:05 -0500
Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  11-4-00


----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                         The Week Ahead
                      11-4-00 thru 11-10-00

             Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                          From rense.com
                 Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
                 exclusively by Free Subscription.

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                    * OUTSTANDING GUEST *

Dr. Ernest Martin author of THE TEMPLES THAT JERUSALEM FORGOT
will be on the "Jeff Rense" radio show for three (3) hours this
Sunday evening November 5, 2000.

His discovery was that the Temples of Solomon and Herod were
ACTUALLY LOCATED some 1000 feet south of the Haram esh-Sharif,
were completely destroyed down to bedrock (as prophesied), and
that the Haram today is the remains of non-Jewish territory that
belonged to the Romans in Herod's day (similar to embassy
property, not part of the city, hence it survived destruction).

His proofs are entirely based on historical evidence of
eyewitnesses through 1500 years---not speculation, not
guesswork, not mysticism.

[In fact mysticism was the major reason the temple(s) of the
Jews were "forgotten" by all the three major religions. The
dreams and visions appealed to people more than what the
archivists and historians of their own traditions told them.]

This means that Jews and Muslims and Christians are continuing a
controversy over the wrong site. It also means that the Jews
could GIVE BACK the Haram completely to the Muslims, WITH THEIR
BLESSING and attempt to build their temple at another site,
without political opposition---very likely with Muslim
assistance.

The information in this book can cut the Gordian Knot regarding
"Temple Mount" ownership and sovereignty, and assist in
reconciliation regarding the status of Jerusalem.

Probably the major losers from this knowledge coming out would
be orthodox religious leaders and so-called prophets who promote
the current site for their own political benefit. After all, who
would listen to them and their teachings if it was discovered
(as Martin proves) that they "lost" their temple because of
"mystical" revelations, when the historical evidence is
dumb-obvious once recognized and brought to light. In this vein,
none of the three major religious traditions are faultless.

Dr. Ernest Martin has posted additional material since
publication of the book. His webpage specific to the Temple is:
http://askelm.com/temple.htm

Thank you,

--
David Sielaff

p.s. It has taken some 20 years for one of Dr. Martin's other
discoveries to be accepted by biblical academics, although
astronomers quickly understood his theory of the Bethlehem star
scenario, which included a correction of the date of Herod the
Great's death. Planetariums began using his discovery in their
holiday season presentations to the extent that some 600
planetariums (including the prestigious Griffith Planetarium in
L.A.) have changed to Dr. Martin's Christmas star scenario.

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                   * ON THE LIGHTER SIDE *

ADVICE FOR IDIOTS
An actual tip from page 16 of the HP "Environmental, Health
& Safety Handbook for Employees:  "Blink your eyelids
periodically to lubricate your eyes."

IDIOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor
call the local township administrative office to request the
removal of the Deer Crossing sign on our road. The reason:
Many deer were being hit by cars and he no longer wanted them
to cross there.

IDIOTS IN FOOD SERVICE
My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco. She
asked the individual behind the counter for "minimal
lettuce." He said he was sorry, but they only had iceberg.

IDIOT SIGHTINGS Sighting #1:
I was at the airport, checking in at the gate, when the
airport employee asked, "Has anyone put anything in your
baggage without your knowledge?"  I said, "If it was without
my knowledge, how would I know?"  He smiled and nodded
knowingly, "That's why we ask."

Sighting #2:
The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it is safe to cross
the street.  I was crossing with an intellectually challenged
co-worker of mine, when she asked if I knew what the buzzer
was for.  I explained that it signals to blind people when
the light is red.  She responded, appalled, "What on earth
are blind people doing driving?"

Sighting #3:
At a good-bye lunch for an old and dear coworker who is
leaving the company due to "downsizing," our manager spoke up
and said, "this is fun.  We should have lunch like this more
often."  Not another word was spoken.  We just looked at each
other like deer staring into the headlights of an approaching
truck.

Sighting #4:
I worked with an Individual who plugged her power strip back
into itself and for the life of her could not understand why
her system would not turn on.

Sighting #5:
When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to
pick up our car, we were told that the keys had been
accidentally locked in it. We went to the service department
and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the
driver's side door. As I watched from the passenger's side, I
instinctively tried the door handle and discovered it was
open.  "Hey," I announced to the technician, "It's open!"  "I
know," answered the young man.- "I already got that side."

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                     * READER'S CORNER *

Quotes from you:

From:   Art
    America is the only country in history to go from barbarism
to decadence without the normal intervening period of
civilization.
                                        - Clemenceau

    The young know everything, the middle-aged suspect everything,
    and the elderly believe everything  - Oscar Wilde

    Man is the only animal who knows shame, or needs to - Mark Twain

    You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
                                         - Stan Laurel

From:   Russ Emrich
    "A speech is like a wheel -- the longer the spoke, the greater
    the tire."                            - Source Unknown

From:   D'Andrea Alford
    He who laughs last thinks the slowest.

From:   danny davison
    My mother was an invention of necessity. - Danny J. Davison

From:   R. F. Dickey
    The early bird gets the worm,
    The second mouse gets the cheese.

From:   C. E. Whitaker
    This is not exactly a quote but, it is how I try to live my life.
    "Take a little, leave a little".

From:   Ellen Anderhalden
    �I want to leave this world the same way I got it naked and
     angry.�                        - Arnold Anderhalden

From:   Fritz Kron
     There is no knowledge without research and investigation.
     Knowledge can never be achieved as long as man lives in an
     environment influenced by ignorance and fear of the unknown.
                                     -   Fritz Kron

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

           Got a favorite quote?  Feel free to send it:
              mailto:e-news@the-i.net?Subject=quote

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

            CAVERNS, CAULDRONS & CONCEALED CREATURES
                       By Wm. Michael Mott

Hidden Mysteries is PROUD to announce the upcoming publication of
this first book of its kind examining the striking similarities
between folklore, religious, mythic, and historical accounts of
cryptid and reptilian figures.  See side menu on:
                 http://www.hiddenmysteries.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * TOP STORIES *

           Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                       http://rense.com

* Police Make First Arrest Over Crop Circles
* Leading Doctors' Group Votes To Oppose Mandatory Vaccinations
* The Black Hole Of Al Gore's Soul
* Russians Open ICBM Silos - Implications For US Election
* VoteScam - So Easy As To Be Laughable
* China Awakens To Massive HIV/AIDS Nightmare
* Contamination At Russian Nuke Weapons Plant 'Staggering'
* Global Net Cops Crack Down On Top 10 'DOT.CONS'
* Uri Geller Sues Nintendo Over Pokemon Character "Yun Geller"
* Gore & Clinton Early Careers Said Funded By Communist Money
* British Masons And US Fundis Launch Isreali Apocalypse
* Mexican Army Shoots At US Border Patrol Agents - Again
* Wiesenthal.com Lists Sightings.com As 'Hate Site'!
* Clinton Amnesty For 4 Million Illegals - End Of Sovereign
       America?
* Lawsuit Claiming US Government Created AIDS Moves Ahead
* Chile's Loa River Area Alarmed By Overflight Of Multicolored
       UFOs
* School Suspends Girl For Casting Spell - Makes Teacher Ill
* Kursk Men 'Survived Three Days'
* AOL Fires Employee Gun Owners!
* Car Powered By Air Unveiled In South Africa
* Emerging Fungal/Mold Diseases - Resistant, Resilient, & Not So
        Rare
* FAA Officials Investigate Case Of Flying Pig
* GAO Reveals Government Websites Use Cookies
* Herpes Vaccine Protects Brain Cancer Victims
* UK Scientist Says Every British Person Has 'Eaten 50 BSE Meals'
* Brits Dump Huge Amounts Of Potential Mad Cow Feed On Third
        World
* Water Treatment Chemicals Add To Arsenic Levels In Drinking
        Water
* Scientists Discover Cure For Arthritis
* Jeff Calls For New Dental/Medical BSE/Mad Cow Sterilization
        Policies
* Who Will Star In Hollywood Film Of 'The Pedophile Professor'?
* How Microsoft Hacked Itself - As The Worm Turns

        Read these stories and more at http://www.rense.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       Antony Sutton books

                  America's Secret Establishment
      The Best Enemy Money Can Buy;  Two Faces Of George Bush
         http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index36.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                   * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                      11-5-00 thru 11-10-00

           (Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can
           change due to late breaking stories, etc).

SUN 11-5
    Dr. Ernest Martin: Temple Mount Location Wrong?

MON 11-6
    Carl Limbacher: www.NewsMax.com
    John Hogue: Election Prophecy

TUE 11-7
    George Filer: UFO Report
    pending

WED 11-8
    Lonnie Wolfe: How Did We Get To This Point?
    pending

THU 11-9
    Al Martin:  October Surprise revisited
    pending

FRI 11-10
    Brad Steiger:  A Paranormal Evening

Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://rense.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

               Hollow Planets - a well kept secret
        http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index25.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                   * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
         Live Coast-To-Coast-now broadcast nationally
         over the Talk Radio Network a total of over
         200 hours a month.
      Monday-Friday
         7-10 pm  Live
         10-1 am  Immediate Rebroadcast
          1-3 am  First 2 hours of prior night's show
      Saturday
         9p-3 am  Best Of Rense - 2 shows
      Sunday
         8-11 pm  Live
Call in Line:
         800 TRN 4123
Sightings Artwork/Digital Illustration & Webdesign
         http://www.anc.net/~neff/
Rense.com Store:
         http://www.sightings.com/store/store.htm
Program Audio Tapes
         888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
         http://www.sightings.com
Advertising-Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com each month
         Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
         http://www.sightings.com/adv.htm
Sightings.com info/email center
         http://www.sightings.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Free Greeting Cards featuring the artwork of James Neff:
         http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Share with your friends!
    Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense
    Weekly E-News 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.egroups.com
-------------------------

To subscribe:  Visit: http://www.immunotex.com
Or 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 TGS 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 *Jeff's Desk* segment.

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                Re: Russian Ufology Research Center - Persky

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:38:47 +0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:23:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian Ufology Research Center - Persky

 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:05:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Russian Ufology Research Center - Velez
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Is there a version of
 >the webpages available in English? I'm a New York Puerto Rican
 >(which means I can handle English and Spanish) not Russian.  :)
 >If there is an English version could you please post the URL. I
 >am especially interested in learning about Russian abduction
 >reports/research (if any.)

Hi John,

The UFOS (The Ufological Society) website was opened recently,
and I think they'll make an English version of it. As far as I
know there is no translated into English webpages or websites
about abductions in Russia anywhere, but you can still refer to
the GUFOA (Georgia Ufological Association) website at
http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/iii-d.html -- they have put some some
cases there.


Sincerely,
Alex Persky
Vitebsk, Byelorussia








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:52:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:27:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:45:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:58:23 -0800

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>>Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >>>>announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >>>>early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >>>>second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >>>>U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >>>>The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >>>>ergo a UFO.

 >>>Did it occur to you that glitches in radar are
 >>>something most air forces are not about to talk about? Do you
 >>>have a citation for these two government repots? There were a
 >>>lot of sightings during the flap in those years.

 >>There was obvious no radar glitches here considering the radar
 >>clearly shows to object dropping and there are records from the
 >>jets of this incident as well. The Belgian military to this day,
 >>and to my knowledge, still do not know what the object was. This
 >>would then make it unidentified. Also, I don't think the pilots
 >>chased a radar glitch for over, what, 40 minutes?

 >Depends, since we have to take the Governments' words for it.
 >But my point was that there could be lots of reasons for either
 >Government to not tell the entire truth, and they could be
 >legitimate and not related to UFOs at all.

I'm aware that you can't take every word the U.S. government
offers at face value. However, when two or more governements are
reporting encounters with UFOs, it doesn't make any sense for
them to do so in order to lie. This is edging into consiracy
realms, which I don't travel in.

 >>>>How about the Iran UFO encounter in 1976.

 >>I agree that all info should be evaluated. But did Klass ever
 >>fully explain what the pilots encountered? I don't think so.
 >>Also, Klass is the guy who fell asleep during the MUFON
 >>symposium in Seattle. Not too credible with me for a guy who
 >>says there are no UFOs but can't stay awake long enough to
 >>hear what someone has to say about them.....

 >You mean an 80 year-old You mean an 80 year-old skeptic can't
 >ever sleep? Man, you're tough. Maybe he found the MUFON meeting
 >boring. And, anyway, what does this have to do with the Iran
 >incident?

I have a good friend who is much older than me. This guy used to
be a fighter pilot in WWII and flew in Vietnam. I went to
investigate a cattle mutilation in California where we had to
hike 2 miles through rough terrain - not to mention the 12 hour
round trip drive we had to take. My buddy, who was 75 at the
time, had more energy than I did and I was 25. As for a MUFON
meeting being boring, I wouldn't know. Falling asleep means
you're not paying attention.

 >>>>Another goodie that you may not know about: For two-weeks in
 >>>>1975 several nuclear weapons installations were visited by UFOs
 >>>>(I believe the story ran in The Washington Post and other major
 >>>>U.S. papers). According to Air Force and Defense Department
 >>>>records (hey. its the government again...), objects described as
 >>>>_unknown_ (by the way, Bob, this is the same thing as
 >>>>unidentified) entities and brightly lighted fast moving vehicles
 >>>>violated security areas and evaded pursuit by military fighter
 >>>>jets. UFOs penetrating restricted nuclear weapons facilities, is
 >>>>this a serious matter? Do you think the government would be
 >>>concerned about the security of its nuclear installations?
 >>>>Wonder why they didn't identify the intruders.

 >>>Depends upon who "they" are. A friend of mine was present at one
 >>>of the bases, assigned to the security unit. He was there during
 >>>many sightings and said, in his opinion, they were reporting
 >>>astronomical objects and aircraft. Of course the military were
 >>>concerned, and they should have been. Doesn't add up to
 >>>"unkowns", though. At least in this case.

 >>>>Maybe it was Venus flying in a restricted nuclear facility.

 >>>Actually it was Jupiter, auroral rays begind the trees, and
 >>>practically everything else they say in the sky, according to my
 >>>friend, who is a lifelong astronomy enthusiast. He thinks the
 >>>Loring AFB episode is little more than a joke. He was there.

I'm always amazed at how every single astronomical phenomenon
happens to occur all at once during a UFO sighting.

 >>This is why the U.S. military deemed the objects as "unknown
 >>entities." Again, unidentified. Why would the military send up
 >>fighters to intercept Venus were responding to information from
 >>the airbase security?

 >>I have a hard time believing that Venus would cause all of this...

 >Then, you don't know much about the history of the UFO
 >phenomenon. Just check out another post today, UFO Round Up, Vol
 >5, Number 44. The hovering UFO seen by five in the West over
 >Sedona, Arizona, and the object "pacing" a couple's car in Texas
 >(but always seen to the west) are so obviously Venus, now
 >brilliant in the Western evening sky, that it's a joke. This
 >stuff is just posted raw reports.

Again, Bob, you make assumptions. Neither of us were there and
have no idea what the people making the report actually saw.
This goes back to my comment about arm-chair investigating and
the mentality of the toilet-seat UFO investigator.

 >>If no skeptical input was involved with the review, then why
 >>were several UFO cases that were presented to the panel
 >>rejected? Why would Robert Bigelow waste thousands and thousands
 >>of his dollars if there's nothing to the information. Bigelow's
 >>a business man and wouldn't waste a dime on anything without it
 >>having merit.

 >What does this prove? You knock Klass for dozing but assume that
 >there must be something there just because a "business man"
 >spends some money on a subject in which he is interested?

Do you even read half of my posts, Bob? It isn't _just_ because
a business man is involved. You must have been taking a nap with
Klass when you read my previous posts. There was something about
a couple of scientists, a book, a review of UFO cases...

 >>>Yes, but since only a tiny minority of UFO reports have been
 >>>competently examined by anybody, they will continue to exist, I
 >>>guess.

 >>Then UFOs exist, period. And what exactly defines a competent
 >>examination. It's just like the crop circle phenomena, everyone
 >>wants to blame Doug and Dave but no one wants to look at the
 >>evidence. While many may be hoaxed, there are several that are
 >>not.

 >The problem is, one can never prove a negative, that several are
 >not hoaxed. One can prove a positive, by explaining how they
 >were made. Now _that_ would be a discovery. As far as I know
 >only Dave and Doug have demonstrated this.

Have you read either of the peer-reviewed scientific papers
regarding crop formations? How many of these instances have you
investigated? That's right - Doug and Dave were out making every
single circle even though there are reports and pictures that
predate anything Doug and Dave claimed to have done. I'm sure
these two old guys are madly running around the UK making
cirlces and altering the physiology of the vegetation in the
fields - all with Klass there napping under a full moon.

 >>I'm not saying all UFO reports are anomalous, but there are
 >>those that indeed are unidentified.

 >I agree.

Then UFOs exist, your words not mine. There we go, agreeing with
each other again. This is a phenomenon all in itself.

 >>Simply being able to turn a UFO into an IFO doesn't
 >>make all UFOs IFOs.

 >That's also true.

Same as above...

 >>And someone simply not seeing a UFO for 17 days doesn't
 >>prove anything at all.

 >What Case 27 in Condon demonstrated was that all-sky meteor
 >cameras did not record any mysterious anomalous objects brighter
 >than 4th magnitude, other than meteors and airplanes, _during_
 >100 UFO sightings, and that visual observers who were familiar
 >with the local sky also did not see anything unusual during some
 >of this time.

 >This was, indeed, something very useful to learn. Again, one
 >cannot prove a negative, that is that UFOs did not appear to the
 >witnesses, but this largely unknown study was quite interesting
 >in what it showed about a "UFO flap."

Simply because the cameras and the observers at the cameras
didn't see anything does not mean the witnesses didn't see UFOs
and it doesn't prove that the UFOs weren't there. We can sit
here and overlap logic, semantics and conjecture all day long.
Simply because one case may not have provided you with a
positive UFO sightings doesn't mean there are no UFOs. Again, I
believe that you're looking for the scientific equivalent of
99.998% proof here. The only way for you to achieve that is for
science to have a UFO contained in a laboratory setting for
examination - not likely to happen any time soon.

 >>But what got lost in all of this was my original
 >>thought; How many UFO investigations had Jill Tarter completed
 >>before drawing her conclusion about UFOs?

 >Who knows? Did you ever ask her before you called her a
 >moron? To be technical, that is what SETI does: investigate
 >anomalous radio signals.

Actually I did send an e-mail to SETI since no specific e-mail
address was listed for Jill. No response - mmm, I just must be
another one of those UFO nuts... Again, my original point: Jill
made all her comments without having done what a scientist does:
investigate, experiment and evaluate based on facts. Jill, as
I've already said, has done nothing close to that yet chose to
stick her foot in her mouth.


Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy - "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it...again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                         CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2?

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:09:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:32:30 -0500
Subject: CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2?


The following is a message form Gersten at CAUS. Apparently the
government is wanting to charge him for furthering a search
relating to his last litigation/vacation deal. Gersten states
that now he may be asking CAUS members for MORE money in order
to pay for the search. What happened to the $10,000 that CAUS
members already put out? Are we going to see yet another CAUS
fund raiser?

________________


CAUS in COURT: Department of Defense Responds to 33 Keywords

On October 10, 2000 CAUS sent an FOIA request to the Department
of Defense (DoD) as well as 8 other governmental agencies
requesting information on 33 keywords.
(http://caus.org/cr101000.htm)

On November 3rd, CAUS received the DoD's response. The relevant
portion of the response states: "Unfortunately, your request is
extremely broad in nature and it appears you request a search of
every computer within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the Joint Staff. Document's responsive to some of these items
(i.e., SPAWAR and NAVAIR) could constitute thousands of pages of
information, and to process your request as worded would likely
result in a significant accumulation of FOIA fees".

The DoD then cites various fees for search time: "Established
DoD fees are: "clerical search, $12 per hour; professional
search. $25 per hour; executive search, $45 per hour; computer
search, varies according to the system used, billed per
minute...".

The DoD's response continues: "Pursuant to the FOIA, we have
placed you in the 'other' fee category. 'Other' category
requesters receive the first two hours search time and 100 pages
of documents at no charge". And the DoD concludes: "Since your
request is so broad, we are unable to authorize additional
processing with your fee limit of $50.00".

Several weeks ago CAUS received a response from the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO). It stated that the NRO had
"accepted" the CAUS request and would be processing it. There
was no mention that the 33 keywords were "so broad".

In the CAUS lawsuit against the DoD for information on the
triangular aerial objects, the DoD used specific keywords during
its computerized search of the Joint Staff. Those keywords
included such broad terms as: "alien craft", "UFO",
"unidentified flying objects", and "flying saucer". What is
interesting is that at no time did the DoD request search fees
in its attempt to locate information about the Flying Triangles.
Could that fact be further evidence of a lack of any search, let
alone a reasonable one? Also I wonder what the difference
between "professional" and "executive" search is?

The 33 keywords submitted to the 9 agencies were supplied by
several CAUS members subsequent to the dismissal of the CAUS
lawsuit against the DoD. It appears that at least two, SPAWAR
and NAVAIR, relate to very generalized categories of
information, even more generalized than "UFO". I am certain that
several CAUS members know the meaning of these two terms (as
well as the other 31 keywords) and I would appreciate being
informed on the subject.

In the next few days I will be requesting a waiver of any and
all additional search fees since the information received from
the DoD will be freely shared with the public. But in the event
that the DoD denies the request, I am interested in learning
whether CAUS members are willing to contribute to the fees
necessary to obtain these documents. I have no idea what any of
the keywords refer to or whether they are authentic. But we now
know that at least two are authentic and relate to actual
subjects within the Office of Secretary of Defense and Joint
Staff. Whether those subjects have anything to do with our
enigmatic flying triangles will only be learned if we obtain the
documents.

Peter A. Gersten

Director

________________

Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy - "Don't Trip
On Your Open Mind...or the fact that you like to give money to
people who need to find gainful employment... eXpos News
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog (beCAUS you demanded
it...again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

              Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:05:35 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:34:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:58:35 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:03:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young


 >To get back to the subject of fireballs, as in th Coyne case:
 >Astronomer Frank Drake tried to track down reports of fireballs
 >to try to recover meteorites back in the early 60s when he was
 >at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. He
 >wrote of this in his paper, "On the Abilities and Limitations of
 >Witnesses of UFO's and Similar Phenomena", in UFO's A Scientific
 >Debate, Edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, Norton, 1972, p.
 >254.

 >He reported, "The first fact we learned was that a witness's
 >memory of such exotic events fades very quickly. After one day,
 >about half the reports are clearly erroneous; after two days,
 >about three quarters are clearly erroneous; after four days,
 >only ten percent are good; after five days, people report more
 >imagination than truth."

 >Doesn't mean that people are necessarily lying, only that they
 >are human, like the rest of us.

I wrote a rather extensive commentary on Drake's "Scientific
Debate" article on Updates some time back. Here's another go at
it.   Debunkers like Bob Young love to quote Drake's remark on
witness memory as if it were scientific gospel, which it is not.
In fact, Drake starts to contradict his own statement in the
very next paragraph.

First he notes that witness estimates of fireball duration or
the time to arrival of the sonic boom are remarkably good and
consistent.  How can this be if "after five days, people report
more imagination than truth?"

He goes on to state that reported colors for fireballs tend to
be all over the map.  Is this the failure of witness memory?
No, even Drake acknowledges that physical factors not involving
the witnesses might be involved.  "Fireballs � can vary in color
depending on what materials are in them and the circumstances
under which they are seen."  Under the circumstances under which
they are seen he might have added the vantage points of the
observers, the periods of observation, and atmospheric
conditions, all of which could have an effect on the perceived
spectrum.

Drake also mentions the physiological factor of the degree of
dark adaptation of the observers, which is quite correct.  He
could also have added ambient lighting conditions or whether or
not the observers have a color anomaly.  He might have mentioned
the effect of witness age (the lens of the eye yellows with age
absorbing blue light and and causing shifts in perceived color
toward the opposite end of the spectrum.)

Are the physiological color shifts inherent problem with witness
reliability and memory?  No, these are problems with color
calibration of the visual system.  Even mechanical devices like
color cameras, videos, and scanners have this problem.  Ever
walked into a large consumer electronics store with 100 TV's
playing at once and noticed that none of them seem to  have the
same colors?

Going on Drake states absolutely that "observers always estimate
their ability to establish the geometric position of the object
in the sky; they are sure that they can recall where the object
was and how fast it was moving."   But then he again contradicts
himself.  He notes that this only seems to be true if the
observer's have no clear geometric reference points.  If on the
other hand there are clear reference points, then the data can
be very good.  Again, this seems to belie his earlier statement
that "after five days, people report more imagination than
truth."

Throughout all this, Drake supplies zero data to back up his
statement.  How varied  were the witness accounts of color?  How
inaccurate were their estimates of speed or position? Were their
clear trends in the data? What was the statistical spread in the
data?

  Drake presents none of this so that an independent person might
make their own judgment about actual witness reliability.
Instead we are left with nothing more than Drake's say-so.

  Drake is a scientist and should know very well that even very
objective measurements made with instruments suffer from errors
due to noise in the data.  Scientists have to deal with this
every day and apply various statistical techniques to extract
useful information.  They don't throw their hands up in air and
start berating instrument reliability.

Drake (or the equally over-opinionated Bob Young) also doesn't
seem to take into account that witness reliability and
consistency also  has a great deal to do with the experience and
competency of the questioner. Drake is primarily a radio
astronomer, not a meteor hunter.  How did Drake question the
witnesses?  How much time did he spend with them?  In short,
what were Drake's interviewing methods?

  One meteor expert who figured prominently in UFO history of the
late 1940's and early 1950's was Dr. Lincoln LaPaz.  LaPaz had
quite a reputation for his ability to recover meteorites by
going out and interviewing fireball witnesses in the field.
Rather than disparaging eyewitness testimony as Drake did (or
Bob Young), LaPaz  found it invaluable.

Drake claimed that witness statements about direction and
position of fireballs tended to be unreliable.  But the far more
experienced LaPaz through careful questioning of witnesses got
highly consistent results, enabling him to accurately plot
trajectories of fireballs from triangulation of elevations and
azimuths provided by the witnesses.  That was the secret of his
success in recovering the meteorites.

Did LaPaz think he had to question the witnesses within in few
days or the data was completely worthless, as Drake claimed?
Apparently not.  In one case that I'm familiar with, LaPaz
questioned witnesses months after the event and still extracted
very consistent data.  This case was a bolide that blew up over
Kansas on Feb. 18, 1948.  LaPaz was working with Army and Air
Force intelligence at the time on their flying saucer
investigations in New Mexico, and this bolide was initially
treated by them as a possible exploded flying saucer.  LaPaz
received his initial reports on the event from the Army CIC and
AFOSI.

But to go on, it soon became clear that this was a garden
variety bolide.  LaPaz eventually got out to Kansas months later
and interviewed the local yokels.  I have one of his papers on
this event in which he plots the relative positions of the
relative fireball from the various witness vantage points.  He
also marks where witnesses reported seeing explosions of the
fireball.  It is truly remarkable to see the consistency in this
data from about 2 or 3 dozen witnesses.  The various explosions
are natural time markers in the fireball's trajectory.  In each
case, the directions given by several witnesses intersect at
common points where the explosions occurred.

LaPaz got a very accurate trajectory from this data, went out
with some others and immediately started recovering meteorite
fragments from the predicted impact point.  This turned out to
be the largest carbonaceous meteorite recovery of all time.

On Jan. 30, 1949,  a giant green fireball was seen over most of
northern New Mexico and on into Texas.  This was part of the
infamous green fireball phenomenon that started over northern
New Mexico in December 1948.  LaPaz in cooperation with the CIC,
OSI, and  FBI interviewed hundreds of witnesses.  Again,
military intelligence was treating this as a possible crashed
UFO (they weren't in the business of hunting meteorites, were
they?).  There are even some documents to that effect.

In a special secret conference on the green fireballs in Los
Alamos Feb. 14, 1949, LaPaz reported his findings based on the
witness interviews.  There's a lot to this story, but I only
want to mention that LaPaz stated that the green fireballs were
completely silent, whereas normal large fireballs very
frequently trigger witness reports of hearing sizzling sounds.
LaPaz also noted that normal fireballs frequently freak out
animals even when they are indoors where they can't see the
fireball, and attributed it to the anomalous meteor sounds.  He
couldn't explain these sounds, but stated that the reports were
so consistent and  extended back in the meteor literature for a
long time, so the phenomenon was undoubtedly real.

So LaPaz clearly recognized that a consistently reported
phenomenon, no matter how strange or difficult to explain,
should be treated very seriously. I want to contrast this now
with Drake's comments on exactly the same phenomenon in his
"Scientific Debate" article because it clearly points out the
failings of the debunking mentality.

Drake starts out with the following comments:  "The most curious
thing we encountered was that a large percentage of the
witnesses � reported hearing a loud noise at the same time that
they saw the fireball.  Remarkably, the sound was always
described as that of frying bacon, despite the fact that the
witnesses had no contact with one another.  There was even one
man who claimed - and this has been reported with other meteors
- that he was inside the house and heard the sizzling sound;
wondering what was going on, he went outside and saw the
fireball."

Furthermore, "�in the old meteor literature, with almost every
fireball recorded, something like 14 per cent of the
eyewitnesses report the simultaneous crackling sound, which
should be physically impossible.  How does the sound get there
as fast as light?"

Now what do we have here?  We have an anomalous phenomenon
reported with high consistency from numerous people from all
over the world and over long periods of time.  (Sound familiar?)
LaPaz was wise enough to realize that the phenomenon must be
physically real, even though he didn't understand it.

But not Drake.  Drake didn't understand how it was physically
possible, therefore it couldn't be.  It had to be a problem with
the perception of the witnesses.  That's the essence of the
pelicanist mentality:  it can't be, therefore it isn't.

I might add here, that it 1980 a theory finally emerged
explaining how large meteors could indeed physically generate
these sounds.  They have since been recorded in the field.
Theory and experiment finally caught up with a large body of
highly consistent witness testimony stretching back in the
scientific literature over two centuries.

But since Drake can't understand how it could be back in 1972,
he goes on to propose a completely asinine "explanation."
"One feels that this is a psychological phenomenon, a crossing
of waves in the brain.  Something like it is occasionally
reported by drug users, although the fireball observers were
almost certainly not drug users.  I suspect under these unusual
circumstances, with the mind not prepared for a stimulus but
suddenly given an intense stimulus in one sense organ, there may
be feed-through into other perceptive centers in the brain.
Some will then not only see light but hear sound and perhaps
even smell something."

Notice that Drake proposes this nonsensical psychological
"explanation" immediately after acknowledging that there are
many reports of people hearing these sounds even when they are
indoors.  How exactly do these people get that "intense
stimulus" when they can't even see it?

There is nothing in the scientific literature then or now to
support Drake's theory.  Have you ever heard anybody  reporting
sizzling sounds when somebody pop's a flashbulb in their face or
emerges into bright sunlight from a dark movie theater?  Drake's
theory predicts that, but it never happens.'

The title of Drake's article is "On the Abilities and
Limitations of Witnesses of UFO's and Similar Phenomena."  Drake
makes a number of  sweeping and unsupported statements about the
general unreliability of witness testimony about meteor
fireballs.  He  is obviously trying to extrapolate this to UFO
reports in order to debunk them.

  Along the way he contradicts himself a number of times and also
fails to consider the possibility that the so-called
unreliability of the witnesses may also reflect in part his own
inexperience as a field investigator. At the end he tries to
dismiss as a "psychological phenomenon" a well-established
anomalous phenomenon reported by many fireball witnesses.   He
steps well outside of his own field of expertise as he does
this, and his "explanation" borders on the absurd.  He would be
hooted off the stage if he proposed this nonsense at a
convention of perceptual psychologists.

Yet pelicanists like Bob Young will continue to quote Drake's
unsupported, anecdotal statement about witness reliability and
we are supposed to treat it as if it were a show-stopper.  In
reality it flies in the face of common experience.  If it were
true then absolutely everyone, including Frank Drake, would be
reporting "more imagination than truth" five days after
anything.

Everyone on the planet would be delusional and suffering from
amnesia.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:44 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:37:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:26:01 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <<AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Wright
 >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:20:43 +0100

 >In response to the following...

 >>>When applied to UFO photographs there has not yet been one which
 >>>has been resolved to anything but 'normal' terrestrial or
 >>>astronomical phenomena.

<Bruce wrote:

 >>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>unexplained.

 >There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >explanations.

Other Robertisms we can expect in other fields of knowledge:

Medicine:

"Based on what we know about the nature of headaches and
stomachaches, at least 99% are benign. Therefore it is
reasonable to suggest that all headaches and stomach-aches will
prove to be benign, and are not symptoms of brain tumors or
impending strokes."

"Based on what we know about sexual encounters, in at least 99%
of the encounters the people never get AIDS. Therefore it is
reasonable to suggest that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted
disease."

"Based on what we know about sexual encounters, in at least 99%
of such encounters there is no subsequent pregnancy. Therefore
it is reasonable to suggest that pregnancy has nothing to do
with sex."

"At least 99% of people report no serious side effects from
taking aspirin. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that
aspirin never causes any serious side effects

Crime:

"Based on what we know about the nature of car alarms, at least
99% of the triggered alarms signal nothing of significance. No
doubt with further investigation, we will discover that all are
false alarms and cars are never broken into or stolen."

Safety:

"Statistically, at least 99% of airline passengers report
arriving safely at their destinations. Therefore it is
reasonable to suggest that in the future it will be shown that
there are never any plane crashes."


etc., etc.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

             Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:24:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:40:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal


 >Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 03:09:51 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:54:03 +0100
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:17:35 -0600
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Alien Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >>Hello "Jilain",

 >>I read your post and asked myself what the H*** is this? I looked
 >>up the Alien Abductions, Inc. website and saw that it was an
 >>obvious prank. It ranks down there with the American Computer
 >>Company in the stupid pranks book. I imagine people who really
 >>feel they were abducted (whatever the cause) won't find it very
 >>funny.

<snip>


 >Hello Josh!

 >On closer inspection, I'm inclined to agree with you that the
 >AAI website is a complete put-on.

<snip>

 >Here's a question for you cyber sleuths:

 >Who put it up?

Hi Larry,

"Who" indeed!

As for funny, go to,

http://www.mulletsgalore.com/

Check out the 'Mullet Classification' section!

The website has nothing to do with UFOs... unless you consider
mulletheads space people.  ;)

Enjoy,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                    Crop Circle Hoaxer Or Something More?

From: Mark Haywood <mark.haywood@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 09:28:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:41:28 -0500
Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer Or Something More?


As the police have apparently taken Matthew Williams computer
and the crop circle season ended months ago, why has it taken so
long to bring him to task?

Or are they more interested in what other data he has in his
computer?

Not that I'm trying to start a conspiracy you understand!


Mark Haywood
Cosmic Horizons
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mark.haywood/Cosmic








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:04:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:48:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


Y'all,

Brian wrote:

 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:57:06 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >Non-existent evidence:  some recent cited list examples ...

 >* Barney & Betty Hill
 >* Travis Walton
 >* Iranian air force UFO encounter (1976)
 >* Cash Landrum sighting and subsequent severe radiation injury.
 >* Filer's Files (years' worth of list postings; ever read it?)
 >* UFO Roundup (ditto)

 >Controversial?

 >Sure.

 >Open to analysis & debate?

 >Always. (which tends to result in books, you know)

Yes Brian, well spotted. the above cases are indeed 'evidence'.
But they are most certainly not 'evidence' of contact with ET.
Do you believe those cases are?

They are evidence of unusual human experiences in the same way
that a thousand and one other areas of anomalous experience are
- including Jerry's beloved 'old hag' study done by Hufford.

 >Learn to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof". There is a
 >difference. You apparently confuse the two. Or maybe you just
 >like to stir up mud. Or both.

I have.
I agree.
I don't.
Only when necessary.

Happy Trails

Andy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:22:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:51:34 -0500
Subject: Re:  Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

 >OK, joke over, we're talking about the same book. You may
 >remember that I reviewed it very favourably in Magonia (or was
 >it even in MUFOB days?) shortly after it came out. In my reading
 >of the book Hufford is critical of people who have looked at
 >phenomena such as the "Old Hag" and have treated them as
 >'legends'. 'stories', mere 'folktales' and so on; and have
 >indeed conducted a form of literary criticism on them. The value
 >of Hufford's book is that he demonstrates that the Old Hag is an
 >actual _experienced_ phenomenon, and information about it can be
 >gleaned from listening to the people who have personally
 >experienced it.

 >What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that there is an
 >actual physical being called the Old Hag which sneaks into
 >people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they sleep and
 >tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in his approach
 >which does not also apply to the type of sceptical, psychosocial
 >approach of our beloved pelicans.

This is most intruiging. Jerry C. raises Hufford's book on an
almost weekly basis as evidence that Jerry C. is correct because
Hufford agrees with what Jerry C thinks (circular logic - but
that's the way this list goes sometimes).

But if Clark J and J Rimmer - both well versed in strange
phenomena and its analyses, both quite capable of understanding
what a book is saying - can't agree on what Hufford _is_ saying,
then what hope for any serious discussion of UFO cases here?

Can someone not contact Hufford and ask him to state - simply -
for the pelicanists here - what he does think?

Perhaps a question on the lines of:

Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

And while we're here, and to save further confusion, perhaps
Jerry could answer John's question - simply, so the pelicanists
won't get confused

 >Does Jerry think that any UFOs are real extraterrestrial craft?

And also whilst we're here I'd like to add another phrase to
Jerry Clark bingo (as he's used it three times this year that
I can recall), this time in reference to me:

 >I'm sure that in person you are a perfectly nice guy,

Classic stuff. To which John commented:

 >No he isn't, he's a right Yorkshire bastard!

I shall, of course, sue immediately. I'm sure Harry Harris would
be glad of the work.

But the bottom line is, if two heavyweights of the subject and
the literature can't agree over the meaning of a book, then all
Jerry's blustering about UFOs isn't worth squat.

I rest my valise.

Happy Trails

Andy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

             Re: Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers? - Harrison

From: Diane Harrison  Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:25:26 +1100
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:53:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers? - Harrison


Hi Ken

 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:18:47 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Kilsyth, Australia UFO Researchers?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Would anyone refer me to an Australian UFO researcher,
 >enthusiast, or other warm body in Kilsyth, Australia?

Now I don't mind putting you in touch with a UFO researcher but
when you say (or other warm body)  do you mean a live one LOL!
..... thats a strange phrase :>)

AUFORN Victoria George Simpson  Astrotypejim@aol.com
he may be able to help you out :>)


--
Regards Diane Harrison

Director Of The Keith Basterfield Network Australasia
Co Director of The Australian UFO Research Network
Australian Skywatch Director









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                       MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:55:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:59:44 -0500
Subject: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32


MAGONIA Monthly Supplement
Editor: John Harney
No. 32   October  2000

EDITORIAL

Recently, a complaint by Dr Jill Tarter, of the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute, to a web site which
headlined a contribution from her describing SETI's work as
"searching for UFOs", was brought to the attention of the
Internet UFO forum, UFO UpDates. Tarter wrote that "SETI is
scientific and credible, and UFO claims and studies are not".
This caused much foaming at the mouth and chewing of carpets
among the list's mainly American, mainly ETH, subscribers. Bob
Young defended Tarter against the attacks and was in turn
attacked by Jerome Clark for writing a favourable review of
Curtis Peebles's "dishonest and even plagiaristic book" (Watch
the Skies!). Some ETHers got even more bad-tempered. One wrote:
"Welcome to the UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags, Dupes and Morons,
Jill . . . "

Of course, Jill Tarter is right. If she reads a UFO book or
attends a UFO conference she is almost certain to encounter the
ravings of the ETH-obsessed and the lecture-circuit liars. In an
article written some years ago Tarter described searching for
ETI signals as being like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The same analogy could be applied to an outsider seeking
genuinely scientific ufologists.


ENTIRELY DISPOSED

Martin S. Kottmeyer

Ten years ago, January 1990, an essay of mine titled "Entirely
Unpredisposed" was published in Magonia. It brought together
three claims by ufologists that UFO and abduction case material
was without cultural provenance. No ready psychosocial
explanations existed for such things as the shape of flying
saucers, the nature of the Greys, or the Hill abduction case;
they felt. This meant extraterrestrials newly came to our world
in 1947. These claims provided a dialectical opportunity to
showcase material I had run across in my enjoyment of science
fiction and discoveries I made in correspondence with fellow UFO
buffs. The discoveries were largely serendipitous things, the
outcome of eclectic recreational consumption of both science
fiction and UFO literature rather than concerted research. As
many SF buffs hold ufology to be beneath notice and UFO buffs
tend to obsess on their subject to the exclusion of SF, I was in
a rare position to be aware of enough of both fields to see the
overlap that existed between them.

"Entirely Unpredisposed" was well regarded and it is one of my
more widely cited articles. It has prompted praise and has led
to the flattery that I am an expert in science fiction. I didn't
care to disabuse people of that notion though I knew that
hundreds of SF buffs consumed far more and were more intensely
involved in the subject. That I had only scratched the surface
would be apparent to everyone these days if it wasn't for the
fact that Michel Meurger's book Scientifictions no. 1/1
(Encrage, 1995) is available only in French and his "Surgeons
from Outside" English piece is trapped in the expensive Fortean
Studies No. 3. More than I, Meurger has shown the massive
foreshadowing of UFO mythology in pulp science fiction and
cultural tradition. His work is to mine as a miner's long day is
to a pleasant stroll down the lane.

There has been some recent criticism of my essay that I wish to
comment on here. Anthony R. Brown, in the latest issue of
Magonia (October 2000), refers to the part of the essay dealing
with observations by me suggesting that Invaders from Mars was
one of the influences on Betty Hill's nightmare. He asserts I
went "to extraordinary lengths to claim that a specific film was
the origin of their experience. There are two important points
that are never addressed in such assertions. The first is that
there is not a single case from the decades of sleep and dream
research where a film has been partially duplicated by
subsequent dreaming . . . dream imagery and story are always
different from the film.  The emotional tone might be virtually
identical in both film and subsequent dream, but never the
imagery and story."

Brown offers no sources for this claim but I know it is false
from personal experience. I've had movie imagery reflected in my
dreams on more than one occasion. Once, after seeing Invasion of
the Body Snatchers, I had a surreal dream of pods identical from
the film being fired like artillery shells in a war. Army trucks
were also present like near the end of that film. I also know it
is false from reading Robert L. van de Castle's Our Dreaming
Mind (Ballantine, 1994, p. 241). He describes two studies by D.
Foulkes of individuals being shown a pair of films and
determining their effect on content. The first study indicated
it was extremely obvious to judges in 5 per cent of the dreams
whether a western or neutral romantic comedy had been seen. In
the second study, Foulkes is reported as saying 8 per cent of
the dreams incorporated elements from the pre-sleep film. Never
say never.

I also recommend Kelly Bulkeley's The Wilderness of Dreams
(State U. of NY Press, 1994, pp. 188-9) for that author's
discussion of a dream of being dissected by an evil alien. The
influence of the film Excalibur, recently seen, was evident in
the presence of knights in the early part of the nightmare.
Bulkeley also indicated having had heart-pounding dreams of
being chased by Darth Vader, whose source in movie imagery is
beyond doubt. Brown's claim was scarcely believable from the
standpoint of observations that have existed for over a century
noting that dreams incorporate imagery from memory in distorted
form (Freud, Sigmund, The Interpretation of Dreams, Avon, 1965,
pp. 44-55). Given that films do enter our memories, how could
they be immune from use by dreams?

Brown's use of the phrase "partially duplicated" seems to
indicate he thinks my assertion of influence involves a precise
replay of the film in Betty's dream, but let me quote "Entirely
Unpredisposed" to refresh his memory. "The match between
Invaders from Mars and Betty Hill's nightmares is imperfect and
obviously has none of the rigour of a mathematical equation.
Dreams and nightmares by their nature are almost never veridical
memories. Even if Betty Hill was really abducted it would be
unusual for her nightmares to be a photographic replay of her
trauma. The felt emotions would resurface, but it would bear
only a metaphoric similarity in its dramatic content. The most
one would generally expect is snatches of unique imagery to help
in the piecing together of the sources the dream spun off of. It
is something of a wonder that enough elements exist of this
character . . . to make an identification that can be called
convincing."

It should also be noticed, contra Brown, that I don't assert the
film is the origin of Betty's nightmares. I note that Keyhoe's
book is also a source in that article. More recently I have
spoken of the incorporation of her fears of radiation
contamination as a source of some of the medical imagery
(Magonia Monthly Supplement No. 12, February 1999). There are
numerous origins - emphasis on the plural - to her experience.

Greg Sandow, in his essay "The Abduction Conundrum" (Anomalist
No. 7, Winter 98/99, and Sandow's personal web site) offers
another sort of criticism. He indicates I am "completely unaware
of how silly" I sound when I point out some of the elements of
abduction stories appeared in earlier science fiction. He grants
that anybody could "cherry pick" old issues of Amazing Stories
and emerge with elements of the abduction story. His complaint
is that I don't explain how they come together in the current
storyline of abductions being taken throughout a person's life
and using us sexually without explaining their designs upon us.
I'm engaged in "vulgar" Gotcha-type thinking, he proposes.
"Kottmeyer doesn't make predictions from his theory, doesn't
give us any way to separate abduction tales that might be
influenced by media from those that wouldn't be. Besides . . .
the science fiction details could be veiled abduction memories."

The concession that one can find the abduction elements in
earlier culture forgets that it was the Hopkins claim that one
could not find those elements in earlier culture that was being
disproven. One doesn't need to have a theory, amateur or
professional, to prove such a point. Sandow takes no notice that
if he alleges early science fiction stories are veiled abduction
memories, he is undercutting the framework of interpretation
that Jacobs, Hopkins, and Bullard were using, i.e. the aliens
arrived in 1947 or thereabouts and nothing in earlier culture
existed because they were elsewhere. Strike out that assumption
and their claims of novelty have no point, let alone force.

In speaking of my not providing an explanation of the present
storyline, particularly the part about the abductors not
explaining themselves, Sandow is clearly parroting an argument
made by Jacobs in his book Secret Life (Fireside, 1992, p. 297).
Sandow is saying I should have addressed in a 1990 essay an
argument that did not even exist till two years later.
Subsequent to reading Jacobs's book I did point out that some of
this new argument was demonstrably false. There are film aliens
that never explain themselves and many films have aliens
interested in the subject of procreation. This was discussed in
my May 1994 essay "Spawn of Inseminoid" (REALL News, 2, 5). The
storyline about abductees being taken throughout their lives is
one I have not addressed largely because I was unaware anyone
thought it truly a matter of interest. Indeed I was under the
impression that this business of abductees being followed
throughout their lives was an embarrassment because it is so
clearly a new storyline that did not exist prior to Hopkins. It
is inconsistent with the body of abductions that existed before
he came on the scene.

Sandow wants a way to separate abductions influenced by media
and those that are not. Easy. Have the abductees persuade the
aliens to visit Seth Shostak and Stephen Jay Gould. Persuade the
aliens to give them copies of their mission records, a universal
translator, and a library of a hundred books dealing in depth
with such matters as alien zoology, alien palaeontology, alien
biochemistry, a medical text, art history, antique guides to
show they are up and up on being from an alien civilization. If
the mission records back the abduction claims then we will know
which accounts were real and beyond influence. Failing that,
there are always things like FBI room-sweeps for alien skin
cells or scales, mass witnessing of crafts, instrumental records
like videotaped intrusions that pass muster upon scrutiny by
non-believers.

Sandow wants predictions. Jacobs's alien takeover by big bug
aliens will not happen. The apocalypses seen by abductees and
supported by Mack will not happen. Mainstream science will not
enter ufology en masse and become convinced of the existence of
aliens who are spying on humanity or using us as part of a
hybrid programme. The general UFO culture will continue to
manifest all manner of paranoid themes. The government, being
unable to prove to ufologists they are not engaged in a massive
cover-up, will provide no confessions. On the matter of the
general proposition that psychosocial theorists do not offer
testable propositions, a position held by both Sandow and Brown,
I remind critics here that my article "Abduction: The
Boundary-Deficit Hypothesis" (Magonia No. 32) predicted "the
final population of abduction claimants would be biased in
favour of a high proportion of boundary-deficit personalities".
I subsequently pointed out that there is a test instrument
developed by Ernest Hartmann that reliably discriminates between
people with thin boundaries and those who have thick or normal
boundaries (Kottmeyer, Martin, "Testing the Boundaries",
Bulletin of Anomalous Experience, 5, 4, August 1994). Low scores
would falsify the hypothesis. David Ritchey subsequently gave
the Boundary Questionnaire to 14 abductees. The average score
was 305 ("Elephantology - The Science of Limiting Perception to
a Single Aspect of a Large Object, Parts II & III", Bulletin of
Anomalous Experience, 5, 6, December 1994, pp. 11-16). This was
nicely in the range defined as thin-boundaried (Hartmann,
Ernest,  Boundaries of the Mind, Basic, 1991, p. 254).

Brown avers that "hysteria is the foundation stone upon which
the whole Psychosocial model is built". This is untrue in regard
to my thinking. Anyone who has followed my writings would more
properly tend to regard as central my argument that paranoia
underlies and shapes much of UFO belief. This would be solidly
falsified if the ETH could be solidly verified in the ways
mentioned above. Less definitively, it could be undermined in
many theorists' eyes if tests like the MMPI were given to
believers and the scores on the Pa (Paranoia) scale came out
low. A look at studies of abductees - presumably UFO believers -
however tend to show the Pa score above average. Sprinkle and
Parnell gave two standard psychological tests to 225 people who
reported UFO experiences. Both tests found moderately elevated
scores on the Pa scale and those with communication experiences
were significantly more elevated (Parnell, June O. and Sprinkle,
R. Leo, "Personality Characteristics of Persons who Claim UFO
Experiences", Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 2 (1990), pp. 45-58).
Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and Blatterbauer got a Pa score
consistent within less than a point to Parnell and Sprinkle when
they gave the MMPI to 27 abductees (Rodeghier, Mark, Goodpaster,
Jeff and Blatterbauer, Sandra, "Psychosocial Characteristics of
Abductees: Results from the CUFOS Abduction Project", Journal of
UFO Studies, n.s. 3 (1991), pp. 59-90). Those who adopt the ETH
position of course shrug this off with an interpretation along
the lines of - I admit this is caricature - "Well, you'd be
paranoid too if aliens were coming repeatedly in the night,
sticking needles up your nose, and stealing your sperm, ova, or
embryo to make hybrids to save their dying race." How does one
argue against that?

Obviously, you don't. Instead you move on to do a history of the
Greys and show their origins in discarded theories of evolution
and pulp science fiction. Brown tells us that this teaches us
nothing people did not already know. Well, I contend it has! -
if I may borrow his exclamation mark for a moment. Hopkins,
Jacobs, Mack, indeed no abduction researcher has offered a
history of the Grey concept in their writings so this is new
knowledge no matter how deep in denial Brown chooses to be. The
fact that Hufford, whom Brown suggests we should emulate, was
interested in clinical details like sleep paralysis rather than
the origins and inconsistencies of the surface content of Old
Hag experiences only tells us Hufford was already satisfied that
nobody would challenge the axiom that Old Hags were obviously
not physically sitting on people's chests. Being able to say
that Greys are almost certainly fictional rather than real is
clearly relevant in deciding if the paranoia is of the
aliens-are-truly-victimizing-me sort or
distrust-skews-how-I-interpret-weird-things sort. I don't know
that this makes any difference to clinicians. I'm not a doctor
nor do I pretend to be. Clearly, though, many people watching
this phenomenon are still curious to know whether abduction
experiences signify something that we should be worried about as
a real threat to humanity or whether they are a tragically false
belief we should hope people will eventually wake up from.

I do not plan to offer any grand unifying theories of abduction
experiences in the near future of the sort that will solve all
the things Sandow demands and will demand of psychosocial
theory. Such is impossible without compelling grand unifying
theories of dreams and nightmares to build on, or compelling
grand unifying theories of mythology, or compelling grand
unifying theories of cultural obsessions. I do know a thing or
two, however, about recognising false beliefs and fallacious
arguments. My curiosity indicated certain directions for
explaining these errors of belief and I continue to believe my
contributions to psychosocial thought have merit. That some
readers reject and malign these ideas is unfortunate, but life
is diverse and universal agreement on anything does not happen
even among the angels (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Lucifer, Cornell,
1984, pp. 36, 44. Angels and humans, unlike aliens, occasionally
tire of being servants, or so I'm told). I continue to hope
thoughtful people will catch on that this phenomenon will likely
continue to have no happy resolution for all concerned. If you
have a need to be of service to humanity, pick a pursuit more
certain to serve good like life-guarding, fire fighting,
medicine, engineering, auto manufacture, farming, et cetera.
Keep your options open if you must, but diversify your interests
to include things that will ultimately be less a waste of your
time, money, and emotional investment.

Time will not only tell who is right in these matters; to a
large extent it already has.

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

"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank" - Dr Miles Bennell's
instructions on how to look like a pod person, Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956)



LITERARY CRITICISM

Timothy Good. Unearthly Disclosure: Conflicting Interests in the
Control of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Century, London, 2000.
�16.99

As usual, Timothy Good regales us with some interesting UFO
yarns. His technique must now be familiar to most readers. Take
some sensational reports, then select accounts of investigations
by the more credulous researchers. The work of more sceptical
and probing investigators is ignored or brushed aside. Of course
Good takes the trouble to make contact with many witnesses and
investigators and - surprise, surprise - most of them tell him
what he wants to hear.

Even Good's boundless credulity is strained on occasion, though.
He devotes three chapters to the absurd stories told by the
contactee Enrique Castillo Rincon about his encounters with
Nordics from the Pleiades, admits that they are unbelievable,
but concludes somewhat lamely: "Most probably his narrative is a
mixture of truth and fiction. Whatever the case, he has provided
us with a fascinating story and one which I believe contains
important new insights." He doesn't give us any indication of
what these insights might be, of course, and such remarks are
typical of his incisive analysis of UFO narratives. But perhaps
he is reluctant to indulge in "literary criticism".


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 -  e-mail:
harney@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk

--
Mark Pilkington             m.pilkington@virgin.net
----------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forteantimes.com    : Fortean Times online
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk : Magonia online

"The blood is the life, but electricity is the life of the blood."
Dr Carter Moffat, 1892








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

             Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Prokic

From: Roger R. Prokic <rprokic@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:01:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science - Prokic


 >Date: 3 Nov 2000 12:54:23 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:27:34 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>>Date: 2 Nov 2000 10:52:55 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Yet More Insights From Pelican Science
 >>>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:27:57 -0600

 >>>>Listfolk:

 >>>>Recent developments in pelican science have opened up whole new
 >>>>vistas to UFO research. Through its insights we are able to look
 >>>>at old cases with new eyes.
 >>>Are the pelicanists in flight yet?

 >>>Have you added this term to the Ufologist glossary?

 >>Just want to take the op to warmly welcome back an old friend.
 >>Mr Bill, what's the latest and the greatest with the Phoenix
 >>"triangle craft" sighting from 1997?

 >Read all about it soon when my book on the Phoenix Lights is launched
 >as an e-book. Will let you know.

I'll buy your e-book as long as you don't tell me the Phoenix
Lights were really Pelican Droppings after the Pelicans ate
weeds from the Swamp Gas - causing the Pelican Droppings to
appear as if they were Military Flares.

No Pelican poop, please! :-)

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 5

                 Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:22:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:03:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille


 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:57:06 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600

<snip>

 >>As usual Jerry you have failed to actually read and understand
 >>my posts and instead have chosen to interpret them in your own
 >>unique way. I didn't say the above, nor do I think it.

 >>I did, however, say that I believe UFO authors have a duty not
 >>to publish material in their books which imply we are being
 >>visited by 'aliens' (use your own choice of word here) in
 >>'craft' (ditto), when the evidence for this is non-existent.

 >Non-existent evidence:  some recent cited list examples ...

 >* Barney & Betty Hill
 >* Travis Walton
 >* Iranian air force UFO encounter (1976)
 >* Cash Landrum sighting and subsequent severe radiation injury.
 >* Filer's Files (years' worth of list postings; ever read it?)
 >* UFO Roundup (ditto)

 >Controversial?

 >Sure.

 >Open to analysis & debate?

 >Always. (which tends to result in books, you know)

 >Non-existent?

 >Ridiculous. Get real.

 >Learn to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof". There is a
 >difference. You apparently confuse the two. Or maybe you just
 >like to stir up mud. Or both.

Hello Brian, Jerry and List,

[can't include Andy, as he never responds ;)]

Lost cause Brian.

Asking a debunker to consider facts is like talking respect with
some punk writing graffiti on mountains.

If a debunker had any talent for analysis and a background of
intellectual honesty, would he be debunking?

Is it possible to seek any truth with someone who suffers from
selective short term (10 seconds) amnesia and long term
realophobia?

Cheers, clear skies and whatever,

Serge Salvaille







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners

From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:29:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:04:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Meiners



 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:36:06 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:58:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:38:28 -0700

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:46:46 -0600


 >Bob,

 >>My wife's uncle once described something similar to me. Lighting
 >>had struck a power pole in front of his house and a ball of
 >>light had bounced down the street. I once spoke to an airline
 >>pilot who told me that after lighting had apparently struck the
 >>nose of his aircraft, ball lighting had flouted back down the
 >>isle and into the passenger area, where it disappeared.

 >Ah, yes, anecdotal testimony from persons who, pelicanists would
 >tell us if they truly had the courage and consistency of their
 >stated convictions, were probably fooled by some conventional
 >stimulus; if not that, they were probably making the stories up.
 >Misperceptions and hoaxes abound in alleged BL sightings, as
 >even true believers in its reality concede.

 >>The thing about ball lighting is that there are pictures of it

 >Just as there are pictures of UFOs. And, according to James Dale
 >Barry (author of the classic Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning),
 >the overwhelming majority of pictures of BL are fakes. What is
 >your point -- other than, of course, the obvious one: that you
 >hold people you agree with to one standard, the rest of us to
 >another?

 >>and there has been lots of work done on plasmas, which are the
 >>best bet, I gather, for an explanation. Science has moved
 >>forward on the matter of ball lightning in the last 50 years.

 >Nope. Various theories have been offered, and all have been
 >judged unsatisfactory for one reason or another. One important
 >reason some scientists still deny that BL exists. In the end,
 >scientists interested in and sympathetic to BL point to
 >sightings -- you know, anecdotal testimony -- as the reason for
 >their belief in the phenomenon. The quote I used earlier, from
 >Australian plasma physicist John Lowke, was in direct response
 >to a question from Scientific American on why he thinks BL is
 >real. As listfolk may recall better than Bob does, Lowke said he
 >believes in it because people he judges credible claim to have
 >seen it.

 >>Of course, this is all headed toward his nemesis, Philip J.
 >>Klaus, who's first book on the subject, UFOs Identified,
 >>focused on the ball lightning explanation.

 >Klaus? Again? Well, I recently misspelled Santa's last name the
 >same way, so I guess I'll give you a pass on Klass's last name.
 >I think you're getting us both confused.

 >That aside, your pelicanist credentials are well in order, I
 >see. UFOs Identified, the book you alluded to here, was exposed
 >as an exercise in ludicrous pseudoscience by _both_ James
 >McDonald and the Condon Committee*. And you are actually citing
 >it as if it's something we ought to be taking seriously? One
 >standard for your side, another for ours. Could anything be more
 >predictable?

 >Jerry Clark

 >*Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Bantam
 >edition, 748-50.


These are my thoughts on "pelicanism", for what it is worth:

If we were totally governed, bad enough, partially, by
pelicanism, then we would never have gotten out of the ameba
stage, because we would not have been able to determined truth
from lies, reality from whatever, because we would always assume
that what is - isn't and if it appears to be - don't trust it. I
sincerely hope and pray to whatever deity exists in the
universe, that pelicanism is a definite minority.

G'ma









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                 Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:46:16 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:07:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Mortellaro


 >From: Fran Walton <LWalton55@cs.com>
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:47:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:21:55 -0700

 >Hi Sue, Errol, and List

 >>Fran wrote:

 >>>How could an abductee or someone who has perceived himself to
 >>>be one, assimilate the events into their everyday lives without
 >>>assistance?

 >If I have offended you, I apoligize. My comment was not meant
 >to be addressed to all abductees as such. I am sure that many
 >do go on living healthy, productive, lives without any
 >_professional_ assistance.

 >Snip

 >Equally as important, again, in my opinion, if not even _more_
 >important, is the need for a Universal Code of Ethics amongst
 >all researchers and counsellors of any type in the field of
 >ufology.

<snip>

Interesting statement of fact. That it is fact is telling. If
mainstream science were to embrace this phenom, such a Code
would not be necessary. Since mainstream science stays away from
the phenom like the plague, those who are _not_ scientists or
physicians become the standard bearer for them. And everyone
knows these are nothing more than amateurs. Some of the world's
most important science has come from amateurs. Some of the
world's greatest stupidity has come from amateurs. Boy are we in
trouble.

Jim Mortellaro









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

              Re: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update - Klotz

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:05:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:10:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update - Klotz


 >From: Wendy Connors <ProjectSign@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 14:55:45 -0700

 >A new book, 'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer Of The Saucers
 >-1952' by Wendy A. Connors and Michael D. Hall, is now
 >available.

 >ISBN: 0-9705055-0-7, 304 pages, 8 1/2 x 11 Perfect Bound, it
 >contains extensive notes, bibliography, appendicies and full
 >index. Profusely illustrated.

 >Three years in the making, this is the most documented account
 >of Captain Ruppelt and the rise of Project Blue Book ever
 >written. Containing new photographs of Capt. Ruppelt and the
 >people behind the military investigation of flying saucers. You
 >are taken in to the secret intrigue and drama behind the scenes
 >of the great Flying Saucer Wave of 1952, how Blue Book began and
 >how the CIA neutralized it forever. You'll learn what really
 >went on behind the scenes and the new information will change
 >your concept of Ufology forever.

 >If you think you knew the story of Ed Ruppelt and the rise of
 >Project Blue Book, you don't!

 >Order your copy today since availability is very limited with a
 >small press run. Cost is $27.95 plus $3 postage from:

 >ARCTURUS BOOKS, INC.
 >1443 S. E. Port St. Lucie Blvd.
 >Port St. Lucie, FL 34952


Wendy and List:

My opinion:

Being a regular customer of Bob Girard's Arcturus Books, I
pre-ordered your (and Mr. Hall's) Ruppelt 'Summer of the
Saucers' book and, although I have just started it, can see that
it is obviously a major addition to the "historical" ufology
literature. I believe that one must study history thoroughly to
even begin to understand where (and why) things are as they are
today.

Folks, order a copy of this ASAP; you'll be glad you did, and
Mr. Girard will appreciate your business as well.

(end unsolicited opinion)

Jim Klotz
CUFON SYSOP









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                  Re: CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2? - Lamphere

From: Lan Lamphere <lan@oklahomasky.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:43:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:13:37 -0500
Subject: Re: CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2? - Lamphere


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: CAUS Fund Raiser Number 2?
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:09:12 -0800

 >The following is a message form Gersten at CAUS. Apparently the
 >government is wanting to charge him for furthering a search
 >relating to his last litigation/vacation deal. Gersten states
 >that now he may be asking CAUS members for MORE money in order
 >to pay for the search. What happened to the $10,000 that CAUS
 >members already put out? Are we going to see yet another CAUS
 >fund raiser?

Hello All!

Where can I find more information about Gerstien and these
alligations made toward his spending of CAUS funds?  I would
like to do a show on this subject.

Lan Lamphere







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                    Astrophysicists & Star Fleet Captains

From: Diana Botsford <diana@oznet.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:06:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:15:05 -0500
Subject: Astrophysicists & Star Fleet Captains


D E S T I N A T I O N : S P A C E
http://www.destinationspace.net

Cosmic Catastrophes
Supernovae, Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Adventures in Hyperspace
Chat with Astronomer J. Craig Wheeler
Join the chat: Monday, November 6 @ 6pm, PT

Join astronomer & author, Dr. J. Craig Wheeler for an intriguing
tour of the most violent event in the Universe - the death of
star! Be prepared to learn things about the Universe that you
may have never imagined. How do supernovae occur and what is the
importance of binary star systems in those cataclysmic events?
Black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs - which of these will
be the ultimate fate of our Sun? Just what might happen if a
star in our stellar neighborhood goes "supernova?" Mysterious
gamma-ray bursts - what are they, what do they mean? Hyperspace
- is it real and will we ever be able to travel the Universe via
the wormhole express?

++++++++++++++++++++
Exclusive Audio Interview!
George Takei - Star Trek's Captain Sulu
Warm and thoughtful, Takei recently visited with Escape Velocity
about his current activities and the growing movement in fandom
for Paramount Pictures to create a new Star Trek series
featuring the adventures of Captain Sulu. He also reveals
current Great Bird Rick Berman's take on the idea, challenges
the critics of late Bird Gene Roddenberry, and confesses why he
resorted to stealing cereal boxes from a London hotel.


++++++++++++++++++++


We look forward to seeing you online.

Diana Botsford
Producer/Host
Destination: Space
http://www.destinationspace.net
- - - - - -
"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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                            Mussolini's UFO Files

From: Alfredo Lissoni - CUN <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:50:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:18:17 -0500
Subject: Mussolini's UFO Files


Mussolini's UFO files case on line at:

http://www.cun-italia.net/fasfile/immagini.htm

(many pictures, including Nordung Model, German flying saucer of
1930);

History of Fascist UFO files (in Italian) at:

http://www.cun-italia.net/fasfile/fafil.htm

with many pictures of the real documents (thanks to Vladimiro
Bibolotti, Italy's National UFO Center secretary).

Best wishes,

Alfredo Lissoni







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                       Re: Military Abductions? - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:32:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:25:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Hart


 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:16:41 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

<snip>

 >>>>The monitoring (government of abductees) is for recovery
 >>>>of individual experiences and possible contact with the
 >>>>"other" activity so that it can be contained.

 >I asked: How do you know this Gary?

 >>The stated logic fits the observed conditions.

 >Gary, there is no "logic" to any of this. You don't make it any
 >easier or clearer when you respond to requests for evidence with
 >more outrageous rumors and speculation. None of which you are
 >able to justify in any measure at all. Not even a little. You do
 >not make a convincing or even a good argument for your self.

 >Again, if you have _anything_ that will induce any interested
 >third party that; government agents are running around in the
 >corn fields of the great American mid-west zapping open and then
 >closing dimensional doorways (while simultaneously hiding the
 >whole operation with a Klingon cloaking device) I'm all eyes and
 >ears.

 >We all are.

 >Gary, proving _any_ one of the claims that you've made would
 >ensure your place in the history books!

 >Just share with us this "research" that you conducted that has
 >convinced _you_ that what you have claimed above is true. You're
 >dealing with an open-minded crowd here. You won't find a better
 >or more attentive audience anywhere. If you have _anything_
 >solid, I for one (and I'm sure I speak for others), will take
 >the time to give it and you serious consideration and thought.

 >If not.....

Brother Velez,

I don't wish to say more. My work is to get proof as we all wish
to see. My resources are pointed in this direction. Take what I
say however you wish. Unfortunately I can't discuss how I am
proceeding because MUFON & NIDS would get information they don't
deserve. I could talk by phone but not in more detail on this
List.

Clues are present in everything I post. We are moving forward
but the phenomena doesn't perform on command and any unmarked
response is yet a very small subset of all observed activity so
it is difficult to get proof even if you look for it. Saying
there is no acceptable proof and taking the next step to develop
a strategy to find it are understandably two different things.

All my statements come from several witnesses in several
families in almost every case so the information is corroborated
within each situation enough to cause me to generate a specific
strategy to follow activity through extended cycles. Collected
data shows this strategy to work.

I am always as specific as the data allows, therefore, I do not
call "unmarked" activity military. I do not know who it is but
it is someone with resources and military-style vehicles when
necessary.

Does some anomalous activity generate a patterned response from
persons unknown? Yes, in my opinion. I'm "in the trenches" when
it comes to research but cannot be more open and may never be so
because of the meaning of the data collected.

The Italian and Norwegian groups that are/have done work at
Hessdalen are much like what I and colleagues are doing here in
the states at different locations. Can anyone else say they are
collecting data this way? Not that I'm aware of.

If you protest, then I don't have to mention anything I'm doing.
Rest assured the methods we are using are, form a technical
standpoint, several steps above anything we have heard about
to-date.

Gary









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:07:55 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:29:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:32:15 -0000

 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:26:01 -0400
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>From: Andy Roberts <<AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Wright
 >>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:20:43 +0100

 >>In response to the following...

 >>>>When applied to UFO photographs there has not yet been one which
 >>>>has been resolved to anything but 'normal' terrestrial or
 >>>>astronomical phenomena.

 ><Bruce wrote:

 >>>If by this you mean of the photos that have been
 >>>resolved/explained, all the explanations have been conventional,
 >>>I would agree. However, there are photos and films that remain
 >>>unexplained.

 >>There are but as I have repeatedly pointed out, based on what we
 >>know about the eventual (so far) transition from UFO to IFO it
 >>is reasonable to suggest that all UFO photographs will be
 >>resolved with conventional, if occasionally unusual,
 >>explanations.

 >Other Robertisms we can expect in other fields of knowledge:

 >Medicine:

 >"Based on what we know about the nature of headaches and
 >stomachaches, at least 99% are benign. Therefore it is
 >reasonable to suggest that all headaches and stomach-aches will
 >prove to be benign, and are not symptoms of brain tumors or
 >impending strokes."

 >"Based on what we know about sexual encounters, in at least 99%
 >of the encounters the people never get AIDS. Therefore it is
 >reasonable to suggest that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted
 >disease."

 >"Based on what we know about sexual encounters, in at least 99%
 >of such encounters there is no subsequent pregnancy. Therefore
 >it is reasonable to suggest that pregnancy has nothing to do
 >with sex."

 >"At least 99% of people report no serious side effects from
 >taking aspirin. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that
 >aspirin never causes any serious side effects

 >Crime:

 >"Based on what we know about the nature of car alarms, at least
 >99% of the triggered alarms signal nothing of significance. No
 >doubt with further investigation, we will discover that all are
 >false alarms and cars are never broken into or stolen."

 >Safety:

 >"Statistically, at least 99% of airline passengers report
 >arriving safely at their destinations. Therefore it is
 >reasonable to suggest that in the future it will be shown that
 >there are never any plane crashes."

Andys logic trail just got drilled, deluxe. I can't wait for the
response, probably something along the lines of 'it only applys
if you are dealing with alleged UFO events.....' or some other
story.

Cheers,

Robert






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:16:15 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:32:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Roberts


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:04:49 -0000

 >Y'all,

 >Brian wrote:

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:57:06 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>Non-existent evidence: some recent cited list examples ...

 >>* Barney & Betty Hill
 >>* Travis Walton
 >>* Iranian air force UFO encounter (1976)
 >>* Cash Landrum sighting and subsequent severe radiation injury.
 >>* Filer's Files (years' worth of list postings; ever read it?)
 >>* UFO Roundup (ditto)

 >>Controversial?
 >
 >>Sure.

 >>Open to analysis & debate?

 >>Always. (which tends to result in books, you know)

 >Yes Brian, well spotted. the above cases are indeed 'evidence'.
 >But they are most certainly not 'evidence' of contact with ET.
 >Do you believe those cases are?

 >They are evidence of unusual human experiences in the same way
 >that a thousand and one other areas of anomalous experience are
 >- including Jerry's beloved 'old hag' study done by Hufford.

Hmm, using Andys logic about how these cases are "evidence of
unusual human experiences" you could say a rape or mugging is
not evidence of criminals and crime, it is merely evidence of
unusual human experiences.

 >>Learn to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof". There is a
 >>difference. You apparently confuse the two. Or maybe you just
 >>like to stir up mud. Or both.

 >I have.

 From your writings I can't see that you have been able to
distinguish between evidence and proof. The evidence further
suggests that you subscribe to the theory 'it can't be so
therefore it isn't and all evidence no matter what is presented
points to it can't be.

Cheers, Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 6

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:18:42 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:34:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Gates


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:22:01 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

 >>OK, joke over, we're talking about the same book. You may
 >>remember that I reviewed it very favourably in Magonia (or was
 >>it even in MUFOB days?) shortly after it came out. In my reading
 >>of the book Hufford is critical of people who have looked at
 >>phenomena such as the "Old Hag" and have treated them as
 >>'legends'. 'stories', mere 'folktales' and so on; and have
 >>indeed conducted a form of literary criticism on them. The value
 >>of Hufford's book is that he demonstrates that the Old Hag is an
 >>actual _experienced_ phenomenon, and information about it can be
 >>gleaned from listening to the people who have personally
 >>experienced it.

 >>What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that there is an
 >>actual physical being called the Old Hag which sneaks into
 >>people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they sleep and
 >>tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in his approach
 >>which does not also apply to the type of sceptical, psychosocial
 >>approach of our beloved pelicans.

 >This is most intruiging. Jerry C. raises Hufford's book on an
 >almost weekly basis as evidence that Jerry C. is correct because
 >Hufford agrees with what Jerry C thinks (circular logic - but
 >that's the way this list goes sometimes).

 >But if Clark J and J Rimmer - both well versed in strange
 >phenomena and its analyses, both quite capable of understanding
 >what a book is saying - can't agree on what Hufford _is_ saying,
 >then what hope for any serious discussion of UFO cases here?

 >Can someone not contact Hufford and ask him to state - simply -
 >for the pelicanists here - what he does think?

 >Perhaps a question on the lines of:

 >Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

 >And while we're here, and to save further confusion, perhaps
 >Jerry could answer John's question - simply, so the pelicanists
 >won't get confused

 >>Does Jerry think that any UFOs are real extraterrestrial craft?

 >And also whilst we're here I'd like to add another phrase to
 >Jerry Clark bingo (as he's used it three times this year that
 >I can recall), this time in reference to me:

 >>I'm sure that in person you are a perfectly nice guy,

 >Classic stuff. To which John commented:

 >>No he isn't, he's a right Yorkshire bastard!

 >I shall, of course, sue immediately. I'm sure Harry Harris would
 >be glad of the work.

 >But the bottom line is, if two heavyweights of the subject and
 >the literature can't agree over the meaning of a book, then all
 >Jerry's blustering about UFOs isn't worth squat.

Likewise, if skeptics can't agree whether Trent (or any other
UFO witness for that matter) used a pie pan, mirror,
photographic trick, then all of their blustering about UFOs
isn't worth squat either.

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: Military Abductions - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:17:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:37:39 -0500
Subject: Re:  Military Abductions - Hart


 >From: Elizabeth Hammondlizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto"updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:13:19 -0500

 >Gary, you stated:

 >>Abductees are assumed to be around each of the few hot spot
 >>areas we know of

 >You go on:

 >>I have (made the assumption). It stands up in all the cases I
 >>actively work with. And yes, it is strange. It often seems as
 >>if certain persons are moved by the ETs to occupy anomaly areas
 >>were sightings are commonly seen. Seems to be a clear strategic
 >>action on the part of both ETs and group surveilling them.

 >Gary, how many times have you seen this, and actively worked
 >with any of it? Have you photographed any of this? Or at least,
 >do you recognize any of the "Abductees" involved? Or the type of
 >"ET"?

I am working with abductees at several locations where this type
of activity has occurred. ETs were greys, four-foot bug-like
creatures, insectoid, perhaps several other types.

After answering J Velez, I can add that these cases I have
either heard of or work with are the ones that are not public
for the very reasons you next suggest. Very few cases are like
this but there are some. I've worked actively in this field and
know of eight cases to some degree like these. When Colm
Kelleher made an exaggerated statement in late July deriding my
belief govt. entities may be actively involved I laughed
uproariously. He knows little in the grand scheme of things.

 >As an Abductee, this is frightening stuff your talking
 >about. ET involvement as well as humans in unmarked cars. What
 >is it the "Abductees do during all this, and when are they
 >returned?

The human involvement isn't within the abductions as far as is
currently apparent. It looks more like area monitoring.

 >Have you ever actually seen this happen? If so, where, and what
 >type of Alien was it?

No. Data matches from one area to another though which itself is
very odd. See above for alien type.

 >>Area activities seen by witnesses include sightings
 >>of craft or craft/entity contact with area residents or
 >>other physical objects. In other words, if entities
 >>are seen walking around, agents go in to attempt to
 >>stop it.

 >It's hard to believe that these "Witnesses" are not coming
 >forward about this. I know if I saw an "Alien" get out of his
 >craft and start walking around my yard I'd be on the phone in a
 >second! First to the police, second to the newspapers, third,
 >every Abductee I know close enough to get to my place quickly!

The third happens but it is easy to see why the first and second
items_don't_happen. These types of case are generally not ever
discussed openly and no one, no other researcher knows of them
and recognizes their research potential. The investigation and
research has to be done respectfully, truthfully, responsibly
and within the psychological comfort restrictions the abductees
set. I am doing this. Publicity is not a necessary feature of
these in- vestigations. High quality documentation is. I choose
not to rehash old UFO cases but to work with ongoing activity
situations.


 >What exactly are these Agents going in to stop, by the way, and
 >how do they actually stop it? Who are they? Government Agents,
 >I'm presuming from what you write. But how do you know this? You
 >seem to state everything as emphatic fact, yet you seem to have
 >nothing with which to back up your claims.

This is a conversational style to make others aware of
particular situations. I don't know who "they" are. "They" are
careful not to be identified. Multiple witnesses claim seeing
unusual technology used to make humans invisible to most but not
all present a few feet away. Witnesses have seen a laser-like
device used for an unknown purpose.

 >Looking forward to your answers, Gary,

 >Liz

I encourage everyone to take this with a grain of salt but if
you have ever noticed things like this, get in touch with me and
we can talk in confidence because I have some expertise in
working in these areas.

Gary











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                              On What is Known

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:40:15 -0500
Subject: On What is Known


I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research? Personally, I know
of nothing which has been discovered. Does anyone?

Books have been written. Stories told. Studies run, conferences
held, TV and radio programs aired, movies made ... etc., etc.

Nothing. Nothing is revealed. If this sounds like an indictment,
it is. But whom or what is to be indicted? Maybe the UFO phenom
is nothing at all. Maybe those who've investigated have not done
an adequate job. Maybe the skeptics are right. Maybe all of my
own memories are wrong.

I love to read those who know everything and tell us that, maybe
in not so many words. But give one man a negative response and
he bites off your head. Why is that? Paranoid? Crazy? Or merely
too damned focused? Maybe not.

Some people have one opinion one day and another the next. Just
to sell a book? Or to have a go at their three minutes of fame?
Or just because, sadly, they are really nuts after all.

I've been reading UpDates for about three years. I enjoy doing
so. Once in a while, there is a little gem of knowledge and
information which pops up literally out of nowhere. Sometimes it
entertains, sometimes it informs, sometimes, in fact most of the
time, it's just plain nonsense. Sometimes it is hateful,
hurtful, heavy handed lack of empathy. Sometimes it is self
serving.

Generally, people are trying, in their own ways, to say
something. Unfortunately, that which is said all too often
revolves around the individual saying it. Whatever is being
said. A lot like our politicians do. Make the people think you
are saying something which relates to them. It really doesn't.
Just as long as it sounds like it.

Some people misunderstand humor for the satire it really is. A
sort of modern take on the Brobdignag virus. Those who see it
for what it is are surprised on recognizing the sense it makes.
Those who see only the words, think it's just nonsense. Usually,
the degree of intellect is directly proportional to the level of
comprehension. Which is as it shold be.

So... as I started to say, Dylan never asked "What is revealed?"
He said, "Nothing is revealed!"

So what are you researchers waiting for? Discover something! Say
something sensible. Not just Trent and Bent(waters) and stuff
what's been upped and downed and gone round and round... over
and over again. Not only with no firm answers but no hope of
any.

Uh, disregard that last one. If it were so, then no one would
have anything to post here. (sigh)

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   PRG Programming Announcement - 11/5/00

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:38:29 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:42:44 -0500
Subject: PRG Programming Announcement - 11/5/00


                                    PRG
                      Paradigm Research Group

Stephen Bassett, consultant, lobbyist, columnist & executive
director of X-PPAC, will appear on the following programs
to discuss the Politics of UFOs/Disclosure and other topics:

When:  Sunday, November 5, 9 pm EST
Where:  www.DestinationSpace.net
What:  Regular monthly Internet chat (1st Sunday of the month)
           Chat software on site or use MSChat
Host:  Mark Hall (England)

When:  Tuesday (Monday night), November 6, 2 am EST
Where:  George Noory Show, St Louis - KTRS AM 550
             Netcast at: www.550ktrs.com/pages/listenonline.htm
What:  Radio Talk Show
Host:  George Noory

When:  Tuesday, November 7, 10 pm PST
Where:  Coast to Coast AM - www.coasttocoastam.com
What:  Ensemble show focusing on election results
Host:   Mike Siegel

When:  Wednesday, November 8, 10 pm EST
Where:  Tucson - KRVL FM 94.3
             Netcast at: www.nightsearch.net/indexmain.html
What:  Radio/Internet Talk Show
Host:  Eddie Middleton

When: Wednesday, November 22, 10 pm PST
Where:  Coast to Coast AM
             Netcast at:  www.coasttocoastam.com
What:  Radio Talk Show - joined by author Richard Dolan
Host:  Mike Siegel

When:  Every Wednesday
Where:  Alien Zoo - www.alienzoo.com
What:  Column: The Politics of UFOs

_______________________________________________

                      Paradigm Research Group
                   URL: www.paradigmclock.com
                   E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
                         Phone: 301-564-1820
                           Fax: 301-564-4066
                      4938 Hampden Lane, #161
                      Bethesda, Maryland 20814

*****************************************************************
Spread the word about X-PPAC & the politics of disclosure.
         Contribute online at:  www.x-ppac.org
or mail to: 4938 Hampden Lane,161 Bethesda, MD 20814

*****************************************************************
  "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
         if you are willing to give away the credit."

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









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:31:47 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:44:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:35:46 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

 >Hi Bob, Josh,

 >Just a note. Betty Cash passed away earlier this year. I believe
 >her death was directly related to the (radiation induced?)
 >illness she had been fighting since the sighting. Do either of
 >you know anything about the condition of the grandson or the
 >other female witness that was in the car? Were either of them
 >ever affected? Also, I know Betty had litigation pending against
 >the government. She was sueing them for her medical expenses.
 >Does anybody know what the outcome of that case was? Just
 >curious.

John, Josh, List:

I don't know, to all of the above questions. It would be
interesting to find out.

Clear skies,


Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:15:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:55:11 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:02:31 +0100

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:33:12 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

<snip>

 >>The moon was out, and to the West. I don't think the
 >>policemen's description matches the moon however.

 >Hello Larry,

 >I see that the lunar explanation didn't convince you. I'll take
 >a little time to elaborate further on, hoping this could help.

 >The witnesses described the object as:

 >"a bright spherical object"

 >"like an iridescent orange beach ball except much larger"

 >"the color and brightness never changed throughout the
 >entire episode"

 >"bright but not hard on the eyes, and very beautiful"

 >"It seemed to glow and its color was compared by both
 >men to the color of a setting sun, but not as bright"

 >All of this apply quite well to the Moon's disk near the horizon.
 >If you aren't convinced yet, read the following!

 >"... they agreed that if I [Hynek] brought in a balloon painted
 >bright orange and of a size of about an ordinary moon, and held
 >it in the sky, that it would look very much like the object they
 >remembered"

 >By the way, the object didn't remain circular all the time. For
 >a moment, it "lost its circular shape and took on a cigar shape
 >surrounded by a fogginess which seemed to emanate from the
 >object itself". Afterwards, it "resumed its circular shape, and
 >sucked up the fogginess around it". I've seen a similar display
 >myself when observing the Moon playing with clouds.

 >Now you can be tempted to think: OK, the object ressembled the
 >Moon, but it moved in strange ways all the time, so it's clear
 >that it couldn't be the Moon.

 >I think this would be to miss the core of the problem.
 >In fact:

 >-The object ressembled the Moon.

 >-It was most (if not all) of the time to the west, where the
 >Moon was (this latter being unnoticed there...!!).

 >-It disappeared around the time at which the Moon did set.

 >-And it disappeared just as the Moon would do ("the object
 >disappeared as though a person pulled a black shade up from the
 >bottom, or as though one were filling the spherical object with
 >a black ink").

 >Hence it seems reasonable to admit that the three men probably
 >saw the Moon indeed, despite the apparent strangeness of the
 >reported movements.

 >These latter should be carefully analized from this point of
 >view. In the same way that the description of the object's look
 >is not imaginative, I think that the account of the movements
 >isn't imaginative either, and could be traced back to some
 >perceptive illusions. Of course, there could also be some
 >inaccuracies (in fact, we know for sure that the witnesses were
 >in error when placing the Moon to the East).

 >So the Moon seems to cast a new light on a case with many
 >peculiar features: multiple and "reliable" witnesses, the
 >endorsement by an experienced ufologist (Hynek), apparent "EM
 >effects" (dimming of the spotlight and the headlights), its
 >occurrence the day after the Levelland case.....

 >And it could be also the day that the police shot the Moon,
 >close to a cemetery! (One of the agents "wanted to shoot at it,
 >but was cautioned by Officer _____ not to shoot until he knew
 >more about it").


Hello Manuel:

I agree that the object was seen right where the moon was, and
the witnesses failed to notes that they saw it _in addition_ to
the moon. They should have seen and mentioned both.

One or the witnesses, the fireman, disagreed with the others
(police). The fireman said that the object had always kept "a
respectable distance" while the two cops thought it approached
and receded.

Hynek commented "It is unfortunate that the incident did not
occur to witnesses better trained as observers, and more
articulate ones. "

_If_ that was all there was to the case, I would have to agree
with you. The dolts misidentified the moon. Similar cases are in
the literature, amazing as that may seem.

But, the details to the contrary were snipped, so now I have to
type them back in.

* "Just then (having stopped to inspect an open store window )
the spotlight and car headlights went dim .. so dim a match
would have been brighter."

* "As the object moved down the alley, but above the alley, the
car lights came back on."

That could be coincidence of course.

The men "followed" the object down the alley, a good half mile
to a cemetery where they turned off their lights. The object
slowly descended ( as the moon would ).

* Here officer ____ "kicked on his brights" (high beams) and the
object "ascended very rapidly... maybe 50-60 MPH " It also took
off Westward.

The officers jogged right for a quarter of a block (to get past
the cemetery I presume) and chased the object down Belmont
Street. Previously they were going down an alley.

* "The object cavorted from curb to curb, back and forth as if
playing games with them. "

One might argue that Belmont Street is curvy... in which case
the Moon would "waver back and forth." Perhaps a local map is in
order!

But more to the point: The officers lost sight of the object
and turned around, headed back East toward the town center.

* "... as they approached Elmwood Park, the object reappeared to
their _left_ ( i.e. from the North ) from behind a stand of
trees, and passed over them to the rear.

* A second U-turn and another chase to the West, ensued; for a
moon which should have set already!


I don't have much invested in this particular sighting, for all
I know a second object, a shooting star perhaps, came from the
North. Hynek himself was clearly less than pleased with the
witnesses.

All I'm saying is that all the details must be examined, not
just those that favor one particular interpretation or another.



Some further details.

I used Mapblaster to find Elmwood Park almost due west of
central Chicago. Streets running North and South are well into
the 70s, presumably from central Chicago, not too far away.

There is no Belmont Street, nor should there be. Avenues run
East and West there, and sure enough there is a long Belmont
_Avenue_, most especially West Belmont Avenue.

There are a couple of dog-leg bends, but for the most part it
looks straight as an arrow. Presumably these bends could explain
the object "moving from curb to curb" (but above of course).

If I read correctly, the officers did not know about the
Levelland,TX flap at the time of the sighting, but read all
about it after the sighting, and before they made their report.
Levelland may have provided the stimulus to _report_ the
sighting, a convenient precedent, which might have alleviated
fears of ridicule.

Again, I would not take this case to court!

This case is still listed in my database, but I am going to
light up the MID (misidentification) attribute, a possible CE
with the Moon! .. if I have not done so already. I have to agree
that I would not take a case like this to court.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Hynek adds: "Meteorological conditions should be checked..." He
doesn't say a word about the position of the Moon. I would have
expected that at the very least, a glaring omission. Where was
the object with respect to the moon? Just above/below it? .. off
to one side maybe?

The full account is in The Hynek UFO Report; Dell Publishing
(PB) 1977, J. Allen Hynek pp 172-176. ISBN 0-440-19201-3 First
printing December, 1977.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                World's First 3D Walking Tour(TM) of Area 51

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 03:40:29 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:57:10 -0500
Subject: World's First 3D Walking Tour(TM) of Area 51


Source: PRNewswire.

Stig.

***

3dvillage.com Unlocks One of America's Greatest Mysteries;
World's First 3D Walking Tour(TM) of Area 51 Unveiled!

Updated 12:20 PM ET October 31, 2000

**

CARY, N.C., Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- One of America's best-kept
secrets is today a mystery no more. 3dvillage.com, an emerging
Internet marketing company and provider of web-based 3D content,
today unlocked the virtual gates to "Area 51," an expanse of
desert tundra 90 miles North of Las Vegas that has long been
believed by many Americans to be the Federal government's lead
facility for conducting alien and extraterrestrial research.

Photo:

http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20001031/PHTU024

 From the comfort and security of the home or office, PC users
can visit Area 51 by logging on to 3dvillage's Website (via
Internet Explorer) at:

http://www.3dvillage.com

Once there, they can experience the world's first exclusive,
online, interactive 3D Walking Tour (TM) of this top-secret
military base. The North Carolina-based company developed the
Area 51 tour to showcase its technology, which brings city
guides, universities, sports arenas, theme parks, travel
destinations, tourist attractions and premier real estate
properties from all over the world to PC desktops in
interactive, real-time 3D.

In developing the tour of Area 51, the 3dvillage.com team used
2-meter resolution imagery captured by the Russian Lometa
Satellite on March 15, 1998. With this imagery serving as the
basic building blocks for the tour, 3dvillage utilized its
proprietary software technology to create the factual,
interactive and real-time 3D Walking Tour. To view the site, all
that is needed is a 3D player that can be easily downloaded from
the company's Web site.

Included in the tour is a detailed look at the Groom Lake Air
Force Base, the Papoose Dry Lake Area with its hidden
underground facility entrance, several unidentified research
facilities and airfields, "ground zero" where six decades of
nuclear testing has left its mark, and countless roads that seem
to lead nowhere in particular.

For decades, the 60-square mile government compound has been the
focal point of numerous rumors and endless debate regarding
unexplained activities and occurrences. Unofficially, the U.S.
Government has been slow to even confirm the existence of this
highly restricted military installation. However, during an
April Pentagon briefing following the public release of the
Soviet satellite images, Kenneth Bacon, Assistant Secretary of
Defense, acknowledged that Area 51 does exist. Mr. Bacon
declined to elaborate on the specific activities at the base,
noting only that the U.S. has the right and responsibility to
develop weapons and that "sometimes these weapons are developed
in classified locations." He did reiterate the government's
claim that Area 51 "is not a center for UFO or alien activity."

Although maps, photos and sketches or Area 51 have been
disseminated sporadically over the years, the 3dvillage.com
Walking Tour transports PC users beyond such existing flat,
two-dimensional content. In short, the Area 51 Walking Tour
gives viewers an entirely new perspective of the site that is
engaging, entertaining and informative. Included is the ability
to glide over the hundreds of miles of terrain in the same way a
pilot would scout the landscape from the windshield of a private
aircraft.

The 3dvillage tour allows users to drop down to the desert floor
to take a closer look or wander the grounds -- invisible to
prying eyes and undetected by sophisticated surveillance
equipment. Users can carefully approach a handful of
installations that are randomly scattered throughout the
compound or quietly sneak inside some of the base's larger
facilities.

In addition to the Walking Tour of Area 51, 3dvillage.com has
recently developed other significant Tours including The Citadel
and Darlington Raceway in South Carolina. The company also has
developed 3D content featuring some of today's most desirable
travel and tourist destinations in the heart of the Dixie. These
include Chapel Hill, NC and Myrtle Beach, Charleston and
Columbia, South Carolina.

Earlier this year the company revealed plans to complete 3D
Tours of 25 U.S. cities and five international destinations by
year-end. At their current pace, the 3dvillage.com is on track
to deliver more than 100 web-based 3D Tours by the end of next
year.


About 3dvillage.com


Unlike conventional 'virtual tours' or 'virtual reality'
companies that deliver passive content in the form of movies,
'canned animation' or still-images, 3dvillage.com's 3D Walking
Tours(TM) enable visitors to Walk the World(TM) in a rich,
active 3D environment that is engaging, entertaining and
extremely informative.

3dvillage.com was launched earlier this year by Virtus
Entertainment, Inc., a North Carolina-based firm whose family of
next generation digital entertainment and media companies have
included such high-profile gaming companies as Tom Clancy's Red
Storm Entertainment and Michael Crichton's TimeLine Computer
Entertainment Corporation.

With content developed by 3dvillage.com, users can explore
everything a location has to offer, book or upgrade a hotel
room, make dinner reservations or truly immerse themselves in
local sites and attractions. Realistic, street-level 3D Walking
Tours give city guide content providers, travel and tour
operators, sports and entertainment companies, real estate
companies and economic development leaders an unparalleled,
competitive advantage in attracting new customers or enhancing
relationships with existing customers.

Located at 114 MacKenan Drive, Suite 100 in Cary, North
Carolina, 3dvillage.com is headquartered about 18 miles
Southeast of the world-renowned Research Triangle Park, NC. For
additional information on 3dvillage.com, please see:

http://www.3dvillage.com.

Contact: Greg Meluch, Chief Marketing Officer of 3dvillage.com,
919-467-9770, ext. 3104 or greg.meluch@3dvillage.com; or Mark Deasy,
Vice President of Ketchum, 412-456-3843 or mark.deasy@ketchum.com, for
3dvillage.com

*

Copyright � 2000









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:59:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:59:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Salvaille


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:22:01 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

<snip>

 >>OK, joke over, we're talking about the same book. You may
 >>remember that I reviewed it very favourably in Magonia (or was
 >>it even in MUFOB days?) shortly after it came out. In my reading
 >>of the book Hufford is critical of people who have looked at
 >>phenomena such as the "Old Hag" and have treated them as
 >>'legends'. 'stories', mere 'folktales' and so on; and have
 >>indeed conducted a form of literary criticism on them. The value
 >>of Hufford's book is that he demonstrates that the Old Hag is an
 >>actual _experienced_ phenomenon, and information about it can be
 >>gleaned from listening to the people who have personally
 >>experienced it.

 >>What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that there is an
 >>actual physical being called the Old Hag which sneaks into
 >>people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they sleep and
 >>tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in his approach
 >>which does not also apply to the type of sceptical, psychosocial
 >>approach of our beloved pelicans.

 >This is most intruiging. Jerry C. raises Hufford's book on an
 >almost weekly basis as evidence that Jerry C. is correct because
 >Hufford agrees with what Jerry C thinks (circular logic - but
 >that's the way this list goes sometimes).

 >But if Clark J and J Rimmer - both well versed in strange
 >phenomena and its analyses, both quite capable of understanding
 >what a book is saying - can't agree on what Hufford _is_ saying,
 >then what hope for any serious discussion of UFO cases here?

 >Can someone not contact Hufford and ask him to state - simply -
 >for the pelicanists here - what he does think?

 >Perhaps a question on the lines of:

 >Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

 >And while we're here, and to save further confusion, perhaps
 >Jerry could answer John's question - simply, so the pelicanists
 >won't get confused

<snip>

Sorry, I can't help myself. I found this about Hufford in a
Google cache. The site isn't up anymore, but just so that
pelicanists don't get confused.

I wonder though... hmm... ain't confusion for a pelicanist the
same as water to the fish, air to the bird, oxygen to living
beings? Anyway...

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.myna.com/~davidck/hufford.htm+DAVID+HUF
FORD+Hag&hl=en

David Cherniack Films: Transcripts
Copyright Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

David Hufford

[Begin extract]

SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE OUT OF ALL OF THIS?

I'll tell you what to believe, Peter, believe that human
experience is much much more diverse and complicated than the
modern, academic view of normal human experience, much more.
That that diverisity has within it patterns, that you can
descriminate that must be meaningful they must be some kind of
signal they are not all noise and they are clearly not all the
product of cultural programming, that much is for sure. So
diverse, broad, meaningful, not currently explained or
understood and when you hear debunking of these things recognize
that most debunders do not, they themselves have such a narrow
empirical filter that they're not generally speaking familiar
with most of the useful and interesting evidence so that there
is a lot that's unknown. There's always been a lot that's
unknown and a culture's values as they shift new kinds of things
start to be known things that used to be known tend to get lost
we're in that process now but I can't give you guidance on which
ones you ought to take as personally real.

[End extract]

Cheers, clear skies, murky waters and whatever,

Serge Salvaille











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:28:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:17:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting


 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:24:29 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 03:09:51 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Hypnotisers Deny Planting Subliminal Ads

 >Hi Larry,

 >"Who" indeed!

 >As for funny, go to,

 >http://www.mulletsgalore.com/

 >Check out the 'Mullet Classification' section!

 >The website has nothing to do with UFOs... unless you consider
 >mulletheads space people.  ;)

 >Enjoy,

 >John Velez


Hi John!

I could barely read the material. Its all small print, dark red
against a black background. That and spelling errors make for
awfully difficult reading.

Sorry!

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:40:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:19:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:49:45 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Big Story On Crop Circles

 >Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 >http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-4nov2000-50.htm

 >British man arrested for faking crop circles
 >Sat, 4 Nov 2000
 >ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] News

 >A 29-year-old British man has been arrested after being
 >photographed creating crop circles, the intricate patterns which
 >appear in fields overnight and are seen by some as evidence of
 >alien life.

 >Matthew Williams, from Wiltshire in western England, has been
 >charged with causing criminal damage, becoming the first person
 >in Britain to be arrested for creating crop circles.

 >He was picked up after pictures of him and an accomplice
 >flattening a field of wheat were passed on to police.

 >The arrest provides evidence the crop circles, which have
 >fascinated fans of the paranormal for years, are nothing but an
 >intricate hoax.

 >� 2000 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 >--
 >      U F O   R e s e a r c h
 >     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/


Hello Kenny:

Thanks for the news, it will be very interesting to see how this
all plays out. I don't quite understand the delay from July
until November, maybe that's due to legal technicalities.

While not really UFO related (in my opinion anyhow) there should
be something to learn for all of us.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:04:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:23:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:28:39 -0000

Georgina wrote:

 >To James Easton

 >You have not read the book because it is not published yet. So,
 >obviously you have been told certain things from someone who had
 >a review copy, which this person should not have shared with you
 >because it was embargoed until publishing date.

Georgina,

Besides the contents being revealed in that 'News of the World'
article, it's actually not difficult to obtain review copies of
your book. One only has to ask.

 >Try as you will to debunk it, the facts will speak for
 >themselves.

Yes, the facts will be evident and, absolutely, claims can only
be debunked if they're bunk in the first place!

 >Now, please stop trying to write yourself into the story.

Please, forgive all of our conceited effrontery otherwise.
Thankfully, in your book, you've entirely whitewashed any
meagre, peasant contributions either myself or Jenny Randles
have made over the years. I agree, she's contributed nuthin',
except all that 'UFO nonsense' stuff.

I'm sure others can appreciate the intrinsic perspective for
themselves.

 >Your bitterness shows through.

Is it really me who's bitter, sweetie? :)


 >For your information Halt had denied he wrote the notes, so much
 >for knowing so much!

Well... I do know you're wrong.

Indeed, these facts agreeably being important, you previously
said so yourself - see:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m30-008.shtml

You wrote:

When I alerted Colonel (Ret) Charles Halt to the fact that
Easton had been provided with these statements, he was most
alarmed and replied.

"How did he get them, I'm the only one who has those
statements."

So who leaked these statements out? Charles Halt may have the
answer to that because Easton apparently has stated that they
contain Halt's hand written notes. The originals did indeed
contain a hand written note on one of the statements, namely
Cabansag's, in which Halt writes: that he doesn't think that he
(Cabansag) is telling the full story.

Why has Easton failed to mention this vital piece of
information?
[End]

As explained, I didn't publicly disclose any of Halt's personal
comments because I considered that unethical - see:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m30-008.shtml

I clarified:

 >The originals did indeed contain a hand written note on one of
 >the statements, namely Cabansag's...

This is incorrect. Four of the five statements in fact contain
Halt's brief, hand written notes.

 >...in which Halt writes: that he doesn't think that he
 >(Cabansag) is telling the full story.

 >Why has Easton failed to mention this vital piece of
 >information?

Why would Halt's opinion, as opposed to the detailed, documented
account from Cabansag himself, be comparatively vital?

I have in private correspondence with several people mentioned
these notes and the problem they posed.

Coincidentally, I did so in that same letter to Peter
Brookesmith and referring to Chris Armold's published
recollections, which come up again in a moment, stated:

"As you will see from the published testimony, he [Armold]
claims Burroughs was prone to overreacting, which is exactly
what Halt has noted on the copy of Burroughs' statement. I
excluded Halt's hand-written notes from any photocopies or scans
of that statement I made available. I would have to consider
them too personal for publication".

[...]

Halt's opinions or character assessments were either of no
relative importance in view of other developments or were
considered too personal to publish in public without his express
permission. He is more than welcome to confirm what his notes
contain, although infinitely more appreciated would of course be
his response to the many questions raised by the original
witness affidavits he holds.

Incidentally, thank you for helping to further corroborate that
these documents originated from Halt.
[END]


Also, having revealed the unbelievable existence of those
statements and that they had been known about by some 'UFO
researchers' for years, I was treading thin ice already!

See the full story at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt

Disclosing these founding witness testimonies did exist, I
obviously realised simply had to be had done and whatever the
displeasure, no way was I prepared to see Jenny Randles and
other researchers [up to that point myself included] pursue
blind alleys when these pivotal documents were available.

Do you think you would have uncovered them? If so, how?
Remember, I came across then by chance and effectively no-one,
not even myself, knew where they could be found.


You now declare that Halt didn't write those notes, to recap:

"For your information Halt had denied he wrote the notes, so
much for knowing so much!".

Plus, you now allege:

"Documents that claim to be official witness statements. The
author interviewed witnesses who claim they did not type these
statements, which appear to be misinformation mixed with facts".

As posted in a previous response, first you claim, "The witness
statements which have been quoted so often are merely watered
down versions and although genuine...", then you say they're
not.

You originally proclaimed, "The originals did indeed contain a
hand written note on one of the statements, namely Cabansag's,
in which Halt writes...", but now you charge, "For your
information Halt had denied he wrote the notes, so much for
knowing so much!".

If I might clarify the publicised confusion: those five original
statements are the ones which Halt confirmed requesting, they
are absolutely genuine and the comments therein, on four of the
statements, were written by Halt.

Simple as that and if you dispute the obvious, please provide
some evidence, from Halt, otherwise.


How you further rationalise a UK 'cover up' re 'Rendlesham'
being an 'alien landing' and more besides, whilst Nick Pope, our
'man in the know' avows of the same premise, "No. Not in the
MoD", seems to require some justification.

Expanding further on this, in an interview with 'UFO Sweden',
Pope confirmed:

"I'm convinced there is no cover-up. I mean, of course, many
people say - But you couldn't have known!. And that there would
be some secret unit that I wouldn't be aware of. It's possible,
but I'm 99% sure that it wasn't the case because I think in
three years I would have gotten too close, and I think these
people would have wanted to cover everything, tap my phone etc.
But I never had that".

Or, as he related in a 'CNI News' interview:

"I found no evidence to support a cover-up in Britain. I think,
without trying to sound too arrogant, that I would have gotten a
few hints in three years if there had been someone doing my job
but on a covert basis...".

It would perhaps help if you could address the many obvious
problems noted, even before publication.

However, can we safely assume, contrary, and fundamentally so,
to contentions ET knowingly 'at a higher level' frequents the
UK, that it evidently shouldn't concern mainstream science and
the media, or, that it maybe should and, all that time, Nick
Pope was clueless?

Personally, I'm happy to leave it there.

With, as UK subscribers will appreciate, Summer seemingly
bypassing Autumn and going straight into Winter, it's dark,
stormy and cold outside.

Seems fitting somehow.

"It's she that makes it always winter. Always winter and never
Christmas; think of that!".

Sorry, I was just thinking of another book [I hope you know
which one and will smile...].


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:34:01 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:27:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:52:06 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:27:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:58:23 -0800

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>>Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >>>>announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >>>>early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >>>>second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >>>>U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >>>>The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >>>>ergo a UFO.

 >>There was obvious no radar glitches here considering the radar
 >>clearly shows to object dropping and there are records from the
 >>jets of this incident as well. The Belgian military to this day,
 >>and to my knowledge, still do not know what the object was. This
 >>would then make it unidentified. Also, I don't think the pilots
 >>chased a radar glitch for over, what, 40 minutes?

Royce:

Non-UFO explanations have long been known for these early
1990s sightings.

A very interesting page devoted to the Belgium sightings is on
Tim Printy's page at - http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/Belg.html

One Auguste Meessen examined the reports and data for the
reported radar sightings and concluded that all contacts were
explainable by non-UFO phenomena. He found that warm air
convection cells could account for the "UFO" returns from both
the f-16's and the ground stations. The high speeds attributed
to the returns he concluced were cause by problems with the
dopler radar interpreting the aircrafts own speeds. In some
cases involving radar lock-ons the radar tapes showed the
contacts were at a negative altitude. Meessen wrote, "It was
evidently impossible that an object could penetrate the ground,
but it was possible that the ground could act as a mirror."

 >I'm always amazed at how every single astronomical phenomenon
 >happens to occur all at once during a UFO sighting.

These explanations by my friend, an experienced amateur
astronomer who was present during the Loring incidents, related
to many different episodes. Yes, when people start "seeing" UFOs
during a flap like this, everything in the sky is a saucer.

 >Have you read either of the peer-reviewed scientific papers
 >regarding crop formations? How many of these instances have you
 >investigated?

Nah, I've never paid much attention to crop circles. It's hard
to see any connection to UFOs, other than coincidental. They've
gotten more elaborate with time, suggesting that the people
who've been making them have been learning as they've gone
along. There are known hoaxers, even claims that groups of
hoaxers compete against each other for attention. Another guy
has just been arrested in Britain.

Only two scientific papers in, what, 20 years? It's a waste of
time. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. For me,
life's too short. Nap time's more important.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                        Re: ET evidence - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:29:49 -0500
Subject: Re: ET evidence - Cuthbertson


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:04:49 -0000

 >Y'all,

 >Brian wrote:

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:57:06 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>Non-existent evidence: some recent cited list examples ...

 >>* Barney & Betty Hill
 >>* Travis Walton
 >>* Iranian air force UFO encounter (1976)
 >>* Cash Landrum sighting and subsequent severe radiation injury.
 >>* Filer's Files (years' worth of list postings; ever read it?)
 >>* UFO Roundup (ditto)

 >>Controversial?

 >>Sure.

 >>Open to analysis & debate?

 >>Always. (which tends to result in books, you know)

 >Yes Brian, well spotted. the above cases are indeed 'evidence'.
 >But they are most certainly not 'evidence' of contact with ET.
 >Do you believe those cases are?


Huh? Do you know the details of the Hill & Walton cases, for
instance? Are you aware, for example, of the starmap Betty says
she was shown?.

And you don't consider that ET-contact evidence? Then your
filter for ET-contact evidence, whatever it is, is so narrow its
well-nigh worthless.


 >They are evidence of unusual human experiences in the same way
 >that a thousand and one other areas of anomalous experience are
 >- including Jerry's beloved 'old hag' study done by Hufford.

Yes, so?

ET contact is obviously a subset of "unusual human experience".
But it still has its own distinguishing attributes. Like those
of the above cases, in fact.

Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

              ABC News To Release 'Very Convincing' Footage Of

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 05:50:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:31:08 -0500
Subject: ABC News To Release 'Very Convincing' Footage Of


Forwarded from 'alt.paranet.ufo',

Stig

***

From: gimme_some_truth@my-deja.com
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo

A friend of mine tells me that ABCNews.com has in its possession
some very convincing new footage of UFOs show in New York. I
have not seen it, but they're going to put it on the web site at
Chris Wallace's webshow:

http://www.internetexpose.com

on Nov. 13. I have heard that it is very good. I'll be tuning
in.

Sent via Deja.com

http://www.deja.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:02:16 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:33:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:29:11 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:15:26 -0000

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:18:16 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Robert wrote:

 >>>I would point out that probably anybody could hook up a pie pan
 >>>or a mirror, shoot a picture of it, and make the claim its a
 >>>replication of the Trent photos. Just like a modern painter can
 >>>copy an old master and claim its a replication. Bottom line is
 >>>its not the original, nor will it correctly represent the
 >>>original circumstances and conditions that the original came
 >>>about in. Nor does the "replication" mean the original painter
 >>>was a fraud/hoaxer etc etc.

 >>I agree Robert. But if the hoax hypothesis is to be taken
 >>seriously replication is the first step. At least then it would
 >>be known how easy/difficult it was to replicate. Just saying
 >>'wow', unexplained, how super - which is about all I've seen on
 >>this list on the pro side - is rather pathetic and answers
 >>nothing at all.

 >And the above is a, shall I say, pathetic or at least uninformed
 >comment? It's not as if the hoax hypothesis, with some idea of
 >how the photos might have been created, has never been
 >discussed.

 >I pointed out a way to replicate the photos years ago... with
 >a paper model. Now it is claimed that some object just lying
 >around, presumably, would be sufficient, although we don't know
 >if said object (truck mirror) was just lying around. The
 >assumption of availability adds another factor to the
 >"probability equation" discussed below.

 >The truck mirror adds one thing that a pie pan doesn't have,
 >namely a post or tiltable support on the back. On the _center_
 >of the back, by the way. ON the other hand, "pot lid" was
 >another earlier suggestion... and there are small knobs on small
 >pot lids.

 >But what is really being argued here is the relationship between
 >'difficulty' and 'probability'. The skeptical formula is:
 >Probability of a hoax varies inversely as the difficulty of the
 >hoax. This means the probability is _higher_ if Trent could grab
 >some object that was lying around (bottle cap, pie pan, truck
 >mirror with the back support attached), tie a string to it,
 >throw the string over the power wire and stand back and take two
 >photos from one location than it _would_be_ if Trent had to make
 >an object, select a thread to match the sky background, create a
 >special suspension means that did not mean hanging the object
 >directly under the wires and then take two photos from two
 >different positions.

 >Unfortunately this formula is more like a ratio for which the
 >actual values of probability are not known, only that one is
 >"more probable" than the other.

 >Similar analyses have been applied to other cases involving
 >photos. One from England that I was involved with was the series
 >of Peter Beard photos back in August(?) of 1987. Oddly enough I
 >was providing the analysis that was used as "proof" of a hoax
 >for this case at the same time I was being criticized for
 >accepting the Ed Walters photos, even though I was applying
 >similar criteria to both: the more difficult the photo, the less
 >probable it was a hoax.

It is indeed interesting to watch the cronies from the skeptical
tank. On one hand, if you come up with evidence that the photo
could/was hoaxed, they will tout your analysis, and even quote
from it. BUT if your analysis suggests that it is likely to be
something real, they foam and froth. I notice in the current
discussion that the skeptics rarely if ever quote from your
papers, nor do they bother to quote from the Condon committee
who pissed on Phil Klasses theorys as bogus science.

As has been previously observed, if a witness stepped forward
and told a skeptic that he saw a UFO, they will fall all over
themselves to suggest anything from Venus, pelicans, weather
balloon, hoax to explain away the case.

If a witness stepped forward and said they saw a giant bolide
etc etc, these same skeptics wouldn't question the witnesses
observation of the event, they would never suggest Venus,
pelicans, weather balloons, or a hoax, and would accept the
meteor explaination at total face value.

Gee, they can't seem apply the same principle twice.... :)
Cheers,
Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:04:28 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:36:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:05:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:58:35 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:03:49 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young

 >>To get back to the subject of fireballs, as in th Coyne case:
 >>Astronomer Frank Drake tried to track down reports of fireballs
 >>to try to recover meteorites back in the early 60s when he was
 >>at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. He
 >>wrote of this in his paper, "On the Abilities and Limitations of
 >>Witnesses of UFO's and Similar Phenomena", in UFO's A Scientific
 >>Debate, Edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, Norton, 1972, p.
 >>254.

 >>He reported, "The first fact we learned was that a witness's
 >>memory of such exotic events fades very quickly. After one day,
 >>about half the reports are clearly erroneous; after two days,
 >>about three quarters are clearly erroneous; after four days,
 >>only ten percent are good; after five days, people report more
 >>imagination than truth."

<snip>

 >In fact, Drake starts to contradict his own statement in the
 >very next paragraph.

No, he provided an example of something which is reliable. In
the following paragraph, he begins discussing things which
aren't.

<snip>

 >Drake (or the equally over-opinionated Bob Young) also doesn't
 >seem to take into account that witness reliability and
 >consistency also has a great deal to do with the experience and
 >competency of the questioner.

Agreed.

<snip>

 >One meteor expert who figured prominently in UFO history of the
 >late 1940's and early 1950's was Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. LaPaz had
 >quite a reputation for his ability to recover meteorites by
 >going out and interviewing fireball witnesses in the field.
 >Rather than disparaging eyewitness testimony as Drake did (or
 >Bob Young), LaPaz found it invaluable.

 >Drake claimed that witness statements about direction and
 >position of fireballs tended to be unreliable. But the far more
 >experienced LaPaz through careful questioning of witnesses got
 >highly consistent results, enabling him to accurately plot
 >trajectories of fireballs from triangulation of elevations and
 >azimuths provided by the witnesses. That was the secret of his
 >success in recovering the meteorites.

A big part of his success was that he searched for fallen
meteorites in the desert Southwest and in places like Kansas.
Anybody who has tried to find a fall in the rugged, wooded often
snow-covered mountains of West Virginia or Pennsylvania will
never have the same sort of luck. You are right about LaPaz's
long experience, which obviously helped him, too.

 >On Jan. 30, 1949, a giant green fireball was seen over most of
 >northern New Mexico and on into Texas. This was part of the
 >infamous green fireball phenomenon that started over northern
 >New Mexico in December 1948.

<snip>

 >In a special secret conference on the green fireballs in Los
 >Alamos Feb. 14, 1949, LaPaz reported his findings based on the
 >witness interviews. There's a lot to this story, but I only
 >want to mention that LaPaz stated that the green fireballs were
 >completely silent, whereas normal large fireballs very
 >frequently trigger witness reports of hearing sizzling sounds.

Most "normal" fireballs are not accompanied by "sizzling"
sounds, but what is even more important, only a small fraction
of the _witnesses_ of bright fireballs report these sort of
sounds. I have been with a group which witnessed a bright,
shadow-casting fireball and one person in the groups said that
she heard a swishing sound, no one else, including me, heard it.

LaPaz operated with the scientific knowledge of his day. The
so-called "Green Fireballs" are a perfect example. See Richard
Haines' book, Observing UFOs, for a discussion of how intensely
bright light sources are quickly seen as green. As the objects
dim, it's appearance can then return to red. Some fireballs, and
reentering space debris, do contain minerals which can be seen
as green, but this intense color is often due to chemical
saturation of the eye's color perceiving mechanism.

During thousands of hours of observing the night sky since 1956,
and many of them making meteor counts, I have seen four
intensely bright fireballs which cast shadows. Two of these were
a very bright, beutiful green, but bright as a welder's arc.

<snip>

 >Furthermore, "…in the old meteor literature, with almost every
 >fireball recorded, something like 14 per cent of the
 >eyewitnesses report the simultaneous crackling sound, which
 >should be physically impossible. How does the sound get there
 >as fast as light?"

I wouldn't know. It's a controversial topic.

 >Now what do we have here? We have an anomalous phenomenon
 >reported with high consistency from numerous people from all
 >over the world and over long periods of time. (Sound familiar?)

<snip>

What is it that makes Drake's proposed explanation "assinine"?
Internal noise in the system was, in fact, a leading speculative
explanation of meteor noises in those days, wasn't it, Greg?

Of course, all of this is leading to your favorite subject: ETH.
Because knowledge has advanced in one particular field, you
believe that it must also have advanced in your favorite field
of interest.

Well, just because every circus has a clown, it doesn't mean
that every clown deserves to be in a circus.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           Element 115 And Saucers

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:21:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:37:42 -0500
Subject: Element 115 And Saucers


Source: 'alt.alien.visitors'.

Stig

***

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Element 115 and saucers
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:33:51 GMT
From: "Purple" </dev/null@mail.com>
Organization: Road Runner - Texas
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors


Heard saucer engines are powered by eka-bismuth (element 115)
which decays to 114 by ejecting two anti-protons and a gravity-A
wave.

But it can't be.

Um, eka-bismuth decays by releasing an alpha particle (He
nuclus) No other form of decay for it is known at present. Only
one (very rare) isotope of Xenon decays anywhere like that -
emitting a proton pair. So, if 115 spits out two anti-protons,
wouldn't it become element 117 (proton count +2 now) instead of
114 (and how did they get 115 - 2 = 114 ?) No nucleonic reaction
can make an anti-proton from only protons and neutrons - think
of charge conservation!

Also, gravity wave-A (frame-dragging field) never "pulses". Only
wave-B does that. And how do you make a wave-guide for it?

Truly, Earth stands no chance against a race so sophisticated
that it can read text books.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                     Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:23:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:39:13 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32


 >Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:55:48 +0000
 >From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

 >MAGONIA Monthly Supplement
 >Editor: John Harney
 >No. 32   October  2000

Hello All,

I just wanted to respond to one line from the MMS #32.

 > The apocalypses seen by abductees and supported by Mack
 > will not happen.

My stars man, you can witness the detailed fullfillment of
those abductee reports ('apocalyptic doings') _everyday_
on the six o'clock news!

I was shown visions of "fires, floods, and storms," by little
non-human grey men. If you read the papers or watch the
newscasts you'll see -fires- (almost a third of the USA burned
away this year and that's not counting _major fires_ in other
countries as well. The fires consumed whole states here.

In Europe, China, Mexico, Africa, Japan, (and in many other
countries) "floods" have washed away the homes, land, and
lively hoods of countless people.

Due to the global warming effect the intensity and number of
destructive "storms" is now increasing. Insurance companies are
quaking in their boots over predictions by experts that the
ferocity of storms will become increasingly worse over the short
term. Ergo an increase in the amount of property damage and loss
of human Life that is to be expected from them - which the
insurance outfits will have to pay off on.

We're just a few bullets, or one more major incident involving a
significant loss of life on either side, away from a full blown
conflagration (Armageddon?) in the  middle-east. Add to that the
recent genocides, (750,000 during one three month period in
Africa alone,) and all the news of, "war and threats of war" and
we're looking at a situation that fits many folks definition of
apocalyptic scale events.

Just what were you expecting? It seems to me that all of
the "abductee based reports of apocalyptic events" are being
played out right before our very (collective) eyes.

How much property and life has to be lost before you consider
something to be apocalyptic? The size/scale of the fires,
floods, and storms we are witnessing is so large already that I
shudder to think what it is that you deem 'properly'
apocalyptic.

You seem to think that everything is hunky-dory. I find the
events that are unfolding in the news everyday to be
disturbingly reminiscent of the very things I was shown by the
"bugs" in the 1970's. The 'planetary scale' of the changes in
climate, weather, and environment that are happening (as we
speak) -are- "apocalyptic" both in scope and effect. As I
mentioned, the loss of human life and property has been
tremendous in a -very short- span of historical time.

Need "empirical proof" that what I'm saying is absolutely true
in every detail? Crack a newspaper tomorrow morning and acquaint
yourself with what is (has been) going on all around you.

"None is so blind as he who will not see!"

John Velez, Abductee

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: Military Abductions - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:05:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:43:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions - Hart


 >From: Elizabeth Hammondlizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto"updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 02:13:19 -0500

 >Gary, how many times have you seen this, and actively worked
 >with any of it? Have you photographed any of this? Or at least,
 >do you recognize any of the "Abductees" involved?


Liz,

The times when I was involved provided enough corroborating
inform- ation to convince me the witnesses were credible.
Thinking back, I have taken still pictures that are unusual at
one Arizona location; saw odd lights on a couple occasions there
also; saw a UFO in a hotspot town I was studying for a week;
have gotten some strange meter readings in some areas; took some
video of what I can only describe as zipping lights at another
location, and, I've gotten some strange but more subjective
effects in several other areas. So, yes, I have interacted with
phenomena though not entities at several locations from CT to
UT.

As noted, my experiences cause me to focus observations at those
same spots over a number of years. Did any of you see the
World's Scariest Ghosts show on 28 Oct.? I was the intermediary
(not the video source) for the Colorado footage that showed the
lights moving outside and the large BOL moving inside a house.
First time on TV. Other footage of so-called orbs were dust
particles and you could see these were not where the speakers
said they were by looking closely. The other footage, a good
eighty percent of the show, simply proved my point as to the
dust being illuminated by the camera and being very
close,_not_far away.

I also turned them on to the source of the footage for the
Greencastle house where the ghost-in-the-window pictures
were taken. Both these spots have been odd for a long time.
One has alleged abductees associated with it.

Gary









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                Whatever It Is, It May Hit The Earth In 2030

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:11:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:45:32 -0500
Subject: Whatever It Is, It May Hit The Earth In 2030


Source: The Boston Globe via Seattle Post-Intelligencer,

http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/hit04.shtml

Stig

***

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Whatever it is, it may hit the Earth in 2030

Space object could be asteroid or old rocket section

Saturday, November 4, 2000

By David L. Chandler

The Boston Globe

**

OK, folks, this one is for real: A small, recently discovered
asteroid is on a path that gives it a 1-in-500 chance of
striking the Earth in the year 2030 -- far higher odds than for
any object ever discovered before. However, there is a slight
chance the object might turn out to be an old rocket stage
rather than an asteroid.

Whatever it is, this is a very small object, probably no more
than 100 to 200 feet across, but it could still cause some
damage. The International Astronomical Union estimates its
impact would be 100 times that of the atom bomb dropped on
Hiroshima. Fortunately, the vast majority of Earth's surface
consists of oceans or sparsely-populated areas.

"I do think it's worth keeping an eye on," said NASA astronomer
David Morrison, chairman of the astronomical union's working
group for near-Earth objects.

This marks the first time that any object in space has had a
high enough likelihood of striking the Earth to clearly merit a
ranking greater than zero on the proposed Torino scale for
asteroid impact probabilities. However, if it is on the small
end of the possible size range, the object might be so small
that it would burn up in the atmosphere without even striking
the ground.

With 30 years to study the possibility, there is plenty of time
to plan for attempts to nudge it away from that course, if
necessary. Many ideas have been proposed for such measures,
including sending nuclear warheads to explode near the object
and change its path, or even intense laser beams focused on its
surface to melt its rock and ice, producing a jet-like effect.

But unlike some past warnings from astronomers of objects that
might turn out to be on a collision course, this one is small
enough that, even in the worst case, its effects would be on a
relatively small, local scale, comparable to other more-frequent
natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanos or hurricanes.

Much larger objects, those more than a half-mile across, could
produce worldwide damage if they were to strike the Earth, and
therefore most efforts to search the skies for possibly
threatening objects have concentrated on trying to find these
larger asteroids.

Still, such an impact would not be trivial. If this object,
called asteroid 2000 SG344, were to hit the Earth, it could
produce an impact equivalent to about one-tenth the Tunguska
blast that flattened trees in Siberia in 1908 -- the most recent
known arrival of a sizable extraterrestrial object onto this
planet.

Astronomers had once before, in 1998, publicly announced the
possibility that an asteroid might strike the Earth, referring
to an asteroid called 1997 XF11. The discovery of earlier
photographs a day later allowed them to refine the calculations
and prove the object was not a threat after all.

As a result, there have been intense discussions among
astronomers ever since about how best to handle the public
announcement of such possibly-threatening discoveries.

The asteroid was first seen on Sept. 29 by astronomers David
Tholen and Robert Whitely, using the Canada-France-Hawaii
telescope in Hawaii, and was first reported as a possible
Near-Earth Asteroid on Oct. 24. The first calculations that
showed there was a possibility of an impact on Earth by 2000
SG344 were carried out last Monday night, and reported to other
astronomers the next morning.

**

� 1998-2000 Seattle Post-Intelligencer








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                             Crop Circle Hoaxer

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:42:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:48:11 -0500
Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer



This is article as it appears on "Sightings": Police Make First
Arrest Over Crop Circles By Cahal Milmo
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Environment/2000-11/cropcir
cle041100.shtml

11-4-00

They have been a source of mystery and amusement to students of
the bizarre for years, but yesterday crop circles attracted the
attention of a new audience - the long arm of the law.

A 29-year-old Wiltshire man last night became what is believed
to be the first person in Britain to be accused of the novel
crime of raiding a field and creating patterns out of flattened
wheat.

Matthew Williams, of Bishops Cannings, near Devizes, was
arrested after photographs allegedly showing him working with
another man were sent anonymously to detectives.

He will appear before Devizes magistrates on Monday charged with
causing criminal damage to an unspecified area of pasture near
Marlborough in July this year.

The case threatens to blow the lid on what has long been
believed to be the prime cause of crop circles well-equipped and
highly adept hoaxers.

For years, fans of the paranormal had sought to explain the
weird and wonderful patterns of interlinked circles, squares and
diamonds as the work of aliens or freak weather conditions. But
some crop circle creators have recently come forward to confess
to their activities, carried out under cover of darkness using
an array of ladders, tethered barrels and ropes to work "magic".

Police arrested Williams earlier this week after searching his
home and recovering pieces of equipment allegedly used to sculpt
circles. A second man was also detained but later released
without charge.

News of the prosecution was welcomed by farmers in the rolling
countryside of Wiltshire - prime territory for crop circles,
with dozens appearing every summer.

Tim Carson, chairman of the National Farmers Union in the
county, said: "It's no different if someone comes into your
garden and causes damage. You spend a lot of time and effort
planting crops and then someone comes along and destroys them,
it's very annoying."

Andrew Naughton, who farms near Devizes, added: "Imagine you had
a green car and someone came along and sprayed pretty patterns
on the roof with white paint. That's the only way I can describe
it."


Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:57:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:04:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Y'all,

David Rudiak must have been having a difficult Sunday and has
far too much spare time on his hands.

As I noted last week, when 'believers' can no longer offer
coherent argument for their case they resort to childishness, of
which Rudiak's example was a spectacularly good one.

But I'd hate not to have to deal with his nonsense,
so, very briefly:

 >Headaches
 >AIDS
 >Sex
 >Asprin
 >Air crashes

But David, all the above subject, effects and their causes are
well known about and documented.

We are not dealing with the unknown here in the same way we are
with 'UFOs'.

The end result in the above is an accepted and documented
scientific 'fact'. Your analogy was ludicrous, to put it mildly.

My point about UFO cases and UFO photos is that there is _no_
proof or evidence of 'alien craft' (as per Stanton, Macabbee and
Clark's witterings), therefore, based on what we know so far all
UFO cases/photos will be resolved into IFOs of mudane origin.

When you find one which *is* resolved and of which the outcome
is not some form of terresttrial, astronomical or meterological
phenomena, please let us know.

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                          Secrecy News -- 11/06/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:11:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:06:24 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/06/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 6, 2000

**      PRESIDENT CLINTON VETOES THE "LEAK" STATUTE
**      THE WASHINGTON TIMES AND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION


PRESIDENT CLINTON VETOES THE "LEAK" STATUTE

In a dramatic victory over the government secrecy bureaucracy,
President Clinton overruled several members of his own national
security team and vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act for
FY 2001 "because of one badly flawed provision that would have
made a felony of unauthorized disclosures of classified
information."

"As President, ... it is my obligation to protect not only our
Government's vital information from improper disclosure, but
also to protect the rights of citizens to receive the
information necessary for democracy to work.  Furthering these
goals requires a careful balancing," the President said in a
veto statement on November 4.  "This legislation does not
achieve the proper balance... There is a serious risk that this
legislation would tend to have a chilling effect on those who
engage in legitimate activities...."

In a rebuke to the congressional intelligence committees, the
President noted that "The problem is compounded because this
provision was passed without benefit of public hearings."

The whole effort to criminalize disclosures of classified
information is an embarrassment, above all, to the Senate and
House intelligence committees, which sought to advance the
perceived interests of the intelligence community without any
consideration of larger national interests.

The Presidential veto also signifies a reversal of the
traditional roles of the legislative and executive branches.
Students of intelligence oversight will puzzle over the fact
that the congressional intelligence committees acted on behalf
of the agencies they oversee -- to the exclusion of the public
voices they supposedly represent -- while the President
intervened to block their attempt to grant broad new legal
authority to the executive branch.

The President's veto statement is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh110400.html


THE WASHINGTON TIMES AND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The controversy over unauthorized disclosures of classified
information is not over.

The controversy is inflamed, and opposing positions are
hardened, by the remarkably brazen publication practices of the
Washington Times.  The Times, more than any other party outside
of government, is proximately responsible for the legislative
hysteria that produced the now-vetoed "leak" statute.

In a front page story in the Washington Times today, Bill Gertz
reports the not quite startling news that Russian merchant ships
monitor U.S. nuclear submarines in the Pacific Northwest.  But
he then goes on to quote from classified CIA and NSA documents
which reveal that a specific Russian ship had sent certain
specific messages to Russian intelligence officials in
Vladivostok.

By describing the specific contents of these messages, The
Washington Times is announcing to the world that U.S.
intelligence has the capability to intercept and presumably
decrypt a certain specified form of Russian communications.  It
is reasonable to suppose that this will trigger an immediate
upgrade in Russian communications security -- and a probable
loss of information for U.S. intelligence in the future.  It is
hard to identify any countervailing public interest in the
reported details that would justify the accompanying loss to
U.S. intelligence.

There is a school of thought that says one should always expose
any government secrets that come to hand, as an appropriate
response to the government's tendency to withhold too much.
"Authority always errs on the side of concealment, requiring
subjects to strike a balance by erring on the side of
revelation," wrote columnist William Safire in his book on the
Book of Job entitled "The First Dissident" (p. 205).

But to argue that indiscriminate secrecy justifies
indiscriminate publication of secrets is to give up any hope of
reforming secrecy policy through remedial measures, and to
invite punitive steps like the congressional leak statute.

The Government can hardly criticize the Washington Times, since
to do so might smack of censorship or political vendetta.  Other
news organizations, which compete with the Washington Times,
cannot criticize the paper because that would seem disingenuous
and self-serving.

So no one publicly criticizes the Washington Times' practice of
indiscriminate publication of classified information.  But it
stinks.

The Washington Times story, "Russian merchant ships used in
spying," appears here:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200011622921.htm


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this comman
d in the body of the message:
        subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this command in the body
of the message:
        unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:11:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:09:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:03:42 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:01:57 -0600


Andy,

 >As you appear to be repeating yourself over and over again, with
 >no content other than your obvious hatred of sceptics, I'll
 >leave you to it. With just one or two comments....

Now, how could I harbor "hatred of s[k]eptics"? You guys are too
funny to be hateworthy. I confess, however, to impatience -- not
the same as hatred, guy -- with bogus arguments, especially ones
delivered smugly, and I'm afraid that's where you come in.

 >I've made my point, giving examples where necessary. And as I've
 >said, when you have some counter evidence worthy of countering
 >the sceptical argument, I'd love to see it. Oh, yes, along ith
 >all those papers written by scientists you're always banging on
 >about (although I realise that's 'in the future' - ie never).

Er, what exactly are you talking about? Or is this more pelican
wing-flapping? This whole exchange, I hate to remind you, began
when you delivered sweeping pronouncements about the ubquity of
radical misperceptions; yet the examples you cited of supposed
RMs undercut your own argument. They actually made the more
sober argument, offered by us less than enthusiastic partisans,
that in most cases witnesses describe what they saw more or less
accurately; where they go wrong is in their interpretation of
what they saw. It's what David Hufford, whom I know you despise
unread, calls the difference between folk experience and folk
explanation.

 >>See my earlier posting on ball lightning. And again, let me
 >>recommend David J. Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night,

 >Are you on commission?

_That_'s your answer? I'm afraid, then, that I've won the
argument. Let me urge you _not_ to read Hufford's book. You have
too much invested in your beliefs, and having to change one's
mind about them is always difficult, sometimes -- for advanced
cases -- traumatic.

 >>James McDonald impresses me.

 >I've noticed you're quite keen on McDonald. That's interesting,
 >because in a few weeks I'll be presenting evidence about a case
 >McDonald commented on - and got hopelessly wrong. It will be
 >yet another example of a 'big' case crumbling to nothing. UFO to
 >IFO Jerry, as they all do.

I'll certainly read what you have to say, but you have given me
no reason to judge your reasoning or logic in these matters. So
you will have to pardon my skepticism coming out of the gate.
Given what McDonald, about whom I know far more than you (having
a good portion of his private correspondence in my files) did to
his critics while he was still living, you should consider
yourself fortunate that he is not around to defend himself.

Pelicanists love to boast about how they're bringing down a
big case. When the dust has cleared, of course, it almost always
turns out that it's the big case that's still standing. In pelican
science, as we all know all too well by now, the mere putting
forth of a supposedly conventional explanation, even one riddled
with problems, is sufficient to declare a case "solved."

Still, it gets a little confusing, because pelicanists like to
propose a variety of such explanations for a single case, on the
theory, I gather, that if enough mud is hurled, some of it will
stick to the wall. Menzel proposed no fewer than five
explanations for the Arnold sighting alone. Sadly for him, none
of the mud stuck.

(Note that Andy, in good pelicanist fashion, has not a word of
his criticism for the many documented excesses of pelicanist
idols such as Menzel and Klass. And I'll bet Andy even believes
in ball lightning, even with all those mistaken sightings and
fake photos. As always, one standard for the pelicanist side,
another for ours.)

To the rest of us, who care about such things as obviously Andy
doesn't, McDonald personally conducted an extraordinary number
of investigations of UFO cases and took extensive notes of
interviews, search for back-up data and possible prosaic
explanations, and the like. Relatively little of this made it
into print, sadly; McDonald died before he got a chance to write
the book he talked about. You really need to go through the
McDonald collection (housed at the University of Arizona) to
appreciate what the man was up to. What's impressive about
McDonald is that where UFOs were concerned, he acted like a
scientist, which is more than can be said of his critics.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:21:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:22:01 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


Pelican guys,

 >>OK, joke over, we're talking about the same book. You may
 >>remember that I reviewed it very favourably in Magonia (or was
 >>it even in MUFOB days?) shortly after it came out. In my reading
 >>of the book Hufford is critical of people who have looked at
 >>phenomena such as the "Old Hag" and have treated them as
 >>'legends'. 'stories', mere 'folktales' and so on; and have
 >>indeed conducted a form of literary criticism on them. The value
 >>of Hufford's book is that he demonstrates that the Old Hag is an
 >>actual _experienced_ phenomenon, and information about it can be
 >>gleaned from listening to the people who have personally
 >>experienced it.

Not really. Yes, folklorists tended to treat them as "legends"
and "stories," which they certainly are - though that's not
_all_ they are. Far worse were the psychosocial theorists (Freud
biographer Ernest Jones being a particularly grotesque example)
who got hold of witness testimony and discredited and distorted
it freely, on the grounds that the experients couldn't
_possibly_ have undergone what they claimed to have undergone.
We know know it was the witnesses, not the explainers, who had
it right. Jones and his ilk demonstrate the failure, not the
success, of psychosocilogical approaches to certain anomalous
questions. . >What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that
there is an >>actual physical being called the Old Hag which
sneaks into >>people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they
sleep and >>tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in
his approach >>which does not also apply to the type of
sceptical, psychosocial >>approach of our beloved pelicans.

And that is precisely the sort of reading that drives Hufford up
the wall, and it is exactly why he praised my reading of his
book. It's not as if we have to choose between belief in witch
attacks or rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon, a
point Hufford makes repeatedly and which Rimmer seems to have
missed.

In fact, Hufford very specifically states that while much of the
Old Hag experience can be explained through the findings of
sleep research, much - perhaps the most interesting part -
remains unaccounted for.*  Hufford also goes on to state that
the mishandling of the Old Hag phenomenon exactly parallels
debunkers' mishandling of other anomalous phenomena, including
UFO reportss, cryptozoological matters, and more.

Rimmer's reading tells us what John Rimmer thinks, but not what
David Hufford thinks. In fact, Hufford's approach is exactly the
opposite of the one Rimmer and Magonia take. With his own
blinkers on, Rimmer did not read the book Hufford wrote. See in
particular the chapter on "The Psychological Dis-Interpretation
of the Old Hag." Also, read my review of the book (April 1983
Fate), which I posted on this list a few months ago and which
Hufford praised as the one that really caught his meaning.
(Hufford and I are mutual admirers, I add immodestly. See his
generous remarks about me on the back cover of the second
edition of my encyclopedia.) It's also worth noting that Hufford
has influenced other folklorists working with anomalies,
including Bill Ellis and Linda Milligan, both of whom contacted
me on Hufford's recommendation and with whom I have shared
information and ideas.

A larger argument Hufford makes is that culturally determined
but empirically dubious "traditions of disbelief" - such as
those Roberts and Rimmer manifest proudly and naively - distort
our understandings of anomalous experience. We immediately
assume that they arise from error, superstition, hoax, radical
misinterpretation, or otherwise dismissible causes. That's why
we turn ourselves into knots either rejecting testimony or
twisiting it and reinventing it so that we can "explain" it.

Other Hufford writings worth reading, probably unread by Rimmer,
certainly by Roberts:

"Humanoids and Anomalous Lights: Taxonomic and
Epistemological Problems." Fabula 18,3&4 (1977): 34-41.

"Traditions of Disbelief." New York Folklore Quarterly
8,3&4 (Winter 1982): 47-55.

"The Supernatural and the Sociology of Knowledge:
Explaining Academic Belief." New York Folklore 9
(1983), 1&2, 21-29.

Hufford participated in the 1992 MIT abduction studies
conference and contributed a fascinating paper to its
proceedings, taking issue with both debunkers and proponents for
loose thinking about a phenomenon that he freely acknowledges is
most puzzling. He cites a case he learned of through a physician
associate, noting that there were multiple witnesses and
physiological evidence associated with it. Hufford remarks, "I
know of no non-abduction explanation for these events.... To
simply say this must ... be a case of folie a deux is to merely
state that no amount of evidence will count in such cases."

 >Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

No. Hufford thinks that the Old Hag is a very strange
phenomenon, poorly and even absurdly explained by pelicanists,
part of which we now understand, but some of the most baffling
aspects of which remain unaccounted for.

 >>Does Jerry think that any UFOs are real extraterrestrial craft?

In my own writings and public statements, I have refrained from
making statements like these, which are surely premature and
irrelevant. Basically I think the ETH is a reasonable
provisional interpretation - maybe suspicion is a better word -
but it is unproved. Better to concentrate on investigation and
analysis before getting caught up in webs of theory - advice
that I wish pelicanists would heed as well.

 >But the bottom line is, if two heavyweights of the subject and
 >the literature can't agree over the meaning of a book, then all
 >Jerry's blustering about UFOs isn't worth squat.

And Andy, who confesses - or boasts, in the fashion of the all-
knowing pelicanist who in reality is largely clueless - that he
hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with Hufford's seminal work
(arguably the best academic work ever written on anomalies and
science), has even less claim to being taken seriously.

Jerry Clark

*"These conclusions allow reasonable give and take between
science and tradition. No favors are being granted that are not
also returned. Where does this leave our analysis of the Old
Hag? Can we say that sleep research has 'explained' the Old Hag?
No, we cannot. We cannot because what has been gained has been a
description of physiological events that seem to account for the
production of the state, that is, paralysis in wakefulness,
preceding or following sleep, during which a complex and
frightening experience may take place. The specific contents of
the experience, however, have not been explained. They seem if
anything more odd than they did before. If they are related to
ordinary dreams by the presence of REM physiology, why is their
content so consistently the same without apparent regard for
culture?" - The Terror That Comes in the Night, p. 169

"What I do remember is B.'s comment that he disagreed with you -
and therefore with me - that the [Old Hag] phenomenon cannot be
adequately explained by current knowledge. Either he didn't read
the case material carefully, or his criterion for what counts as
an adequate explanation is deficient. I grant that much of what
I published, including some of my theoretical statements, seem
to move in the direction of a conventional explanation.. So much
so that a lot of conventional readers have said - even in
reviews - that I have done a good job of showing yet again the
inevitable triumph of materialistic reductionism. However, if
all of the substantial difficulties represented in the data -
from cases like the Western Kentucky haunting to the
universality of a highly specific phenomenal pattern - you can
only be reductively satisfied if you close with [in B.'s words]:
'And I am sure that eventually we will find that the persisting
problems are not what they appear, and that new discoveries in
neurophysiology will provide the additional mechanisms needed to
finish off our physicalist explanation.' This is, of course,
just the old positivist statement of faith, and could have been
(in fact was) made without benefit of my research. Oh, well,
what counts as an explanation is a crucial element in all of
this ideological rhetoric both on behalf, of and against
scientism."

- from a letter by Hufford to Jerome Clark, January 26,
1987














   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

               Re: CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests -

From: Tony Downing <four2fifty2@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:25:40 -0500
Subject: Re: CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests -


 >From: Paul Anderson
 >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 14:25:59 -0700
 >Subject: CPR-Canada News: 1st Crop Circle Arrests Reported in England
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >CPR-CANADA NEWS
 >The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada



 >FIRST CROP CIRCLE RELATED ARRESTS REPORTED IN >ENGLAND


 >Following is a report from Colin Andrews and a newspaper article
 >from The Independent in the UK. Thanks to Colin Andrews, Carol
 >Pedersen and Sheila Nethersole for forwarding this information.

 >Paul Anderson

 >____________________________


 >TWO MEN ARRESTED AND EQUIPMENT SEIZED. ONE CHARGED >OF
 >MAKING CROP CIRCLE - OTHER INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY.

 >I received a telephone call from a British Journalist early this
 >morning to inform me of a newspaper article in today's "Western
 >Daily Press" regarding the arrest of two men under suspicion of
 >making a crop circle at West Overton (that which was allegedly
 >made by Matthew William's for Whitley Strieber and touted on his
 >radio program, "Dreamland").

 >I have spoken with Wiltshire Police who confirm that Matthew
 >William's has been arrested with another man who also lives at
 >the same address. Equipment and a computer have been seized by
 >police who will apply for William's to be remanded at a court
 >hearing set for Devizes Court on Monday 6th November. The police
 >told me that "it is likely other cases will be pursued but at
 >this moment he has been charged only with making the one
 >intricate crop circle construction at West Overton" (for Whitley
 >Strieber). According to police, they have been given
 >photographic evidence and are looking at a great deal of other
 >information.

 >I am considering flying over for the full court hearing when
 >that date is known. Monday's hearing will be adjourned after the
 >application for a remand is heard.

 >I believe that this is a significant development and one which
 >will lead to other arrests soon. The impact upon the events in
 >the fields will be seen next year and will probably prove the
 >extent to which people have been involved, (i.e. - my own
 >findings at least 80%).

 >I should make it clear, that these arrests came as a surprise to
 >me this morn


At last, something possitive may be done, now that a perpitrator
of these stupid hoaxes has been caught. I have, for sooooo long,
wondered how they have been able to get away with it... I think
the law should make an example of these idiots, then maybe some
real work in the field (if you'll pardon the pun) can go on.

Tony Downing










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           Crop Circle Maker Fined

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:24:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:29:23 -0500
Subject: Crop Circle Maker Fined


Hello:

Here is a short and rather simplistic account from the ABC news
wire web-page.

"DEVIZES, England (AP)
A self-described researcher in the paranormal told a court
Monday precisely how a crop circle appeared in a field in
western England. He did it himself. Matthew Williams, 29, said
he and a friend made an intricate crop circle to prove to a
competing researcher that the patterns may not be the work of
space aliens.

However, his seven-pointed design angered a farmer, who told
the court it caused $300 in damage to his crops. The court
fined Williams $150. Thousands of circles have cropped up _
mostly in Britain and the United States _ since 1980. UFO groups
say they are proof of extraterrestrial visitors, or some
unexplained natural force. Skeptics say they are obvious hoaxes
that can quickly and easily be produced with simple tools. "

Sadly, there are no details of the actual production or tools
here.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.6.00

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:13:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:56:59 -0500
Subject: TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.6.00

TMP NEWS
The E-News Service of The Millennium Project

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

November 6, 2000

_____________________________


TMP News is the e-news service of The Millennium Project,
providing a Weekly Briefing summary of the latest news and
reports relating to the most phenomenal, enigmatic and
controversial issues of our time in science, technology and
global change and their present and future implications as we
enter the 21st century and a new millennium, as well as other
periodic information and updates on TMP- related projects and
events. TMP News is available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING
11.6.00


* Europa's Lifelines
* Microbe Travel Aboard Meteorites Possible, Study Says
* Crew Sets Up Shop on Space Station 'Alpha'
* Venezuela Hopes to Offer Vacations on the Moon
* Hubble Records Fireworks When Galaxies Collide
* Alleged Chupacabras Skull Subjected to Scientific Scrutiny
* First Crop Circle Related Arrests Reported in England
* "Winked Out": UFOs or High-Tech Camouflage?
* The Cydonian Imperative: Predictions for New High-Resolution Cydonia Images
* Digital Angel:  Internet Devices Coming that Reveal Your Location
* Scope of Biotech Corn Product Revealed
* Ancient Ship Found Well-Preserved in Black Sea



EUROPA'S LIFELINES

The cracks in Europa's icy crust are where life is most likely
to be found on the Jovian moon, the conference heard last week.
This means it might be possible to find life without having to
drill down to the ocean far beneath the ice. It also means that
any terrestrial stowaways on a space probe could easily
contaminate Europa. The cracks would provide an ideal home for
life, says Richard Greenberg of the University of Arizona in
Tucson. Tides caused by Jupiter's strong gravitational pull make
warm water flow up and down the cracks, creating a rich
chemistry along the fissures. "That makes Europa extremely
habitable," says Greenberg...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns226331


MICROBE TRAVEL ABOARD METEORITES POSSIBLE, STUDY SAYS

For two centuries, scientists have suspected that life might be
able to travel between planets via meteorites, and even
suggested that life on Earth may have originated elsewhere in
the solar system. But there's been one problem. All meteorites
are generated by explosive impacts on their home planets. Could
any living organism survive the massive shock and heat of such a
blast? Now, a team led by three Caltech scientists says that any
contents in the rocks could indeed survive. Conducting an
extremely precise magnetic analysis of a Martian meteorite, the
group found that the core of the meteorite did not reach more
than 104 degrees Fahrenheit--far below the sterilization
temperature of 230 degrees...

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/science/20001027/t000102695.html


CREW SETS UP SHOP ON SPACE STATION 'ALPHA'

Before going to sleep for the first time in their new home, the
inaugural residents of the International Space Station decided
to give it a new name, Alpha. The crew of three arrived at the
$60 billion orbiting outpost Thursday, beginning what NASA hopes
is the permanent habitation of space...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/space/11/02/space.docking.03/index.html


VENEZUELA HOPES TO OFFER VACATIONS ON THE MOON

Venezuela's president hopes a new space project in the South
American country will offer tourists vacations on the moon.
Former paratrooper Hugo Chavez said he met a group of U.S.
businessmen last week who proposed building a space shuttle and
launch pad in the huge southern plains bordering the river
Orinoco...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/space/11/03/space.chavez.reut/index.html


HUBBLE RECORDS FIREWORKS WHEN GALAXIES COLLIDE

NASA's flagship space observatory has captured a brilliant light
display ignited by a violent encounter between two galaxies,
scientists said Thursday. Bright blue and white streaks along
the top and right edge of the large spiral galaxy in the central
part of the Hubble Space Telescope image mark the path taken by
a passing smaller galaxy. The tip of the latter appears in the
lower right corner of a more detailed picture, which can be
viewed by clicking on the "larger" icon...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/space/11/02/hubble.galaxy.collision/index.html


ALLEGED CHUPACABRAS SKULL SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY

October 30, 2000 (Terra). Scientists of the Universidad Austral
de Chile are dumbfounded by an enigmatic animal skull, since
they are at a loss to ascertain to what animal or species it
belongs. The animal was apparently last January in the Arique
Sector of Antihue (Tenth Region) by a farmer who had reported
the strange deaths of a large number of birds, particularly
geese. Last May, the same farmer reported that he had killed a
strange creature...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/chupaskull.html


FIRST CROP CIRCLE RELATED ARRESTS REPORTED IN ENGLAND

The first case of the arrest of suspected crop circle hoaxers
was reported this week in British media, which will intensify
the debate regarding what is already one of the most
controversial issues and phenomena of our time...

http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada/arrests.html


"WINKED OUT": UFOs OR HIGH-TECH CAMOUFLAGE?

Camouflage of aircraft has been the ongoing focus of the
military since the discovery of human flight. �Hiding from the
enemy protects pilot lives, military secrets and provides the
ability for sudden and highly effective strikes on targets. As
the number of sightings of "disappearing" aircraft and objects
increase, lines are becoming blurred as we attempt to delineate
between our true technological capabilities and what may be a
common capability of the UFO (unidentified aerial
device/vehicle). Star-field and cloud/haze camouflage are now
frequently reported in addition to blending into the sky using
various techniques and devices...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/winkedout.html


THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE: PREDICTIONS FOR NEW HIGH-RESOLUTION
CYDONIA IMAGES

Before the "Face" was reimaged in 1998, predictions on what
would be seen if the Face was artificial were included in the
book "The Case for the Face," a collection of science essays and
editorials by members of Scientists for Planetary SETI Research
(SPSR). One of the authors, hypothesizing that the Face might be
an intentional representation, addressed secondary facial
features not visible on the Viking photos. Most, if not all, of
his predictions were vindicated once properly processed images
of the Face were made available...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/cydoniapredictions.html


DIGITAL ANGEL: INTERNET DEVICES COMING THAT REVEAL YOUR LOCATION

Imagine walking by a Starbucks in an unfamiliar city. Your cell
phone rings, and a coupon for coffee pops up on its screen, good
only at that location. Consider a technology to be unveiled
Monday. Called Digital Angel, a microchip worn close to the body
promises to record a person's biological parameters and send
distress signals during medical emergencies. But misused, these
types of capabilities could amount to virtual stalking...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/30/wireless.tracking.ap/index.html


SCOPE OF BIOTECH CORN PRODUCT RECALL REVEALED

Nearly 300 varieties of tacos, tortillas, tostadas, and chips
made with the genetically engineered corn StarLink have been
recalled from restaurants and grocery stores, according to the
Food and Drug Administration. "We had no idea of the scope of
this," said Matt Rand, a spokesman for the Genetically
Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of green groups. "This shows
how widespread the StarLink problem is"...

http://CNN.com/2000/FOOD/news/11/01/biotech.corn.recall/index.html


ANCIENT SHIP FOUND WELL-PRESERVED IN BLACK SEA

Famed explorer Robert Ballard says he's still numb after
discovering an almost perfectly preserved wreck of a ship that
sank 1,500 years ago in the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey.
The ship is about 1000 feet (300 meters) down in water where
there's no oxygen, a situation that's fatal to the wood boring
organisms that would normally devour a wooden shipwreck...

http://CNN.com/2000/NATURE/11/02/ancient.shipwreck/index.html


____________________________


To subscribe to TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe from TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You can also subscribe, unsubscribe, custom modify your
subscription or browse the online archive of past issues on the
TMP News eGroups web site:

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews

See the TMP web site for complete listings of news
stories, reports and related information and links:

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

For further information, submissions or inquiries, forward
all correspondence to:

THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC   V6J 1J4
Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

_____________________________


� The Millennium Project, 2000












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:44:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:59:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:03:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe


 >>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:49:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >>I spoke to one of the guards many man years ago. He said the
 >>object that he saw an orange glowing object over the base. In
 >>the official documentation it was called a "helicopter" for lack
 >>of a better term. Hahaha. The guy did not seem to be crazy as a
 >>loon.

 >Hi, Bruce:

 >There were many sightings at Loring. Klass claimed that a
 >helicopter was being used in the area and that may have
 >accounted for some of the sightings.

Yes, there were helicopters. At least one was used to chase the
intruding "helicopter" across the Canadian border (the US
helicopter did not follow).

One would hope that te security guard would know the difference
between an orange glowing object (roughly football shaped, I
think he said.) and a "normal or real" helicopter.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:44:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:01:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:54:35 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll [was: Clark vs. Evans]
 >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:27:50 -0600

 >[Note Jerry's _original_ header above, Andy - _not_ the
 > UpDates --ebk]


 >The 'big' (not scare quotes Jerry) names on this list have on
 >many occasions done just that. The touching belief held by -
 >certainly Stanton and Bruce M, (and I suspect yourself if you
 >could be honest and less evasive) that real, solid craft from
 >elesewhere or elsewhen (cf Bruce's email) are visitng earth
 >('often' according to Stanton) - is a baseless delusion. Yet
 >they have made money out of spreading that illusion.


Since I have been directly addressed here I suppose I should at
least comment on this rant. If I suffer delusion, then at least
I have plenty of good company that includes witnesses of many
different levels of capability, talents, social stature, etc.
You accuse me of making money by spreading an illusion. I
presume you really meant to write that I was speading my
delusion.

I hope no one publishes a book which includes the pelican
explanation for Arnold, for then said person will be making
money by spreading a delusion. And Friendly Phil Klass in his
book UFOs The Public Deceived, deceived the public by spreading
his "delusions" about several UFO reports which he claimed to
have explained (Val Johnson, Warren Minnesota, Aug 1980, New
Zealand sightings, for example). So I guess "delusions" have
generated money for both sides.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:06:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:04:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale


 >Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:49:45 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Big Story On Crop Circles

 >Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 >http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-4nov2000-50.htm

 >British man arrested for faking crop circles
 >Sat, 4 Nov 2000
 >ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] News

 >A 29-year-old British man has been arrested after being
 >photographed creating crop circles, the intricate patterns which
 >appear in fields overnight and are seen by some as evidence of
 >alien life.

 >The arrest provides evidence the crop circles, which have
 >fascinated fans of the paranormal for years, are nothing but an
 >intricate hoax.


Hi,

Ooh some big statements coming out here.

Q: Why do you think the police never arrested the very much
public and infamous Doug & Dave for destroying farmers crops?

Perhaps if someone in the near future is arrested for faking UFO
photos and videos' we can all walk away from this dearly beloved
subject, as surely it would mean all UFO data was hoaxed! (Much
to the delight of some )

It gets sadder by the day.....

Maybe I should do a mock up in Photoshop 6, of Snoopy in a Crop
Circle just to give the hoax that extra bit of notoriety!

Roy........


www.thelosthaven.co.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                          Filer's Files #44 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:56:41 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:08:41 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #44 -- 2000


Filer's Files #44 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 6, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

NEW EVIDENCE OBTAINED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF UFOs -- The BLT
Research Team has provided new evidence of hemoglobin at bovine
mutilation sights. There is also exciting new evidence from the
message held in General Ramey's hand that a disk crashed at
Roswell.

TWENTY UFO SIGHTINGS OVER TEXAS. Twenty sightings of triangles,
cylinders, fireballs and discs in the last several weeks
indicate an Alien interest in Texas. Perhaps they wish to help
us remember the tragedy at Waco and the deaths of some 60 women
and children who died when government tanks spitting gas
attacked the Branch Davidian Church. Five percent of our total
US sightings are over Texas.

NEW EVIDENCE ON ROSWELL CRASH

Tom Carey writes that a correction should be made on the message
held in General Ramey's hand in and photographed by J. Bond
Johnson on July 8, 1947. Dave Rudiak's line #4 which is a key
line to the message should read:

" **** S*S IN THE "DISK" THEY WILL SHIP FOR A1-8TH ARMY AF**"

The key phrase here is "in the disk" referring to something that
was inside as well as to where it was being shipped to General
Ramey who is the A-1 at Ft. Worth. What kind of balloon or radar
target carries something inside?

Dave Rudiak is "absolutely certain" that the memo was addressed
to Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg at the Pentagon who at the time was
deputy chief of the Army Air Force. With the new scan, Rudiak
was able to make out several letters in Vandenberg's name above
Ramey's thumb which protrudes into the text of the memo. This
ties in neatly with the following statement on page 57 of "THE
TRUTH ABOUT THE UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL" by Randle and Schmitt
concerning General Vandenberg: "The Associated Press reported
that Lieutenant General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Deputy chief of the
Army Air Forces (AAF), hurried to AAF press section in
Washington to take active charge of the news about the find in
New Mexico." The message is addressed To: Vandenburg

  1)**************************************NEAR OPERATION AT THE
  2) **RAN)CH AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE
  3) ***T)EAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX.
  4) *****S*S IN THE "DISK" THEY WILL SHIP FOR A1-8TH ARMYAF**
  5)  BY B29-ST OR C47. WRIGHT AF ASSIST FLIGHTS AT ROSWELL. ASSURE
  6)  THAT CIC-TEAM SAID THIS MISTAKEN MEANING OF STORY AND THINK
  7)  LATE TODAY NEXT SENT OUT PR OF WEATHER BALLOONS WOULD WORK
  8)  BETTER IF THEY ADD LAND DEMO RAWIN CREWS.

  Signed Ramey

EDITORS NOTE: Again I wish to thank those research groups, Dave
Rudiak, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, Don Burleson, Neil Morris and
the Roswell Photo Interpretation Team that are making new
evidence available to us. Vandenberg was Deputy Commander, US
Army Air Forces in 1947. Later he became Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force. A review of his official daily activities
calendar revealed he returned from Wichita Falls, Texas on July
5, 1947, less than a hundred miles from Ft. Worth, Texas.

On Monday, July 7, General Vandenberg's Dairy is full of UFO
reports, and he spends most of the day taking care of a flying
saucer recovery in Houston, TEXAS, an incident that he later
claims was a hoax. One entry sticks out. He asked General Van
what he thought the flying discs were and General Van was quite
noncommittal. General Van said that "Some National Guard planes
were put on duty on their own volition to search for the discs,
but no planes have been put on duty from Hq. AAF." It is
possible this was a simple code to remind him of the exact date
for Roswell and where it was being shipped.

On Tuesday, July 8, Col. Blanchard announces to the world press
a flying saucer has been captured near Roswell, NM. Late
afternoon J. Bond Johnson takes General Ramey's photograph in
Fort Worth with a copy of the message apparently just sent to
Vandenberg in his hand. Vandenberg's Dairy reports he returned
from Congressman Wolverton's office at 5:07 PM and went
immediately to Secretary of the Army Air Force Mr Symington's
Office with reference to personnel for the President's Air
Board. At 6:20 PM went to Mr. Leo's office and then home. It is
not known what the President's Air Board means and may refer to
UFOs. He should have received Ramey's message by then or first
thing Wednesday morning.

On Wednesday, July 9, General Vandenberg's Dairy reports he
talked with General Doolittle on the phone and told him to come
in at 10:30 AM. He met with Mr. Symington apparently with
Doolittle at 10:30. At 10:50 he met with General Eisenhower Army
Chief of Staff, and General Norstad Psychological Operations. At
12:15 he met again with Mr. Symington. At 12:15 Vandenberg is
called by the White House and told to be there the next day. His
diary also says at 2:15 PM: Vandenberg returned from JCS (Joint
Chief of Staffs) and met again with Symington. At 3:40 he met
with General Gardner, General Power and Col. Peterson. He does
not mention handling the UFO situation but, General Doolittle is
known to have investigated UFO sightings in Sweden. General
Vandenberg's Dairy indicates he meets with virtually all key
military personnel in Washington DC and something very important
was happening. It should be noted that Vandenberg is concerned
that the Air Force was becoming a separate service in a few
weeks and he was attempting to obtain funding for 70 Groups.
Congress appeared to cutting the Air Force to only 55 groups.
Publicizing the new possible threat from UFOs could help
increase Air Force funding. The message stating that there were
both victims of the wreck and shipping a disk speaks volumes.

CONNECTICUT DIAMOND SHAPED UFO

SOUTHINGTON - On Tuesday, October 31, 2000, Hazel A. Eisenberg
reports a very bright UFO with a diamond shape at one end was
spotted at 7:30 PM. Seven of my friends were watching the UFO as
I got out of the car and pointed it out to me. It moved very
quickly and then suddenly stopped on a dime. It then hovered and
then changed altitude very quickly At first I dismissed it as a
jet, but upon watching it for fifteen minutes, we realized it
was very strange. We all dismissed it and went on with our
plans. I didn't give it a second thought until I read about the
sighting in Middletown, and it was exactly what we saw. I think
this is very cool. Thanks to Larry Clark nymufon@nycap.rr.com

OHIO EGG SHAPED CRAFT

CYGNET -- NUFORC reports it has received several reports from
several states in the Midwest about this October 31, 2000,
incident. An egg shaped ship crossed the sky, stopped shot up
about a half mile, hovered for a while and changed to a
multitude of colors and departed. At 7:15 PM the witness a
teacher says, "We were heading north on I-75 just south of
Cygnet when we saw a meteor coming across the horizon from the
east and out of space." It crossed over I-75 heading west, when
an explosion or emission of some kind illuminated the craft.
This event, looked not like an explosion proper, but rather
orange, yellow and a sparkling gold bolt of lighting with many
branches! It came to a quick stop. We grabbed the video camera,
but the battery was dead. We pulled out binoculars and saw a
flash of white light, and then the ship moved up half mile. That
is where it stayed until we got to the Cygnet Road exit. The
object was hovering a hundred feet above the trees so we pulled
over and stopped. A woman stopped her car in front of us and
asked us if we saw the UFO? We exchanged names and agreed to
meet later. The UFO was dimming, getting brighter and then
turning a multitude of colors, including red, blue, green,
white, magenta and yellow. We moved closer and it became an
intense red, and that's when we decided to leave. "I don't like
the way that this is looking!" The lights on the jeep started to
dim and brighten and then dim again and we drove away as fast as
we could. "We kept an eye on it and went back to meet up with
the woman witness." Later both men developed a pain in their
abdominal region right below the rib cage. The abdomen was
inflamed and red. Thanks to Peter B. Davenport, Director
National UFO Reporting Center http://www.UFOcenter.com

TEXAS UFO PACES COUPLE'S CAR, ALSO SHIMMERING CHEVRON

WOODLANDS -- On October 26, 2000, with rows of lights on the
underside of each leg traveling silently and at fantastic speed.
It is a clear, cold night and I was outside with my telescope
facing ESE at Orion. I looked up from the telescope when at
about my 11:00 position I spotted a V-shaped formation of
circular diffuse white lights on the underside of a 'solid'
V-shaped 'fuselage' which was transparent (could see star field
behind it) and shimmered like a mirage. From 4 to 6 closely
spaced lights down each leg of V and 1 at point. Their diameter
was nearly the width of each leg. They pulsed slowly at
one-second intervals and simultaneously, and shimmered in sync
with rest of craft. At first sight, it was at least as big as
both fists held at arms length. Estimate altitude at between
2000 and 5000 feet. Traveled straight and level SSE at what must
have been thousands of miles per hour and was completely silent.
Fantastic, dizzying speed. Within view for approx. 5 seconds. At
last sight it was about the width of my pinkie at arms length.

SAN ANTONIO -- On October 30, 2000, two witnesses noticed a
twinkling star with blue and red flashing lights at 11:30 PM.
One witness reports that her ex husband grabbed the binoculars,
looks and says, "Damn these binoculars work good, there's blue
and red flashing lights coming from it." I looked and saw a
round shaped white light with flashing blue light on the left
side of the object and red on the other. It looked like a slowly
moving satellite or star. I looked back about three minutes
later, but the flashing lights were gone. Now there was only a
single red light sitting on top of the object! Shocking and
exciting to see! I looked again several minutes later, no red or
blue lights at all and the shape of the white light had changed
entirely. For one it was not horizontal anymore, it was more
vertical and now it was shaped like a long hot-dog and pointed
on an incline towards the heavens! It was moving into space
slowly. I think it was a satellite, but my ex husband says
satellites don't have lights on them or change shape. Thanks to
NUFORC http://www.UFOcenter.com

SAN ANTONIO -- On Friday night, October 27, 2000, Awais M.
reports, "My girlfriend was driving to San Antonio to pick me up
when this unidentified object flew towards her car. At first the
thing might have looked like a plane, but after closer
inspection, it seemed otherwise, and she could not decipher or
identify the object." "The unidentified object hovered and it
came very near her car. It seemed like it was targeting her for
several seconds. She wanted a closer look at it, but driving
made things difficult. She also saw a white light and red
flashes along the side." "While we were coming back to Corpus
Christi, she saw it again and pointed the object out to me." He
described the UFO as "stagnant and hovering perfectly. The
object seemed to follow us back to Corpus, and before heading to
my house I saw it up high." "The next day, I saw it again and
wondered what the origin was. So I called the naval station
(U.S. Navy base in Corpus Christi.) and not surprisingly, they
had no idea what it was." Thanks to UFO Roundup Joe Trainor
Editor. 11/2/00

POSSIBLE CHEMTRAIL SOLUTION ANNOUNCED

THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE article "Studies Probe Weather, Terrorism"
states: Federal government scientists are conducting two
different atmospheric studies in Salt Lake City this month. Both
will look at how air and particles flow in the atmosphere, but
their data is being used to study two different Utah phenomena:
weather inversions and the Olympics. One study is part of the
Department of Energy's Chemical and Biological National Security
program, whose goal is to develop and improve systems the United
States can use to respond to chemical and biological attacks. In
this study, a nontoxic, inert tracer chemical called sulphur
hexafluoride is being released into the skies above Salt Lake
City. Monitoring and censoring equipment are tracking the
chemical to determine wind patterns, temperature and moisture
patterns and how air is mixed in lower and midlevels of the
atmosphere. The Department of Defense's, Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) is supporting this study and may use
information from it for the 2002 Winter Olympics DTRA, which is
responsible for protecting the United States and its allies from
weapons of mass destruction, will use the information to assist
police, fire and military personnel in the event of an attack
involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or a large
chemical accident, said Capt. Bob Bennett, spokesman for the
agency. The study will be conducted through much of this month.
The knowledge may be useful for security during the 2002 Winter
Games, though Bennett insisted the upcoming Olympics was not the
motivation behind his agency's "piggybacking" on the DOE's
atmospheric study. SALT LAKE TRIBUNE by Brent Isralsen 10/21/00.
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/oct/10212000/utah/35229.htm)

Ron Regehr writes this article about a cooperative effort
between the DoE and the DoD to release sulphur hexafluoride into
the skies above Salt Lake City, ostensibly in an effort to
gather data to combat potential terrorism. The article claims
SF6 is "non-toxic" and "inert." What is missing? SF6 is a gas is
now recognized as one of the world's worst greenhouse gases.
Because of its high chemical stability, it remains in the upper
atmosphere of the Earth much longer than carbon dioxide. In
addition to it's debilitating effect on the upper atmosphere, it
is potentially harmful to those with upper-respiratory problems.
According to International Chemical Safety Cards ICSC: 0571,
sulphur hexafluoride can be absorbed into the body by
inhalation. Alarming? You bet! I request each of you to inquire
of both the DoD and the Doe, via whatever means you deem
effective, as to the extent of this effort. Thanks to Co-State
Director MUFON-Utah Ron Regehr.

MAJOR NEW EVIDENCE IN CATTLE MUTILATION PHENOMENON

New evidence concerning the bizarre phenomenon generally known
as "cattle mutilations" (or "bovine excisions," the term
preferred by Michigan biophysicist Wm. C. Levengood) has
recently been presented to the anomalous phenomena research
community. In a 1997 "Study of Bovine Excision Sites From
1993-1997" written by Levengood and mailed out by the BLT
Research Team, a case on the Barton Ranch in Red Bluff, CA (Site
#8 in the 1997 report) included the finding that some black
particles recovered from the hide of the dead bull were most
likely hemoglobin. Levengood noted that the matrix color of the
particles was a deep red, with a fine-grained amorphous
structure which is not typical of whole blood, further noting
that the heme molecule, with an attached oxygen molecule, has a
red color. An EDS (energy dispersive spectroscopy) was obtained
and indicated precisely the spectra which would be expected from
a hemoglobin matrix: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and iron, with
small amounts of trace elements typical of biological samples.
The question then (as well as now) was how was this hemoglobin
separated from the other blood components and fabricated into
the compact homogenous structure discovered on the hide of this
excised bull?

In the early part of this year the expertise of an analytical
chemist with infrared spectroscopy capability became available
to the BLT Team. Phyllis Budinger, from Chagrin Falls, Ohio,
examined two samples of the particles retrieved from the
testicles and chest areas of the excised bull. Infrared spectra
were obtained from both samples, as well as references of
hemoglobin and whole bloods using the Harrick SplitPea cell
attached to a Nicolet Avatar 360 spectrometer (ATR crystal used
was silicon). Both samples were identified as bovine hemoglobin.
Further, the spectra of these samples do not match that of whole
blood, dried at ambient temperature in the laboratory, nor do
they match spectra obtained of dried whole blood exposed to
microwaves and after one week air exposure. Ms. Budinger's
results confirm unequivocally that these samples are not only
hemoglobin, but also that they are bovine hemoglobin. Probably
from this dead and excised Black Angus bull.

As Ms. Budinger indicates in her report, the usual procedure for
isolating hemoglobin from whole blood is rather complex: "it
involves separating red blood corpuscles from the lighter plasma
components by centrifugation. The plasma is siphoned off and
ether is added to the corpuscle paste, causing the cells to
burst. Another centrifugation removes the ruptured cell
envelopes, and leaves a clear red solution of hemoglobin. It is
unlikely that a procedure such as this would be done on site. It
is unknown how or why this occurred."

When I spoke to Nancy Talbott of the BLT Research Team about the
apparent need for laboratory equipment to produce these pure
hemoglobin particles she pointed out that Jean Bilodeaux, the
BLT fieldworker in this case, had clearly indicated in her
field-notes that this bull was found in a very isolated
pasture--more than 1/2-mile from the nearest dirt road, on a
steep hillside which was strewn with volcanic rocks and
boulders. "I don't see how a lab-on-wheels could have gotten in
there and, because of the steepness of the hill and the fact
that large boulders were strewn everywhere, I doubt that a
lab-in-a-helicopter could have landed. Ms. Bilodeaux also
pointed out that this animal was lying on top of a small
boulder, with its body twisted unnaturally as if it had fallen
from some height--and it was lying with both of its right legs
and its tail up under the body. Jean's impression was that this
animal may have been dropped into the location where it was
found. I wonder if the process responsible for creating the
hemoglobin particles was carried out elsewhere."

In addition to the hemoglobin particles found on this animal and
now conclusively identified, Dr. Levengood's 1997 report
indicated that very high Rr (redox ratio) values were found in
the grass samples taken at the mouth and rectum excision areas.
High Rr values signify that, during respiration, the plant is
releasing large amounts of active molecules known as "free
radicals," an indication of injury to the plant mitochondria
which--if the exposure to damaging energies is great
enough--will result in the plant's death. In fact, photographs
of the grass in this case showed it to be lush and green when
the animal was first discovered, with subsequent photographs on
a return field-trip 2 weeks later revealing that all of the
grass around the carcass had died. Copies of Dr. Levengood's
"Study of Bovine Excision Sites From 1993-1997" and Ms.
Budinger's infrared spectroscopy "Analysis of Red-Brown
Particulates from a Bovine Excision Discovered 1/17/97" are
available from the BLT Research Team in Cambridge, MA (ph:
617/492-0415).

FROM THE EDITOR GEORGE FILER: IN MY OPINION THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO UFOs:

Using the BLT Research Team test results I have made a number of
assumptions and an hypothesis that an airborne hovering craft
with a high level of technology using microwave like technology
is responsible for killing and mutilating these animals. In my
opinion the results of the BLT tests could be used as evidence
in a court of law to help prove the existence of alien
intervention. Thousands of cattle and other large animals have
been found around the world mutilated and their almost ten
gallons of blood and bodily fluids boiled away or drained. The
reports usually include removal of soft tissue such as
reproductive organs, tongue, eyes, side lips, ears udder and
boring out of the anal area and occasionally other organs. Some
factors bearing on the situation are that, bovine hemoglobin can
be purchased at a nominal cost and is used by numerous
veterinarians in giving transfusions to various animals. FBI
files on cattle mutilation confirm that some animals have been
dropped from altitude causing broken bones and depressions in
the ground. At least one animal was found with Atropine a
tranquilizing drug in it's blood. Further, the animals are often
marked by a fluorescent like powder.

We can infer that shortly after the blood is taken it is cleaned
and refined, using a sophisticated centrifuge process that is
used to separate the blood and obtain pure hemoglobin. The
processed hemoglobin appears to rule out most of the standard
explanations for mutilations such as coyotes, scavengers,
Satanic cults, and the plasma phenomena. However, large
Paramilitary helicopters could be fitted with a small laboratory
and have the ability to pick up large tranquilized animals.
Cattle parts and hemoglobin are available on the open market at
a much lower cost and much less risk than operating expensive
helicopters. Ranchers occasionally report seeing or hearing
helicopters near their mutilated animals, but these may be UFOs
or an operation to chase them away. It has been speculated that
mutilations could be part of clandestine operations by
Paramilitary or intelligence agencies to track nuclear radiation
or test chemical/biological weapons. There is no evidence to
prove this theory. Although providing secrecy, Paramilitary
operations at night in mountainous terrain would be very
dangerous.

The apparent microwave activity may be connected to helicopter
radar or be part of the LASER or MASER equipment used to cut the
flesh of the animals. It has also been pointed out that
government inspectors, public health agencies or government paid
veterinarians could accomplish virtually, the same tests during
routine visits or by purchasing the animals. Additionally, a
hovering helicopter is unlikely to cause damage to the grass of
sufficient magnitude to eventually kill the turf surrounding the
mutilation site. Normal helicopter operation does not cause
irreversible damage to plant cells.

Some helicopters have been reported near mutilation sites, but
none have ever been proven to be involved. They have been
involved in cattle rustling and illegal drug operations.
Mutilations have been reported in many countries where
helicopters are comparatively rare. Additionally, it is very
risky flying a helicopter at night often in mountainous terrain
that seems like a foolhardy method to obtain blood and a few
organs from the bovine. Ranchers have shot at suspicious low
flying craft so this type of operation can have great deal of
risk and little reward. Thousands of cattle have been mutilated
and the comparatively valuable meat left to rot. Unless these
animals have high level of radiation or biological poisons most
humans would take the steaks to eat.

A final piece of evidence that seems to rule out humans and
their helicopters is the regular discovery of increased amounts
of tiny magnetic particles in the soils at the bovine excision
sites. These particles are spherical, or partially rounded
(indicating exposure to heat) and are of a very pure iron, which
Levengood has hypothesized are of meteoric origin, and they are
found to be concentrated immediately around the bodies of the
animals. The number of these particles found in the soils drops
off with sampling distance away from the carcass, with a clearly
reduced number being seen at only ten feet away in many cases.
The soils sampled by the BLT fieldworkers at bovine excision
sites are tested in Levengood's lab and comparatively high
concentrations of meteoric-like magnetic material have been
found within five feet of the animals. These sites typically
have four times the amount of magnetic particles as do the
surrounding area only ten feet away. Microscopic beads of
magnetite (Fe3O4)mg found at excision sites have concentrations
much higher than in normal soil.

Three satellites, particularly Mariners II and IV, Pegasus have
substantiated the presence of micrometeorites also known as
cosmic dust surrounding the Earth and throughout space. Both
Opik and Whipple have shown that it is possible for small
micrometeorite dust particles to pass through the atmosphere
without losing matter through ablation. An object moving through
space is expected to come in contact with fairly large amounts
of micrometeorite dust particularly in the vicinity of Earth.
This micrometeorite dust has a relative abundance of iron,
cobalt, nickel and copper. The micrometeorites are remarkably
similar to the meteorites and unlike Earth minerals meeting
Levengood's hypothisis. {"Environmental Space Sciences," page
471 by Col. Don Carpenter}

Various witnesses claim the skin of UFOs are porous and are
designed to collect the micrometeorite dust without damaging the
craft. I assume that the UFOs are depositing the micrometeorite
dust at the excision sites. I will admit that it might be
possible for the micrometeorites to have fallen from space and
by chance that an animal walks into the excision site and an
unknown plasma electrical force electrocutes the animal,
dissolves its blood, and then mutilates the animal. However,
these unknown forces would also need to lift the body of
thousand pound animal, drug it, take body fluids, drop it, and
mark the animals with fluorescence materials. I feel all these
factors could only be accomplished by an Alien technology. It
seems unlikely that helicopters could refine hemoglobin and
spread micrometeorite cosmic dust.

The reader may ask why would UFO aircrews be interested in
hemoglobin or cattle? Hemoglobin is the respiratory pigment
found in the red blood cells of all vertebrates and some
invertebrates. It is produced in the bone marrow and carries
oxygen to the body from the lungs. An inadequate amount of
circulating hemoglobin results in a condition called anemia a
condition resulting from a reduction in hemoglobin content or in
the number of red blood cells called erythrocytes. Although the
causes of anemia vary, because of the blood's reduced capacity
to carry oxygen all types exhibit similar symptoms-of pallor,
weakness, dizziness, fatigue, and, in severe cases, breathing
difficulties and heart abnormalities.

Observers of UFOs and their occupants often describe small gray
humanoids. We can speculate that radiation in space or other
unknown problems cause the alien aircrews to suffer from a type
of anemia. They apparently have developed both the craft and
medical technology to obtain hemoglobin to aid in alleviating
their condition. The ability of hemoglobin to carry oxygen may
indicate that it is used to provide the aliens with an enhanced
ability to manage oxygen. Their bodies may need to acclimatize
to the Earth's atmosphere with more oxygen handling capability.
Abductees often report that bodily fluids are being taken from
them and UFOs are often reported near hospitals and abortion
clinics where sources of blood can be found. Abductees often
complain of various symptoms that are similar to anemia
inferring that their blood may have also been stripped of red
blood cells by their abductors. Conversely, humans normally kill
cattle for the meat, but generally discard the parts of animals
the aliens apparently need the most. Hemoglobin also contains
protein that could be used for nourishment for most life forms.

In my opinion these findings are a major break through in
understanding the secrets of the UFOs and the reason for their
stealth like activities. Further, it is apparent the aliens have
weaknesses that mankind could exploit. The heavy cost and risk
of mutilating various large animals infers an alien methodology.
To add to the evidence we have eye witnesses observing daylight
animal abductions by disc shaped UFOs. Also, recent NASA shuttle
films show UFOs entering our atmosphere from space. I wish to
thank the BLT Research Team for their great work. "The
speculations presented above are totally my own. Comments or
feedback from readers is welcome." In summary, it is my
hypothesis that UFOs are responsible for most bovine
mutilations.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has noticed
that when NASA is picking up UFOs they have tendency to first
zoom in to observe the UFO better and then they cut the feed to
the outside world. Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the
shuttle broadcasts from space. He is now an expert on NASA
missions and even those onboard the shuttle are unlikely to see
what Jeff does. He has gained his experience from watching
numerous shuttle missions and using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals
and real UFOs. Using his experience you can also learn the
difference. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle from
space. I feel confident we could go into a court of law and
convince any jury that there are UFOs moving at high speed
around the Earth. Send $25 to: Jeff Challender 2768 Mendel Way -
Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate agents
or sales representatives are part timers and inexperienced.
Others are experts with an excellent experience and
capabilities. When you are selling or buying your home, you need
to make sure you have the best real estate agent working for you
before you make any important financial decisions on one your
biggest investments! Remember, the majority of people do not
know the right questions to ask, and what pit falls can cause
major problems. Picking the right real estate agent can be a
wonderful experience, and picking the wrong one can be a big
mistake that can waste your time and cost you thousands! Find
out, " What you need to understand before hiring any real estate
agent!" These are the questions that many agents do not want you
to ask. Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for
your needs. To get a free copy of this report, just call (609)
654-0020 or e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com. We can also help you
with your own or corporate Worldwide Relocation to Australia,
Benelux, Canada, Cayman Islands, England, France, Guam, Hong
Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern Ireland,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the US.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com. Mention I
recommended you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted
2000 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved. Readers may post
items from the files on their Web Sites provided that they
credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date
of issue that the item appeared. Caution: Most of these are
initial reports and require further investigation. These reports
and comments are not necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint.
Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name. Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:11:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:12:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:32:48 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:16:41 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 ><snip>

 >>>>>The monitoring (government of abductees) is for recovery
 >>>>>of individual experiences and possible contact with the
 >>>>>"other" activity so that it can be contained.

 >>I asked: How do you know this Gary?

 >>>The stated logic fits the observed conditions.

 >>Gary, there is no "logic" to any of this. You don't make it any
 >>easier or clearer when you respond to requests for evidence with
 >>more outrageous rumors and speculation. None of which you are
 >>able to justify in any measure at all. Not even a little. You do
 >>not make a convincing or even a good argument for your self.

 >>Again, if you have _anything_ that will induce any interested
 >>third party that; government agents are running around in the
 >>corn fields of the great American mid-west zapping open and then
 >>closing dimensional doorways (while simultaneously hiding the
 >>whole operation with a Klingon cloaking device) I'm all eyes and
 >>ears.

 >>We all are.

 >>Gary, proving _any_ one of the claims that you've made would
 >>ensure your place in the history books!

 >>Just share with us this "research" that you conducted that has
 >>convinced _you_ that what you have claimed above is true. You're
 >>dealing with an open-minded crowd here. You won't find a better
 >>or more attentive audience anywhere. If you have _anything_
 >>solid, I for one (and I'm sure I speak for others), will take
 >>the time to give it and you serious consideration and thought.

 >>If not.....

 >Brother Velez,

 >I don't wish to say more. My work is to get proof as we all wish
 >to see. My resources are pointed in this direction. Take what I
 >say however you wish. Unfortunately I can't discuss how I am
 >proceeding because MUFON & NIDS would get information they don't
 >deserve. I could talk by phone but not in more detail on this
 >List.

 >Clues are present in everything I post. We are moving forward
 >but the phenomena doesn't perform on command and any unmarked
 >response is yet a very small subset of all observed activity so
 >it is difficult to get proof even if you look for it. Saying
 >there is no acceptable proof and taking the next step to develop
 >a strategy to find it are understandably two different things.

 >All my statements come from several witnesses in several
 >families in almost every case so the information is corroborated
 >within each situation enough to cause me to generate a specific
 >strategy to follow activity through extended cycles. Collected
 >data shows this strategy to work.

 >I am always as specific as the data allows, therefore, I do not
 >call "unmarked" activity military. I do not know who it is but
 >it is someone with resources and military-style vehicles when
 >necessary.

 >Does some anomalous activity generate a patterned response from
 >persons unknown? Yes, in my opinion. I'm "in the trenches" when
 >it comes to research but cannot be more open and may never be so
 >because of the meaning of the data collected.

 >The Italian and Norwegian groups that are/have done work at
 >Hessdalen are much like what I and colleagues are doing here in
 >the states at different locations. Can anyone else say they are
 >collecting data this way? Not that I'm aware of.

 >If you protest, then I don't have to mention anything I'm doing.
 >Rest assured the methods we are using are, form a technical
 >standpoint, several steps above anything we have heard about
 >to-date.

 >Gary

Hello Gary,

That has got to be the longest and most convoluted non-answer to
a posting I have ever seen on this List! You'd probably do great
in politics with a technique like that but it doesn't play well
here.

I was laboring under the delusion (for some reason) that you
were a serious person. I'm all better now. Thanks for clearing
_that_ up at least.

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           Krycek Personality Type

From: Scott Carr <sardy_2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:14:12 -0500
Subject: Krycek Personality Type


Hi All-

I have another original article on UFO Culture up at:

http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=230193

This one is entitled "The UFO Business: Identifying the Krycek
Personality Type." It details a recent encounter while
investigating a strange black helicopter report in Brooklyn,
with a man who can only be described as a UFO exploitation
artist.

I hope you enjoy the article! (You can read other articles by
me, and even some fiction, by clicking the "Other articles by
Scott Carr link" at the end ot the Krycek article).

Sincerely,

-Scott C. Carr
Editor, The Flying Saucer Gazette
www.erols.com/sardoncia








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:11:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:15:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cashman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:18:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Likewise, if skeptics can't agree whether Trent (or any other
 >UFO witness for that matter) used a pie pan, mirror,
 >photographic trick, then all of their blustering about UFOs
 >isn't worth squat either.

What they really can't be bothered with is science.

Basic experiments to attempt to reproduce the Trent photos can't
be that hard. After all, Trent, who was hardly a scientist,
created them in the first place. But the skeptics refuse to do
the experiment and see just how hard it is to match, even in
general terms, the characteristics derived by Bruce Maccabee.

The same thing is true of all of the radical misperception
nonsense. If it were so common as to give rise to the immense
database of UFO reports, we would never be able to identify the
IFOs, the cognitive and perceptual literature would be full of
descriptions of it and its mechanisms... but that isn't the
case.

Sigh.

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well on that side of the
fence.

------
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:54:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:18:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Deschamps


 >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:21:23 +0100
 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Element 115 And Saucers

 >Source: 'alt.alien.visitors'.

 >Stig

 >***

 >Subject: Element 115 and saucers
 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:33:51 GMT
 >From: "Purple" </dev/null@mail.com>
 >Organization: Road Runner - Texas
 >Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors

 >Heard saucer engines are powered by eka-bismuth (element 115)
 >which decays to 114 by ejecting two anti-protons and a gravity-A
 >wave.

 >But it can't be.

 >Um, eka-bismuth decays by releasing an alpha particle (He
 >nuclus) No other form of decay for it is known at present. Only
 >one (very rare) isotope of Xenon decays anywhere like that -
 >emitting a proton pair. So, if 115 spits out two anti-protons,
 >wouldn't it become element 117 (proton count +2 now) instead of
 >114 (and how did they get 115 - 2 = 114 ?) No nucleonic reaction
 >can make an anti-proton from only protons and neutrons - think
 >of charge conservation!

 >Also, gravity wave-A (frame-dragging field) never "pulses". Only
 >wave-B does that. And how do you make a wave-guide for it?

 >Truly, Earth stands no chance against a race so sophisticated
 >that it can read text books.


If "Purple" had truly read anything about this or seen Bob
Lazar's video, he would have remembered that Bob said something
was injected into the small chamber where a triangular piece of
element 115 was placed, causing some type of reaction.

Just an observation from someone who stands by Bob Lazar and his
account. I've seen no evidence to the contrary, thus far.


Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:59:39 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:20:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Young


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:59:11 -0500

 >Sorry, I can't help myself. I found this about Hufford in a
 >Google cache. The site isn't up anymore, but just so that
 >pelicanists don't get confused.

 >http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.myna.com/~davidck/hufford.htm+DA>VID

+HUFFORD+Hag&hl=en

 >I wonder though... hmm... ain't confusion for a pelicanist the
 >same as water to the fish, air to the bird, oxygen to living
 >beings? Anyway...

Squuack!  Squuack!  [pelican circling]

Hello, Serge:

No, actually we're almost never confused.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

[Squuack!]









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: On What is Known - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:49:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:24:53 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Connors


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: On What is Known

 >I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research? Personally, I know
 >of nothing which has been discovered. Does anyone?


Dear Jim,

I certainly understand your feelings of dismay regarding the
field of UFO research. Many of us go into a funk periodically
when overwhelmed by the incessant crapola and the twitterings of
the Woo-woo's within the field. However, in just over half a
century much new information has been garnered in the field of
Ufology. To Wit:

1. A greater understanding of how the military organized and did
their respective investigations of the phenomenon via Project's
SIGN, Grudge and Blue Book Also, who was involved and what they
were like as people (including their backgrounds).

2. The official histories of T-2 Intelligence and ATIC were
obtained and shown that even though the USAF thought the UFO
pheomena being observed was a possible threat to national
security, that there were other projects just as important being
conducted. Thus, the UFO investigations were just a small part
of a bigger picture.

3. That a man named Alfred Loedding gave much insight on how
these objects known as "flying discs" might be made and how they
were propelled. He left drawings and patents of his findings. He
was also one of the organizers of Project SIGN.

4. Colonel Howard McCoy who, after retiring from the USAF, went
on to become a member of NICAP and left his voice on audio tape
of his feelings about who was visiting this small world of ours.
McCoy was Commanding General of T-2 Technical Intelligence at
Wright Field and oversaw Project SIGN.

5. That A.V. Roe & Co. were designing wedge-shaped VTO craft
other than the infamous Avro Saucer.

6. The USAF and the Navy were heavily involved in developing and
testing nuclear propulsion for aircraft of all configurations
(yes, even saucer-shaped) and that much of this was based upon
what was observed and gleaned from the flying saucer phenomenon.
In other words, our military and engineers were trying to
duplicate what was being observed in a small type fashion.

7. There was _not_ a contrived conspiracy of keeping knowledge
of the UFO phenomena from the public by the USAF and the
government in the beginning...that it developed slowly over time
and still is more a semblance of the right hand still not
knowing what the left hand is doing, even today.

8. That the field of Science has defaulted on doing a true,
unbiased scientific study of the phenomenon and why that is so.
This was not actually known four decades ago. The scientific
community, with a couple of exceptions, still walk around with
their snoots in the air and having nose bleeds over the fact
that Science as a whole is incapable of solving anything by
itself... that others use the trappings of science to do so at
the expense of the scientific community.

9. Most importantly, that the field of ufological research has
changed and evolved over the course of the last half century.
That the phenomenon is reality based because it just will not
seem to go away no matter how hard Phil Klass and the CISCOPS
for lunch bunch of rag-tag, anal retentive types whose
imagination and sense of curiosity is a devoid and barren lot
within their craniums, want it too. Klass and his ilk have spent
a lifetime denying the concepts of possibily and probability
existence. What a waste of life!

10. That the phenomenon instills in the human psyche the nobel
concept that we are probably not alone. If we are not sure we
are alone in the universe, that's worth the continued effort to
search, dream and be curious about. If we are alone in the
universe, that too is left up to us to resolve in the
generations ahead as we go to the stars.

11. This list is endless and I'll let other researchers add to
it.

Jim, there are a million reasons to continue to explore and only
one not too... and that is because we have lost our sence of
curiosity. So overall, much has been learned and many pieces of
the puzzle have been located. It makes no difference if you or I
find the answer in our lifetimes, but it is our destiny to
ensure that the future generations have our notes of study so
that when and if the magic day arrives that the answer becomes
known, the blueprint on how it all came to be is there for
posterity.


Wendy Connors
Project SIGN Research Center
www.projectsign.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:08:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:32:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:34:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:52:06 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:27:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:58:23 -0800

 >>>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:12:18 -0700
 >>>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:36:52 -0500
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Myers

 >>>>>Let me give you this one: The Belgium military publicly
 >>>>>announced an encounter with a UFO with two military jets in the
 >>>>>early 1990s. The object dropped several thousand feet in a split
 >>>>>second, a maneuver that would kill a pilot. Who says so? The
 >>>>>U.S. military in a report compiled on the incident. Who says so?
 >>>>>The Belgium government. The flying object was never identified,
 >>>>>ergo a UFO.

 >>>There was obvious no radar glitches here considering the radar
 >>>clearly shows to object dropping and there are records from the
 >>>jets of this incident as well. The Belgian military to this day,
 >>>and to my knowledge, still do not know what the object was. This
 >>>would then make it unidentified. Also, I don't think the pilots
 >>>chased a radar glitch for over, what, 40 minutes?

 >Royce:

 >Non-UFO explanations have long been known for these early
 >1990s sightings.

 >A very interesting page devoted to the Belgium sightings is on
 >Tim Printy's page at - http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/Belg.html

 >One Auguste Meessen examined the reports and data for the
 >reported radar sightings and concluded that all contacts were
 >explainable by non-UFO phenomena. He found that warm air
 >convection cells could account for the "UFO" returns from both
 >the f-16's and the ground stations. The high speeds attributed
 >to the returns he concluced were cause by problems with the
 >dopler radar interpreting the aircrafts own speeds. In some
 >cases involving radar lock-ons the radar tapes showed the
 >contacts were at a negative altitude. Meessen wrote, "It was
 >evidently impossible that an object could penetrate the ground,
 >but it was possible that the ground could act as a mirror."

Yep, that explains it. Two fighter pilots chased warm air
convections for over 40 minutes and all the radar, including the
two jet fighters' showed warm air convection. This same warm air
convection dropped a few thousand feet in under a second. Next
you'll be trying to sell me a bridge...

By the way, Meessen concluded that he felt the sighting was
explainable. He did not conclusively prove anything, he simply
based his conclusion on what might have happened. He also forgot
about the video tape that was taken of the object by a civilian
from the ground.

Printy's page also jumps to calling the UFO "alien spaceships,"
thus getting himself sucked into pop culture.

 >>I'm always amazed at how every single astronomical phenomenon
 >>happens to occur all at once during a UFO sighting.

 >These explanations by my friend, an experienced amateur
 >astronomer who was present during the Loring incidents, related
 >to many different episodes. Yes, when people start "seeing" UFOs
 >during a flap like this, everything in the sky is a saucer.

That's right - everyone who sees a UFO during any kind of wave
_must_ be seeing things. Stars, planets, the moon, bugs,
enormous flocks of birds, swamp gas...

 >>Have you read either of the peer-reviewed scientific papers
 >>regarding crop formations? How many of these instances have you
 >>investigated?

 >Nah, I've never paid much attention to crop circles. It's hard
 >to see any connection to UFOs, other than coincidental.

Ah yes, it's all just coincidence. Just curious, were you on the
OJ jury...

 >They've
 >gotten more elaborate with time, suggesting that the people
 >who've been making them have been learning as they've gone
 >along. There are known hoaxers, even claims that groups of
 >hoaxers compete against each other for attention. Another guy
 >has just been arrested in Britain.

Suggesting and providing proof are two different things. Someone
has provided clear proof that not every circle is man-made.

 >Only two scientific papers in, what, 20 years? It's a waste of
 >time. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. For me,
 >life's too short. Nap time's more important.

Bob, it is very clear that you're asleep at the helm considering
you wouldn't pay any attention to two scientific peer-reviewed
papers. Who cares how many papers have been written in how long,
they're still "scientific." And you've demonstrated how
difficult the scientific community can be when approaching this
subject matter so how many papers do you expect to see? Oh, gee
- soory, but this must be a waste of your time as it's obvious
you don't want to look at any real evidence...

You wanted "scientific" evidence of a phenomena, well, there it
is. How many other scientific finds have not amounted to a
mountain of papers being written? If you want to ignore the
issue and the proof that goes with it, then go ahead. Ignorance
is bliss and you must have achieved utopia. It could be worse,
you could still accuse me of being some kind of sexist again...

 >Clear skies,

Sorry, Bob. It's obviously cloudy where you're at. Oh wait, no
that's just a convection of warm air...Since this thread appears
to be a waste of time for you I won't bother you with it
anymore. Thanks for showing the list how science can answer all
without ever having to look...

Royce J. Myers III

eXpose News http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind...or that triangle-shaped convection of warm
air flying a thousand miles an hour through the sky while being chased by
two military jets...







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                    A Scientific Mystery-Solving Strategy

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 7 Nov 2000 08:38:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:27:47 -0500
Subject: A Scientific Mystery-Solving Strategy

     A SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY-SOLVING STRATEGY

In researching for a scientific approach to the UFO phenomena
and the wider sphere of paranormal phenomena, I stumbled on this
strategy which serves as a broad approach to scientific mystery
solving. My comments are in parentheses.

Question: You begin with a puzzle, a mystery, a surprising
event: You don't understand a phenomenon which has occurred, or
which occurs regularly.

(Whether it a UFO sighting, cattle mutilation, crop circle,
abduction, or any beyond normal repetitive everyday event, we
start to collect reports, raw data, and attempt to classify
observations)

Hypothesis: Try to imagine a process or situation which meets
this criterion: If what you've imagined were really the case,
the puzzling phenomenon would make sense.

(We have certainly imagined many hypotheses: Extraterrestrial,
Extradimensional, secret aircraft, unknown atmospheric
phenomena, balloons, pelicans, meteors, fireballs, ball
lightning, etc... but which hypothesis makes sense of the
collective data when assembled and analyzed?)

Testing: Find out if the hypothesis itself makes sense, by
exploring its other consequences: If it were correct, what else
should be observed? What would show that the hypothesis is
wrong?

(Suppose we hypothesize that at least some UFOs are
Extraterrestrial spacecraft. If that were correct, would we
observe alien-looking entities near or around such craft? Would
that be sufficient to prove this hypothesis or do we need an
actual craft available for examination by a team of engineers
and scientists? If UFOs were not extraterrestrial, then what
observations indicate this hypothesis to be in error?)

Evaluation: Decide whether the results of testing warrant
accepting the hypothesis as a plausible explanation for the
phenomenon. Consider the possibility of further testing, and
whether other hypotheses might provide a better explanation.

(Is there any protocol for testing various UFO hypotheses?
Should we begin with submitting already collected evidence to a
number of scientific consultants for their analysis? How would
such scientists be chosen? Could we determine if they had
selective bias that would preclude them from carrying out an
objective investigation? Has any hypothesis already been proved,
but the proof not revealed?)

The 4 steps above may not be the correct strategy in your
opinion. If not, can you suggest a strategy? Scientific methods
vary among scientists and layman as well. When it comes to
hypotheses in science controversy is part of the dialogue. As
long as this dialogue adheres to rational discussion without
resort to ad hominem attacks, sweeping generalizations, and
other logical fallacies, then fruitful discussion of the
evidence and what it implies can proceed toward greater
discovery.

Bill Hamilton Executive Director Skywatch International, Inc.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:20:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:29:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Maccabee


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:47 -0600


 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:10:38 -0000

Andy wrote:

 >>I did, however, say that I believe UFO authors have a duty not
 >>to publish material in their books which imply we are being
 >>visited by 'aliens' (use your own choice of word here) in
 >>'craft' (ditto), when the evidence for this is non-existent. It
 >>may make money but it's unethical. Simple as that. When you or
 >>any of the others have some cast iron proof then, go for it.
 >>Until then you must expect all the scepticism which can be
 >>mustered.

 >Of course "skeptics" are under no obligation to write
 >responsible books, are they? And they have certainly
 >demonstrated that lack of responsibility over the years, haven't
 >they? Even the Condon Committee (more specifically, a panel of
 >plasma physicists it assembled) condemned a Klass book as an
 >exercise in absurd pseudoscience, and James McDonald did the
 >same with Menzel's works. We may rest assured that you, in
 >common with other active pelicanists, have never breathed a word
 >of criticism Klass's and Menzel's way. One standard for your
 >side, another for ours. So what else is new?

The problem with skeptics/debunkers is the subject of my paper
"Prosaic Explanation: the Failure of UFO Skepticism" which I
presented at the MUFON Symposium last summer. It didn't get much
attention from the reviewers of that symposium, but it attacks
directly the fact that skeptics, too, have made mistakes and
have poposed "tripe" explanations. You can read it at:

brumac.8k.com

 >People a lot smarter than you or me - Clyde Tombaugh, Allen











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:32:00 -0500
Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania


Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

From: Stan Gordon
PA UFO Hotline (724-838-7768)
website: http://www.westol.com/~paufo

This past August I was contacted by the friend of a primary
witness who was involved in this reported encounter. The witness
agreed to speak with me confidentially about the incident. I had
the opportunity to interview him twice by phone, and plans were
underway so that a first hand interview could be set up with
those involved. An investigation at the sighting location was
also to take place. Unfortunately due to a family emergency, I
was unable to continue my involvement, and the investigation was
taken over by researcher Jim Brown who has investigated many UFO
cases in Fayette County.

The following is a summarized report on the event that has been
forwarded by Jim Brown. Jim's website can be accessed at:

http://www.hhs.net/jbrown

Stan Gordon

- - - - - -

Five witnesses observed what they described as an alien "glide"
across a field near Uniontown, Pa. The sighting occurred on
August 3, 2000 about 10:00 P.M. The witnesses describe the being
as about 5 feet tall with long slender extremities. It carried a
brown "staff" about 5 feet long. It was observed for about a
minute from a distance of about 250 feet. No apparent
disturbances to the area around the being were reported. The
creature appeared to glide about 6 inches above the ground,
according to the witnesses. Weather conditions were cool and
clear with no wind. No sounds were reported, and witnesses
commented on it seeming abnormally quiet at the time. Crickets
and other normal background noises were absent.

The witnesses lost sight of the being when they drove a short
distance up the road to an area which they thought would offer a
better view, only about 75 to 100 feet from where the being was
seen. A small knoll obstructed their view as they drove. When
they got to the closer location, the being was gone. The
witnesses returned home after ther encounter. They reported no
serious effects from their sighting, although three of them did
claim to be very tired the next day.

I visited the site along with four of the witnesses almost three
weeks after the event as this was the earliest we could get
together. No physical evidence was found, although the terrain
does match the witness reports regarding roads and points of
observation. The case is still open and investigation continues.


J. Brown-Investigator









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:34:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Sanchez-Ocejo


 >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:42:15 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer


It could be interesting to see, if Mr. Matthew Williams spends
time in jail, more crop circles pop up.

Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center  (Espaol)   http://ufomiami.nodos.com
Miami UFO Reporter (English)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
Depredador de Sangre(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
Hemo Predator (English)  http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espaol)   http://patagrande.homestead.com/index.html








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:41:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:37:10 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy


 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:23:48 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

 >Hello All,

 >I just wanted to respond to one line from the MMS #32.

 >>The apocalypses seen by abductees and supported by Mack
 >>will not happen.

 >My stars man, you can witness the detailed fullfillment of
 >those abductee reports ('apocalyptic doings') _everyday_
 >on the six o'clock news!

 >I was shown visions of "fires, floods, and storms," by little
 >non-human grey men. If you read the papers or watch the
 >newscasts you'll see -fires- (almost a third of the USA burned
 >away this year and that's not counting _major fires_ in other
 >countries as well. The fires consumed whole states here.

 >In Europe, China, Mexico, Africa, Japan, (and in many other
 >countries) "floods" have washed away the homes, land, and
 >lively hoods of countless people.

John,

This is not to make light of your personal concerns and
experiences... but fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and
earthquakes, relatively speaking, have always been with us.
Unfortunately, war and genocide seem to fall into the same
category, judging from human history.

For something to be truly apocalyptic, the dictionary requires
"great or total damage" to be involved,

Fires and floods are nature, as usual -- especially viewed over
time. I doubt whether, on average, today's storms are any
greater in number or intensity than they've always been. What is
greater in number is the number of people living in their paths
-- and putting up trophy homes and other habitats where they
really shouldn't be.

Things need to be kept in some sort of perspective. Whitley
Strieber, if I remember correctly, saw the moon explode. Now,
_that's_ apocalyptic,  as would be another dinosaur-destroying
asteroid impact. Fires and floods are pretty small change in
comparison with the above, not to mention when compared with,
say, World Wars I and II.

In fact, I've never quite caught on to the "appeal" of the
apocalyptic. Think of it this way. Today, there are
approximately six billion (is anyone still counting?) people on
the planet. Absent some sort of medical miracle, a mere hundred
years from now, virtually all six billion will be decidedly
dead. In the end, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't
really matter overmuch whether they die in a single day or a
single century.

Not to put too pretty a face on it, but apocalypse is a
personal, as well as planetary, affair. We all have one, in
other words.

 >Due to the global warming effect the intensity and number of
 >destructive "storms" is now increasing. Insurance companies are
 >quaking in their boots over predictions by experts that the
 >ferocity of storms will become increasingly worse over the short
 >term. Ergo an increase in the amount of property damage and loss
 >of human Life that is to be expected from them - which the
 >insurance outfits will have to pay off on.

Which is one reason why most insurance companies will either
charge you a hefty premium - or refuse to write a policy at all
- should you decide to build on a flood plain.

Interestingly, I just got back from the site of the greatest
natural disaster in American history - Galveston, TX. Six to
eight thousand people (no one really knows how many) died there
in a hurricane just after the turn of the century.

 >We're just a few bullets, or one more major incident involving a
 >significant loss of life on either side, away from a full blown
 >conflagration (Armageddon?) in the  middle-east. Add to that the
 >recent genocides, (750,000 during one three month period in
 >Africa alone,) and all the news of, "war and threats of war" and
 >we're looking at a situation that fits many folks definition of
 >apocalyptic scale events.

There's been a good two or three all out wars in that area since
1947 already - none of which led to Armageddon. Sad to say, the
recent African genocide doesn't begin to compare with the
Holocaust, the Stalinistic starvation of millions, and maybe not
even to the extermination of Armenians by Turks earlier in the
century.

 >Just what were you expecting? It seems to me that all of
 >the "abductee based reports of apocalyptic events" are being
 >played out right before our very (collective) eyes.

 >How much property and life has to be lost before you consider
 >something to be apocalyptic? The size/scale of the fires,
 >floods, and storms we are witnessing is so large already that I
 >shudder to think what it is that you deem 'properly'
 >apocalyptic.


I hate to say it, John, but this is pretty much business as
usual, where we humans (and Mother Nature) are concerned.
Doesn't mean global warming ain't happening - only that death by
same will be due to slow suffocation as opposed to abrupt
apolcalypse.

Now, that said, ya'll don't forget to vote!

Dennis Stacy, Apocalypse Now

www.anomalist.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                        Thanks To The Rudiak Team...

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:36:20 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:44:26 -0500
Subject: Thanks To The Rudiak Team...


To you and your team. This mail is long overdue, as I read of
your latest scan earlier. This is the kind of research we should
have been doing, all along. You and your team should be
congratulated, and soundly so, for doing what no one else (in my
opinion) has done before - real research. And more importantly,
stayed with it.

I recently complained on UpDates, about the lack of
accomplishment in UFO research. I was wrong. I simply forgot the
Rudiak Team.

My hats go off to you, sirs. All of you. And as Gesundt would
say it, "Yous guys did good. Real good."

Thank you

Jim Mortellaro








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                             Military Abductions

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:25:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:55:59 -0500
Subject: Military Abductions


This is a general response to the posts concerning military
abductions, also called 'MILABs'. I'm not sure if everyone is
aware of Helmut and Marion Lammer's book they published almost
two years ago, but it was titled 'MILABS: Military Abductions'
and was published by Illuminet Press. Dr. Lammer is a Ph.D.
research scientist and his wife is a student of law. He has
written several books about the UFO phenomenon in Austria and
Germany. 'MILABs' is still available and I suggest that everyone
interested in this subject read it. It does have a few editing
problems (syntax errors, etc), but the book still contains
important information regarding MILABS.

It is somewhat surprising to hear the comments made regarding
the unlikelihood of _military_ abductions. Dr. Jacobs has
written about this subject, explaining that in his opinion,
these 'agents' are hybrids and/or ETs using camouflage and
screen memories to confuse the abductee. I have experienced
these types of abductions, as well as the late Karla Turner,
Ph.D. and abductee Amy Lynn, (and others). I am including the
URLs below for people who are interested in hearing firsthand
reports from a few 'MILAB' abductees.

I'm not trying to promote my web site, but since the information
is published there, it would be simple for the people in this
discussion to read it there. The section of the site pertaining
to this discussion is located at:

The New 'Men In Black'

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_IV/newmib.html

I consider myself to be as knowledgeable about this subject as
anyone in the field. We may not be able to prove MILABs are
occurring any more than we can prove ET abductions are
occurring, but if it is appropriate to accept eye witness
testimony for alien abductions, then it seems it is acceptable
to at least take into consideration that certain agencies within
the government may be interested in what abductees have
experienced. Many of these reports come from thoroughly
researched and respected abductees. I recommend that you read
the Introduction before reading the entire section of the site
that pertains to the subject of MILABs. The articles are listed
in a particular order because of the information presented, and
they are meant to be read in that order. In addition, if anyone
is interested in my ideas on the subject, they are expressed in
the Introduction.

A _Must_Read_ Introduction

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_IV/jintro.html

Finally, the late Karla Turner, Ph.D. was a well respected
researcher and she, too, remembered seeing military personnel
during her experiences. I highly recommend that you read (or
re-read) her book 'Taken'. She writes about several people who
experienced military 'interest' and/or 'interaction' in their
lives as well as in their abductions.

Some of Karla Turner's articles can be read at:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_II/research.html

Thank you for taking the time to read about this important
subject. I am not interested in a public debate on this or any
other list. I am posting this information solely for educational
purposes. There has been very important information published on
the subject of MILABS and it seems that several people posting
on this list are not aware of it.


Thanks,

K. Wilson










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                        Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bell

From: Marc Bell <marc@wufog.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:01:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:53:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bell


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:22 -0600


 >>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:42:15 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer

 >It could be interesting to see, if Mr. Matthew Williams spends
 >time in jail, more crop circles pop up.

 >Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo


If you do a little investigation into Matthew Williams you will
see that faking crop circles is the least of his legal problems,
(despite being a major problem to those of us who investigate
crop circles).

Perhaps its worth looking at more serious allegations, e.g. why
the man in question is banned from driving or an alleged machete
attack incident etc?

All lies lead to the truth.....

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:20:16 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:21:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:08:01 -0800

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:34:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >That's right - everyone who sees a UFO during any kind of wave
 >_must_ be seeing things. Stars, planets, the moon, bugs,
 >enormous flocks of birds, swamp gas...

Royce:

Well, short of halucination or hoaxes, they most likely are
seeing _something_. Make the list as long as you like, as long
as you include only things that are _known_ to have caused UFO
sightings.

Since we both agree that there isn't proof of the ETH, I'll
probably agree with your list of any length.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

               Cydonian Imperative Update - 11-7-00 The 'City

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:23:59 -0500
Subject: Cydonian Imperative Update  - 11-7-00 The 'City

11-7-00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Cydonian Imperative

The "City Mound"

by Mac Tonnies

(Please visit:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

and select #9 from the Journal for illustrated and linked
version.)

----

Kurt Jonach, proprietor of The Electric Warrior, has assembled
the first scaled rendition of the "City Mound," an elliptical
formation located below the "City Pyramid." This formation is
striking, with several ridges extending from its central peak.
The feature identified as "Mound G" by Drs. McDaniel and Crater
can be seen on the lower left of the image, and appears to be
teardrop-shaped, much like the City Mound itself. Whether the
broken (?) ridge in its vicinity played a role in its
development as a distinct feature is unknown.

[image]

The City Mound

The looming question, of course, is whether or not the City
Mound is artificial. While there is no obvious evidence that it
is, there are several traits I find interesting, the first being
the peculiar ridges noted above. Secondly, as pointed out and
discussed in Jonach's article on the City Mound, there is a very
regular "trench" or "moat" encircling the left half of the
feature. Are we looking at the effects of ancient water or wind
erosion or evidence of a collapsed foundation of some kind? A
research-quality blow-up of the City Mound can be accessed at
the URL above.

[image]

The City Pyramid, for comparison. Both the City Mound and City
Pyramid are depicted roughly to scale.

While there is every possibility that the City Mound is a
strictly geological feature, its association with more
pronounced anomalies in the region forces me to forego any
conclusions. (Please refer to my earlier piece on the arcology
model for describing the function of various features in the
Cydonia region.)

-end-


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                 Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:14:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:25:16 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy


 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:23:48 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

<snip>

 >I was shown visions of "fires, floods, and storms," by little
 >non-human grey men. If you read the papers or watch the
 >newscasts you'll see -fires- (almost a third of the USA burned
 >away this year and that's not counting _major fires_ in other
 >countries as well. The fires consumed whole states here.

<snip>

 >John Velez, Abductee

John,

Out of personal curiousity, just one other question...

You say you were shown visions of catastrophes.

What component(s) of that experience led or caused you to
believe that these visions were necessarily prophetic, that is,
previews of future or forthcoming events?

Might they not have been shown you simply to see how you would
emotionally respond to such events -- regardless of when (or
whether) they actually happened?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:40:50 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:27:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

 >>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

My copy of "Terror" has long gone missing, so I have set my team of
hunter-librarians to track down a copy so I can refresh myself on what
Hufford says. In the meantime, a few comments on Jerrys post:

<snip>

 >>What Hufford is definitely _not_ saying is that there is an
 >>actual physical being called the Old Hag which sneaks into
 >>people's bedrooms, sits on their chests while they sleep and
 >>tries to suffocate them. I do not see anything in his approach
 >>which does not also apply to the type of sceptical, psychosocial
 >>approach of our beloved pelicans.

 >And that is precisely the sort of reading that drives Hufford up
 >the wall, and it is exactly why he praised my reading of his
 >book. It's not as if we have to choose between belief in witch
 >attacks or rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon, a
 >point Hufford makes repeatedly and which Rimmer seems to have
 >missed.

You do make a good point. What drives me up the wall are people
like who seem to think we have to choose between belief in
extraterrestrial spaceships or rejection of a strange
experiential phenomenon. I point which I make frequently and
which Clarke seems to have missed.

 >In fact, Hufford very specifically states that while much of the
 >Old Hag experience can be explained through the findings of
 >sleep research, much - perhaps the most interesting part -
 >remains unaccounted for.*  Hufford also goes on to state that
 >the mishandling of the Old Hag phenomenon exactly parallels
 >debunkers' mishandling of other anomalous phenomena, including
 >UFO reportss, cryptozoological matters, and more.

Hufford's analysis of the problems attached to the "Old Hag"
phenomeon seem to bring it closer to the abduction phenomenon
than to the apparent solid, engineered objects that Jerry claims
constitute the 'real' UFO mystery - the CE2s and radar-visual
cases. Although Hufford may think that conventional
psychological explanations do not adequately explain the actual
experiences involved in Hag accounts, I still doubt very much
that he thinks there actually *is* an 'objectively existing' old
woman who perpetrates the Hag attacks.

It is Jerry who seems to be trying to polarise the debate by
saying that if you reject the idea of an actual Hag, you are
thereby denying the reality of the experience. Just such a
foolish argument is of course wheeled out to attack anyone who
doubts the physical reality of the abduction experience.

 >Rimmer's reading tells us what John Rimmer thinks, but not what
 >David Hufford thinks. In fact, Hufford's approach is exactly the
 >opposite of the one Rimmer and Magonia take. With his own
 >blinkers on, Rimmer did not read the book Hufford wrote.

Well, as I say above, I'm going to re-read it, and may come back
to this topic in the future, ebk willing.

 >Other Hufford writings worth reading, probably unread by Rimmer,
 >certainly by Roberts:

 >"Humanoids and Anomalous Lights: Taxonomic and
 >Epistemological Problems." Fabula 18,3&4 (1977): 34-41.

 >"Traditions of Disbelief." New York Folklore Quarterly
 >8,3&4 (Winter 1982): 47-55.

 >"The Supernatural and the Sociology of Knowledge:
 >Explaining Academic Belief." New York Folklore 9
 >(1983), 1&2, 21-29.

Thank you for these references, I'll see if I can track them down

 >Hufford participated in the 1992 MIT abduction studies
 >conference and contributed a fascinating paper to its
 >proceedings, taking issue with both debunkers and proponents for
 >loose thinking about a phenomenon that he freely acknowledges is
 >most puzzling. He cites a case he learned of through a physician
 >associate, noting that there were multiple witnesses and
 >physiological evidence associated with it. Hufford remarks, "I
 >know of no non-abduction explanation for these events.... To
 >simply say this must ... be a case of folie a deux is to merely
 >state that no amount of evidence will count in such cases."

What is this case, and where can I find an account of it?

 >>Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >>(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

 >No. Hufford thinks that the Old Hag is a very strange
 >phenomenon, poorly and even absurdly explained by pelicanists,
 >part of which we now understand, but some of the most baffling
 >aspects of which remain unaccounted for.

Hmm, sounds just like abductions to me.

 >>>Does Jerry think that any UFOs are real extraterrestrial craft?

 >In my own writings and public statements, I have refrained from
 >making statements like these, which are surely premature and
 >irrelevant. Basically I think the ETH is a reasonable
 >provisional interpretation - maybe suspicion is a better word -
 >but it is unproved.

Do you think that the evidence presented by Hufford makes the
presence of a physical Hag a "reasonable provisional
interpretation"? If not how does the degree of eyewitness
testimony presented by Hufford differ from the testimony
presented in the UFO reports that you find most convincing?

--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                        Re: On What is Known - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:15:14 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:30:14 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Sparks


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >Subject: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

<snip>


Jim, the best answer I can give you is this: I am assuming that
what you are asking is what solid scientific work has been
accomplished on UFO's in the 53 years since Kenneth Arnold.

I think less than 1 year of serious scientific work has been
done on UFO's, in total, in 50+ years and it shows. What I mean
by less than a year is that a typical field of scientific
research has, say, 100 to 1,000 scientists working on it full
time around the world. I realize there are some little niches
with fewer numbers and major fields with larger numbers, but I'm
giving this as a rough rule of thumb.

In a half century, the only solid scientific work that has been
done on UFO's has been by a small handful of scientists actually
doing scientific study of the subject -- McDonald, Maccabee,
Vallee, Hynek, et al. -- and none of it has been full time
_scientific_ study (as opposed to administrative or clerical
labor or technical compiling of data) except for brief periods
when, say, McDonald was able to devote full time to it. This is
only a small fraction of the number in a full fledged community
of 100 to 1,000 scientists devoting full time to a subject, and
only a fraction of full time equivalent (FTE) over 50+ years.

What I mean is that more than 100 McDonalds should have been
working 100% of the time for 50 plus years on UFO's, as might be
the case with established subjects such as astronomy, molecular
biology, meteorology, algae research (phycology), seismology, or
major subdisciplines of the same, etc.

Even counting brief interludes by Battelle for 2 years, the
Condon Committee for 2 years (don't forget Saunders), and the
Sturrock panel, it adds up to less 1/10 the number of scientists
needed over less than 1/10 of the time involved for an aggregate
effort of 1/100 (and I'm being very generous with the numbers
here).

Work out the math and it is the equivalent of having a full
scientific community working at it for less than about 6 months
since 1947 -- probably it is less than even 1 month. No wonder
there has been so little scientific progress in UFO research.

Brad Sparks


PS: If you want to know what has been learned scientifically
about UFOs then read everything you can lay your hands on by
McDonald, Maccabee, Vallee, Hynek, and the Condon Committee
(including Saunders in dissent), for beginners. And, NO, they
aren't 100% correct but that doesn't mean their work was
worthless. Nor are they uniformly pro-UFO or anti-UFO.

It is time that UFOlogists get acquainted with the fundamentals
of this field and stop rehashing the same tired old
controversies that should have been resolved decades ago. I am
continually having to quote from Hynek's The UFO Experience on
basics such as the definition of a UFO, the requirement of
eliminating conventional explanations before declaring a case an
unexplained UFO, etc., as it seems few on this list ever read it
or follow the worthy teachings therein. How many on this List
know what "angular size" is or how to measure it? If you don't
then how can you possibly investigate a UFO case scientifically
as angular size is a fundamental? (Along with other
fundamentals such as duration, azimuth angles or compass
bearings, time/date, latitude, longitude, elevation above MSL,
etc.)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:49:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:33:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Stacy


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

<snip>

Jerry,

Just out of sheer curiousity, do you, or, for that matter, David
Hufford, know of any single instance in which a witness or
experiencer claimed to have seen or encountered the Old Hag at a
time, or state, in which they were _not_ possible subjects of
sleep paralysis, that is, in a non- altered state of
consciousness?

If not, wouldn't that lead you to believe, whatever other
mysteries  remain, that the two were somehow fundamentally and
intimately connected? That is, no sleep paralysis, no Old Hag?

Now how do you extrapolate this situation to UFO witnesses and
abduction experiencers overall? Are they one and the same? Are
they in an altered state of consciousness as well? Or not?

Or just honest, unbiased reporters? In which case I assume we
would have to take just as many precautions against attacks of
the Old Hag as we will against Jacobs' and Hopkins' invading,
apocalyptic greys.

At least Hufford didn't hypnotize his people. On the other hand,
he hasn't yet objected to being quoted as God on this list,
either.

Dennis Stacy

PS: Direct responses to each of the above paragraphs, as opposed
to selective responses, would be best appreciated.

http://www.anomalist.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                           Secrecy News - 11/07/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:56:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:35:34 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News - 11/07/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 7, 2000

"THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WITH OUR CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM"

The President's veto of legislation to criminalize unauthorized
disclosures of classified information could become the most
momentous development in government secrecy policy since the
1995 executive order on classified information.  It is already
prompting renewed questions about the workings of the secrecy
system.

This afternoon, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon bluntly
acknowledged that the classification system does not function
satisfactorily.

"[The President] alluded to the fact that there can be
over-classification or mis-classification," Mr. Bacon noted.  "I
don't think anybody disagrees with that. There are many problems
with our classification system.  And it was that realization, in
part, that led to his decision to ... veto the bill."

See excerpts from today's Pentagon press briefing here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/dod110700.html

The congressional "leak" statute was "a dangerous idea," the
Washington Post editorialized today.  "President Clinton
deserves great credit for vetoing" it.  See:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27774-2000Nov6.html

"Supporters of a measure to crack down on government employees
who leak official secrets say they aren't giving up after
President Clinton vetoed the proposal over the weekend,"
reported Neil King in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.  "They
will try again next year."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wsj110600.html

The Central Intelligence Agency issued a brief statement in
response to the President's veto indicating that "We look
forward to working with all parties to craft a new provision
that helps preserve national security while fostering the
necessary public discussion of important issues."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/cia110600.html

The President of the American Society of Newspaper Editors noted
recently that his organization had asked the two major
presidential candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush, to outline
their stances on "access to government information, the public's
right to know, privacy rights and plans for press conferences if
elected president.  Neither as much as acknowledged the
requests."


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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                          Re: ET Evidence - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:53:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 20:15:01 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Rimmer


 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence [was Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll]

 >Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

 >That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
 >signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

 >-Brian C.

Would that be as in Betty Hill Star Map? Thought so.

Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and remove
all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory Fish
'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the stars.

Done that?

Now show the two sets of dots to someone who doesn't know what
they are and ask them if they can see the slightest resemblance
whatsoever.

Thought not!

Fish? Tish!

--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:46:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 20:17:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:11:22 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Basic experiments to attempt to reproduce the Trent photos can't
 >be that hard. After all, Trent, who was hardly a scientist,
 >created them in the first place. But the skeptics refuse to do
 >the experiment and see just how hard it is to match, even in
 >general terms, the characteristics derived by Bruce Maccabee.

The problem with trying to 'recreate' an allegedly hoaxed
photograph is that the proponents have endless opportunities to
challenge the accuracy of the reconstruction. Any deviation from
the exact conditions can be claimed to invalidate the
experiment. I don't know how general the 'general terms' that
Mark Cashman is prepared to accept are, but I suggest that
hard-core believers will always want the conditions to be ever
more stringent. Indeed, we have seen this attitude expressed in
some of the previous discussions on this list.

 >The same thing is true of all of the radical misperception
 >nonsense. If it were so common as to give rise to the immense
 >database of UFO reports, we would never be able to identify the
 >IFOs, the cognitive and perceptual literature would be full of
 >descriptions of it and its mechanisms... but that isn't the
 >case.

But no-one is suggesting that radical misperceptions are "so
common as to give rise to the immense database of UFO reports".
_Ordinary_ misperception accounts for many of then, along with a
wide range of other stimuli. Radical misperceptions is put
forward as an possibility in a very small number of cases. It is
a "straw man" (another phrase for Jerry Clark bingo, Andy?) to
suggest that anyone is suggesting that vast numbers of UFO
reports are caused by radical misperceptions of anything. But
it's a convenient fiction for the eager-believers to use when
they try to pour scorn on any sceptical explanation.

 >Sigh.

Indeed.

--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 7

                       Re: On What is Known - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 20:20:29 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Randles


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >Subject: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research? Personally, I know
 >of nothing which has been discovered. Does anyone?


Hi,

UFO research has provided a number of new insights in two
specific areas - atmospheric physics and human psychology.

 From the former, we have established examples of rare phenomena
such as the mirage effect that was probably responsible for the
Goose Bay, Labrador case and which has been duplicated on only a
couple of other cases - again reported as UFOs.

There are also more difficult to categorise types of UAP
(unidentified atmospheric phenomena) that appear to be generated
by both geological and physical processes within the
environment. Science would likely not have discovered these
because of the UFO stigma attached to such data.

My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
appreciate this possibility. There are several candidates - one
of which is a consistently reported triple light triangle effect
that appears to be some kind of atmospheric refraction.

As for psychology, I think the study of UFO sightings is a  'lab
experiment' in the real world that allows us to see the complex
interactions of perceptual psychology, sociology and belief
systems far better than any artificial set up could do.  This
has revealed things such as the 'prone personality' pattern and
the significance of visual creativity in the extent to which
strange phenomena are reported.  Whatever these things mean they
are bona fide discoveries that emerge via UFO investigation.

More contentiously, UFO study teaches things about the
paranormal that have not emerged in other fields. For example,
the pattern of early life experiences with balls of light in the
bedroom reported by repeater witnesses and their apparent
purpose as a gateway to perception of 'higher dimensions'.
Again, regardless of whether you see this as a subjective or
cosmic reality, its a real phenomenon that we would likely not
have recognised without ufology. And it opens us up to
understanding what is thus a new insight into something we
probably would not otherwise have got.

A third category we can add is the intense investigation that
reveals rare but significant social phenomena that are IFOs.

As an example (from 'The UFOs that Never Were') we have a
classic UFO movie film that was resolved by years of hard slog.
It turned out to likely be a fluke effect in which a military
plane ejected fuel, this was trapped by a thermal layer, created
a blazing fireball and nearly fell atop a yard filled with young
schoolchildren. This event - whilst not ufological once it
became an IFO - is nonetheless a significant social discovery
because it reveals a genuine hidden danger that was likely to be
previously unknown. As such it brings forth a real debate that
we should be having.

Another such example, would be the UFO to IFO investigation
(also in the book) that revealed how a major airline was
'gliding' its jets over populated terrain in a clear breach of
aviation regulations. This dangerous practice was outlawed
immediately, but would not have been uncovered had the events
not generated UFO sightings and had not serious Ufologists
skillfully unearthed the truth. Gliding civil jets probably
still create UFO sightings today. There should be an aviation
and public debate about this. But that we can even consider it
is made possible by virtue of there being a Ufology and a
serious UFO investigation community.

These are in addition to any considerations we might have about
the more exotic theories of UFO origin. Which I have left out
purposefully because they are open to contention.

But the above things are, I think, well enough established and
independent of any specific interpretation to be considered
genuine additions to knowledge gained via Ufology.

As the UAP can lead to benefits to society (eg new energy
sources, possible ways to defuse earth tremors) and as the IFOs
can uncover important questions that society well outside the
UFO field should be contemplating it is not reasonable, IMO, to
contend that Ufology has been unproductive.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                      Re: Military Abductions - Meiners

From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:14:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:54:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions - Meiners


 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:25:10 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Military Abductions (Version 1)

<snip>

 >I'm not trying to promote my web site, but since the information
 >is published there, it would be simple for the people in this
 >discussion to read it there. The section of the site pertaining
 >to this discussion is located at:

 >The New 'Men In Black'

 >http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_IV/newmib.html

<snip>

Just a quick statement to the notation of "men in black"... they
aren't always in black, and they most definitely aren't always
what they appear to be.

G'ma









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                        Re: ET Evidence - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:02:34 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 02:13:03 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Cuthbertson


 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:53:04 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence [was Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll]

 >>Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

 >>That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
 >>signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

 >>-Brian C.

 >Would that be as in Betty Hill Star Map? Thought so.

 >Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and remove
 >all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory Fish
 >'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the stars.

 >Done that?

 >Now show the two sets of dots to someone who doesn't know what
 >they are and ask them if they can see the slightest resemblance
 >whatsoever.

 >Thought not!

So what? That it was a map of stars __identified by us__ is
irrelevant. That it was apparently a star map is, in and of
itself, the evidence for extra-terrestrial contact. The key
words are "star map", not "identified star map".

There are _hundreds_of_billions_ of stars in our galaxy alone.
Personally, I'd be extremely surprised, if not astonished, if
any star map presented in the Hill case context were
identifiable.

-Brian 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: On What is Known - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:15:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 02:16:14 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Cashman


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >Subject: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >what has been discovered?

Hi, Jim!

I think a number of things have been discovered, which are not
the kinds of things that everyone wants to hear, but which are
nevertheless important.

1) UFO reports do fall into specific, classifiable patterns.

2) UFOs do have a limited range of geometries, luminous
patterns, and behaviors. They tend to appear at specific times
of the day and night by type.

3) As strangeness increases, demographic distribution of
witnesses trends toward that of the population as a whole.

4) Methods exist by which distance, size, altitude, and energy
output can be extracted with some confidence from witness
reports.

5) Luminosity does correlate in complex ways with behavior.

6) UFO entities are almost uniformly bilateral and bipedal and
generally tend to be drastically shorter or taller than humans.

There are other things we've learned. Of course, little or none
of it bears on what everyone seems desperate to know or
fabricate, which is the intent and origin of the UFO, but that's
likely to be the last thing we find out.

------
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                         Re: On What is Known - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 06:13:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 03:13:06 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hale


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >appreciate this possibility.

Hi Jenny,

1. In your eyes is the UFO Phenomena that has been reported
    over the last few decades' now solved?

2. Would you GUESS that there could be a possibility of other
    life forms way out yonder in the Universe?

3. Has UFO Trace cases given us any insights into the UFO
    phenomena?

4. Do you hold UFO Radar tracking cases as significant ?

5. If you were hit with a stone' how would you know it was a
    real event and not a psychological delusion?

If the answer is yes to Q:1 how much longer do you feel you
should spend researching the UFO Phenomena?

Regards,

Roy..








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Scientists Downplay 'Space Object'

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:15:53 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 03:18:37 -0500
Subject: Scientists Downplay 'Space Object'


Scientists Downplay 'Space Object'

.c The Associated Press


LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists who announced last week that a
mysterious space object had a 1-in-500 chance of striking the
Earth in 30 years have retracted their prediction, saying it
poses little threat.

The object, which is either a small asteroid or piece of space
junk, has virtually no chance of hitting the planet in 2030.
However, scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena
said there's a 1-in-1,000 chance it could hit Earth in 2071.

"This object is much more interesting than threatening," said
Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program.

Scientists downgraded the chance of a collision in 2030 after
examining additional observations. The new data "effectively
ruled out the chance of an Earth impact in that year," according
to the program's Web site.

Predictions of the path of the object now indicate it will pass
no closer than 2.7 million miles to Earth - about 11 times the
distance from the Earth to the moon.

The object, designated 2000 SG344, is either an asteroid about
200 feet in diameter or a 35-foot-long Apollo-era rocket
booster. It was discovered Sept. 29 through a telescope in
Hawaii.

Before the new data was revealed, Yeomans had said that if the
object was an asteroid it could create a "fairly sizable nuclear
blast" if it struck the Earth.

The retraction and downgrading was the second embarrassing
asteroid announcement in recent years. Scientists at the Minor
Planets Center in Cambridge, Mass., generated headlines
worldwide in 1998 when they announced that a mile-wide asteroid
had a chance of hitting Earth in 2028. The prediction was
retracted a day later when further calculations were made by
JPL.

That incident led the International Astronomical Union to create
new guidelines for announcing events of such magnitude. New
rules call for announcements to be made after astronomers reach
a consensus that a risk to the planet exists and states that an
announcement be made publicly within 72 hours of such findings.

Yeomans said the new observations were released Friday shortly
after he held a news conference.

"We followed the rules to the letter," he said. "I have no
regrets. I'd do the same thing again."

On the Net:

JPL: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov

AP-NY-11-07-00 0633EST

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Military Abductions - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:32:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 03:21:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:25:10 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Military Abductions (Version 1)

 >This is a general response to the posts concerning military
 >abductions, also called 'MILABs'. I'm not sure if everyone is
 >aware of Helmut and Marion Lammer's book they published almost
 >two years ago, but it was titled 'MILABS: Military Abductions'
 >and was published by Illuminet Press. Dr. Lammer is a Ph.D.
 >research scientist and his wife is a student of law. He has
 >written several books about the UFO phenomenon in Austria and
 >Germany. 'MILABs' is still available and I suggest that everyone
 >interested in this subject read it. It does have a few editing
 >problems (syntax errors, etc), but the book still contains
 >important information regarding MILABS.

 >It is somewhat surprising to hear the comments made regarding
 >the unlikelihood of _military_ abductions.

Hi Katarina,

Nice to see you out on the List! You ought to join us more
often. Re: Military abductions, I'm not quite sure what posts
you are referring to when you say that you are surprised to hear
the comments made regarding the unlikelihood of military
abductions. But in case you were referring to any of mine,....

In one thread I stated that I thought Dr. Greer's claim that 98%
of all abductions can be attributed the the clandestine activity
of some unnamed government agency, are patently absurd and that
he (or anyone else) has not offered a shred of evidence to
substantiate such a claim.

If that is what you find "surprising" then lets discuss it.

In another thread I responded to comments made by a List member
to the effect that: "Government agents are driving around UFO
hot spots in unmarked cars and that they utilize an electronic
device that opens and closes dimensional windows and that the
purpose is to "hide" UFO activity from the prying eyes of MUFON
investigator trainees.

If my response to that set of outrageous claims caused you any
"surprise" then (again) let's discuss it.

You say that you won't engage in discussion or debate on this
list yet you feel free to post a response to an UpDates thread.
We know each other a long time Katarina. You know as well as I
do that that's simply playing; "Ring and run!"

If you're going to comment on a thread you should be willing to
provide people an opportunity for either discussion or rebuttal.
Dropping your critique while also using the opportunity to plug
the old website and then rapidly excusing yourself and exiting
stage left isn't playing proper cricket. You have posted to an
ongoing discussion. Have a seat for a bit. ;) It's been awhile
since we last talked anyway.

I'm still curious 'which' re  marks in the military abduction
thread were the ones that "surprised" you. Couldn't have been
mine as I'm sure you agree that both Greer's, and the list
members claims, are "a bit over the top." If you don't agree,
then I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Good to hear from you Kat.

Regards, hope all is well with you and yours,

Your friend always,

John Velez

******************************************************
           A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                   jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                   Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Beaver

From: Mike Beaver <yoda@foxinternet.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:54:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 03:28:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Beaver


 >From: Fran Walton <LWalton55@cs.com>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:05:14 EST
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:13:17 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Investigation' - Walton

 >In a nutshell, you do not charge for UFO related work. Instead
 >of up front cash, you use the information you glean for a
 >possible book. Because your book may have been turned down by
 >publishers does not negate the facts here. It merely means that
 >your manuscript did not meet their specific criteria.

And your assumptions that I will, one day, make money off of
this work is very hopeful indeed, as I explained before. The
odds are not in that direction though, as I've said before. If
one is motivated by something that is extremely unlikely to
occur that isn't much motivation is it? But then again, you do
have to grasp onto something to make it seem you are correct and
that I am the guilty one.

 ><Out of curiousity, what would you do if someone came to you with
 >>a sincere, honest, problem relating to a fear, or emotional
 >>baggage they have been carrying around, and could not afford
 >>your fee. Would you treat _them_without compensation?

 >>That would depend on many circumstances. To explain all of those
 >>would take quite a bit of space here. The probability is that I
 >>would not.

 >It is my guess that, based on your words that you would not, it
 >has more to do with the information you would ascertain would no
 >longer be useful for your book; therefore, you could care less
 >about these individuals and their problems.

The abductee I worked with, for free, was, as I told her,
specifically for information to be put in the book. a) It was no
secret. b) I told her that if it ever turned out to be a best
seller that I would give her a percentage of the book in
direction proportion to the amount of the book taken up by her
story. To assume that I am messing someone over is indicative of
your negative thought patterns in general; and says nothing
whatsoever about me. Guess who it does say something about?

The notion that you could even begin to understand me or my
motivations is quite laughable. I knew, from the beginning of
this thread, that your only motivation was to, attempt to, dig
up dirt, on me, because you have invested heavily in
psychological teachings which are, and always have been,
inferior to hypnotherapy work. That you have chosen to focus on
myself instead of yourself is indicative of this.

 >>I could go on at considerable length in giving you some
 >>understanding of what I would do and when and why, etc.

 >Totally unnecessary. I believe you have given us all a very
 >clear picture of what, when, and why.

ditto

<snip>

 >...you've not only given me a good idea but confirmed by
 >opinions.

ditto.

 >Respect, like riches, is a relative thing, depending on who or
 >what you use as your measuring meter.

Stating the obvious is an easy thing isn't it?

 >If you base it on the opinions of others who view financial gain
 >as the sole criteria, then in that case you would feel you are
 >respected I guess.

If you had even the slightest clue about me and my practice, or
lack thereof, you would know that you don't have the slightest
clue about my motivations in promoting you lack of reasoning
here. You couldn't be more wrong in this presupposition.

 >However, if you look to others in ufology to base your opinion
 >of respect on, perhaps you are looking in the wrong place.

Wrong again. Keep guessing. One day you might get it. Got to be
positive to get it right though. I'm not sure if that's possible
for ya.

 >Counselling to aid and assist the individual to a healthier
 >state, and succeeding, earns respect.

Stating the obvious is an easy thing isn't it? This seems to be
getting redundant. I wonder why?

 >Counselling for no fee
 >with the expectation of using the information gained for your
 >own purposes not only does not earn respect, it makes one
 >question if you subscribe to any principles of ethics.

If Whitley Strieber hadn't written his book then much of ufology
would still be in the closet. Books which put things together,
without revealing any names, if that's the clients wishes, help
people, who are abductees, to see that this phenomena is a real
thing. The details, confirming or denying consistency, etc. help
everyone to bring this out of the closet, where everyone, who's
abducted, or has a sighting, gets laughed at, into a respectable
light is the goal of any good author. He's the only one I'm
aware of who has made that much money at it. And even he had to
give up his cabin where he had all those encounters. Nobody's
really getting rich at this. But I suspect that you alread know
this. Maybe not.

The truth is, I could care less what anyone, except for my
clients, think about me. They are the only ones that count. If
the book never gets published and I don't see a dime over it
that will not bother me in the slightest; something I suspect
you would have a real hard time believing. So be it.

I wonder if you tend to believe the worst in your clients as you
tend to believe the worst in other therapists? Who does this
tell us more about, you or me?

 >I'm merely asking questions that you would prefer people don't.

Not at all. It's the assumptions that you make from my answers
that are indicative of how you tend to view the motivations of
others, like myself, that you don't even have the tiniest clue
about, that is what's laughable.

 >Trying to change the focus to me isn't going to change anything.

By assuming the worst about me I really don't need to know any
details about you. You have already provided them with your
attitude. Nothing more needs to be added.

 >It will only reinforce the image you are portraying of having been
 >found out and looking to focus attention elsewhere!

As I haven't been hiding anything, that won't be necessary will
it?

 >Have any of those studies been published in any "peer review"
 >publications or other reputable sources?

You will have to do your own leg work on this one. I just
thought you might find it amusing. Why should I be that dumb? Oh
well...

 >>Ok. So stop sniping then.

 >Don't you think that remark belongs more on a playground?

You insinuated that I was sniping first; when in reality you are
the one who has been trying to insinuate and therefore sniping
all along, not myself. C? I bet you know a lot about projection?

 >I do not make claims of being a _professional_ in either any of the 3
 >mentioned therapy areas, and specifically when it comes to
 >counselling anyone in any realm of ufology.

Wow, that's not what I've been reading. The word money I don't
remember coming up, on your part, but your claiming that you are
well trained in more than one of these areas, beyond that which
I have claimed for myself, is certainly indicative of making
yourself an authority on the subject, regardless if remuneration
was ever an issue. Slicing a little thin in one direction and
then the other aren't we? And, it's interesting that you put
that sentence in just before reiterating all your training in
these 2 areas. First you say you aren't a professional, then you
say you're highly trained beyond myself. Well, which is it, you
are an authority or you aren't. You're trying to have it both
ways. I wonder why?

 >Mike, one more time... Insurance companies will _not_ issue
 >malpractice insurance to CLSW or C.Ht. because when used by them
 >it is considered a _hobby_. They do not insure hobbies.

Wrong again.

1) Hypnotherapists get malpractice insurance all the time. 2)
And psychiatrists and psychologists, also, are quite well
covered by their insurers WHILE doing hypnotherapy. If it were
considered only a hobby by insurers then these
non-hypnotherapists wouldn't be able to perform the practice
within their normal non-hypnotherapeutic practices. It would be
too dangerous for them as their insurers wouldn't be covering
those sessions. And they wouldn't be getting payed by those same
insurers for hypnotherapy work either. Ask any psychiatrist or
psychologist you know of if their insurers pay them for the
hypnotherapy work that they do. I bet all kinds of cash that
there isn't one of them, not a single one, who will say that
their insurers don't pay them for the hypnotherapy work they do.
Get it yet?

 >Apparently the questions are obvious because they went right to
 >the heart of the matter and some very serious problems that
 >arise in the field of ufology!

Only your ego believes this. The truth is that I do quite
superior healing hypnotherapy work WITHIN a ufological
exporatory session, _unlike_ most UFO investigators, including
Master hypnotherapists, because, I am primarily interested in
healing the client _more_ than getting the details of their
story; a fact that has gone right over your head. Sorry if you
missed it. But then I forgot you were looking for dirt. Bummer.

 >Based solely on what you have posted, it would appear that
 >ethics are not a high priority on a list of matters of
 >importance when dealing in ufology.

Coming from someone whose primary goal is digging up illusory
dirt on other therapists, I consider that a great complement.
Thank you very much.

 >Oh! Because I put you on the spot with what apparently were
 >tough questions that makes me _messed up_? Get out of the
 >sandbox and converse as an adult. Such levels are so
 >unattractive and rather reflective of the true personality.

I don't think tough questions are within your ability to think
up. All along you have been going in quite simplistic terms,
jumping to conclusions about things for which you don't have a
clue. You are the one in the manure, not I. Again. Stop
projecting.

 >It would appear that you seem to have a problem with the legal
 >profession as well.

Not at all. I'm quite well connected in that area. I think you
would be real surprised how well connected. Ha ha. Oh well. Keep
going. You've made so many laughable assumptions, one more won't
make a difference.

 >I'll tell you right out front who I am. I'm someone who is a
 >very strong advocate for ethics and personal responsibility,
 >amongst other things.

No, you're someone who seeks to dig up dirt on others, especially
those you don't have a clue about.

 >I do not hold myself out to be anything other than who,
 >what andhow I am.

ditto

Was that another one of those _more_ than obvious statements?
Too many to count now.

 >I hide behind nothing, _especially_ not the lettersthat
 >follow my name.

As you haven't really said much about yourself, hiding behind
nothing isn't very difficult as there's nothing out in front of
you to hide behind or to look at either.

 >>Am I making myself clear on this as one? Hint, hint, nod nod. :-)

 >Extremely. Oh, one other thing about me. I try my best _not_
 >to sink down to the playground level. However, sometimes I
 >am reduced to that level because it is the only way the other
 >person knows how to communicate.

 >Am I making _myself_ clear on this one?

Perfectly. You started in the manure by casting doubts about
myself and I came down to that level to be in it with you, not
the other way around.

Keep projecting ok.

 >Fran Walton

Sincerely;

Mike Beaver
yoda@foxinternet.net
http://web3.foxinternet.net/yoda/index.html
ICQ # 15482206









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                 Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:03:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 03:35:35 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:14:28 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:23:48 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

 ><snip>

 >>I was shown visions of "fires, floods, and storms," by little
 >>non-human grey men. If you read the papers or watch the
 >>newscasts you'll see -fires- (almost a third of the USA burned
 >>away this year and that's not counting _major fires_ in other
 >>countries as well. The fires consumed whole states here.

 ><snip>

 >>John Velez, Abductee


Dennis, (heretofore known as "Sasquatch" wrote:

 >John,

 >Out of personal curiousity, just one other question...

 >You say you were shown visions of catastrophes.

 >What component(s) of that experience led or caused you to
 >believe that these visions were necessarily prophetic, that is,
 >previews of future or forthcoming events?

I didn't. I have never said that I thought the 'visions' as you
call them (they seemed disturbingly real at the time) were
"prophetic". What I said was that I found all the recent
'doings' an unsettling reminder/possible confirmation of what I
was shown. I haven't arrived at any conclusions (as in any of
the abduction related material I have in my head being
'prophetic' or anything else) at all. I wish you knew how hard I
work at keeping straight with the guy in the mirror, Sasquatch.
You'd see me in a different light and you'd know better than to
assign such beliefs to me.

 >Might they not have been shown you simply to see how you would
 >emotionally respond to such events -- regardless of when (or
 >whether) they actually happened?

Dennis I wish I knew what that was or represented. I'm still
questioning if I am recalling an actual event or something that
was planted in there to cover something else altogether. Who
knows? It's why I've been out there 'reporting' and standing up
as a witness. I need solid answers man. This crap has affected
the course of my life and that of my family members. I'm not
about to buy into anything unless my gut tells me it has
possibilities. I take it all too seriously to be 'flakey' about
the phenomenon or myself. When it comes to UFOs or abductions I
suffer fools poorly and I take no prisoners. Some folks confuse
that with anger. There's a difference.

So far not too much of what I have seen in ufology has been
'ringing my bell'. Most of what I find is wild speculation,
unquestioned rumors, and cowpie that is piled so high they can
smell the stank in Heaven. All the clouds on lower level nine
have been evacuated! ;)

Regarding your other comments about "apocalyptic events", I
suppose it's all matter of assigning a 'size' to what you'd
accept as "apocalyptic". I gotta tell you though, when I see
video footage on the six o'clock news from (what was it 8 or 9?)
states that are all burning for weeks from border to border it
looks "apocalyptic" to me! Those poor people. You're right
though that many people are developing areas for business and
residence that _shouldn't_! It's like I've never been able to
figure out why anybody would live in a trailer anywhere inside
of Hurricane Alley. Go figure!

BTW, when you reminded me to vote, I hope you weren't expecting
me to vote for your fellow Texan! Id rather vote for the
Ayatollah! <LOL>

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
           A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                   jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                     Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:44:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:29:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Element 115 And Saucers - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:21:23 +0100
 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Element 115 And Saucers

 >Source: 'alt.alien.visitors'.

 >Stig

 >***

 >Subject: Element 115 and saucers
 >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:33:51 GMT
 >From: "Purple" </dev/null@mail.com>
 >Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors

 >Heard saucer engines are powered by eka-bismuth (element 115)
 >which decays to 114 by ejecting two anti-protons and a gravity-A
 >wave.

 >But it can't be.

 >Um, eka-bismuth decays by releasing an alpha particle (He
 >nuclus) No other form of decay for it is known at present. Only
 >one (very rare) isotope of Xenon decays anywhere like that -
 >emitting a proton pair. So, if 115 spits out two anti-protons,
 >wouldn't it become element 117 (proton count +2 now) instead of
 >114 (and how did they get 115 - 2 = 114 ?) No nucleonic reaction
 >can make an anti-proton from only protons and neutrons - think
 >of charge conservation!

 >Also, gravity wave-A (frame-dragging field) never "pulses". Only
 >wave-B does that. And how do you make a wave-guide for it?

 >Truly, Earth stands no chance against a race so sophisticated
 >that it can read text books.


Dear Purple:

Usually, an element is discovered or synthesized before anyone
can study its properties.

You have to find some trace of the material before you can see
how many alpha particle (if any) are released from its nucleus
on decay (if any).

Yes, eka-bismuth, if it is ever found to exist, will most likely
have regular protons like every other element in the periodic
chart. How can it possibly spit out anti-protons it doesn't
have?

A quick browse finds lots of sites dealing with element 115 (
exa-bismuth ). Virtually all of them have words like "alien,
abovetopsecret, boblazar, area51" in their URLs. One of these
might be the source of the anti-proton business.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: On What is Known - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:34:52 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Randles


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 06:13:57 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >>My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >>cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >>appreciate this possibility.

 >Hi Jenny,

 >1. In your eyes is the UFO Phenomena that has been reported
 > over the last few decades' now solved?

 >2. Would you GUESS that there could be a possibility of other
 > life forms way out yonder in the Universe?

 >3. Has UFO Trace cases given us any insights into the UFO
 > phenomena?

 >4. Do you hold UFO Radar tracking cases as significant ?

 >5. If you were hit with a stone' how would you know it was a
 > real event and not a psychological delusion?

 >If the answer is yes to Q:1 how much longer do you feel you
 >should spend researching the UFO Phenomena?


Hi,

Its a pity you are not like the (incredible) British weather
right now since your answers are much easier to forecast.

I don't wish to get into responding to your questions as they
leap off a cliff into a pool of assumptions that have no direct
relevance to my response. They seem to be another attempt to
open a debate on the ETH and / or the nature of British
skepticism (which this list keeps having).


I'm not saying that isn't interesting. But its not what this
topic is about.

Neither the question posed, nor my answer to it, had any
relevance . As my reply made clear I was purposefully avoiding
discussing exotic theories of UFO origin (all of them) and any
possible revelations that these have brought. Instead I was
simply offering some less contentious benefits that Ufology has
brought about in my own experience from case investigation.

By all means please dispute them, but don't assume they mean
anything about the unconnected questions that you raise.

Mine was a proper answer to an excellent question and inferred
no rejection of the aspects of ufology that you raise.
Therefore, I don't intend to deflect a novel debate about the
tangible consequences of ufology into yet another discussion on
this obsession some have with perceived British super
skepticism.

I've made my position on UFOs abundantly clear before (including
in answers to similar questions that you have posted) and it
will not further this new contemplation to get sidetracked onto
them again. Anybody who has read me knows I do not reject all
UFO reality and will be aware of my open minded but evidently
unpersuaded viewpoint on the ETH. But it has no direct bearing
on what I said because such consequences of ufology that I
raised still exist regardless of whether there are no alien UFOs
at all or if gelatinous blobs from alpha Centauri are having
their wicked way with us.

I did not say that the things I proposed were the 'only'
positive discoveries or revelations to emerge from 50 years of
Ufology. I actually agree with several of the other ideas posted
by Wendy and Mark in response to this question. But I added a
few items of my own as to how I see UFology has benefited
society and there is no reason for this to lead into a new round
of 'Go on - admit you're a skeptic' - a new game show I am
hoping to franchise as a replacement for 'Who wants to be a
millionaire'.

And, yes, Roy, for the record, it is my final answer and I don't
need to phone a friend.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                  Re: Introducing 'The Mars Online Gazette'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:41:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Introducing 'The Mars Online Gazette'


________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCING THE MARS ONLINE GAZETTE
November 8, 2000

The Electric Warrior
         &
The Cydonian Imperative

________________________________________________________________

The Electric Warrior and the Cydonian Imperative announce the
the Mars Online Gazette, a joint effort to provide informative
online content about Mars Cydonia, and other scientific
anomalies.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnlineGazette.htm

The Gazette debuts with an article investigating NASA's most
recent imaging of the Face on Mars, including four different
graphic images, which can be viewed on demand using a simple
push-button user interface.

Mac Tonnies, whose online Cydonian Imperative Website has been
documenting NASA's efforts to image the controversial region
since the Spring of 1998, provided the Gazettes' premier
articles, which are supplemented by images processed by The
Electric Warrior.

Tonnies said, "This joint venture constitutes the most
reasonable - and certainly the most aesthetically appealing -
treatment of the Cydonia inquiry I've seen since SPSR
revitalized academic interest several years ago, leading to the
first tantalizing glimpse of Cydonia since the 1970s.

"It's our opinion that the Cydonia issue demands responsible
open dialogue between people willing to entertain both the
possibilities of artificiality and anomalous geology. Our
respective sites are committed to democratizing the available
information in such as way that readers can begin to develop
their own opinion, which will doubtless be a necessary first
step if some of the features under study are demonstrated to be
of non-natural origin.

"The Gazette marks a high-quality effort to unite disparate
interests and disciplines in a venture that may very well lead
us to some transformative and profound conclusions regarding who
we are and what our future as a species has in store for us."

According to the Electric Warrior, Tonnies' level commentary
provides an even-handed summary of what independent
investigation into the Cydonia enigmas all means. "When the
history books describe what's really out there, this young
writer will have had his say. He's now saying it on the Electric
Warrior Website."

The Mars Online Gazette environment was engineered by The
Electric Warrior to provide talented writers a presence on the
Internet that rivals the look and feel of top flight Web-based
news portals.

"As popular online search engines start indexing this content,"
said the eWarrior, "one click will vector the browser into the
Gazette's synchronized frames environment, featuring both images
and commentary. This high-tech implementation tells big media
that if people are viewing our engaging Internet content, then
they're probably not listening to the radio or watching TV."

________________________________________________________________

For more information about The Cydonian Imperative,
visit the Website at:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

or email macbot@yahoo.com


For more information about The Electric Warrior, visit
the Website at:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/macbot/cydonia.html

or email eWarrior@electricwarrior.com

Webmasters and Internet content developers are encouraged to try
out the Mars Online Gazette's open source JavaScript API.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/Cool.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:54:14 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:44:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Bowden


 >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:06:01 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles

 >>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:49:45 -0500
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Big Story On Crop Circles

 >>Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 >>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-4nov2000-50.htm

 >>British man arrested for faking crop circles
 >>Sat, 4 Nov 2000
 >>ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] News

 >>A 29-year-old British man has been arrested after being
 >>photographed creating crop circles, the intricate patterns which
 >>appear in fields overnight and are seen by some as evidence of
 >>alien life.

 >>The arrest provides evidence the crop circles, which have
 >>fascinated fans of the paranormal for years, are nothing but an
 >>intricate hoax.

Hi Roy,

 >Q: Why do you think the police never arrested the very much
 >public and infamous Doug & Dave for destroying farmers crops?

A: No evidence to support their claims.

On the other hand the Police have photographic evidence of
William's and co doing the deed.

 >It gets sadder by the day.....

It certainly does, it appears there are those who will believe a
photo of a crop circle but will not believe a photo of someone
making a crop circle.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:17:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:51:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:22 -0600

 >>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:42:15 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxer

 >It could be interesting to see, if Mr. Matthew Williams spends
 >time in jail, more crop circles pop up.

 >Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

Hello Virgilio,

It would be rather naive to assume that Mr Williams and Co. are
the only people making crop circles.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: On What is Known - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 8 Nov 2000 06:54:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:16:52 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hamilton


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>Subject: On What is Known
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research? Personally, I know
 >>of nothing which has been discovered. Does anyone?

 >Hi,

 >UFO research has provided a number of new insights in two
 >specific areas - atmospheric physics and human psychology.

 >From the former, we have established examples of rare phenomena
 >such as the mirage effect that was probably responsible for the
 >Goose Bay, Labrador case and which has been duplicated on only a
 >couple of other cases - again reported as UFOs.

 >There are also more difficult to categorise types of UAP
 >(unidentified atmospheric phenomena) that appear to be generated
 >by both geological and physical processes within the
 >environment. Science would likely not have discovered these
 >because of the UFO stigma attached to such data.
 >
 >My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >appreciate this possibility. There are several candidates - one
 >of which is a consistently reported triple light triangle effect
 >that appears to be some kind of atmospheric refraction.

<snip>

Why all this emphasis on natural phenomena? Certainly most of
the cases I have been interested in over the years have been
reports of structured metallic craft, sometimes seen with
portholes, appendages, extended landing gear and all the
appurtenances that make it appear to be similar in construct to
one of our aircraft or spacecraft. These sightings are the most
pertinent to the question of extraterrestrial vehicles of
unknown origin and contain the highest potential for scientific
and technological progress.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: On What is Known - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 8 Nov 2000 07:08:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:19:50 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hamilton

 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:15:14 EST
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>Subject: On What is Known
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

 ><snip>

 >Jim, the best answer I can give you is this: I am assuming that
 >what you are asking is what solid scientific work has been
 >accomplished on UFO's in the 53 years since Kenneth Arnold.

 >I think less than 1 year of serious scientific work has been
 >done on UFO's, in total, in 50+ years and it shows. What I mean
 >by less than a year is that a typical field of scientific
 >research has, say, 100 to 1,000 scientists working on it full
 >time around the world. I realize there are some little niches
 >with fewer numbers and major fields with larger numbers, but I'm
 >giving this as a rough rule of thumb.

 >In a half century, the only solid scientific work that has been
 >done on UFO's has been by a small handful of scientists actually
 >doing scientific study of the subject -- McDonald, Maccabee,
 >Vallee, Hynek, et al. -- and none of it has been full time
 >_scientific_ study (as opposed to administrative or clerical
 >labor or technical compiling of data) except for brief periods
 >when, say, McDonald was able to devote full time to it. This is
 >only a small fraction of the number in a full fledged community
 >of 100 to 1,000 scientists devoting full time to a subject, and
 >only a fraction of full time equivalent (FTE) over 50+ years.

 >What I mean is that more than 100 McDonalds should have been
 >working 100% of the time for 50 plus years on UFO's, as might be
 >the case with established subjects such as astronomy, molecular
 >biology, meteorology, algae research (phycology), seismology, or
 >major subdisciplines of the same, etc.

 >Even counting brief interludes by Battelle for 2 years, the
 >Condon Committee for 2 years (don't forget Saunders), and the
 >Sturrock panel, it adds up to less 1/10 the number of scientists
 >needed over less than 1/10 of the time involved for an aggregate
 >effort of 1/100 (and I'm being very generous with the numbers
 >here).

 >Work out the math and it is the equivalent of having a full
 >scientific community working at it for less than about 6 months
 >since 1947 -- probably it is less than even 1 month. No wonder
 >there has been so little scientific progress in UFO research.

I might add that anyone with scientific training should be able
to adopt the methods of scientists to their studies of UFOs.
Some of us have had some training in this area. For instance, I
majored, but did not complete my course of studies in physics.
Others can research the literature and determine the scientific
ground already covered.

 >PS: If you want to know what has been learned scientifically
 >about UFOs then read everything you can lay your hands on by
 >McDonald, Maccabee, Vallee, Hynek, and the Condon Committee
 >(including Saunders in dissent), for beginners. And, NO, they
 >aren't 100% correct but that doesn't mean their work was
 >worthless. Nor are they uniformly pro-UFO or anti-UFO.

 >It is time that UFOlogists get acquainted with the fundamentals
 >of this field and stop rehashing the same tired old
 >controversies that should have been resolved decades ago. I am
 >continually having to quote from Hynek's The UFO Experience on
 >basics such as the definition of a UFO, the requirement of
 >eliminating conventional explanations before declaring a case an
 >unexplained UFO, etc., as it seems few on this list ever read it
 >or follow the worthy teachings therein. How many on this List
 >know what "angular size" is or how to measure it? If you don't
 >then how can you possibly investigate a UFO case scientifically
 >as angular size is a fundamental? (Along with other
 >fundamentals such as duration, azimuth angles or compass
 >bearings, time/date, latitude, longitude, elevation above MSL,
 >etc.)

Let me see now - angular size: the degree of arc that an object
subtends when measured with a protractor against a background -
well, amateurs don't have much to work with. A compass is good
for bearings. A protractor again for azimuth angles. Ahhh MSL
(mean sea level). Then there is altitude. And the time! If only
witnesses looked at their watches. There should be a list of the
basic details to obtain on every sighting.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:22:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:22:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:17:04 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer

 >>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer
 >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:22 -0600

 >>It could be interesting to see, if Mr. Matthew Williams spends
 >>time in jail, more crop circles pop up.

 >>Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

 >Hello Virgilio,

 >It would be rather naive to assume that Mr Williams and Co. are
 >the only people making crop circles.

 >Dave.


All,

Thought the following gave a good overview of this story.

_______________________________________________

Associated Newspapers Ltd. Tuesday Nov 7th 2000


Crop Circle Hoaxer Trapped by Email.


A crop circle hoaxer designed an elaborate pattern in a field in
order to prove a farming expert wrong, a court was told
yesterday. Matthew Williams used bamboo sticks and planks to
make a seven pointed star in a wheat field at Manor Farm in West
Overton, Wiltshire, causing UKP200 worth of damage to the crop
in the process.

The 29 year old created the design with a friend in the middle
of one night last July(1999) after hearing Professor Michael
Glickman claim on a US radio show such patterns could only be
made by aliens.

Roger Jones, prosecuting, said Williams photographed the star
and put a picture on the Internet. "It was to be shown to Prof
Glickman to determin whether it was created in this world", he
added. But the plan fell through and the professor contacted
police after the show's DJ passed on an email to him in which
Williams told what he had done.

Williams, from Bourton, near Devizes, Wiltshire, became the
first person to be convicted of making a crop circle. He was
fined UKP100 with UKP40 costs after admitting criminal damage.


Neil.



--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
UK.                \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ


              E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page->   http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page->   http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page   ->   http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/

*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                      Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:41:41 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:27:28 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 06:13:57 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >>>My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >>>cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >>>appreciate this possibility.

 >>Hi Jenny,

 >>1. In your eyes is the UFO Phenomena that has been reported
 >>over the last few decades' now solved?

 >>2. Would you GUESS that there could be a possibility of other
 >>life forms way out yonder in the Universe?

 >>3. Has UFO Trace cases given us any insights into the UFO
 >>phenomena?

 >>4. Do you hold UFO Radar tracking cases as significant ?

 >>5. If you were hit with a stone' how would you know it was a
 >>real event and not a psychological delusion?

 >>If the answer is yes to Q:1 how much longer do you feel you
 >>should spend researching the UFO Phenomena?


 >Hi,

 >Its a pity you are not like the (incredible) British weather
 >right now since your answers are much easier to forecast.

 >I don't wish to get into responding to your questions as they
 >leap off a cliff into a pool of assumptions that have no direct
 >relevance to my response. They seem to be another attempt to
 >open a debate on the ETH and / or the nature of British
 >skepticism (which this list keeps having).

Hello, Jenny, Roy, Listers and Errol,

I must protest. And I must presume; which in this case is not
nearly as odious as at first perceived, that one cannot respond
to the questions posed by Roy because there are no answers.
Which was the basis of my original post. Nothing is revealed.

Personally, I am rather enfeebled by the opinions and offended
if not outraged, by the lack of genuine discovery. So Jenny, and
with all due respect, your opinion, mine, Roy's, anyone's
opinion, is completely irrelevant. We've got a surfiet of
opinion. And need no more. In mine.

 >I'm not saying that isn't interesting. But its not what this
 >topic is about.

In terms of my original post, it is exactly what this topic is
all about, as I perceived it, anyway.

 >Neither the question posed, nor my answer to it, had any
 >relevance . As my reply made clear I was purposefully avoiding
 >discussing exotic theories of UFO origin (all of them) and any
 >possible revelations that these have brought. Instead I was
 >simply offering some less contentious benefits that Ufology has
 >brought about in my own experience from case investigation.

My question intentionally avoided discussing exotic theories as
well. You, Jenny, and many others, have mentioned the benefits
which ufology has brought about. And there have been a few. But
there are no answers. And answers are now required. Demanded. I
for one, have had more than enough opinion, an overabundance of
benefits. I and many like me now demand our just due. An answer
to the conundrum of our perceived experiences. It should come
from you, the esteemed researchers. It may come from another
source. Us.

 >By all means please dispute them, but don't assume they mean
 >anything about the unconnected questions that you raise.

 >Mine was a proper answer to an excellent question and inferred
 >no rejection of the aspects of ufology that you raise.
 >Therefore, I don't intend to deflect a novel debate about the
 >tangible consequences of ufology into yet another discussion on
 >this obsession some have with perceived British super
 >skepticism.

 >I've made my position on UFOs abundantly clear before (including
 >in answers to similar questions that you have posted) and it
 >will not further this new contemplation to get sidetracked onto
 >them again. Anybody who has read me knows I do not reject all
 >UFO reality and will be aware of my open minded but evidently
 >unpersuaded viewpoint on the ETH. But it has no direct bearing
 >on what I said because such consequences of ufology that I
 >raised still exist regardless of whether there are no alien UFOs
 >at all or if gelatinous blobs from alpha Centauri are having
 >their wicked way with us.

 >I did not say that the things I proposed were the 'only'
 >positive discoveries or revelations to emerge from 50 years of
 >Ufology. I actually agree with several of the other ideas posted
 >by Wendy and Mark in response to this question. But I added a
 >few items of my own as to how I see UFology has benefited
 >society and

<snip>

And with respect. Not wishing to accuse or otherwise join in on
a debate which is not mine, I merely request that research be
joined by mainstream science, the medical community and our
elected officials, if indeed we here in the Colonies can
determine just who the hell our elected officials are.

Jim Mortellaro









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 8

                    Re: Filer's Files #44 -- 2000 - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:52:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:31:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #44 -- 2000 - Myers


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:56:41 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #44 -- 2000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Filer's Files #44 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
 >George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
 >November 6, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
 >C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

 >NEW EVIDENCE OBTAINED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF UFOs -- The BLT
 >Research Team has provided new evidence of hemoglobin at bovine
 >mutilation sights. There is also exciting new evidence from the
 >message held in General Ramey's hand that a disk crashed at
 >Roswell.

 >MAJOR NEW EVIDENCE IN CATTLE MUTILATION PHENOMENON

 >New evidence concerning the bizarre phenomenon generally known
 >as "cattle mutilations" (or "bovine excisions," the term
 >preferred by Michigan biophysicist Wm. C. Levengood) has
 >recently been presented to the anomalous phenomena research
 >community. In a 1997 "Study of Bovine Excision Sites From
 >1993-1997" written by Levengood and mailed out by the BLT
 >Research Team, a case on the Barton Ranch in Red Bluff, CA (Site
 >#8 in the 1997 report) included the finding that some black
 >particles recovered from the hide of the dead bull were most
 >likely hemoglobin. Levengood noted that the matrix color of the
 >particles was a deep red, with a fine-grained amorphous
 >structure which is not typical of whole blood, further noting
 >that the heme molecule, with an attached oxygen molecule, has a
 >red color. An EDS (energy dispersive spectroscopy) was obtained
 >and indicated precisely the spectra which would be expected from
 >a hemoglobin matrix: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and iron, with
 >small amounts of trace elements typical of biological samples.
 >The question then (as well as now) was how was this hemoglobin
 >separated from the other blood components and fabricated into
 >the compact homogenous structure discovered on the hide of this
 >excised bull?

 >In the early part of this year the expertise of an analytical
 >chemist with infrared spectroscopy capability became available
 >to the BLT Team. Phyllis Budinger, from Chagrin Falls, Ohio,
 >examined two samples of the particles retrieved from the
 >testicles and chest areas of the excised bull. Infrared spectra
 >were obtained from both samples, as well as references of
 >hemoglobin and whole bloods using the Harrick SplitPea cell
 >attached to a Nicolet Avatar 360 spectrometer (ATR crystal used
 >was silicon). Both samples were identified as bovine hemoglobin.
 >Further, the spectra of these samples do not match that of whole
 >blood, dried at ambient temperature in the laboratory, nor do
 >they match spectra obtained of dried whole blood exposed to
 >microwaves and after one week air exposure. Ms. Budinger's
 >results confirm unequivocally that these samples are not only
 >hemoglobin, but also that they are bovine hemoglobin. Probably
 >from this dead and excised Black Angus bull.

 >As Ms. Budinger indicates in her report, the usual procedure for
 >isolating hemoglobin from whole blood is rather complex: "it
 >involves separating red blood corpuscles from the lighter plasma
 >components by centrifugation. The plasma is siphoned off and
 >ether is added to the corpuscle paste, causing the cells to
 >burst. Another centrifugation removes the ruptured cell
 >envelopes, and leaves a clear red solution of hemoglobin. It is
 >unlikely that a procedure such as this would be done on site. It
 >is unknown how or why this occurred."

 >When I spoke to Nancy Talbott of the BLT Research Team about the
 >apparent need for laboratory equipment to produce these pure
 >hemoglobin particles she pointed out that Jean Bilodeaux, the
 >BLT fieldworker in this case, had clearly indicated in her
 >field-notes that this bull was found in a very isolated
 >pasture--more than 1/2-mile from the nearest dirt road, on a
 >steep hillside which was strewn with volcanic rocks and
 >boulders. "I don't see how a lab-on-wheels could have gotten in
 >there and, because of the steepness of the hill and the fact
 >that large boulders were strewn everywhere, I doubt that a
 >lab-in-a-helicopter could have landed. Ms. Bilodeaux also
 >pointed out that this animal was lying on top of a small
 >boulder, with its body twisted unnaturally as if it had fallen
 >from some height--and it was lying with both of its right legs
 >and its tail up under the body. Jean's impression was that this
 >animal may have been dropped into the location where it was
 >found. I wonder if the process responsible for creating the
 >hemoglobin particles was carried out elsewhere."


I just felt the need to clear up something here regarding this
case. Mr. Filer incorrectly identified the investigator who
collected these black particle samples. The investigator that
actually discovered and collected the samples is yours truly. On
the original BLT Research report from Nancy Talbott, I am listed
as the person who collected samples of the particles. Since this
story began making the rounds as of late, my name has somehow
been omitted or confused with another investigator in many
instances.

Also, I informed the List previously that Whitley Strieber
reported that the animal had no blood in it. This is simply not
true and I'm not sure where Strieber obtained his information.
There was certainly a lack of blood, but the animal was not
completely drained of blood. It would just be nice if some
people would get their facts straight.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

ufowatchdog@earthlink.net
eXpose News http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind... or your inability to properly
report the facts and details...






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:41:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:34:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Morris



 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:22:15 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer



 >of one night last July(1999) after hearing Professor Michael

should be ----------  (2000)!

Oops, managed to goof that one up good and proper! One toooooooo
many sherberts I think!.

Neil.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:17:29 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:36:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:49:32 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

Dennis,

 >Just out of sheer curiousity, do you, or, for that matter, David
 >Hufford, know of any single instance in which a witness or
 >experiencer claimed to have seen or encountered the Old Hag at a
 >time, or state, in which they were _not_ possible subjects of
 >sleep paralysis, that is, in a non- altered state of
 >consciousness?

The Old Hag is by definition a phenomenon encountered during a
particular period of sleep paralysis. People, of course,
encounter all sorts of other otherworldly entities in what
appears to be waking consciousness.

For your other questions, Hufford addresses them far more
articulately than I can. The lessons he draws from a wide range
of anomalous experience (not just Old Hag) are ones the
pelicanists on this list would do well to heed, but we can
safely assume they won't.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                          Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:47:53 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:39:13 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies


 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:02:34 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and
 >>remove all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory
 >>Fish 'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the
 >>stars.

 >>Done that?

 >>Now show the two sets of dots to someone who >doesn't know
 >>what they are and ask them if they can see the >slightest
 >>resemblance whatsoever.

 >>Thought not!

 >So what? That it was a map of stars __identified by us__ is
 >irrelevant. That it was apparently a star map is, in and of
 >itself, the evidence for extra-terrestrial contact. The key
 >words are "star map", not "identified star map".

 >There are _hundreds_of_billions_ of stars in our galaxy alone.
 >Personally, I'd be extremely surprised, if not astonished, if
 >any star map presented in the Hill case context were
 >identifiable.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Fish reconstruction could
be applied to a large number of configuations in our galaxy
alone. With hundreds of billions of stars, finding some purely
spurious matches seems just about inevitable.

Carl Sagan argued this point on his "Cosmos" program. And while
I usually don't agree with his generalizations about UFOs, I
thought I had a particularly good point in this case.

This isn't to say the Hill abduction was baloney, as Sagan did.
I personally think that something quite real happened. But the
"star map," while certainly worth a close look, isn't proof.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:05:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:41:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark



 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:40:50 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

 >>>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


Pelican John,

 >>And that is precisely the sort of reading that drives Hufford up
 >>the wall, and it is exactly why he praised my reading of his
 >>book. It's not as if we have to choose between belief in witch
 >>attacks or rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon, a
 >>point Hufford makes repeatedly and which Rimmer seems to have
 >>missed.

 >You do make a good point. What drives me up the wall are people
 >like who seem to think we have to choose between belief in
 >extraterrestrial spaceships or rejection of a strange
 >experiential phenomenon. I point which I make frequently and
 >which Clarke seems to have missed.

I presume you are referring to Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps you
could cite a reference for his conviction that "we have to
choose between belief in extraterrestrial spaceships or
rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon." That seems a
foolish idea, and I don't recall that anybody on this list
suggested it. As far as I can tell, you and your fellow
pelicanists are the only ones discussing alien spacecraft here.
In any event, let's see the Clarke reference. It strikes me as
extreme even for a veteran debunker like Clarke, but I could be
wrong.

 >>In fact, Hufford very specifically states that while much of the
 >>Old Hag experience can be explained through the findings of
 >>sleep research, much - perhaps the most interesting part -
 >>remains unaccounted for.* Hufford also goes on to state that
 >>the mishandling of the Old Hag phenomenon exactly parallels
 >>debunkers' mishandling of other anomalous phenomena, including
 >>UFO reports, cryptozoological matters, and more.

 >Hufford's analysis of the problems attached to the "Old Hag"
 >phenomeon seem to bring it closer to the abduction phenomenon
 >than to the apparent solid, engineered objects that Jerry claims
 >constitute the 'real' UFO mystery - the CE2s and radar-visual
 >cases. Although Hufford may think that conventional
 >psychological explanations do not adequately explain the actual
 >experiences involved in Hag accounts, I still doubt very much
 >that he thinks there actually *is* an 'objectively existing' old
 >woman who perpetrates the Hag attacks.

Huh? You lost me there. I must be scoring some points if this is
the best you can do. Again, I don't recall anybody's ever saying
- except you - that the existence of an actual Old Hag is what
we're discussing.

In point of fact, Hufford contends that the Old Hag phenomenon
and the abduction phenomenon, or at least some supposed
abductions, may be part of a larger experiential mystery beyond
current knowledge. I tend to agree. He also thinks that there
are notable differences in some instances. Like me and unlike
pelicanists, he thinks that investigation is far more important
at this stage than yet more empty theory.

 >It is Jerry who seems to be trying to polarise the debate by
 >saying that if you reject the idea of an actual Hag, you are
 >thereby denying the reality of the experience. Just such a
 >foolish argument is of course wheeled out to attack anyone who
 >doubts the physical reality of the abduction experience.

I am scratching my head here. What in the world are you talking
about? I don't recall discussing the "physical reality of the
abduction phenomenon" anywhere on this thread. In the real world
which pelicanists visit as seldom as possible, I am pretty much
an agnostic on the abduction question, which just plain confuses
me - as it should, I would think, any reasonable objective
observer. (Listfolk interested in my actual views, as opposed to
John's imaginative paraphrase of them, are invited to read my
paper "From Mermaids to Little Gray Men" in The Anomalist 8,
Spring 2000, available from Dennis Stacy, Box 12434, San
Antonio, Texas 78212, for $12.50 postpaid.) I do, however,
recognize bogus arguments when I see them, and pelicanist
treatments of the phenomenon usually tell me nothing except that
the theorists are in the grips of what Hufford wittily
identifies as the disbelief tradition.

 >>Hufford participated in the 1992 MIT abduction studies
 >>conference and contributed a fascinating paper to its
 >>proceedings, taking issue with both debunkers and proponents for
 >>loose thinking about a phenomenon that he freely acknowledges is
 >>most puzzling. He cites a case he learned of through a physician
 >>associate, noting that there were multiple witnesses and
 >>physiological evidence associated with it. Hufford remarks, "I
 >>know of no non-abduction explanation for these events.... To
 >>simply say this must ... be a case of folie a deux is to merely
 >>state that no amount of evidence will count in such cases."
 >What is this case, and where can I find an account of it?


Hufford doesn't go into details but mentions it at the beginning
of his paper in the MIT conference proceedings.

 >>>Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >>>(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

 >>No. Hufford thinks that the Old Hag is a very strange.
 >>phenomenon, poorly and even absurdly explained by pelicanists,
 >>part of which we now understand, but some of the most baffling
 >>aspects of which remain unaccounted for.

 >Hmm, sounds just like abductions to me.

Wow - finally, a leading psychosociologist admits that the
abduction phenomenon has _not_ been explained and that
baffling aspects remain unaccounted for. Reading Magonia, I
never would have guessed. I would have thought that in your
estimation it was only dimwitted ufologists who thought like
that. You're coming around, John. Good for you. Be
gentle, though, when you break the news to Peter
Rogerson.

 >Do you think that the evidence presented by Hufford makes the
 >presence of a physical Hag a "reasonable provisional
 >interpretation"? If not how does the degree of eyewitness
 >testimony presented by Hufford differ from the testimony
 >presented in the UFO reports that you find most convincing?

Wow. Go back and reread Hufford, then come back. At least then
you'll understand why arguments like the one you are making
distort his meaning beyond recognition. It sort of remains me,
actually, of the careless way you and other pelicanists treat
witness testimony.

I should point out to listfolk who may be confused by John's
strange effort to enlisten Hufford into the psychosociologist
cause re UFOs that I met Hufford originally - I had not heard
of him before - at a folklore conference in Omaha, Nebraska, in
1978. I engaged him in conversation when I noticed how visibly
incensed - and outspokenly critical - he became during our
mutual exposure to a pelicanist lecture on UFOs. As memory has
it, the lecture (by one Elmer Kral) was essentially
indistinguishable from anything one would read in Magonia.

Hufford _does not_ believe that all ostensibly strange phenomena
eventually yield to "conventional" explanations. He cites cases
in which strange phenomena, unknown to current knowledge, turned
out to be exactly what witnesses described them as and thought
they were. He also discusses cases in which such unknown
phenomena turned out to be as witnessed but whose explanations
proved different from the one observers thought.

His larger argument is about whether persons who report
anomalous experiences are describing them correctly (whether
explaining them wrongly or rightly) and whether those who seek
to explain them conventionally know what they're talking about.
Hufford's answers, respectively: usually and often not. He
specifically discusses UFOs, reports of cryptozoological
animals, and paranormal experiences as phenomena that, because
of their own psychological and sociological blinkers,
psychosocial theorists have misrepresented, distorted, and
reinvented so as to make them fit comfortingly, if
unjustifiably, into their own complacent worldview. The result
was to retard our understanding of important phenomena of nature
and experience.

If I were truly cynical, I would say that this sounds pretty
much like what one gets in a typical issue of that fascinating
journal of disbelief tradition, Magonia. But even I would never
be that cynical.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                          Crop Circle Hoaxes, Etc.

From: Murray Bott<murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:14:36 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:47:14 -0500
Subject: Crop Circle Hoaxes, Etc.



Gtreetings List

Now that there has been the arrest and conviction of one
circlemaker in England people should be reminded that the
"Circlemakers" have their own webpage at:-

http://www.circlemakers.org


Regards to all,

Murray Boot


Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:10:36 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:49:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:22 -0600 >>

 >It could be interesting to see, if Mr. Matthew Williams spends
 >time in jail, more crop circles pop up.

Surely you're not insinuating that Matthew is the only human
circle maker?

Terry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:14:01 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:50:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Rhodes


 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:17:04 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden >grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer


 >It would be rather naive to assume that Mr Williams and Co. are
 >the only people making crop circles.

This sounds very much like the beginning of a confession, care
to elaborate?

Terry







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Clark



 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500


 >Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >Five witnesses observed what they described as an alien "glide"
 >across a field near Uniontown, Pa. The sighting occurred on
 >August 3, 2000 about 10:00 P.M. The witnesses describe the being
 >as about 5 feet tall with long slender extremities. It carried a
 >brown "staff" about 5 feet long. It was observed for about a
 >minute from a distance of about 250 feet. No apparent
 >disturbances to the area around the being were reported. The
 >creature appeared to glide about 6 inches above the ground,
 >according to the witnesses. Weather conditions were cool and
 >clear with no wind. No sounds were reported, and witnesses
 >commented on it seeming abnormally quiet at the time. Crickets
 >and other normal background noises were absent.

I confess to a particular fondness for reports like these. I
call them "extreme experiential claims." Mark Chorvinsky calls
them "hopeless cases." In any event, these last two sentences,
describing something we have heard so often before, are
particularly fascinating. They bring to mind Jenny Randles's Oz
Factor. Any comment, Jenny?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                         Re: ET Evidence - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:47:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:57:41 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Friedman


 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:02:34 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:53:04 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
 >>>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence [was Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll]

 >>>Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

 >>>That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
 >>>signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

 >>>-Brian C.

 >>Would that be as in Betty Hill Star Map? Thought so.

 >>Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and remove
 >>all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory Fish
 >>'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the stars.

 >>Done that?

 >>Now show the two sets of dots to someone who doesn't know what
 >>they are and ask them if they can see the slightest resemblance
 >>whatsoever.

 >>Thought not!

 >So what? That it was a map of stars __identified by us__ is
 >irrelevant. That it was apparently a star map is, in and of
 >itself, the evidence for extra-terrestrial contact. The key
 >words are "star map", not "identified star map".

 >There are _hundreds_of_billions_ of stars in our galaxy alone.
 >Personally, I'd be extremely surprised, if not astonished, if
 >any star map presented in the Hill case context were
 >identifiable.

 >-Brian C.


Come on guys. Read the "Zeta Reticuli Incident" by Terence
Dickinson and the Zeta Reticuli Update, also by Terry.

The lines were drawn by Betty. They are the _pattern_ Marjorie
found _no_ match until the new Gliese catalog was published.
With much better distance data.

The chance of the identification being a concidence is less than
1 in 10,000. That there are billions of stars in the galaxy is
totally irrelevant.

The space covered goes out less than 50 light years. The rules
were stated and rational and even pleased a number of
astronomers such as Dr. Mitchell of OSU.

Every criticism of Ms. Fish's work including that by Menzel and
by Sagan mis-represented what was done. It is real research and
identified for all of us, not known beforehand, that Zeta l and
Zeta 2 Reticuli are the closest to each other pair of sun-like
stars in the neighborhood.

A street map of Fredericton is not much use in Amsterdam or
Shanghai. It is very handy here.

SPECIAL OFFER both TD items only $5.00 postpaid from UFORI, POB
958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958. or for Canadians only CAD$7. from
me at 79 Pembroke Crescent, Fredericton, NB E3B 2V1 Canada.

Stan Friedman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: On What is Known - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:01:39 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Friedman


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >Subject: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?
 >something sensible. Not just Trent and Bent(waters) and stuff
 >what's been upped and downed and gone round and round... over
 >and over again. Not only with no firm answers but no hope of
 >any.

 >Uh, disregard that last one. If it were so, then no one would
 >have anything to post here. (sigh)

<snip>

 >Jim


We have learned that Donald Menzel was up to his ears in
classified work for the CIA, NSA and many companies... certainly
a shock to all when I first published it.

We have certainly learned that Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli (about
a billion years older than the sun) are the closest to each
other pair of sun like stars in the local neighborhood and only
37 light years away which gives a whole new perspective  on
where we fit in the scheme of things.

We have learned that government agencies (USAF, CIA, NSA etc)
have knowingly been guilty of massive misrepresentation about
flying saucers. If there is nothing there why the coverup?

We have learned that debunkers will go to any length, make false
claims, attack people's character etc to defend their
conclusions based on proclamation. It suggests that perhaps this
is true in other areas as well.

We have learned that major media will fail to do an objective
investigation, at least partly because they claim on the basis
of an absence of investigation, that there is nothing there to
investigate. How many other areas are being neglected because of
this arrogance?.

We have learned that the SETI cultists will over and over again
make false claims about ufology while blindly defending what
they do as "science" when SETI really stands for Silly Effort to
Investigate. nad is based on a host of crazy assumptions.

That is just for starters.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                        Re: On What is Known - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:29:12 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:07:53 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Sparks


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 8 Nov 2000 07:08:43 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:15:14 EST
 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>>Subject: On What is Known
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

 >><snip>

 >>Jim, the best answer I can give you is this: I am assuming that
 >>what you are asking is what solid scientific work has been
 >>accomplished on UFO's in the 53 years since Kenneth Arnold.

 >>I think less than 1 year of serious scientific work has been
 >>done on UFO's, in total, in 50+ years and it shows. What I mean
 >>by less than a year is that a typical field of scientific
 >>research has, say, 100 to 1,000 scientists working on it full
 >>time around the world. I realize there are some little niches
 >>with fewer numbers and major fields with larger numbers, but I'm
 >>giving this as a rough rule of thumb.

 >>In a half century, the only solid scientific work that has been
 >>done on UFO's has been by a small handful of scientists actually
 >>doing scientific study of the subject - McDonald, Maccabee,
 >>Vallee, Hynek, et al. - and none of it has been full time
 >>_scientific_ study (as opposed to administrative or clerical
 >>labor or technical compiling of data) except for brief periods
 >>when, say, McDonald was able to devote full time to it. This is
 >>only a small fraction of the number in a full fledged community
 >>of 100 to 1,000 scientists devoting full time to a subject, and
 >>only a fraction of full time equivalent (FTE) over 50+ years.

 >>What I mean is that more than 100 McDonalds should have been
 >>working 100% of the time for 50 plus years on UFO's, as might be
 >>the case with established subjects such as astronomy, molecular
 >>biology, meteorology, algae research (phycology), seismology, or
 >>major subdisciplines of the same, etc.

 >>Even counting brief interludes by Battelle for 2 years, the
 >>Condon Committee for 2 years (don't forget Saunders), and the
 >>Sturrock panel, it adds up to less 1/10 the number of scientists
 >>needed over less than 1/10 of the time involved for an aggregate
 >>effort of 1/100 (and I'm being very generous with the numbers
 >>here).

 >>Work out the math and it is the equivalent of having a full
 >>scientific community working at it for less than about 6 months
 >>since 1947 - probably it is less than even 1 month. No wonder
 >>there has been so little scientific progress in UFO research.

 >I might add that anyone with scientific training should be able
 >to adopt the methods of scientists to their studies of UFOs.
 >Some of us have had some training in this area. For instance, I
 >majored, but did not complete my course of studies in physics.
 >Others can research the literature and determine the scientific
 >ground already covered.


Before I comment I want to commend you for your excellent and
very worthwhile posting on "A Scientific Mystery-Solving
Strategy" - see:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/nov/m07-039.shtml

I can only hope that your suggestions will be followed though I
am not very optimistic that they will. A lot of progress could
be made if work was done along the lines you suggest (and very
similar ideas by Mark Cashman and a few other astute theorists).

As for your comment, the problem is that hardly anyone in
ufology "researches the literature." I constantly see arguments
boiling over into acrimony on issues that should have been
settled with Hynek's The UFO Experience in 1972 or Vallee's
Challenge to Science in 1966 or other foundational works of UFO
research. And if they weren't settled by Hynek and Vallee back
then it is incumbent on the dissenters to reference Hynek 1972
and Vallee 1966 (or the pertinent authority) and point out the
alleged errors in an intellectually responsible fashion.
However, that is never done, at least on this List. It seems
these classics are unknown to an ever shifting ephemeral group
of newcomers who are unfamiliar with their intellectual roots.

I agree with you that establishment credentials are not
necessary in order to be able to carry out competent scientific
work he work can and should be judged on its merits. It just
turns out though that the bulk of the substantial scientific
work done in ufology to date has been done by those with the
doctorates, with McDonald far in the lead on the empirical side.

 >>PS: If you want to know what has been learned scientifically
 >>about UFOs then read everything you can lay your hands on by
 >>McDonald, Maccabee, Vallee, Hynek, and the Condon Committee
 >>(including Saunders in dissent), for beginners. And, NO, they
 >>aren't 100% correct but that doesn't mean their work was
 >>worthless. Nor are they uniformly pro-UFO or anti-UFO.

 >>It is time that Ufologists get acquainted with the fundamentals
 >>of this field and stop rehashing the same tired old
 >>controversies that should have been resolved decades ago. I am
 >>continually having to quote from Hynek's The UFO Experience on
 >>basics such as the definition of a UFO, the requirement of
 >>eliminating conventional explanations before declaring a case an
 >>unexplained UFO, etc., as it seems few on this list ever read it
 >>or follow the worthy teachings therein. How many on this List
 >>know what "angular size" is or how to measure it? If you don't
 >>then how can you possibly investigate a UFO case scientifically
 >>as angular size is a fundamental? (Along with other
 >>fundamentals such as duration, azimuth angles or compass
 >>bearings, time/date, latitude, longitude, elevation above MSL,
 >>etc.)

 >Let me see now - angular size: the degree of arc that an object
 >subtends when measured with a protractor against a background -
 >well, amateurs don't have much to work with. A compass is good
 >for bearings. A protractor again for azimuth angles. Ahhh MSL
 >(mean sea level). Then there is altitude. And the time! If only
 >witnesses looked at their watches. There should be a list of the
 >basic details to obtain on every sighting.

Most UFO sighting report forms have the basic details to be
obtained on every sighting, but they are usually not properly
prioritized as to most important and least important data.

The point of my original response was to highlight the lack of
resources that are devoted to UFO research and investigation.
Ideally, there should be training courses for UFO investigators
that cover such essential topics of investigative methodology
and field techniques.

Every ufologist should know that the full moon (and the sun) is
about 0.5 (or 1/2) degree in angular size his is a much easier
comparison for angular sizes. A protractor is useful for
azimuths and elevation angles but very difficult to use with
angular sizes which usually are less than 1 degree and too small
for a protractor.

Vallee in 1966 stressed that the most fundamental thing we know
about a UFO event is its location in space and time time, date,
latitude, longitude, elevation or height about mean sea level
(of the observer at least, since it is often difficult to locate
the UFO precisely). He was very critical of the use of UFO data
that are lacking in these essentials. Something to think about
with regard to alleged early life abductions where even the year
of the alleged event may not be known, the date is almost never
known, and the location is often unknown.

The duration and angular size are crucially important elements
of a visual UFO sighting because these determine how much visual
information a witness received. One can actually turn these into
approximate numbers of pixels, color range, and then bytes of
data as if the witness was a video recorder (of course a human
being is more fickle than a machine, but the analogy is
appropriate from the standpoint of physiology and optics).

The shorter the amount of time a witness sees a potential UFO
the less certain the details and the greater the possible error.
Sightings lasting less than 1 second are virtually worthless for
obvious reasons (the same rule doesn't apply to more predictable
phenomena such as meteors where repetition and consistent
behavior allow for valid data to be extracted from brief
observations). Sightings lasting less than 10 seconds are
dubious at best.

In my screening criteria for selecting UFO Best Evidence cases I
have a minimum 1 minute duration preferred, as that allows
plenty of time for witnesses to observe enough detail that an
investigator can be reasonably sure of the data - shorter visual
sightings may well be useful and valid but should not be deemed
"Best Evidence" except under extraordinary conditions (or if
instrumentation is involved). Note: I didn't say this was to
allow enough time for the witnesses to generate _opinions_ or
_interpretations_ of the cause of the sighting, as these are
usually unreliable, but for enough observational data to be
perceived so that technically competent investigations can
extract reliable observational _data_ (NOT interpretations of
the data) from the witnesses. Then the data are analyzed for
possible conventional explanation - again, as explained in
Hynek's The UFO Experience (1972). (And note I said plural
"witnesses" as I also require at least 2 witnesses as Hynek
insisted upon, for visual-only cases with no instrumentation
involved.)

Same for angular size. The smaller the apparent or angular size
the less there is to see, the less certain a witness can be
about details that might make it explainable or unexplainable
(the Strangeness Index).

Witnesses in most cases cannot determine the actual size,
distance or height of a UFO, because there are no reference
points of known size or distance directly behind and in front of
the object to bracket in those parameters and most cases are
beyond the 30-foot limit of human stereoscopic vision to
triangulate a distance to an unfamiliar object.

Despite this well-known fact of physiological optics both sides
of the UFO controversy have used the dishonest lawyer trick of
picking out just such impossible-to-perceive details in order to
discredit a sighting or to promote a sighting, even if more
accurate data are available - certainly no effort will be made
by partisans of either stripe to try to extract the _accurate_
data when discrediting at all costs or promotion at all costs is
the goal, not the truth.

For example, if a UFO witness guesses that a 1,000-foot long UFO
flew overhead the skeptics will claim that proves the witness
was deluded or a liar because there was no way to determine size
or distance and they will claim the size is somehow inherently
preposterous. The believers, however, will claim that it proves
it was an ET spaceship as no manmade aircraft of that immense
size exists.

Meanwhile, a careful and competent UFO investigator might work
with the witness and find out that the 1,000-foot size estimate
has _relative_ validity as an angular size, i.e., the ratio of
1,000 feet at a distance of 10,000 feet overhead is what was
meant and is the same angular size as 100 feet at 1,000 feet
distance or 10 feet at 100 feet overhead, etc. (about 6 degrees
subtended angle, or a little more than 10 times the width of the
full moon). Of course, in some cases witnesses cannot accurately
determine such parameters even with help and the figures that
are given (maybe to the media) are guesswork that should be
labelled as such and ignored, but not held against them like
some sleazy defense attorney trying to trip up a witness at a
trial.

The cardinal rule in Ufology should be: Quantify - Quantify -
Quantify. Seek Accurate Data - Avoid Opinions. Most witness
statements of opinion can be converted into quantified data if
the opinion is based on observation, however misunderstood.
Hynek explains this in The UFO Experience.

If a witness says "it could not have been an airplane," the
skeptic seizes on this bald opinion to prove the witness doesn't
know what he's talking about, the believer seizes on it to prove
it must be a real UFO maybe even an ET ship. But a careful
investigator can ask the witness "Why do you think that?" The
witness may answer with another bald opinion "Because it was
travelings too fast," but the investigator swings into action
with a protractor and the second hand on his watch, and after a
number of timed re-enactments with the witness reduces the
subjective statement "travelings too fast" into a quantified
measurement or estimate of angular velocity, say 10 degrees per
second. Now we have some physics data. And maybe when combined
with other quantified data it can be shown that this is too fast
for a manmade aircraft otherwise it would have made too loud a
noise, etc. Or maybe it turns out to fit the flight pattern of a
fighter jet squadron at a nearby air force base and the witness
was partially deaf - or whatever.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                 Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:45:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:09:16 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Stacy


 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:03:46 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32

<snip>

 >BTW, when you reminded me to vote, I hope you weren't expecting
 >me to vote for your fellow Texan! Id rather vote for the
 >Ayatollah! <LOL>

 >Regards,

 >John Velez

John,

Not at all, seeing as how I didn't myself!

I was also in Wyoming during the fires last summer, and I can
assure you that a lot less of same was burning than was actually
on fire at any given time. Never mind that it looked as if the
mountains had moved to Los Angeles, or as if Los Angeles' air
had moved to the mountains.

We even saw the lightning strike that started a fire just south
of town (Jackson Hole).

To compare same, however, you only have to drive a few miles
north into Yellowstone National Park to see the damage wreaked
by the 1986 or 1988 fire.

By my humble estimate, we're talking a good seveal million trees
down here. Sorry to see now, but ultimately it rejuvenates the
entire forest.

Life's weird, innit?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                    Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 03:20:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:11:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Goldstein


 >From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:31:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:35:46 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

 >>Hi Bob, Josh,

 >>Just a note. Betty Cash passed away earlier this year. I believe
 >>her death was directly related to the (radiation induced?)
 >>illness she had been fighting since the sighting. Do either of
 >>you know anything about the condition of the grandson or the
 >>other female witness that was in the car? Were either of them
 >>ever affected? Also, I know Betty had litigation pending against
 >>the government. She was sueing them for her medical expenses.
 >>Does anybody know what the outcome of that case was? Just
 >>curious.

 >John, Josh, List:

 >I don't know, to all of the above questions. It would be
 >interesting to find out.


Hi Bob, John, and all,

I've been so wrapped up in the election conundrum that I didn't
get around to replying till now.

Vicki and Colby were irradiated much less than Betty Cash
because they did not get outside the car.

The case against the government did not get anywhere when the US
goverment said "whatever it was, it wasn't ours". I strongly
suggest you look at Dr.John Scheussler's book or the many
articles and television renditions. Years ago I taped the
Unsolved Mysteries version. I still get as sad amd angry every
time I watch it. Just as Tim Good's Above Top Secret is still a
good primer to UFO realty, if someone would ask why I am
passionate about Ufology I could show them that segment and they
would shed a few tears and understand.

If I were Laurence Rockefeller I would have shown it to Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, and Wes Hubble. I still don't understand why
the Prez could not get someone higher in government to find what
Hubble could not access. Perhaps the truth about the Cash -
Landrum tragedy is on file somewhere, as is the truth about the
Kennedy assasination.

Kind regards,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                BBC's 'Horizon' Censured For Unfair Treatment

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:12:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:12:21 -0500
Subject: BBC's 'Horizon' Censured For Unfair Treatment



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Source: 'The Independant' - London

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Media/2000-11/horizon091100.shtml


BBC's 'Horizon' Censured For Unfair Treatment

By Jane Robins, Media Correspondent

9 November 2000

Horizon, the BBC flagship science programme, is to be criticised
for the first time by the Broadcasting Standards Commission for
being unfair to two authors who believe the world was once
dominated by a "lost civilisation".

The BBC has been forced to re-edit the Horizon programme
"Atlantis Reborn", which questions the maverick theories of
Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, authors of the bestsellers
Fingerprints of the Gods and The Orion Mystery. The two men have
also challenged the BBC to broadcast a live debate in which they
can argue their case - but the corporation confirmed yesterday
that no debate was planned.

Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval believe that an advanced civilisation
with sophisticated technology once inhabited the earth but was
destroyed by a global cataclysm at the end of the ice age,
around 10,500BC. Their theory suggests that the "lost
civilisation" was behind the building of the pyramids - an
argument that helped to sell more than four million books, and
which was questioned in the Horizon programme.

Dr Edwin Krupp, an astronomer, said the authors' assertion that
the pyramids at Giza represented the constellation of Orion
"could be made to work only by turning upside down either the
image of Egypt or that of the sky".

The authors' essential rebuttal of the upside-down argument was
left out. They contest that Dr Krupp's evidence relies on the
modern convention that north is up, and that the ancient
Egyptians would have modelled the pyramids on Orion "as they saw
it".

BBC insiders acknowledged yesterday that the programme was being
edited "a teeny bit" to include Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval's
response - in time for a rebroadcast due on 14 December - just
over a year after the original. The corporation is sticking by
the programme's team, and points out that only one of 10
complaints by the two authors was actually upheld by the
watchdog.

The unsuccessful complaints included Mr Hancock's assertion that
the programme made him out to be an "intellectual fraud", and Mr
Bauval's argument that it made his Giza-Orion Correlation Theory
- which also links the Nile with the Milky Way and the Sphinx
with the constellation of Leo -
seem to be a con.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                       Re: Military Abductions? - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:55:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:14:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Hart


 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:11:47 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >Hello Gary,

 >That has got to be the longest and most convoluted non-answer to
 >a posting I have ever seen on this List! You'd probably do great
 >in politics with a technique like that but it doesn't play well
 >here.

 >I was laboring under the delusion (for some reason) that you
 >were a serious person. I'm all better now. Thanks for clearing
 >_that_ up at least.


John,

Ok, so you don't get the picture. Fair enough. What I have said
is true. Observations based on case evidence. Do you investigate
sightings or abductions using any structured process?

Gary









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 9

                         Re: On What is Known - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:15:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:15:43 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hart


 >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:15:14 EST
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >It is time that UFOlogists get acquainted with the fundamentals
 >of this field and stop rehashing the same tired old
 >controversies that should have been resolved decades ago.
 >How many on this List know what "angular size" is or how
 >to measure it? If you don't then how can you possibly
 >investigate a UFO case scientifically as angular size is a
 >fundamental? (Along with other fundamentals such as duration,
 >azimuth angles or compass bearings, time/date, latitude,
 >longitude, elevation above MSL, etc.)
 >Brad Sparks

Brad, you are exactly right! Precise documentation based on
knowledge of the fundamentals of accurate measurement is
necessary. My own point is that you _can_ place yourself in the
right spot at the right time to observe firsthand _if_ you
develop a strategy to do so. Of course it is not easy but it can
be done. Bill Hamilton's post regarding strategy is an example
of another step in the right direction.

Gary











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

              Re: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 -

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:34:22  - 0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:37:15 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 -


 >Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:55:48 +0000
 >From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32


I'm glad that the madcap Martin Kottmeyer answered - in the
pages (or the bits and bytes) of Magonia - the criticisms I made
of him in my essay "The Abduction Conundrum." (Originally
published in Dennis Stacy's and Patrick Huyge's The Anomalist,
and available on my own UFO website,
http://www.gregsandow.com/ufo. Leave out the "/ufo" if you'd
like to read my writings on music.)

I'd always wondered how Kottmeyer, who strikes me as rather zany
when he's speaking by himself, would handle himself in an
exchange of views. But I'm rather disappointed. I don't think,
to be honest, that Kottmeyer understands what I said.

 >Greg Sandow, in his essay "The Abduction Conundrum" (Anomalist
 >No. 7, Winter 98/99, and Sandow's personal web site) offers
 >another sort of criticism. He indicates I am "completely unaware
 >of how silly" I sound when I point out some of the elements of
 >abduction stories appeared in earlier science fiction. He grants
 >that anybody could "cherry pick" old issues of Amazing Stories
 >and emerge with elements of the abduction story. His complaint
 >is that I don't explain how they come together in the current
 >storyline of abductions being taken throughout a person's life
 >and using us sexually without explaining their designs upon us.
 >I'm engaged in "vulgar" Gotcha - type thinking, he proposes.
 >"Kottmeyer doesn't make predictions from his theory, doesn't
 >give us any way to separate abduction tales that might be
 >influenced by media from those that wouldn't be. Besides...
 >the science fiction details could be veiled abduction memories."

Well, first I wouldn't say I "grant" that anyone can find old
science fiction stories that anticipate fragments of current
abduction narratives. I would have said that I "chortle" - or
maybe even giggle - at how easy that is to do. The problem,
however, is to demonstrate that these anticipations mean
anything.

 >The concession that one can find the abduction elements in
 >earlier culture forgets that it was the Hopkins claim that one
 >could not find those elements in earlier culture that was being
 >disproven. One doesn't need to have a theory, amateur or
 >professional, to prove such a point.

It all depends on what you mean by "elements." It's absurdly
easy to find "elements" of abduction narratives in science
fiction, if by "elements" what you mean are random details, torn
from their original context and compared with details of
abduction narratives, equally torn out of context. And that's
exactly what Kottmeyer does. As I say in my essay:

"Does Budd Hopkins insist that the abduction story can't be
found in science fiction? Hah! Maybe aliens leave marks on his
abductees' bodies, but [as Kottmeyer says] that's in a 1954
epic, 'Killers from Space.' Do abductee women mysteriously get
pregnant? That's in 'Village of the Damned'. Do the aliens have
big eyes? 'Invasion of the Saucer Men'" Do they read our
thoughts? 'Earth versus the Flying Saucers.'"

Note that these "elements" are ripped from their original
context, and compared with "elements" of the abduction scenario,
also ripped from their context. The meaning of the "elements",
as they come up in the old science fiction films that Kottmeyer
cites, may be wildly different from their meaning in abduction
narratives.

For instance, women who report being abducted sometimes then say
they've pregnant when they haven't been having sex. They make
these reports, of course, in isolation. They don't come forward
with dozens of other abductees who all say they discovered their
pregnancies on the same day. They then, if we're to believe this
branch of the abduction narrative, give birth to hybrid human -
alien babies which are taken from them, to be reared by the
aliens inside their spacecraft, though sometimes they need hugs
and other attention from their natural mothers.

"Village of the Damned" tells a very different story. There, an
entire British village is somehow isolated from the world around
it. Nine months after that event, every woman in the village
gives birth to children who grow up to be very peculiar - blonde
(strikingly so), impassive, with compelling eyes. The children
function as a unit within the village, opposed by our earthly
authorities, a scenario light - years away from the pregnancy
stories in abduction reports.

Kottmeyer, to put this very simply, can't see the forest for the
trees. His thinking is vulgar because it's so blindingly
literal. Budd Hopkins says something to the effect that the
abduction narrative can't be found in earlier culture. Kottmeyer
attempts to disprove that by finding isolated elements of it.
These elements are taken from such different contexts that, for
me, they serve mainly to highlight the truth of Budd's claim.

Kottmeyer, of course, is free to disagree, but his methodology
is flawed in any case. In serious social science research,
people don't generally claim significant similarities without
either (1) establishing detailed quantitative measures of what
they're trying to establish, and/or (2) establishing some
authority beyond their own opinion for the claimed similarity.

To take the second of these approaches, you assemble a panel of
impartial judges. You give them abduction narratives to read,
and then have them watch "Village of the Damned." You then ask
them to rate the two on a numerical scale of similarity, from 1
(no resemblance) to 5 (almost total similarity). That way, you
give your opinion a context in the views of others. You
establish not simply that you find two things similar, but that
many other people are likely to find them similar, too.

To take the first approach, you specify what you're trying to
prove, and what the standards for proof ought to be. For
instance, if you're trying to prove that abduction narratives
have tangible antecedents in earlier science fiction, you might
pick a dozen elements from these narratives, and establish how
often they occur in science fiction, and in what combinations.

Supposing you'd picked (among others) the three elements I
mentioned in my description of how Kottmeyer works - marks
appearing on abductees' bodies, aliens making abductees
pregnant, and aliens having big eyes. Your hypothesis is that
these elements can be found in earlier science fiction, and that
there's something more than a casual connection between their
appearance in science fiction and in abduction reports. In other
words, you want to show that their appearance in science fiction
and then in abduction reports is more than a coincidence.

To do that, you specify criteria of proof. You might say, for
instance, that you'd consider your theory proved if the elements
you've cited occur with more or less equal frequency in
abduction reports and in science fiction stories - in other
words, that they can be shown to be major elements of both. You
might also want to show that they occur in the same combination.
How often, in abduction reports, do all three appear together?
How often do women report being abducted by big - eyed aliens,
get pregnant as a result of the abductions, and find marks on
their bodies? And how often do the same three things occur
together in science fiction?

To study this, you read a large number of abduction reports, and
create tables, showing how often each separate element appears
and how often they appear together. You then read a large number
of science fiction stories, and watch a lot of science fiction
films, and make the same tables for those. Then you compare the
results. I'm guessing that you'd find these three elements very
common in abduction reports and very rare in science fiction;
I'm also guessing that the combination of all three occurs much
more often in abduction reports.

Of course, I haven't done the research, so my guess, obviously,
doesn't carry much weight. But Kottmeyer hasn't done the
research either, and seems to proceed on the assumption that
merely findin g any anticipation of any abduction element in any
piece of science fiction - even finding it once - is
significant. That's why I say his thinking is vulgar. He goes
for the obvious, and doesn't realize how many unexamined
assumptions lie behind what he says. He doesn't seem to have any
conception of how social science is done, or what might
constitute proof.

To put it more subjectively, here's what I wrote in my essay:

"The truth, of course, is that any of us, with too much time on
our hands, could cherry - pick old issues of Amazing Stories,
and emerge with elements of the abduction scenario. But could we
find the core of it? I read science fiction incessantly when I
was younger. Aliens came in many guises. Sometimes they showed
up with rayguns blazing. Sometimes (in a Murray Leinster story,
'First Contact') they told dirty jokes. They smuggled jewels, by
dematerializing them with mental trickery. They snuck down to
earth to peddle photos, pornographic elsewhere, of one - celled
beings reproducing.

"But I don't believe I ever found a story in which shadowy
aliens entered bedrooms at night, abducting some of us
throughout our lives and using us sexually, without ever making
themselves known or explaining their designs. Kottmeyer, to put
it mildly, can't see the forest for the trees. He writes as if
abductees combine details at random, never noticing that their
stories have an underlying theme, and that the theme - the glue
that holds abduction stories together - is what needs to be
explained. This theme has never been a major science fictional
motif, so anyone who thinks that science fiction spawned
abduction tales needs to explain something much more
complicated, why meaningless ornamental details were sucked from
old magazines and movies, to adorn a more serious narrative that
appears to be autonomous."

 >Sandow takes no notice that
 >if he alleges early science fiction stories are veiled abduction
 >memories, he is undercutting the framework of interpretation
 >that Jacobs, Hopkins, and Bullard were using, i.e. the aliens
 >arrived in 1947 or thereabouts and nothing in earlier culture
 >existed because they were elsewhere. Strike out that assumption
 >and their claims of novelty have no point, let alone force.

First, why should I accept the "framework of interpretation"
Budd, Dave Jacobs, and Eddie Bullard use? Did I ever say I
accept it? I might defend aspects of it, but that doesn't mean
I'm required to agree with all of it. Kottmeyer once again is
playing "gotcha!"

Second, Dave currently says (in "The Threat") that aliens began
abducting us late in the 19th century. So obviously they arrived
long before 1947. I don't know that Budd has set any date for
the alien arrival. 1947 is generally accepted as the date when
UFO reports began to be frequent enough to be noticed, but that
doesn't mean - even if we assume that UFOs are alien - that the
aliens couldn't have arrived here much earlier.

Finally, it's almost shocking to see Kottmeyer link Eddie
Bullard to Budd and Dave here. Eddie - an abduction agnostic,
despite the problems his research makes for skeptics - has never
said he believes aliens are here at all. To lump him with Budd
and Dave is both silly and uninformed.

 >In speaking of my not providing an explanation of the present
 >storyline, particularly the part about the abductors not
 >explaining themselves, Sandow is clearly parroting an argument
 >made by Jacobs in his book Secret Life (Fireside, 1992, p. 297).
 >Sandow is saying I should have addressed in a 1990 essay an
 >argument that did not even exist till two years later.

I love this bit.

First, Kottmeyer finds random details from abduction narratives
in earlier science fiction, and assumes that the science fiction
stories somehow helped generate the abduction reports.

Now he finds something I say in one of Dave Jacobs's books, and
assumes that I'm simply "parroting" what Dave wrote. Not even
that Dave influenced me - but that I'm echoing him, as if Dave's
writing had generated my own.

Well, at least Kottmeyer is consistent. Somehow it never occurs
to him that I might have come up with Dave's point
independently, or that maybe I made it in print because, having
thought the problem through, I found I agreed with it.

But what's really funny is this: " Sandow is saying I should
have addressed in a 1990 essay an argument that did not even
exist till two years later." No, Sandow is saying that the
argument is so obvious that Kottmeyer should have thought of it
himself, that anyone not crippled by a remorselessly literal
mind would have understood what the present dispute is about,
and would have anticipated the most obvious objection that
people who disagree with him would make.

But then Kottmeyer really doesn't seem to understand what's
going on here. He doesn't seem to understand that it's the
abduction narrative in its totality that Budd and others think
is unique, and that therefore finding random details of it in
earlier science fiction doesn't prove anything.

I'm reminded (possibly digressing) of the many lawsuits unknown
songwriters bring against rock stars. "You claim you wrote the
song that's your biggest hit, but I wrote that melody ten years
earlier!" Or, rather, they wrote something that sounds like some
small part of that melody. Unknown songwriters never win those
cases, as far as I know, because judges and juries understand
that, with so many millions of people writing songs, random
resemblances are inevitable. Thus, Beethoven's mighty "Eroica"
symphony begins with a theme also found in the overture of a
mostly trivial opera Mozart wrote when he was 12, but nobody
thinks Beethoven stole the theme from Mozart.

And even when a composer knowingly echoes something somebody
else wrote, the resemblance might not mean very much, because
the context of the two works is so different. When Brahms - at
this point in his life a mature composer, with many masterpieces
already written - premiered his first symphony, many people
pointed out a family resemblance between part of the main theme
of the last movement and part of the famous theme from the last
movement of Beethoven's 9th. Brahms, however, had no need to
doubt himself. "The most remarkable thing," he would answer,
whenever anyone brought up the resemblance, "is that any fool
can hear it." And that, more or less, is how I feel about the
far more trivial resemblances Kottmeyer finds.

 >Subsequent to reading Jacobs's book I did point out that some of
 >this new argument was demonstrably false. There are film aliens
 >that never explain themselves and many films have aliens
 >interested in the subject of procreation. This was discussed in
 >my May 1994 essay "Spawn of Inseminoid" (REALL News, 2, 5). The
 >storyline about abductees being taken throughout their lives is
 >one I have not addressed largely because I was unaware anyone
 >thought it truly a matter of interest. Indeed I was under the
 >impression that this business of abductees being followed
 >throughout their lives was an embarrassment because it is so
 >clearly a new storyline that did not exist prior to Hopkins. It
 >is inconsistent with the body of abductions that existed before
 >he came on the scene.

First Kottmeyer, not knowing where Eddie Bullard stands in the
abduction debate, groups him with Budd and Dave. Now he decides
which parts of the abduction scenario matter and which don't.

 >Sandow wants a way to separate abductions influenced by media
 >and those that are not. Easy. Have the abductees persuade the
 >aliens to visit Seth Shostak and Stephen Jay Gould. Persuade the
 >aliens to give them copies of their mission records, a universal
 >translator, and a library of a hundred books dealing in depth
 >with such matters as alien zoology, alien palaeontology, alien
 >biochemistry, a medical text, art history, antique guides to
 >show they are up and up on being from an alien civilization. If
 >the mission records back the abduction claims then we will know
 >which accounts were real and beyond influence. Failing that,
 >there are always things like FBI room - sweeps for alien skin
 >cells or scales, mass witnessing of crafts, instrumental records
 >like videotaped intrusions that pass muster upon scrutiny by
 >non - believers.

Of course I agree that we need physical evidence of abductions.
But Kottmeyer drastically misunderstands what I said. I meant
that his theory should allow us to determine whether science
fiction really influences abduction reports. That is, he should
present criteria for deciding whether or not the influence is
real, criteria that could then be tested. I've suggested one way
to do that.

 >Sandow wants predictions. Jacobs's alien takeover by big bug
 >aliens will not happen. The apocalypses seen by abductees and
 >supported by Mack will not happen. Mainstream science will not
 >enter ufology en masse and become convinced of the existence of
 >aliens who are spying on humanity or using us as part of a
 >hybrid programme. The general UFO culture will continue to
 >manifest all manner of paranoid themes. The government, being
 >unable to prove to ufologists they are not engaged in a massive
 >cover - up, will provide no confessions.

Well, really I wanted Kottmeyer to make predictions based on his
theory, as one way of determining whether the theory is correct.

 >On the matter of the
 >general proposition that psychosocial theorists do not offer
 >testable propositions, a position held by both Sandow and Brown,
 >I remind critics here that my article "Abduction: The
 >Boundary - Deficit Hypothesis" (Magonia No. 32) predicted "the
 >final population of abduction claimants would be biased in
 >favour of a high proportion of boundary - deficit personalities".
 >I subsequently pointed out that there is a test instrument
 >developed by Ernest Hartmann that reliably discriminates between
 >people with thin boundaries and those who have thick or normal
 >boundaries (Kottmeyer, Martin, "Testing the Boundaries",
 >Bulletin of Anomalous Experience, 5, 4, August 1994). Low scores
 >would falsify the hypothesis. David Ritchey subsequently gave
 >the Boundary Questionnaire to 14 abductees. The average score
 >was 305 ("Elephantology  -  The Science of Limiting Perception to
 >a Single Aspect of a Large Object, Parts II & III", Bulletin of
 >Anomalous Experience, 5, 6, December 1994, pp. 11 - 16). This was
 >nicely in the range defined as thin - boundaried (Hartmann,
 >Ernest,  Boundaries of the Mind, Basic, 1991, p. 254).

Finally! Something reasonable, relevant, and concrete. Though 14
abductees isn't a very large sample, and I'd also wonder how
these abductees were chosen (and this is a real question, not a
rhetorical one). Had their abduction reports at least been vetted
by a responsible abduction investigator? Finally, another
prediction from the psychosocial hypothesis might be that
abductees have fantasy - prone personalities, and that's been shown
not to be true. (Ring and Rosing, "The Omega Project: A
Psychological Survey of Persons Reporting Abductions and Other
UFO Encounters," Journal of UFO Studies, v. 2; Rodeghier et al,
"Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees: Results from the
CUFOS Abduction Project," Journal of UFO Studies, v. 3 [new
series]; Donald Johnson, "Personality Characteristics of UFO
Abductees," in Andrea Pritchard et al, eds., "Alien Discussions,"
North Cambridge Press, 1994.)

The main thing, though, is that I asked for testable hypotheses
relating specifically to Kottmeyer's contention about science
fiction, and he responds with one about the psychosocial
hypothesis generally.

 >I do not plan to offer any grand unifying theories of abduction
 >experiences in the near future of the sort that will solve all
 >the things Sandow demands and will demand of psychosocial
 >theory. Such is impossible without compelling grand unifying
 >theories of dreams and nightmares to build on, or compelling
 >grand unifying theories of mythology, or compelling grand
 >unifying theories of cultural obsessions.

I've often said here that our speculations - and I include
Kottmeyer's - aren't much use outside a serious social science
context. That is, social scientists may have studied some of the
things we talk about, such as how ideas spread from fiction to
belief. If we're going to speculate that such a thing has
occured with abductions, we first need to look at the social
science literature, to see if there's any knowledge of how such
things happen, or at least how they've happened in the past.

Kottmeyer might turn out, in a serious social science context, to
be proposing something totally novel, or on the other hand to be
saying something so obvious it hardly has to be proved. But he
doesn't seem to know where he stands, and to evade any
responsibility for putting his work on a solid foundation, he
pretends I'm asking him for a "grand unifying theory."

 >That some
 >readers reject and malign these ideas is unfortunate, but life
 >is diverse and universal agreement on anything does not happen
 >even among the angels (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Lucifer, Cornell,
 >1984, pp. 36, 44. Angels and humans, unlike aliens, occasionally
 >tire of being servants, or so I'm told). I continue to hope
 >thoughtful people will catch on that this phenomenon will likely
 >continue to have no happy resolution for all concerned. If you
 >have a need to be of service to humanity, pick a pursuit more
 >certain to serve good like life - guarding, fire fighting,
 >medicine, engineering, auto manufacture, farming, et cetera.
 >Keep your options open if you must, but diversify your interests
 >to include things that will ultimately be less a waste of your
 >time, money, and emotional investment.

Freely translated: If you disagree with me, get a life!

I don't know how much literary reading Kottmeyer does, but I'd
recommend an essay by the great Argentinian writer Jorge Luis
Borges, called "Kafka and His Precursors." In it, Borges
contends that Kafka in effect created his predecessors, by
creating something new, parts of which we can, but only with
hindsight, recognize in earlier writing.

"If I am not mistaken [Borges writes], the heterogenous pieces I
have enumerated resemble Kafka; if I am not mistaken, not all of
them resemble each other. This second fact is the more
significant. In each of these texts we find Kafka's idiosyncrasy
to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had never written a
line, we would not perceive this quality; in other words, it
would not exist... In the critics' vocabulary, the word
'precursor' is indispensable, but it should be cleansed of all
connotations of polemics or rivalry. The fact is that every
writer _creates_ his own precursors. His work modifies our
conception of the past, as it will modify the future." (Borges,
Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings; New Directions,
1964).

In the psychosocialites' world, the word "precursor" is
inevitable, but it should be cleansed of all connotations of
causality. If the abduction narrative didn't exist, we wouldn't
see any significance in the details Kottmeyer cites from old
science fiction movies, and we certainly wouldn't see any
relationship among them. It wouldn't exist. The abduction
narrative created the significance of those details, or at least
created it in Kottmeyer's mind. In truth, the science fiction
movies didn't create the abduction narrative. Instead, the
abduction narrative makes the movies seem far more important
than they are.


Greg Sandow







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                    Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:34:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:40:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Hale


 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:54:14 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles

 >Hi Roy,

 >Q: Why do you think the police never arrested the very much
 >public and infamous Doug & Dave for destroying farmers crops?

 >A: No evidence to support their claims.


Hi Dave,

I think you should start digging a little Dave, Doug & Dave were
well published by numerous papers covering Crop Hoaxes in the
early eighties. And even recently in the BBC Country File
Special' where Doug showed to the camera his patchy work and
slightly looking knackered. In fact they admitted to creating
quite a few of the Crop Circles around at the time ( 80's), and
on camera.

I will revisit my old Crop Docs on tape sometime this week, to
grab some verbatim from the infamous pair.

Do you think Dave that Crop Circles are a recent Phenomena?

 >On the other hand the Police have photographic evidence of
 >William's and co doing the deed.

So statistically can we say that Matthew & Co were capable of
creating every Circle this year gone in Wiltshire' after taking
onboard witness statements and time differentials on when
circles appeared in this years Circle season?

Do you realize how many 'Locals' hold anti-hoax watches when the
season is on?

 >It gets sadder by the day.....

 >It certainly does, it appears there are those who will believe a
 >photo of a crop circle but will not believe a photo of someone
 >making a crop circle.

Sorry Dave, can I correct you there? I usually visit Wiltshire
every year and get into most of the circles and judge from a
ground perspective. Would it be fair to say that you are guilty
of believing all Circles are hoaxed because you saw one photo of
someone making a crop circle whilst not actually having spent a
second of your time in any Crop Circle? Should you at least
carry out some ground work of your own on the Crop Phenomena,
rather than let Matthew William's make your mind up?


All the best,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                         Re: On What is Known - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:36:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:43:59 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hale


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000

 >Hi,

 >Its a pity you are not like the (incredible) British weather
 >right now since your answers are much easier to forecast.

And yet we shall continue to get the same old piped out message
that nothing is happening it's all mundane things it can all be
explained away as we experts know it all, well I am slightly
bored on reading this tosh being put out' so please end the
argument Jenny, you have done your 25 year stint' you have come
to your Psychological and Natural conclusions on the UFO
subject' so the point of carrying on is what exactly?

 >I don't wish to get into responding to your questions as they
 >leap off a cliff into a pool of assumptions that have no direct
 >relevance to my response. They seem to be another attempt to
 >open a debate on the ETH and / or the nature of British
 >skepticism (which this list keeps having).

Well, please keep those big statements under wraps and you won't
get my questions. Should we just leave all of your quotes
unchallenged?

 >I'm not saying that isn't interesting. But its not what this
 >topic is about.

I disagree totally, you put out a statement saying that all
other UFO sightings are yet unexplained Natural phenomena, so
what is this topic about?

 >Neither the question posed, nor my answer to it, had any
 >relevance . As my reply made clear I was purposefully avoiding
 >discussing exotic theories of UFO origin (all of them) and any
 >possible revelations that these have brought. Instead I was
 >simply offering some less contentious benefits that Ufology has
 >brought about in my own experience from case investigation.

I am sorry but this answer reminds me of the film clip in Jaws,
where Chief Brody is trying to convince the board assembled that
there is a shark in the pictures but just gets fobbed off. Are
you not able to tell anyone on this list what you think of Radar
& Trace cases in respect of UFO investigations?

 >By all means please dispute them, but don't assume they mean
 >anything about the unconnected questions that you raise.

So because I come straight to the crux of the matter' I am
accused of writing unconnected questions? I didn't realize we
were debating the finer aspects of Koi Carp keeping!

 >Mine was a proper answer to an excellent question and inferred
 >no rejection of the aspects of ufology that you raise.
 >Therefore, I don't intend to deflect a novel debate about the
 >tangible consequences of ufology into yet another discussion on
 >this obsession some have with perceived British super
 >skepticism.

And my questions cannot be answered can they Jenny, without
giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia with nothing but
the same answers you mention in the first instance?

 >I've made my position on UFOs abundantly clear before (including
 >in answers to similar questions that you have posted) and it
 >will not further this new contemplation to get sidetracked onto
 >them again. Anybody who has read me knows I do not reject all
 >UFO reality and will be aware of my open minded but evidently
 >unpersuaded viewpoint on the ETH. But it has no direct bearing
 >on what I said because such consequences of ufology that I
 >raised still exist regardless of whether there are no alien UFOs
 >at all or if gelatinous blobs from alpha Centauri are having
 >their wicked way with us.

Jenny for the List, will you please state your final position on
UFO case reports across the UK & World?

 >I did not say that the things I proposed were the 'only'
 >positive discoveries or revelations to emerge from 50 years of
 >Ufology. I actually agree with several of the other ideas posted
 >by Wendy and Mark in response to this question. But I added a
 >few items of my own as to how I see UFology has benefited
 >society and there is no reason for this to lead into a new round
 >of 'Go on - admit you're a skeptic' - a new game show I am
 >hoping to franchise as a replacement for 'Who wants to be a
 >millionaire'.

So what label should be given to you then concerning the
statement you put out referring to UFO sightings?

 >And, yes, Roy, for the record, it is my final answer and I don't
 >need to phone a friend.

Jenny I look forward to your next 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                        Re: On What is Known - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:07:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:45:59 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Bowden


 >Date: 8 Nov 2000 06:54:28 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>>Subject: On What is Known
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research? Personally, I know
 >>>of nothing which has been discovered. Does anyone?

 >>Hi,

 >>UFO research has provided a number of new insights in two
 >>specific areas - atmospheric physics and human psychology.

 >>From the former, we have established examples of rare phenomena
 >>such as the mirage effect that was probably responsible for the
 >>Goose Bay, Labrador case and which has been duplicated on only a
 >>couple of other cases - again reported as UFOs.

 >>There are also more difficult to categorise types of UAP
 >>(unidentified atmospheric phenomena) that appear to be generated
 >>by both geological and physical processes within the
 >>environment. Science would likely not have discovered these
 >>because of the UFO stigma attached to such data.

 >>My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >>cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >>appreciate this possibility. There are several candidates - one
 >>of which is a consistently reported triple light triangle effect
 >>that appears to be some kind of atmospheric refraction.

 ><snip>

 >Why all this emphasis on natural phenomena? Certainly most of
 >the cases I have been interested in over the years have been
 >reports of structured metallic craft, sometimes seen with
 >portholes, appendages, extended landing gear and all the
 >appurtenances that make it appear to be similar in construct to
 >one of our aircraft or spacecraft. These sightings are the most
 >pertinent to the question of extraterrestrial vehicles of
 >unknown origin and contain the highest potential for scientific
 >and technological progress.

Hi Bill,

Do you have any photo's or video footage of craft with
portholes, appendages and extended landing gear?

I seem to get fed a diet of blobs, streaks and the occasional
aluminium pie plate on a piece of wire.

What you have described remains as reports with what appears to
be no photographic evidence.

The photo and video evidence so far shows what could be
construed as natural or hoax but portholes, appendages and
extended landing gear never seem to be caught on tape.

Why do you think that is?

I would be very interested in seeing such footage, if it exists
at all.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: On What is Known - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:30:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:47:22 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Maccabee


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

<snip>

 >There are also more difficult to categorise types of UAP
 >(unidentified atmospheric phenomena) that appear to be generated
 >by both geological and physical processes within the
 >environment. Science would likely not have discovered these
 >because of the UFO stigma attached to such data.>

 >My guess is that other unrecognised natural phenomena are the
 >cause of other UFO sightings but only ufologists are able to
 >appreciate this possibility. There are several candidates - one
 >of which is a consistently reported triple light triangle effect
 >that appears to be some kind of atmospheric refraction.

Huh?

Explain "triple light triangle", 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                         Re: ET Evidence - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:30:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:49:22 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Maccabee


 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:53:04 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence


 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence [was Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll]

 >>Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

 >>That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
 >>signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

 >>-Brian C.

 >Would that be as in Betty Hill Star Map? Thought so.

 >Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and remove
 >all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory Fish
 >'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the stars.

 >Done that?

 >Now show the two sets of dots to someone who doesn't know what
 >they are and ask them if they can see the slightest resemblance
 >whatsoever.

 >Thought not!

Gee, I wonder what it looked like when Marjorie Fish made her
original comparisons?

I bet her 3-D map had no lines joining the individual stars.

Yet, somehow she was able to make the comparison.

(And, in fact, her original map did not compare... because the
star catalogues gave the wrong distances between stars. Not
until she got a corrected star catalogue and modified the star
locations accordingly was she able to get a match.)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 45

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:06:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:54:24 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 45


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 45
November 9, 2000

Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


WEIRD ANIMAL SHOT NEAR PENDLETON, OREGON

A weird animal, described as a fur-bearing quadruped, was shot
in mid-October 2000 in the vicinity of Umatilla Woman Mountain,
just southeast of Pendleton, Oregon (population 19,000).

"The skeleton of a large animal shot about two weeks ago" in the
woods near Pendleton "remains unknown." "U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(Service) officials said they may never learn if the animal
killed was a wolf or a wolf hybrid in DNA testing."

"Phil Carroll, a spokesman for the agency, said they would not
release the results."

(Editor's Comment: Oh? Since when does the Fish and Wildlife
Service classify lab test results as Top Secret? Something's
going on in Oregon.)

"Their reluctance to comment on the identity of the animal drew
fire from Ric Bailey, executive director of the Hells Canyon
Preservation Council."

"Bailey said the agency's behavior is of 'serious concern' and
he called the agency's objectivity in the matter 'suspect.'"

"If the animal is in fact a wolf that wandered into Oregon from
Idaho, it would be the first wolf shot in Oregon since the
predators were exterminated decades ago."

Recently wolf tracks have been reported in the mountains of
eastern Oregon."

Pendelton is on Interstate Highway I-84 approximately 208 miles
(334 kilometers) east of Portland. (See the Sacramento, Cal. Bee
for October 28, 2000. Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for this
newspaper article.)

(Editor's Comment: And welcome to Weird Animal Week at UFO
Roundup. We've had three "weird animal" reports, all in the same
week. What a strange concentration of phenomena. Maybe it has
something to do with the USA's national election.)



FARMER REPORTS SHOOTING A WEIRD ANIMAL IN CHILE

"Scientists at the Universidad Austral de Chile are dumbfounded
by the enigmatic animal skull" a Chilean farmer brought in
"since they are at a loss as to ascertain what species it
belongs to."

"The animal was apparently shot last January (2000) in the
Arique sector of the Tenth Region," south of Talcahuano, "by a
farmer who had reported the strange deaths of a large number of
fowl, particularly geese."

"Last May (2000), the same farmer reported that he had killed
the strange creature," which he believes to be a Chupacabra.

"The hunter preserved only the head as a trophy and cast the
rest of the body into a river. He later reported that since that
day he has heard the sound of distant howling in the evening. It
is his belief that it (the howling--J.T.) is the lonely female
that accompanied the animal and continues prowling the region in
search of her mate."

"The skull was ultimately delivered to the Universidad Austral.
However, after four months of intensive research, including the
extraction of DNA samples and their comparison with other
species, it now turns out that the skull has scientists baffled,
as they were unable to determine the exact nature of the beast
in question."

"The discovery of the specimen has been described as 'very
interesting' by the scientists because 'we are checking out a
medium-sized animal which would have gone unnoticed by science
for another century.'" (Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, autor
de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico
para esas noticias.)

GIANT LUMINOUS OCTOPUS CAUGHT BY FISHERMEN IN NORTHERN SPAIN

"Some Spanish fishermen have caught a strange specimen of a
giant cephalopod in Cantabrian waters" off the northern coast of
Spain.

"The creature, a Taningia danae, similar to the common octopus,
weighed 125 kilograms, measuring over two meters (6 feet, 7
inches) in length and is the largest of its species ever
discovered."

(Editor's Note: Taningia danae are usually found at the bottom
of the Atlantic Ocean, about one mile or 1,600 meters below the
surface. They generally weigh only 63 kilograms and, like
fireflies, generate their own light so they can search for food
on the dark ocean floor.)

Unfortunately for local gourmets in the Asturian port of
Ribadesella, the cephalopod will never reach the dinner table
since it is to be preserved and displayed in local marine life
center." (See the Reuters report for November 4, 2000, "Giant
light-emitting squid caught in Asturias." Otra vez, gracias a
Scott Corrales para eso articulo de diario.)

"ANGEL HAIR" FALLS ON TWO TOWNS IN NORTHERN ITALY

On Wednesday, November 1, 2000,residents of Vercellese and
Alessandri, two towns in the Piemonte region of northern Italy,
heard an unusually loud boom. This "skyquake" rattled roof tiles
and windows in both communities.

Immediately afterward, the residents saw "long sheer white
filaments drifting down from the sky." The fibrous material fell
most heavily in Vercellese but was also reported on the farms
surrounding the town.

"The filaments were clearly 'angel's hair' or 'hair of the
Virgin,' as it is called here in Italy, and it is usually
associated with UFO phenomena," reported Italian ufologist Paolo
Toselli, "Similar phenomena have also been reported in the
United States." (Grazie a Paolo Toselli e Edoardo Russo di
Centro Italiano di Studi Ufologici per questo rapportto.)

DARK TRIANGULAR UFO HOVERS OVER IDAHO CAMP

"Many rational people believe we are not alone in the universe.
Three hunters in an unspecified location near Challis, Idaho
(population 1,100) learned for themselves on the night of"
Friday, "October 27, 2000 that this theory may hold water."

"The report revealed that an individual spotted a dark
triangular object floating silently above him while he was
standing by his pickup *truck), The hunter said he and his three
buddies were in dry camp, so alcohol couldn't be blamed for what
he and two of the others saw."

"The individual said that as he approached his pickup at about
9:45 p.m., he 'got a feeling of a thick, heavy blanket above me
and chills down my spine.' He said he shined his flashlight on
'the dark triangular object floating directly above us and our
camp trailer.'"

"The man fell into profane disbelief and then called for his
buddies to come see for themselves. He said he could see the
rounded dark edges and the flat bottom that had a texture like
suede leather and was colored gold-gray."

"He said that after he shined his light on the object, it
throttled up with a deep low sound of intense power and floated
straight up and then forward up a steep canyon, moving like a
hockey puck sliding on ice. The other party members grabbed
their binoculars to check it out until it moved out of sight."

"The account said that as the object throttled up, three lights,
one at each corner of the triangle, came on. Each one was about
10 feet (3 meters) in diameter and glowed like a dim dome light.
Another light in the center was described as being 20 feet (6
meters) in diameter, protruding below the bottom of the object
about eight feet (2.3 meters), was deep red and pulsed at (a
rate of) once a second."

"The outline of the entire object had a light halo around it.
The shape, wrote the hunter, was a perfect triangle radiant
corners and rounded edges."

There was no smell, no feeling of blowing, no prop wash or
thrust of any kind."

The Challis sighting is now being investigated by the National
Institute of Discovery Science (NIDS). (See the Challis, Idaho
Messenger for November 4, 2000, "Hunter reports UFO sighting
near Challis." Many thanks to Louise A. Lowry for forwarding
this newspaper article.)

STATE VET HAS ANSWER TO ROSWELL CATTLE MYSTERY

"Mystery no longer surrounds the cause of death of 30 cattle on
Marcelo Macias's ranch near" Roswell, New Mexico (population
45,000.)

"It was nothing exotic. It was a weed."

"It was not, as a Boston (Massachusetts) radio station revealed
Thursday morning," October 26, 2000, "caused by aliens."

"The culprit weed got wrapped into a one-ton bale of hay, was
further ground up at the ranch corral and was then ingested by
the cattle between dusk and dawn on the night of October 18,"
2000.

"Twenty-three pregnant cows, three bulls and four early-season
calves dropped dead in the darkness."

"Thurman Reitz, the assistant state veterinarian, said he got a
report from a laboratory Thursday morning saying tests had shown
evidence of nitrate poisoning."

"Reitz said the nitrate came from one or more common weeds that
were harvested along with the grass in the hay bale. A specific
weed hasn't been identified."

"'This can be pretty nasty stuff,' said Reitz, referring to the
nitrate. 'Livestock poisoning like this happens occasionally but
not to this extent.'"

"Reitz said nitrate poisoning alters the animal's blood and
deprives it of oxygen."

"'Basically, they suffocate,' he said."

"Reitz said he got a call at 9:30 a.m. Thursday from a Boston
radio station, wanting to know if aliens were involved in the
deaths of the cattle. Reitz said he was barely awake until the
caller got to this question."

"The veterinarian told the radio station that aliens weren't
involved."

"At his ranch, Macias said he got the hay for free not long ago
from a Hagerman (New Mexico) rancher who said the bales were
three or four years old."

"New Mexican growers said hay that's three or four years old is
still good 'if it has been stored right and it is covered
over.'"

"Macias said he brought about 100 bales to his ranch and has 90
bales left."

"'I don't know what I'm going to do with them. The police told
me I can't burn this much hay,' said Macias, whose ranch lies
northeast of the Roswell city limits."

"'I've been feeding that hay to my sheep and nothing has
happened, and no more of my cattle have died,' he said."

"Macias's son, Marcelo Jr., said the dead cattle were trucked
away by a company that handles dead livestock."

Roswell, N.M. is located 198 miles (319 kilometers) southeast of
Albuquerque.

(See the Albuquerque, N.M. Journal for October 27, 2000, "Weed
killed cattle," by Fritz Thompson.)

HOVERING UFO SEEN NEAR DEMING, NEW MEXICO

On Thursday, October 26, 2000, at 8:10 p.m., Todd Hall "was
driving west on Interstate Highway I-10 when I watched an object
hovering over a mountain south of I-10. As I descended the
mountain on I-10, I saw that the object was hovering over the
town of Deming," which is located 80 miles (128 kilometers) west
of Las Cruces.

"As I watched the object, I noticed that it appeared to change
shape from time to time. Most of the time, the object kept a
paint can (short cylinder--J.T.) shape and periodically changing
to a wedge shape. I continued driving and studying the object
for about 30 minutes. At one point, I even pulled to the side of
the road so as to pay more attention to the thing."

"After about 30 minutes, the object changed to a flat shape and
moved up vertically for about three seconds and then just
vanished."

Todd described the UFO as "dark in color with a slight metallic
look. Estimated height between 1,000 and 2,000 feet (300 and 600
meters). Object stayed fairly stationary, moving slightly to the
west." (Email Form Report)

THREE UFOs RENDEZVOUS OVER PEORIA, ARIZONA

On Sunday, November 5, 2000, at about 1 a.m., Mark Denton rode
his motorcycle into the driveway of his home in Peoria, Arizona
(population 85,000). He reports, "I just got home from work, got
off my motorcycle and happened to see two yellow/orange lights
traveling very close to each other, heading north slowly. They
sort of danced around each other while hovering. As I watched, a
third light approached from the southwest. It reached the
general area but stayed a little further away from the two that
were close to each other."

"The two converged to seem as one while turning three or four
times. Going in three different directions, they individually
got way further away from Earth, when they all disappeared. The
last one looked like it split in two just before it was gone."

Peoria is on Highway 74 about 20 miles (32 kilometers) northwest
of Phoenix. (Email Form Report)

"STATION ALPHA" NOW HAS CREW OF THREE ABOARD

On Tuesday morning, October 31, 2000, a Soyuz rocket lifted off
the pad at the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, carrying three
astronauts who will serve as the first permanent crew of the
International Space Station.

"The crew blasted off from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan
after drinking champagne and receiving the blessing of a Russian
Orthodox priest."

"The Soyuz rocket carrying" USA astronaut William "Bill"
Shepherd and Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei
Krikalyov took off on schedule, slicing through the morning fog
hovering over the Kazakh steppe."

"'This is probably the most significant event in manned
spaceflight since the the launch of Yuri Gagarin almost 40 years
ago,' said Richard LaBrode, the U.S. flight director for the
space station. 'It is the last day, barring unforeseen
circumstances, that we will not have a human presence in
space.'"

"'This is a big achievement. Russia, which put the first man in
space, and the United States, which put the first man on the
moon, have joined hands,' said Valery Alaverdov, deputy head of
the Russian Space Agency. 'It is inevitable that these two great
countries work together to take space exploration into the new
millenium."

"As he boarded the bus in his bulky white-and-blue spacesuit
Tuesday morning, Shepherd seemed eager to finally get to the
station. Before getting on the bus, he turned and shouted,
'Let's go do it!'"

Shepherd will be the first commander of the space station during
the crew's tour of duty, which will last about four months.

On Thursday, November 2, 2000, The spacecraft docked with the
station, and Shepherd, Gidzenko and Krikalyov boarded the
station to begin their 117-day tour.

After the crew "floated across the threshold of the space
station, Shepherd wasted no time radioing a special request to
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin at Russia's Mission Control" in
Korolev.

"'The first expedition on space station permission to take the
radio call sign Alpha,' said Shepherd, the mission's commander.
The crew clasped hands in a show of agreement."

"'I think it's a wonderful thing. And not for just today, but I
authorize Station Alpha for the entire Expedition One mission,'
Goldin said, 'Now you can sleep well at night and not have any
concerns.'"

"The crew spent the remainder of Thursday, plus Friday and
Saturday (November 3 and 4, 2000) turning on the station's key
life-support systems, including, ""activating the station's
alarms, its communication equipment and, most importantly
perhaps, the toilet," plus "the sleep stations and a laptop
computer network."

The crew had Sunday, November 5, 2000, as their day off. Until
they become acclimatized to a weightless environment, they will
be working short shifts.

"'Once we get into a routine and the crew has established a work
ethic--a couple of weeks to maybe a month into their
expedition--that (WORK SHIFT) will grow into six-and-a-half
hours per day,' said Heff Hanley, NASA's lead flight director
for this mission." (See USA Today for November 1, 2000, "Crew on
course for space station," page 18A nd the Chicago Tribune for
November 4, 2000, "First crew to call station home docks," page
3.)

UNUSUALLY SEVERE STORMS SWEEP WESTERN EUROPE

Autumn storms of unusual size and intensity have caused flooding
and devastation across western Europe.

The UK has been hit by the worst flooding since the reign of
Henry VIII four hundred years ago. Two storms in a single week
"battered the country, which had already been hit by the worst
flooding in 50 years. Two people died when a tree fell on their
car."

In France, "officials issued a storm warning across the country,
forecasting winds of more than 60 miles per hour (100 kilometers
per hour) in many regions. One man was killed by a landslide in
the Mediterranean city of Nice."

"In Italy, two people died in floods and mudslides after
torrential rains hit the Riviera. Train and road traffic was
also disrupted along the coast" in Savoia province.

"In Portugal, the port of Douro in the city of Oporto was closed
because of the stormy conditions."

"In Spain. Iberia Airlines cancelled all flights to Galicia and
Cantabria (provinces in northern Spain--J.T.) because of
80-mile-per-hour (128 kilometer-per-hour) winds."

"In Ireland, flooding made many roads impassable, and the rail
network came to a virtual standstill."

"In Switzerland, deep snow and winds as strong as 159 miles per
hour (254 kilometers per hour) moved through the Swiss Alps. In
the southern state of Valais, the wind made so much noise that
earthquake-measuring equipment falsely indicated that there had
been a tremor of magnitude 3.7" on the Richter scale, officials
reported. (See USA Today for November 7, 2000, "Storms wreak
havoc across western Europe," page 23A.)


from the UFO Files...

1952: CAPTURED BY ALIENS!

One of the most famous UFO contactee cases of the 1950s
concerned Truman Bethurum, 54, who was taken aboard a flying
saucer in late July of 1952. Here is his story, much of it in
his own words.

"In July 1952, while employed on Highway 91, about 70 or 80
miles out of Las Vegas going (north) toward Salt Lake City (i.e.
near Ash Springs, Nevada--J.T.) I was transferred from the day
shift to swing shift, or night shift would be a better name for
it, as we worked from 4 p.m. to sometimes 8 a.m. the next
morning. My job was to keep four water trucks operating, hauling
water from the Muddy River to two reservoirs out in the desert."

That night, at 3:30 a.m., Truman got permission from his boss to
drive out to Mormon Mesa for a quick nap before sunrise.
Arriving at the mesa just before 4:30 a.m., he left the engine
on his two-and-a-half ton "surplus Army carryall truck" idle,
rolled the windows all the way down, turned the dial on the
dashboard radio to 1140-AM. And then, listening to Hank Williams
sing Honkytonk Blues, he nestled in the seat corner and closed
his eyes, "realizing the first gleam of daylight would awake
me."

"I had been asleep possibly a half hour or slightly more when"
his eyes blinked open. The truck engine was silent. Truman's
first groggy thought was, What happened to Hank?

Sitting up, he was fully "awakened by what would best be
described as a mumbling, low talking in an unintelligible
tongue."

"My first thought was that my boss and someone were a trick
because of finding me asleep, but as I raised my head, I quickly
discovered that this was not the case."

"About eight small-sized men were in a semicircle in front and
to the right side of my truck, approximately eight to ten feet
away, and apparently as curious as I was."

"My thought was to get away fast, although I would have to back
around. As I raised up to see better, one of the men took a
couple of steps toward me and said something rather low and
still unintelligible to me. I shook my head to indicate to him
that I did not understand, and he quickly came back with this
answer, 'You name it?'

(Editor's Comment: A garbled version of "What is your name?"
perhaps?)

"I said, 'My God, you can speak English, too?'"

"He said in return, 'We have no difficulty with any language.'"

"These fellows seemed to be of Latin (Hispanic) extraction from
their appearance. My heart was thumping. I guess both from fear
and excitement. At that instant, I decided to get out of my
truck and shake hands for a friendly gesture. As I turned to get
out, I saw about 15 yards away a monstrous disc-shaped flying
saucer."

"Then I wondered if this could be a movie prop but as I had been
above (the canyon--J.T.) looking down only a short time before,
I realized that this could not be the case."

"As I reached out my hand to shake hands, it seemed like a
military maneuver the way they lined up as each seemed anxious
to grasp my hand. Only one made any attempt to talk to me or to
answer my questions. They never asked me a single question, as
it appeared to me to be a military-type outfit they were
wearing, and also the way they fell into line to shake my hand
(almost grabbing it each time--T.B.) I said to this man, 'Do you
have a captain?'"

"He said, 'Sure.'"

"Then I said, "Could I speak to him, please?'"

"He said, 'Surest thing you know.'"

"He took ahold of my right arm above the elbow with his left
hand with a terribly hard squeeze (that did not ease my mind
any--T.B.) Then I asked if they were from some European
country."

"He said, 'No, our homes are in a faraway land.'"

"As I had asked about speaking to their captain, I noticed a
smile on some faces, 'Well, this is it, and no one will ever
know what happened to me.' He said, 'You may speak to our
captain in our Scero.'"

(Editor's Note: Pronounced Skeh-roe.)

"I thought what a name for a thing like that. This man almost
spun me around and started for the saucer, which seemed to be
floating about four feet (1.3 meters) off the ground, and as we
neared it, it settled to I would say just inches off the ground,
and tilted down on the near side at the same time. There was
just one step and a single hand rail on the right side of the
opening. He almost bounced me to the rim of the saucer. He had
released the extreme pressure on my arm, but still had a firm
grip. I am at least a foot taller than he was and I weight
approximately 180 (pounds)."

"We went downhill inside about 50 feet, and he again swung me
around to the left, through a doorlike opening to a room about
10 by 12 feet (3 to 4 meters) fitted like a combined office and
lounge. I think my eyes fairly popped as I saw their captain was
a gorgeous woman, shorter than any of the men, neatly attired,
and also having a Latin appearance, coal-black hair and olive
complexion. She appeared to me to be about 42 years old."

"She stood up and smiled, and the man released my arm
immediately. I turned to say something to him, but he had
disappeared instantly. As I again faced the lady, I could not
for the life of me think of a single thing to say. After a
couple of seconds, she again smiled and said, 'Speak up, friend.
You're not hexed.'"

"After talking and asking questions for about a half hour, I
realized they were definitely not Europeans. She did not tell me
her name or the name of their planet at that time, just leaving
me with the knowledge that they traveled interplanetary and were
wise to everything going on al over our world, and other planets
also. She seemed friendly, anxious to talk, etc. About the only
question she asked of me was what I called the area, which was
Mormon Mesa, Nevada. She later told me her name was Aura Rhanes
and the planet was Clarion. She said Clarion was definitely not
a planet known by some other name and gave me her reasons." (See
the book Flying Saucers Have Landed! edited by Jay David, World
Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1970, pages 94 through 98, "I
was Inside a Flying Saucer" by Truman Bethurum.)


As I write this on Wednesday afternoon, there is still no final
decision in the USA presidential election. We are now in the
midst of the biggest political cliffhanger in American history.
More on that next week, when we return with more UFO and
paranormal news from around the planet Earth, brought to you by
"the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup." See you then!

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2000 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO Roundup on
their websites or in newsgroups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                        Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:09:44 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:55:38 -0500
Subject: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?


Hi all

Can anyone remember the name of the contactee who ran a
restaurant on Telegraph St in Berkeley, California in the 70s,
maybe the late 60s too.

Or am I confabulating?

I thought it was mentioned in Vallee's Messengers of Deception,
but can't find it.

Any info about him and the restaurant would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Mark

--
Mark Pilkington             m.pilkington@virgin.net
----------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forteantimes.com    : Fortean Times online
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk : Magonia online

"The blood is the life, but electricity is the life of the blood."
Dr Carter Moffat, 1892






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

               Ed Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B

From: From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:51:15 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:03:37 -0500
Subject: Ed Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B


________________________________________________________

From: FoucheMedia <FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com>
To: <FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com>
Subject: Ed Fouche/ Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:27:49 -0600


Greetings:

Thought you might be interested in an article posted by John
Kooiman about the TR-3B gravity warping technology. I will
depend on my esteemed friends and colleges who actually
understand physics to rebut or support his premise. Love to hear
your thoughts. After the revelation about the USAF�s saucer
programs in the last few months, things are getting more
interesting. Especially as I state 3 years ago that we had
researched, reverse engineered, and built many saucer type
prototypes since the 50s.

Feel free to pass along.


Ed Fouche
Ph: 210-681-2595
E-Mail: Efouche@satx.rr.com

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

From: John Kooiman
[mailto:john.kooiman@home.com]


Subject: TR-3B
Antigravity Physics Explained:

To be correct, I probably should say, "TR-3B Antigravity
Physics Explained, insofar as General Relativity can be
considered an explanation for gravity."

Many readers of this List are probably already familiar with
Edgar Fouche's description of the USA's Top Secret TR-3B
triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace craft. If not, read
about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm.

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the
Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew
compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The
plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at
a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000
rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting
gravity disruption.


The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or
neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by
89 percent...

The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the
vehicle extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver
any craft yet..... My sources say the performance is limited
only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a
lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass,
the G forces are also reduced by 89%.

The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to
40Gs... Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs.

The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters
mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The
TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above
l20,000 feet - then who knows how fast it can go!..."

I was skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claims when I first read them,
as I'm sure that many of you are, but I was interested enough to
do further research on what happens when you spin a plasma at
high speeds in a ring (toroidal) configuration. I came across a
physics article (sorry, I can't seem to locate the source right
now) that described this exact configuration. The article said
that, surprisingly, the charged particles of the plasma don't
just spin uniformly around the ring, but they tend to take up a
synchronized, tightly pitched, helical (screw thread) motion as
they move around the ring. This can be understood in a general
way as follows: the charged particles moving around the ring act
as a current that in turn sets up a magnetic field around the
ring. It is a well-known fact that electrons (or ions) tend to
move in a helical fashion around magnetic field lines. Although
it is a highly complex interaction, it only requires a small
leap of faith to believe that the end result of these
interactions between the moving charged particles (current) and
associated magnetic fields results in the helical motion
described above. In other words, the charged particles end up
moving in very much the same pattern as the current on a wire
tightly wound around a toroidal core.


I thought that this was an interesting fact, but didn't see how
it could possibly relate to antigravity, until I ran across the
following article: "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Robert
Forward, written in 1962 (available at:
http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf). Dr. Forward's
article describes several little known aspects of Einstein's
General Relativity Theory that indicate how moving matter can
create unusual gravitational effects. When I saw Figure 5 in Dr.
Forward's article, the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. I
instantly saw how the moving matter pattern that Dr. Forward
describes as necessary to generate a gravitational dipole was
exactly the same as the plasma ring pattern described in the
physics article discussed above! If Fouche's description is even
close to correct, then the TR-3B utilizes this little known
loophole in General Relativity Theory to create it's antigravity
effects! Even though the TR-3B can only supposedly cancel 89% of
gravity (and inertia) today, there is no reason why the
technology can't be improved to exceed 100% and achieve true
antigravity capability!

In theory, this same moving matter pattern could be mechanically
reproduced by mounting a bunch of small gyroscopes all around
the larger ring, with their axis on the larger ring, and then
spinning both the gyroscopes and the ring at high speeds.
However, as Dr. Forward points out any such mechanical system
would probably fly apart before any significant antigravity
effects could be generated. However, as Dr. Forward states, "By
using electromagnetic forces to contain rotating systems, it
would be possible for the masses to reach relativistic
velocities; thus a comparatively small amount of matter, if
dense enough and moving fast enough, could produce usable
gravitational effects."

The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic
speeds would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If
the plasma really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are
also moving in a tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions
would be moving probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times
faster than the bulk plasma spin, in order to execute their
"screw thread" motions. It is quite conceivable that the ions
could be accelerated to relativistic speeds in this manner. I am
guessing that you would probably want to strip the free
electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged plasma,
since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and reduce
the efficiency of the antigravity device.

One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass
and inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr.
Fouche's claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also
reduced by 89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is
triangular shaped. Since it still requires conventional
thrusters for propulsion, the thrusters would need to be located
outside of the "mass reduction zone" or else the mass of the
thruster's reaction material would also be reduced, making them
terribly inefficient. Since it requires a minimum of 3 legs to
have a stable stool, it follows that they would need a minimum
of 3 thrusters to have a stable aerospace platform. Three
thrusters, located outside of the plasma ring, plus appropriate
structural support, would naturally lead to a triangular shape
for the vehicle.

I was extremely skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claimed size for the
TR-3B, of 600 feet across. At first, I thought that this must be
a typo. Why would anyone in their right mind build a "Tactical
Reconnaissance" vehicle 2 football fields long? They must be
nuts! However, the answer to this may also be found in Dr.
Forward's paper. As Dr. Forward's puts it, "...even the most
optimistic calculations indicate that very large devices will be
required to create usable gravitational forces. Antigravity...
like all modern sciences, will require special projects
involving large sums of money, men, and energy.& quot;

FYI: This article has been posted to KeelyNet. You have
permission to post it on your Web site, as long as proper
creditation is provided.

John

Kooiman [mailto:john.kooiman@home.com]

________________________________________________________________

P.S. Dr. Forward has also written a number of other articles
that may be of interest to readers of this list. They are
located at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/TechPubs.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                      Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:19:01 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:08:56 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:25 -0400

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>Subject: On What is Known
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

 ><snip>

 >>Jim

 >We have learned that Donald Menzel was up to his ears in
 >classified work for the CIA, NSA and many companies... certainly
 >a shock to all when I first published it.

 >We have certainly learned that Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli (about
 >a billion years older than the sun) are the closest to each
 >other pair of sun like stars in the local neighborhood and only
 >37 light years away which gives a whole new perspective on
 >where we fit in the scheme of things.

 >We have learned that government agencies (USAF, CIA, NSA etc)
 >have knowingly been guilty of massive misrepresentation about
 >flying saucers. If there is nothing there why the coverup?

 >We have learned that debunkers will go to any length, make false
 >claims, attack people's character etc to defend their
 >conclusions based on proclamation. It suggests that perhaps this
 >is true in other areas as well.

 >We have learned that major media will fail to do an objective
 >investigation, at least partly because they claim on the basis
 >of an absence of investigation, that there is nothing there to
 >investigate. How many other areas are being neglected because of
 >this arrogance?.

 >We have learned that the SETI cultists will over and over again
 >make false claims about ufology while blindly defending what
 >they do as "science" when SETI really stands for Silly Effort to
 >Investigate. nad is based on a host of crazy assumptions.

 >That is just for starters.

 >Stan Friedman

Well, that certainly is an awful lot, Stan. However my primary
concern and focus, and that of most of the direct percipients of
this phenom, is to learn when, where, why and how of the UFO and
abduction phenom.

Just what the is it, Stan?

Are you, in the above, suggesting that all of which we learn,
much of which you uncovered, has anything to do with whether or
not I really was abducted, as my memory suggests? Does is
explain whether the UFO is an object of this or another
dimension? Or this galaxy? Or whether it is an object even?

Nope. And with all the respect I can muster for you and your
efforts, not one thing you mentioned (which I may discern)
answers even one small question relating to UFOs, their form,
fit and function or for that matter, reality. Let alone
abduction.

As I mentioned in the original post, this is an indictment, but
without focus. Because I can't blame anyone for our ignorance.
Although the researcher is the only target at this brief moment
in time. To plagiarize a phrase.

Stan. There are no answers. No information which points to one.
Not even one. You, me, all of us have _failed_ in 50 years, to
find one shred of science with which to answer the question,
"Just what the hell is going on?"

I have the utmost respect for you. But you went around and came
around at least twice and gave no answers. Answers. Answers.
_Answers!_

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                           Re: ET Evidence - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:11:41 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - McCoy


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:47:39 -0400

 >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:02:34 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:53:04 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:46:13 -0600 (CST)
 >>>>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence [was Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll]

 >>>>Repeat slowly after me: "star map".

 >>>>That would be, by anyone's definition (except maybe yours),
 >>>>signal evidence of extra-terrestrial contact.

 >>>>-Brian C.

 >>>Would that be as in Betty Hill Star Map? Thought so.

 >>>Try a simple experiment. Take the Betty Hill drawing, and remove
 >>>all the lines joining the dots. Now take the Marjory Fish
 >>>'reconstruction' and remove all the lines joining the stars.
 >
 >>>Done that?

 >>>Now show the two sets of dots to someone who doesn't know what
 >>>they are and ask them if they can see the slightest resemblance
 >>>whatsoever.

 >>>Thought not!

 >>So what? That it was a map of stars __identified by us__ is
 >>irrelevant. That it was apparently a star map is, in and of
 >>itself, the evidence for extra-terrestrial contact. The key
 >>words are "star map", not "identified star map".

 >>There are _hundreds_of_billions_ of stars in our galaxy alone.
 >>Personally, I'd be extremely surprised, if not astonished, if
 >>any star map presented in the Hill case context were
 >>identifiable.

 >>-Brian C.

 >Come on guys. Read the "Zeta Reticuli Incident" by Terence
 >Dickinson and the Zeta Reticuli Update, also by Terry.

 >The lines were drawn by Betty. They are the _pattern_ Marjorie
 >found _no_ match until the new Gliese catalog was published.
 >With much better distance data.

 >The chance of the identification being a concidence is less than
 >1 in 10,000. That there are billions of stars in the galaxy is
 >totally irrelevant.

 >The space covered goes out less than 50 light years. The rules
 >were stated and rational and even pleased a number of
 >astronomers such as Dr. Mitchell of OSU.

 >Every criticism of Ms. Fish's work including that by Menzel and
 >by Sagan mis-represented what was done. It is real research and
 >identified for all of us, not known beforehand, that Zeta l and
 >Zeta 2 Reticuli are the closest to each other pair of sun-like
 >stars in the neighborhood.

 >A street map of Fredericton is not much use in Amsterdam or
 >Shanghai. It is very handy here.

<snip>

 >Stan Friedman


You know folks this is one of the most intriguing of mysteries
of the whole Hill saga. I'd like someone to elaborate more on
this subject, as with the advent of both improved visual and
radio telescopes and also ineferometry  (telescopes over a wide
baseline).

Pardon while I take care of the only Grey Visitor I have ever
known-my cat Smokey. Ok , now that I removed 15 lbs. of hairball
factory, one would think that in the search for planet(s)  The
Reticuli Twins would be a prime target for research. Nothing
yet, and I wonder why.

I know that there has been much bandwidth eaten up over the Hill
issue and maybe we can talk about the Star Map again , but I
feel that the mere mention of two Sun-like stars and possibly
inhabited is worthy of a discussion.

GT McCoy

No Expert, No Researcher, No Abuctee just wondering what _did_ I
see?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:10:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:14:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:24 -0600

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500

 >>Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Five witnesses observed what they described as an alien "glide"
 >>across a field near Uniontown, Pa. The sighting occurred on
 >>August 3, 2000 about 10:00 P.M. The witnesses describe the being
 >>as about 5 feet tall with long slender extremities. It carried a
 >>brown "staff" about 5 feet long. It was observed for about a
 >>minute from a distance of about 250 feet. No apparent
 >>disturbances to the area around the being were reported. The
 >>creature appeared to glide about 6 inches above the ground,
 >>according to the witnesses. Weather conditions were cool and
 >>clear with no wind. No sounds were reported, and witnesses
 >>commented on it seeming abnormally quiet at the time. Crickets
 >>and other normal background noises were absent.

 >I confess to a particular fondness for reports like these. I
 >call them "extreme experiential claims." Mark Chorvinsky calls
 >them "hopeless cases." In any event, these last two sentences,
 >describing something we have heard so often before, are
 >particularly fascinating. They bring to mind Jenny Randles's Oz
 >Factor. Any comment, Jenny?

 >Jerry Clark

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

Hi Jerry,

Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
abductee reports for some time. (I am basing my remarks on
reports that Budd has gotten over the years from some of the
folks that have reported to him.)


Regards,

John Velez, Biped with _both_feet_ firmly planted on the ground!
;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:18:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:16:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 03:20:07 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:31:47 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:35:46 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

 >>>Hi Bob, Josh,

 >>>Just a note. Betty Cash passed away earlier this year. I believe
 >>>her death was directly related to the (radiation induced?)
 >>>illness she had been fighting since the sighting. Do either of
 >>>you know anything about the condition of the grandson or the
 >>>other female witness that was in the car? Were either of them
 >>>ever affected? Also, I know Betty had litigation pending against
 >>>the government. She was sueing them for her medical expenses.
 >>>Does anybody know what the outcome of that case was? Just
 >>>curious.

 >>John, Josh, List:

 >>I don't know, to all of the above questions. It would be
 >>interesting to find out.

 >Hi Bob, John, and all,

 >I've been so wrapped up in the election conundrum that I didn't
 >get around to replying till now.

 >Vicki and Colby were irradiated much less than Betty Cash
 >because they did not get outside the car.

 >The case against the government did not get anywhere when the US
 >goverment said "whatever it was, it wasn't ours". I strongly
 >suggest you look at Dr.John Scheussler's book or the many
 >articles and television renditions. Years ago I taped the
 >Unsolved Mysteries version. I still get as sad amd angry every
 >time I watch it. Just as Tim Good's Above Top Secret is still a
 >good primer to UFO realty, if someone would ask why I am
 >passionate about Ufology I could show them that segment and they
 >would shed a few tears and understand.

 >If I were Laurence Rockefeller I would have shown it to Bill
 >Clinton, Al Gore, and Wes Hubble. I still don't understand why
 >the Prez could not get someone higher in government to find what
 >Hubble could not access. Perhaps the truth about the Cash -
 >Landrum tragedy is on file somewhere, as is the truth about the
 >Kennedy assasination.


Hi Josh, hi All,

Thanx for the update on the case! I was interested to know what
happened with Betty's gubbamint case and if the other woman and
the boy were alright. I'm glad to learn that they escaped the
deadly after effects that Betty had to suffer for so many years.

I agree, the Cash-Landrum case is a sad and disturbing one
because of the terrible effects that it had on Betty. (It "may
have been" the ultimate cause of Betty's demise!) My inclination
isto  believe that the "craft" was one of our own (maybe alien
technology based design) experimental craft because it was
accompanied/escorted by so many military helicopters when it was
seen by Betty and the other occupants of the vehicle she was
driving.

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                    Ashtabula, Ohio Sightings & Videotape

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:33:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:19:37 -0500
Subject: Ashtabula, Ohio Sightings & Videotape


The sighting of an unusual aircraft was said to have taken place
in Ashtabula, Ohio and a videotape was offered to WICU-TV 12, an
NBC affiliate in Erie, PA., to support the claim.

Mr. Douglas J. Hagmann, president of a licensed private
investigative service based in Erie, PA., reports that the UFO
claim and videotape was televised on a November 8, 2000
newscast.

Hagmann has a healthy but skeptical interest in UFOs, and
informed that two recent news articles regarding UFOs have
appeared in the [Ashtabula] Star Beacon newspaper. The first
article, not yet available for online review, mentions the
recent sighting from Ashtabula, Ohio. A second article, enclosed
below, is a generic report addressing the UFO topic. Hagmann
contacted the primary witness and interviewed her for 40-minutes
on Thursday, November 9. The witness, he felt, seemed frightened
by the experience.

According to the investigator, the witness has denied ever being
institutionalized or taking medication. She is a 42-year old
Caucasian, married with 2-children. She obtained video footage
of a suspected UFO on three separate occasions: Tuesday, October
17, Saturday, October 21 and Tuesday, November 7.

"I will reserve judgment on details of this case," Hagmann said
for this report, "but the best evidence will be in the video
itself."

The witness obtained the video footage using a $1,200.00 Sony
digital camcorder purchased within last 12-months.

During the first sighting on Oct. 17, the witness was waiting up
late for her daughter to get home from work. As she looked
outside, she saw an unusual aircraft described as a cylindrical
object that was black or dark. The object was also described as
silver, depending upon where it was in relation to the
moonlight.

On videotape, this claimant reports to have also captured a
colored 'ball of energy' that changes color from purple to blue
as it traverses and area across her backyard.

After the event of October 17, the witness began regularly
looking into the sky at night. On October 21, another sighting
was alleged and a videotape was produced. Captured on video and
televised on WICU TV-12 in Erie, PA., an object is said to move
rapidly behind the branch of a tree. This night-time video,
which was taken without the use of a tripod, allows the viewer
to discern a tree in the foreground, providing some frame of
reference for the unusual movements said associated with the
suspected UFO.

Two additional television stations, Channel 3 [WKYC] and Channel
5 [WEWS], both of Cleveland, Ohio, were said to have been
dispatched to the home of the claimant. One television crew
aimed a camera at her television as she played the tape for
them, the other television crew connected their recording
equipment directly to the output of her camcorder, giving them a
copy with greater clarity. At this time, it is not known what
circumstances warranted the dispatch of rival TV reporters and
production crews to the home of the witness.

After the articles appeared in the Star Beacon newspaper, the
witness was visited on November 8 by a 72-year old woman who
also said that she 'saw the same thing.'

The primary witness claims a previous UFO sighting when she was
9-years old, describing the observation of a 'ferris wheel' with
lights seen in the skies above Ashtabula, Ohio. Since the
sighting, she has had an interest in the UFO subject.

This information is held under continued consideration by Doug
Hagmann, a multi-state investigator who has headquarters in
Northwest Pennsylvania. We thank him for his permission to
release the information for this report.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

Northeastern Ohio has recently been victimized by a series of
aerial irregularities reported from various sections. On
September 19 at 12:15 p.m., a Mr. Rodney Happney advised 9-1-1
dispatchers of an unusual formation of 6-objects held under
observation by a crowd of 30-people near Salt Springs Road in
Girard, Ohio. For details of this report,
see:http://home.fuse.net/ufo/9-19-00.html

A midnight encounter with a UFO along Route 11 between East
Liverpool and Ashtabula, Ohio on Saturday night, July 22 was
reported to the Ashtabula County State Highway Patrol office by
three motorists who claimed to have been frightened by numerous
red lights that paced their car. For details of this report,
see: http://home.fuse.net/ufo/Ashtabula2.html

Filed,
November 10, 2000
Kenny Young
------

Newspaper reference:
www.starbeacon.com/subscribed/newsmon.htm

UFOs: A fixture in Ohio's skies
Tales of unknown abound in area

By JOHN A. CHILDRESS
Staff Writer

It's a dark clear night. The stars are laid out in a pattern
across the sky, sparkling like jewels against the blackness of
space.

If it's a clear and dark enough night - preferably during a new
moon or before Earth's sister planet rises into the sky - you
might even see some of those stars move, tiny lights flashing,
as they make their way across the planetarium of the night. Many
are airplanes, taking passengers on their way across the country
or the world to distant destinations. But many believe these
tiny lights might also be travelers from a more distant realm,
maybe even from other planets.

Exactly what is a UFO?

That question has fascinated and frightened Americans for many
years, with such stories as aliens crashing in Roswell, N.M.,
alien abductions and close encounters of any kind.

Movies have played on those fears, with Martians invading in
"War of the Worlds," aliens demanding Earth's surrender in
"Earth vs. the Flying Saucers," creatures using human hosts to
bear their children in "Aliens" and monstrous goo from a meteor
eating everyone in its path in "The Blob."

Of course, there are the more cerebral offerings of outer space
beings, such as Michael Rennie's compassionate Klatu in "The Day
the Earth Stood Still" accompanied by the fearsome robot
policeman, Gort. The movie was an undisguised protest of the
misuse of nuclear weapons and what the consequences might be.

Even 'Star Trek', Gene Rodenberry's vision of a utopian future
for mankind in space, still has its Klingons, Romulans and the
hideous half-human, half-machine Borg.

"Men in Black" even went so far as acknowledging aliens on
earth, but the organization worked to prevent the world from
knowing the truth because of the panic that would ensue.

That's just a tip of the iceberg of human imagination when it
comes to outer space.

What are people seeing when they make a report of a UFO?

In recent months, the National UFO Reporting Center, on the
Internet at nuforc.ufoarchive.com, has listed a number of
sightings in Ohio, with one of the most recent coming from
Conneaut on Sept. 19. Witnesses reported a bright light changing
course as it moved across the sky at great speed.

Another sighting in mid-July had multiple red lights traveling
north near Route 11 at great speed. Witnesses said they followed
the lights for 40 miles between East Liverpool and Ashtabula.
Statements said the sightings were reported to the "Ashtabula
County State Highway Patrol" office, but officials at the Ohio
Highway Patrol office in Saybrook as well as the county sheriff's
department deny any knowledge of the report.

Still another area sighting took place July 15 in Madison, when
a cigar-shaped object was reported to have streaked across the
sky at a high rate of speed.

There also are a number of historic reports that have been
related in these pages from the past few decades. One of the
best known of the incidents was the Great Meteor of 1966 that
appeared in the night sky in September of that year. A huge
fireball was seen across much of the eastern United States and
Canada. It was bright enough to "turn night into day" for a few
minutes. Pieces of the object reportedly fell into a field near
Marion, Ind., and in Huntsville, Ontario, 120 miles north of
Toronto. The image was so vivid that some callers told the U.S.
Coast Guard station in Ashtabula that a lake freighter was on
fire.

While this object had a reasonable explanation, other area
sightings do not. An object was reported to have buzzed the
Geneva area in May 1964, prompting a frantic call from a driver
to the OHP. The driver said the object was hidden in the bushes
on the south side of Interstate 90 and was described as big as a
tractor-trailer and bright orange. The object hovered about
eight feet of the ground before zooming skyward to a height of
300 to 400 feet.

Yet, many of these sightings are officially denied, or at least
ignored by most officials. The Air Force's policy over the years
has been to deny the existence of extraterrestrial vehicles,
giving such explanations as swamp gas, weather balloons, hoaxes
or mistaken conventional craft.

However, a recent edition of Popular Mechanics reported
uncovering government documents about a nuclear-powered vehicle
that might be another explanation. The saucer-shaped craft would
be launched into space and carry nuclear weapons to attack the
Soviet Union should war become a reality. Artists renditions of
the craft lend credence to many of the "saucer" sightings in
recent years.

Extraterrestrial or military weapons?

Who knows for sure?

End of article
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                      Re: Military Abductions? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:43:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:23:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Military Abductions? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:55:27 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:11:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Military Abductions?

 >>Hello Gary,

 >>That has got to be the longest and most convoluted non-answer to
 >>a posting I have ever seen on this List! You'd probably do great
 >>in politics with a technique like that but it doesn't play well
 >>here.

 >>I was laboring under the delusion (for some reason) that you
 >>were a serious person. I'm all better now. Thanks for clearing
 >>_that_ up at least.

 >John,

Hi all,

Gary responds:

 >Ok, so you don't get the picture. Fair enough.

Yeah Gary I get the "picture" (contrary to popular belief I
_can_ read!) you're saying that; government agents are
patrolling UFO hotspots in unmarked cars, and that they employ
an electronic device that allows them to open and close
dimensional doorways in order to 'hide' the UFO activity in
those areas. I get it.

I'll ask you one more time: What evidence (if any) do you have
for making such patently outrageous claims? You _still_ haven't
addressed that one simple, straight forward question.

You cannot make claims like these in public without expecting to
be questioned about it.

 >What I have said is true.

I believe that you believe it is. I'm not calling you a liar,
I'm asking you to share your proof/evidence.

 >Observations based on case evidence.

Once again,... What "observations"? By whom? When? where?

 >Do you investigate sightings or abductions using any structured
 >process?

Nope. I'm a 'vic' (victim) not a 'dick!' (detective)

I leave "investigations" to those who are actually trained and
qualified in some formal way to conduct them and to report their
findings.

I've been trying to find out from _you_ what kind of
"investigating" you have been doing. "Turning the question
around on me" doesn't "answer" it. I'm not the one who claims to
be a UFO "researcher" or who claims to be conducting "research."
That's you Bunky!

What is your "training" for this work Gary? (What is the field of
expertise that qualifies you to call yourself a "researcher?"
What kind of research have -you- done that has convinced -you-
that the claims you have made are factual?

Questions don't get much plainer or easier to understand than
that Gary.

As a reader, (who actually 'thinks' about what he is reading)
all I've been trying to do is to determine "what" if any
evidence you have gathered that would have convinced you, or
that would substantiate _any_ of the claims you have been
making.

That isn't unreasonable in the least.

So far, it's been like 'Mission Impossible' getting any kind of
a straight answer from you. Even in this response you _still_
have not answered or addressed one single question that I put to
you about the claims that _you_ yourself have made here.

All I get is a song and dance about how it's all 'secret' and
'hush-hush' and that you 'can't' say anything. How about just
providing a 'straight answer' to a 'straight question?'

Again, nothing personal. Inquiring minds want to know!  ;)


John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:42:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:55:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Bruni


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:04:01 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

James, don't you think it is senseless "selectively cutting and
pasting" old material - these discussions between science writer
Ian Ridpath, John Diamond (Times) and myself were done in the
early days of my investigation. Since then a tremendous amount
of new material has been discovered and is now available in 'You
Can't Tell The People'.

Your assumption that I did not do much with Ed Cabanasag, is
erroneous, which only proves that you have not read the book. I
not only interviewed him at length but devoted a whole chapter
to his story.

One of the major players you have used to try to discredit this
case - is Cabansag. You claim he saw only the lighthouse.

Cabansag positively denies the lighthouse had anything to do
with it.

He told me:

'It wasn't the lighthouse, I saw the lighthouse, this wasn't it,
it was to the right of the lighthouse.'

He did not type the statement you have promoted to support your
theories. He signed it (that same morning) without reading it - he
was terrified.

There is much more information to support Cabansag's testimony,
including Adrian Bustinza's interrogation, which he has never
talked about until now. There is also the testimony of other
witnesses and people I have talked to, including photographs of
the landing site and indentations in the ground... which, for
your information, look nothing like rabbit scratchings.

I suggest you read the book, which is now available in the shops
or on:

www.amazon.co.uk

The truth is, the lighthouse theory is now no longer an issue.
There are much more interesting things about the case than that
tired old theory.

Georgina Bruni









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:55:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:16:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:24 -0600

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500


 >The creature appeared to glide about 6 inches above the ground,
 >according to the witnesses.

This is the same all witnesses in Chile described the way the
Blood Predator (Chupacabras) move.

Coincidence?


Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center  (Espaol)   http://ufomiami.nodos.com
Miami UFO Reporter (English)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
Depredador de Sangre(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
Hemo Predator (English)  http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espaol)   http://patagrande.homestead.com/index.html








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:52:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:20:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -



 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:24 -0600

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500

 >>Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>No apparent
 >>disturbances to the area around the being were reported. The
 >>creature appeared to glide about 6 inches above the ground,
 >>according to the witnesses. Weather conditions were cool and
 >>clear with no wind. No sounds were reported, and witnesses
 >>commented on it seeming abnormally quiet at the time. Crickets
 >>and other normal background noises were absent.

 >In any event, these last two sentences,
 >describing something we have heard so often before, are
 >particularly fascinating. They bring to mind Jenny Randles's Oz
 >Factor. Any comment, Jenny?

 >Jerry Clark

Hi,

I was being discrete in view of the likelihood of inviting a
reaction that I was inventing a mystery. For, oddly, to me at
least, the idea of the Oz Factor has come in for criticism in
the UK of late.

So it is an arguable matter as to what it means - if anything.
But heres what I think.

Clearly, IMO, this case is yet another example of a very common
description that regularly recur and are connected with close
encounter cases. It is because of this recurrence that I think
it is surely a significant clue.

It is after all one of the most consistent features of the
phenomenon . This is usually found as an account that 'all
environmental sounds disappeared' but can also extend into the
description of time slowing down, stretching out and losing all
meaning.

Now to me this is a pattern within the data. That's the point of
naming it - simply to mark it out as noteworthy and purely as a
hook to look out for the effect in other cases.

When reported by witnesses they have very rarely heard of the
term or are aware that others have described the same effect in
previous cases. Its also a feature that witnesses frequently do
not willingly report because it seems subjective, a bit 'kooky'
and in some eyes might be damaging to the acceptance of the
story that they are trying to get across.

So I also find it useful to identify this feature because it
means you can recognise cases where you would expect it and -
without outright egging on of the witness into describing it -
at least be sufficiently in tune to ensure that they would not
be discouraged from telling you if they felt you would be
receptive to the appearance of such an odd phenomenon.

Despite such simple reasons some British Ufologists apparently
regard this concept as being counter productive. That it somehow
makes too much out of already recognised psychological
phenomena. But I had never seen it as a means to an end - or
really as anything much other than an awareness of a set of
symptoms  within a whole range of cases and a convenient phrase
to denote them.

The fact that the Oz Factor crops up as often as it does must
mean something. But what it means is still, of course, open to
contention. It could well signify that the event occurs during
an altered state of consciousness with the 'tuning out' of
environmental sounds occurring much as they do when we stop
hearing the clock on the wall ticking as it is not a stimulus we
'need' to pay attention to when other more important stimuli are
present. So -  instead - we 'tune up' our awareness of inner
consciousness - perhaps the Oz Factor being noticed as the
'tuning down' of previously common stimuli.

Although it is possible that - for example - birds might
literally stop singing due to an awareness of a UFO presence
nearby - this cannot be a complete answer. Because the loss of
environmental stimuli goes beyond just birds stopping singing.
In many cases witnesses describe a complete absence of external
stimuli - including some that it seems unlikely would literally
diminish even in the presence of a UFO (for instance, the wind
disappearing or all passers by that one would expect to be on a
street suddenly being absent). It is much more as if all outside
stimuli are temporarily put on hold in so far as the witness is
concerned.

It is true that the Oz Factor appears in other phenomena as
well. It is prevalent in - for example - time slip cases and
some apparitions. There are signs of it during NDEs (near death
experiences) too. This would make sense if all require some ASC
in order to occur and so the Oz Factor may then be largely a
symptom of the state within which these disparate phenomena
occur rather than an indication that these things are all
somehow connected.

A bit like saying you can switch on a TV set and a microwave by
putting electricity into them, but the consequences of both are
different. In this sense the Oz Factor is like the electric
current and the UFO encounter or time slip the resultant event
that is brought into being as a consequence.

Moreover, it is known that in certain stress situations (eg when
someone is involved in a sudden accident - like facing a car
coming at you head on with inevitable impact just moments away)
that some do report the slowing down of time in a way similar to
the Oz Factor. This is another indication that the symptoms are
a consequence of the shifting conscious awareness.

So, yes, it is possible that what we see at work within close
encounters relates purely to a set of psychological phenomena
lumped together - as skeptics allege - and thus used by them to
justify why it is dangerous to create a term like Oz Factor to
make them appear special.

But I reply that the Oz Factor presupposes no actual
explanation. It merely delineates a phenomenon and identifies
its occurrence within many cases. Even knowing that such
psychological states occur is a useful clue pointing us forward
towards defining answers.

And, of course, being open minded, as we must be, there remains
the possibility that these states of awareness signified by the
Oz Factor are the result of more tangible forces.

Often - for instance - they are associated with EM fields and
other energy forces apparently generated by the UFO that is seen
- whatever that is. And it is conceivably to argue two ways from
that premise into other possible solutions to the mystery.

Firstly, that the energy field creates both physiological and
psychological responses in witnesses who are close to it (thus
the 'tingling skin' effect plus the Oz Factor ASCs).

Secondly, it may be that the energy connected with the UFO is
quite literally creating an alteration in the local state of
space-time, quantum reality and/or the atmosphere - thus
generating a major distortion effect that is inevitably
perceived by the witness as the Oz Factor.

All three options have merits and demerits from the evidence,
but the existence of the Oz Factor affords a choice of options
and a way to create tests that might even help us determine one
theory from another.

That is surely the goal of research - not to merely assume that
these effects must be psychological and so do not deserve a
generic name.

As such, whilst I do not ascribe any huge significance to this
issue, its a factor within ufology that is clearly there and IMO
beyond question can be recognised as an original feature of the
close encounter evidence that is not the product of investigator
bias or dependent upon any specific theory of UFO origin.

It exists independent of whether UFOs are entirely psychological
or are a natural phenomenon creating weird effects within our
environment or are indeed alien craft powered by some energy
field that as a side effect generates distortive consequences.

It is rare in Ufology to be as sure as we can here that we have
a consistent, clearly reported and globally identical phenomenon
that requires some sort of resolution. And the Oz Factor
undoubtedly is one of these things.

And so I don't intend to stop observing its occurrence or
pondering its meaning. And whilst I do not know precisely what
its implications are I do regard it as a useful signpost towards
the possible significance of a case - since hoaxers (unless very
knowledgeable ones) probably would not tend to fabricate Oz
Factor symptoms in their stories.

So when - as we do - we see the Oz Factor very clearly described
by Burroughs and Penniston in their close encounter phase of the
Rendlesham Forest case - you ought to sit up and ask yourself
what that means.

If they simply were deceived by a lighthouse, how could we
attribute to that the OZ Factor symptoms and energy fields that
these witnesses describe washing over them in a manner that is
so consistent with many other cases?

If that's what happened, then both the Oz Factor and the
physiological effects must result from psychological and stress
induced factors alone - since obviously they do not result from
a lighthouse beam.

Guessing this is what happened is not sufficient as to accept it
requires a clear path of scientific reasoning (which may, of
course, be achievable) to vindicate what otherwise - on the face
of it at least - seems an undoubted problem for the
misperception hypothesis.

Of course, it is feasible that the Oz Factor and physiological
effects described in the Rendlesham close encounter are there
because the witnesses deliberately fabricated them to create an
impression of UFO reality. But I don't see any justification that
they did so and I think to accept this idea as true the burden
of proof must be on the skeptic in this instance to establish
that such witnesses were sufficiently aware of the nuances of
ufology to be able to convincingly invent these features.
Because assuming that they were - and did - simply isn't good
enough with such a relatively little known aspect of the
phenomenon (certainly to outsiders).

Alternatively, these things are found within this case because
they are a direct consequence of the phenomenon being witnessed
- whatever that is. In which event the onus shifts from the
witnesses (who are merely describing the physiological and
psychological consequences) onto the nature of the 'UFO
experience' itself that actually precipitated these effects .

So - for me - far from being an academic argument over semantics
- the recognition of Oz Factor symptoms within any close
encounter cuts right to the chase. It helps focus key questions
that need resolution about that case and may, if other options
are found wanting, offer support for something truly
interesting.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: On What is Known - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:16:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:55:58 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Friedman


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:19:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:25 -0400

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>>Subject: On What is Known
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

 >><snip>

 >>>Jim

 >>We have learned that Donald Menzel was up to his ears in
 >>classified work for the CIA, NSA and many companies... certainly
 >>a shock to all when I first published it.

 >>We have certainly learned that Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli (about
 >>a billion years older than the sun) are the closest to each
 >>other pair of sun like stars in the local neighborhood and only
 >>37 light years away which gives a whole new perspective on
 >>where we fit in the scheme of things.

 >>We have learned that government agencies (USAF, CIA, NSA etc)
 >>have knowingly been guilty of massive misrepresentation about
 >>flying saucers. If there is nothing there why the coverup?

 >>We have learned that debunkers will go to any length, make false
 >>claims, attack people's character etc to defend their
 >>conclusions based on proclamation. It suggests that perhaps this
 >>is true in other areas as well.

 >>We have learned that major media will fail to do an objective
 >>investigation, at least partly because they claim on the basis
 >>of an absence of investigation, that there is nothing there to
 >>investigate. How many other areas are being neglected because of
 >>this arrogance?.

 >>We have learned that the SETI cultists will over and over again
 >>make false claims about ufology while blindly defending what
 >>they do as "science" when SETI really stands for Silly Effort to
 >>Investigate. nad is based on a host of crazy assumptions.

 >>That is just for starters.

 >>Stan Friedman

 >Well, that certainly is an awful lot, Stan. However my primary
 >concern and focus, and that of most of the direct percipients of
 >this phenom, is to learn when, where, why and how of the UFO and
 >abduction phenom.

 >Just what the is it, Stan?

 >Are you, in the above, suggesting that all of which we learn,
 >much of which you uncovered, has anything to do with whether or
 >not I really was abducted, as my memory suggests? Does is
 >explain whether the UFO is an object of this or another
 >dimension? Or this galaxy? Or whether it is an object even?

 >Nope. And with all the respect I can muster for you and your
 >efforts, not one thing you mentioned (which I may discern)
 >answers even one small question relating to UFOs, their form,
 >fit and function or for that matter, reality. Let alone
 >abduction.

 >As I mentioned in the original post, this is an indictment, but
 >without focus. Because I can't blame anyone for our ignorance.
 >Although the researcher is the only target at this brief moment
 >in time. To plagiarize a phrase.

 >Stan. There are no answers. No information which points to one.
 >Not even one. You, me, all of us have _failed_ in 50 years, to
 >find one shred of science with which to answer the question,
 >"Just what the hell is going on?"

 >I have the utmost respect for you. But you went around and came
 >around at least twice and gave no answers. Answers. Answers.
 >_Answers!_


Sorry, Jim. But you didn't ask why you were abducted. I named
some of the things that have been learned. I didn't say this was
all we have learned.

Now you are asking what the hell is going on. That is a
different question. You can't blame a good washing machine for
being a lousy dryer. Better rephrase your questions.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: On What is Known - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:02:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:59:14 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Randles


 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:30:16 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:50:47 -0000

 >Huh?

 >Explain "triple light triangle", please.

Hi,

Heres a personal sighting.

Wiltshire, September l980. My boyfriend and I were riding on his
Triumph Bonneville from Hampshire to Cheshire on a long
gruelling journey. We saw three balls of white light lined up
into an equilateral triangle and moving steadily across the late
evening sky before they disappeared.

I have personally since come across quite a few near identical
cases reported from witnesses in various locations - leading to
the reasonable inference that this is some sort of real,
consistently recorded phenomenon behind them.

I put my sighting in the hands of an experienced UFO group and
suggested one possible option (parachute flares - feasible given
the location where military training does operate) - although I
was unconvinced of this idea for several practical reasons. But
I knew thanks to the vagaries of perception that it had to be
possible. In any case, checks showed there were no such flares.

The group concerned suggested we had seen a Hercules transport
aircraft. But it was speculation. None were proven to be there.
I am virtually certain we did not see such a plane, largely
because the spacing of the three balls of light was such that if
they were lights on the aircraft tail and wing span we could not
possibly have missed seeing solid evidence and maybe even
hearing the plane because it would have covered a large arc of
sky and been perforce extremely close to us.

In any case, the existence of the near identical independent
reports gathered since are strong evidence for some sort of
phenomenon because not all could even arguably be explained as
flares or aircraft.

There is, of course, always the option that these were lights on
some alien craft, but I never had any reason to suppose that
answer. My impression at the time was that this was some sort of
peculiar light effect - possibly something like the mock sun
effect. It had that intangible feel to it.

I don't actually know what it was, of course, merely that this is
some sort of consistently reported but evidently fairly rare
type of UFO event that thus requires some sort of explanation.
My best guess is that it will turn out to be some kind of
atmospheric effect. And if it is then its an example of a rare
natural phenomenon probably only recognisable to science through
reports made to ufology because during the past 50 years all
reports of this type would be considered a UFO by their witness
and reported in this context.

If you look at the Condon report you will see that the
scientists there speculate in similar fashion about a couple of
cases where they think a fairly rare atmospheric phenomenon
might have triggered one UFO case or another.

I am not arguing this is the Holy Grail - the answer to
everything. Merely that some puzzling UFO cases are UAPs of this
type IMO.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:10:28 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:09:24 -0600

 >>>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0500

 >>>Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania


 >Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
 >walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
 >abductee reports for some time. (I am basing my remarks on
 >reports that Budd has gotten over the years from some of the
 >folks that have reported to him.)



Hi,

One interesting option here is this.

I have come across a number of ghost cases where the witness
describes the apparitional figure (here assumed to be some sort
of projection through time) to have their feet out of view below
the ground.   The argument used by paranormal researchers tends
to be that if this is a projection of an event say 500 years ago
the figure is walking along a floor surface as then was but
which has since been built upon by successive centuries of
habitation, road laying, house floors etc.

As such any projection from the past should walk with feet below
ground to our perception.

Take this the other way and speculate about projections from the
future (if such things be possible) (and presumably they are no
more impossible than projections from the past - i.e. ghosts).

On that basis any silver suited figure floating a foot or two
above the ground might not be what we nearly always assume it to
be (an alien that is hovering by some means) but a person from
the future. If so, would we not then see them walking on what
would be the elevated floor level of this spot at some future
time?

There are a number of interesting cases of floating entities
that fit this possible interpretation as humans from a few
hundred years hence walking on what to them will be the ground
level. In our perspective this would perhaps be in mid air.

Its speculation, obviously. And free and easy at that. But it
would resolve the fact that ghost researchers have noted this
'feet below ground level' effect and ufologists have noted the
'feet above ground level' effect. If one is involving figures
from the past and the other figures from the future suddenly
what looks like unrelated and inexplicable events start to make
an odd sort of sense.

Speculation - of course - sometimes proves insightful but often
proves absurd. Who knows what this one is. Right now its merely
an observation.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                       Re: On What is Known - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:51:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:22:22 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Randles



 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:36:33 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000

 >>Hi,

 >I disagree totally, you put out a statement saying that all
 >other UFO sightings are yet unexplained Natural phenomena, so
 >what is this topic about?

Hi,

If you plan to say things as statements of 'fact' then please
read what I say properly. You don't seem to have done that here.

Kindly publish where I 'put out a statement' saying that all UFO
sightings are natural phenomena. Because I did no such thing.

Sadly you are asking questions that are unrelated to the answers
that I gave and which (not for the first time) make massive and
incorrect assumptions about them.

But the solution is simple. Just quote where I said that 'all'
sightings are natural phenomena and we'll take it from there.

Of course, you won't be able to do so because I never said it.
But at least in searching fruitlessly for this alleged statement
you might then read more carefully what I actually said.

And I'll happily answer questions based on that.

 >I am sorry but this answer reminds me of the film clip in Jaws,
 >where Chief Brody is trying to convince the board assembled that
 >there is a shark in the pictures but just gets fobbed off. Are
 >you not able to tell anyone on this list what you think of Radar
 >& Trace cases in respect of UFO investigations?

Happily, but it wasn't this question that I was responding to.
You are trying to lead me into discussing/denying/supporting the
ETH - and I wasn't even debating that matter at all - as I made
very clear.

Not that saying (as I would) that most radar cases are
explicable but a few are genuinely interesting (as IMO they are)
means anything in so far as a debate on the ETH is concerned.
The existence of unsolved radar and trace cases (both of which
certainly do exist) establish only the reality of unexplained
UFO cases that require full investigation and may ultimately
invoke new phenomena so as to resolve them. But neither of these
are things that I have ever denied - despite your efforts to
imagine that I have.

What you are really trying to do is paint me as some sort of
debunker because I don't share your wholehearted endorsement of
the ETH as a clear answer to any part of ufology. But my stance
remains - as I hope it ever has been - an objective one. That we
have evidence of UFOs, most of which prove to be IFOs but
including some unexplained cases that are sufficiently
intriguing to warrant further study.

There are then various theories that can account for these
unsolved cases and evidence pro and con each theory making some
stronger than others but providing by no means definitive proof
of any of the more exotic explanations. The ETH is a debatable
option. It has strengths (eg plausibility) and weaknesses (
problems in matching the visible data). On balance I don't rate
it as the most likely explanation but it would be stupid to rule
it out.


 >So because I come straight to the crux of the matter' I am
 >accused of writing unconnected questions? I didn't realise we
 >were debating the finer aspects of Koi Carp keeping!

Don't be silly. The question I was replying to was quite clearly
different from yours - viz - what discoveries, or new progress,
has occurred as a result of UFO study. I set out various things
that I believe we have learned because there has been a UFO
study and that we might not have learned without such a field.

That I thought was a proper response to an intriguing question.

We have not learned that aliens are coming here because that is
a speculative argument around possibilities based on
interpretations of the data. Which is not to say it may not be
true. But it is emphatically to say that it isn't proven to be
true.

As a result I could not argue (and so did not argue) that we
have learned new things about alien life as a result of UFO
study, because IMO we cannot honestly say that we have.

Consequently any question you pose asking me to say whether I
believe in anything beyond what I think we have properly
established is - of course - a valid question in its own right.
But it is not relevant to the answers that I gave to the
question that was initially posed.

That's all I am saying.

 >Jenny for the List, will you please state your final position on
 >UFO case reports across the UK & World?

Don't be so daft. How can anyone state a 'final position' on all
UFO cases like you suggest? If they did they would be talking
through their hat! Anyone who knows the answer to everything is
simply kidding themselves into thinking that this is a nice
easy, single resolution mystery. And it clearly isn't. Its a
complex, multi faceted, several answer mystery.

There are things we can know with reasonable assurance from the
data (like - IMO - the existence of UAP), things we can
speculate about as possible based on some of the evidence (like
aliens maybe visiting earth or time travel) and things that I
believe we can be reasonably sure are not happening in literal
reality.

Ufology is a complex web of understanding. It involves IFOs, UAP
and unresolved possibilities with merits and demerits for each
theory. There is no definite answer to anything. If there were
ufology wouldn't exist and wouldn't need to exist.

 >So what label should be given to you then concerning the
 >statement you put out referring to UFO sightings?

I'm sure you'll think of one. But as far as I am concerned I am
simply honestly telling you what I think we know as well as what
we as yet don't know but can still reasonably debate. To me that
is being objective. I dare say to anyone who doesn't like this
sort of answer its government propaganda or debunking and proves
I am in this subject for nefarious reasons.

Well,I'm not. But sadly there's no way to argue with such
thinking against people who only want to hear the kind of
answers that reinforce their own convictions.

I can only tell you what I think. It may be right. It may be
wrong. But its a reasoned conclusion after years of study.

But I repeat - these answers to your questions are different
from the specific answer I gave to a pertinent question about
what Ufology had actually achieved in 50 years.

To me more fascinating than any debate about aliens is that such
an excellent and provocative question has been largely shunned
and rapidly got sidetracked into another 'them' and 'us' debate
about aliens and debunking.

Unfortunately that says a lot about the problems that beset
Ufology, because surely our primary goal should be to conduct
investigations without any preconceptions and to see what we can
establish thereby. Then to carefully accept what we can - or
cannot - say has indeed been established by the facts. Then move
on, inch by inch, from there towards the best resolutions.

In fact, as this list demonstrates quite often, ufology is far
more about wanting a particularly theory to be true and viewing
the evidence as a means to achieving that. The facts and data
are used not as a guide to what we ought to consider as being
reasonably established . Instead the evidence is as a piece of
clay to be molded into the image of whatever we want to
believe.

Science is about collecting evidence, devising hypotheses and
testing these against newly accrued data. Unfortunately way too
much of ufology is about deciding on the answer then desperately
seeking bits of evidence (however representative or
unrepresentative) that will vindicate this as the great truth.

In what are here very fundamental differences is perhaps the key
reason why in 50 years science has moved forward to produce a
remarkable world in which we live, whereas ufology is pretty
much sitting here having the same arguments that very probably
were discussed with equal circularity by our grandparents.

If we all took one day out to ponder the awesome truth that the
difference between science and ufology and think what it infers
about this subject of ours, then we might start to move
forwards.

But I dare say the easiest prediction of the century is that in
the year 2020 UFO UpDates will still be having the same
fruitless arguments that we are having right now.

If that doesn't shock you into doing something, then there is
little hope for the future of ufology.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

             Re: Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B -

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:21:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:29:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B -


 >From: From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:51:15 EST
 >Subject: Ed Fouche: Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >From: FoucheMedia <FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com>
 >To: <FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com>
 >Subject: Ed Fouche/ Forward of Physics analysis of TR-3B
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:27:49 -0600


 >From: John Kooiman <john.kooiman@home.com>

 >Subject: TR-3B
 >Antigravity Physics Explained:

 >To be correct, I probably should say, "TR-3B Antigravity
 >Physics Explained, insofar as General Relativity can be
 >considered an explanation for gravity."

 >Many readers of this List are probably already familiar with
 >Edgar Fouche's description of the USA's Top Secret TR-3B
 >triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace craft. If not, read
 >about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm.

 >Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

 >"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the
 >Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew
 >compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The
 >plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at
 >a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000
 >rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting
 >gravity disruption.

 >The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or
 >neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by
 >89 percent...


John, Ed & Jim, EBK and listers,

The word vortex or vortices can mean one of two things: flow
involving rotation around an axis or a condition of drawing
everything to a center point.

   "The vortex as a structure lies at the very core of existence,
   as in the atom and apparently beyond, down to the behavior of
   quanta." ('Invisible Residents' by Ivan Sanderson)

Sanderson has conducted some excellent UFO research. The
following sums up his position: "I contend that if we will only
stick to being logical, and within the accepted frame of logic
to boot, there is no reason

(a) why there could not be an extremely advanced civilization
     under water;
(b) why it might not be twice as old as ours;
(c) why it should not have developed what we call space flight;

(d) why it should not be so far advanced of us technically that
    we would never have even noticed it until we started to
    develop a few really sensitive gadgets."

He cites example after example of why he believes this to be
true and in so doing examines a broad spectrum of history,
anthropology, science, biology, and both modern and ancient
literature. But his most ingenious connection is the one he
draws between vortices, Indian space travel, and the function of
mercury.

The Appendix contains two articles, one on vortices by Theodore
  Schwenk and the other a short essay on the ancient Indian
Vimanas. First he defines the vortex:

   "Whenever any qualitative differences in a flowing medium come
   together, these isolated formations (vortices) occur. Such
   differences may be: slow and fast; solid and liquid; liquid
   and gaseous...warm and cold; denser and more tenuous; heavy
   and light ( for instance, salt water and fresh); viscous and
   fluid; alkaline and acid...At the surfaces of contact there is
   a tendency for one layer to role in upon the other. In short,
   wherever the finest differentiations are present the vortex
   act as a delicate 'sense organ' which as it were perceives the
   differentiations and then in a rhythmical process causes them
   to even out and to merge." Theodore Schwenk, 'Sensitive Chaos'

Next Sanderson tells about his research into ancient writings
and why these writings sometimes hold excellent scientific
information that is also historically important.

One such assortment of writings is the Daiva, translated by Dr.
Ranjee Shahani. There are many fascinating stories and poems in
this five thousand year old collection but one of the most
intriguing is the description of a flying machine:

   "Strong and durable must the body be made, like a great
   flying bird, of light material. Inside it one must place the
   mercury-engine with its iron heating apparatus beneath. By
   means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the
   driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel
   a great distance in the sky in a most marvelous manner."

One might rationalize this statement as being nothing but
ancient ramblings if it weren't for two other significant facts.
First, two well respected scientists and teachers, Gerald
Schubert and J.A. Whitehead, discovered that when mercury in a
circular dish is subjected to a slowly rotating heat source, the
mercury begins to rotate as a vortex in the opposite direction
of the heat and often dramatically exceeds the speed of the heat
source. The second is that the ancient Roman God called Mercury
is depicted with wings on both his helmet and his heels. His
helmet is also shaped like a UFO. Now why should Mercury, be a
god who flies?

And does any of this information help us understand the nature
of the TR3B?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                  Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:58:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:32:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:05:39 -0600

 >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:40:50 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

 >>>>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

 >Pelican John,

 >>>And that is precisely the sort of reading that drives Hufford up
 >>>the wall, and it is exactly why he praised my reading of his
 >>>book. It's not as if we have to choose between belief in witch
 >>>attacks or rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon, a
 >>>point Hufford makes repeatedly and which Rimmer seems to have
 >>>missed.

 >>You do make a good point. What drives me up the wall are people
 >>like who seem to think we have to choose between belief in
 >>extraterrestrial spaceships or rejection of a strange
 >>experiential phenomenon. I point which I make frequently and
 >>which Clarke seems to have missed.

 >I presume you are referring to Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps you
 >could cite a reference for his conviction that "we have to
 >choose between belief in extraterrestrial spaceships or
 >rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon." That seems a
 >foolish idea, and I don't recall that anybody on this list
 >suggested it. As far as I can tell, you and your fellow
 >pelicanists are the only ones discussing alien spacecraft here.
 >In any event, let's see the Clarke reference. It strikes me as
 >extreme even for a veteran debunker like Clarke, but I could be
 >wrong.

This is a bizarre one even by your standards, Jerry: refuse to
answer a question because someone spelt your name wrong.

Jerry constantly makes the point that much UFO evidence points
to the conclusion that some UFO reports, particularly CEII and
radar-visual cases, are caused by solid, apparently metallic,
apparently artificially constructed physical craft which appear
to have performance characteristics beyond anything currently
available to terrestrial technology. Jerry, being a
not-quite-ETHer carefully refuses to say that these objects are
extraterrestrial. Well fair enough, but I do feel that if you
think it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you may as
well say it's a duck (or at the very least a goose). Obviously
fearing the ridicule that he assures us will descend on anyone
who suggests an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs, Jerry
carefully refuses to take that final step.

 >>Hufford's analysis of the problems attached to the "Old Hag"
 >>phenomeon seem to bring it closer to the abduction phenomenon
 >>than to the apparent solid, engineered objects that Jerry claims
 >>constitute the 'real' UFO mystery - the CE2s and radar-visual
 >>cases. Although Hufford may think that conventional
 >>psychological explanations do not adequately explain the actual
 >>experiences involved in Hag accounts, I still doubt very much
 >>that he thinks there actually *is* an 'objectively existing' old
 >>woman who perpetrates the Hag attacks.

 >Huh? You lost me there. I must be scoring some points if this is
 >the best you can do. Again, I don't recall anybody's ever saying
 >- except you - that the existence of an actual Old Hag is what
 >we're discussing.

But of course that's what we're discussing. In the absence of
the old dear creeping in and trying to suffocate us, we're left
with a purely physiological phenomenon of the kind discussed at
by Susan Blackmore. This does not mean to say that there is
nothing unknown to contemporary science going on, but it least
is does suggest that researchers need not waste time checking
for fingerprints after each Hag attack. Hope I haven't lost you
again here - you do seem to need a roadmap quite a lot of the
time.

 >In point of fact, Hufford contends that the Old Hag phenomenon
 >and the abduction phenomenon, or at least some supposed
 >abductions, may be part of a larger experiential mystery beyond
 >current knowledge. I tend to agree. He also thinks that there
 >are notable differences in some instances. Like me and unlike
 >pelicanists, he thinks that investigation is far more important
 >at this stage than yet more empty theory.

Well, you may be right and the debate really is about how far
beyond current knowledge it is. I'm as keen as anyone on
first-hand investigation, and I certainly think that the Hag and
Abductions are closely related phenomena. I wonder, however, if
further investigation is going to get anywhere unless it's
underpinned by a testable theory. Otherwise we're going to end
up in the same state as much psychic research, which has been
collecting anecdotal evidence for more than a century and is
still not much further on than when it started.

 >>It is Jerry who seems to be trying to polarise the debate by
 >>saying that if you reject the idea of an actual Hag, you are
 >>thereby denying the reality of the experience. Just such a
 >>foolish argument is of course wheeled out to attack anyone who
 >>doubts the physical reality of the abduction experience.

 >I am scratching my head here. What in the world are you talking
 >about? I don't recall discussing the "physical reality of the
 >abduction phenomenon" anywhere on this thread. In the real world
 >which pelicanists visit as seldom as possible, I am pretty much
 >an agnostic on the abduction question, which just plain confuses
 >me - as it should, I would think, any reasonable objective
 >observer.

And I don't recall claiming that you discussed the "physical
reality of the abduction phenomenon" on this thread. It's a
topic you generally keep well away from, but there are plenty of
other people hereabouts who have been discussing it, and my
paragraph above - if you re-read it with your sub-editor's eye -
was aimed at them.

 >>>Hufford participated in the 1992 MIT abduction studies
 >>>conference and contributed a fascinating paper to its
 >>>proceedings, taking issue with both debunkers and proponents for
 >>>loose thinking about a phenomenon that he freely acknowledges is
 >>>most puzzling. He cites a case he learned of through a physician
 >>>associate, noting that there were multiple witnesses and
 >>>physiological evidence associated with it. Hufford remarks, "I
 >>>know of no non-abduction explanation for these events.... To
 >>>simply say this must ... be a case of folie a deux is to merely
 >>>state that no amount of evidence will count in such cases."
 >>What is this case, and where can I find an account of it?

 >Hufford doesn't go into details but mentions it at the beginning
 >of his paper in the MIT conference proceedings.

So basically it's a friend-of-a-friend story.

 >>>>Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old woman
 >>>>(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into windows.

 >>>No. Hufford thinks that the Old Hag is a very strange.
 >>>phenomenon, poorly and even absurdly explained by pelicanists,
 >>>part of which we now understand, but some of the most baffling
 >>>aspects of which remain unaccounted for.

I thought it was a bit of a joke when it started, and went along
with it quite readily, but I'm beginning to get a bit tired of
this 'pelicanist' business, especially as you now seem to use it
to mean anyone who disagrees with Jerome Clark and his chums.

 >Wow - finally, a leading psychosociologist admits that the
 >abduction phenomenon has _not_ been explained and that
 >baffling aspects remain unaccounted for. Reading Magonia, I
 >never would have guessed. I would have thought that in your
 >estimation it was only dimwitted ufologists who thought like
 >that. You're coming around, John. Good for you. Be
 >gentle, though, when you break the news to Peter
 >Rogerson.

Oh, dear, another confusion of titles. Please tell me how I can
subscribe to the magazine called Magonia that claims that the
abduction phenomenon has been explained. It's certainly not the
one I edit.

 >>Do you think that the evidence presented by Hufford makes the
 >>presence of a physical Hag a "reasonable provisional
 >>interpretation"? If not how does the degree of eyewitness
 >>testimony presented by Hufford differ from the testimony
 >>presented in the UFO reports that you find most convincing?

 >Wow. Go back and reread Hufford, then come back. At least then
 >you'll understand why arguments like the one you are making
 >distort his meaning beyond recognition. It sort of remains

[sic]

me,
 >actually, of the careless way you and other pelicanists treat
 >witness testimony.

Obviously, trying to continue this discussion is like trying to
nail jelly to a wall [sub-editor's translation: UK, Jelly; US,
Jello]. If anybody asks Jerry a question he doesn't want to
answer he goes off on a tangent because you've spelt his nam
wrongly, or expresses bafflement and gives you a reading list.
Let me try again:

You claim that there is a resemblance in the way critics have
treated accounts of UFOs and the Old Hag. You claim that direct
witness accounts of both sets of events have a lot to tell us
about the nature of the phenomena described. That they are
accounts of actual events, not simply folklore, literary devices
or 'radical mispereceptions'. In both cases the phenomena as
described by the witnesses or experients have an internal
consistency, and correspond closely to other similar events
described by other people. (I'm not going to fast, am I?)

Now many of the most convincing UFO events, according to Jerry,
are so consistent in their nature that the initial impression
that they are physically constructed extraterrestrial craft is
an idea that is "a reasonable provisional interpretation". (OK
so far?)

Now many of the cases reported by Hufford likewise have a
remarkable consistency. In fact, as Jerry points out, this
consistency seems to be independent of the sort of
culturally-determined imagery that psychosocial ufologists are
keen to describe. The initial impression of Old Hag cases is
that they are caused by a malevolent old woman attempting to
smother the 'witness'. But Jerry does *not* seem to think that
this is a "reasonable provisional interpretation". Fair enough,
nor do I, but I'm just asking what's the difference between this
and his conclusion on UFO cases? Now please note here that I'm
asking *Jerry's* opinion, not Jerry's interpretation of
Hufford's opinion. Yes, I am going to re-read Hufford. Who
knows, when I do I might disagree with him and not think he is
the fount of all wisdom.

 >I should point out to listfolk who may be confused by John's
 >strange effort to enlisten Hufford into the psychosociologist
 >cause re UFOs that I met Hufford originally - I had not heard
 >of him before - at a folklore conference in Omaha, Nebraska, in
 >1978. I engaged him in conversation when I noticed how visibly
 >incensed - and outspokenly critical - he became during our
 >mutual exposure to a pelicanist lecture on UFOs.

Must have been very entertaining, especially if you were in the
row behind!

 >As memory has
 >it, the lecture (by one Elmer Kral) was essentially
 >indistinguishable from anything one would read in Magonia.

Sounds a good guy this one Elmer Kral. Where can I get in touch
with him and see if he'll do an article for Magonia? Mind you,
1978 is a long time ago. Things have moved on since then.


--
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 10

                        Re: On What is Known - Baker

From: David Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:42:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:47:39 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Baker


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:36:33 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000



Hi Jenny, Roy, list-dudes,

a few thoughts...

 >>Hi,
 >
 >>Its a pity you are not like the (incredible) British weather
 >>right now since your answers are much easier to forecast.

 >And yet we shall continue to get the same old piped out message
 >that nothing is happening it's all mundane things it can all be
 >explained away as we experts know it all, well I am slightly
 >bored on reading this tosh being put out' so please end the
 >argument Jenny, you have done your 25 year stint' you have come
 >to your Psychological and Natural conclusions on the UFO
 >subject' so the point of carrying on is what exactly?

I'm getting slightly bored by your constant attacks on Jenny,
Roy. And it's pretty obvious that you have come to ETH
conclusions on the UFO subject so what is the point of
_you_ carrying on exactly?

<snip.>

 >>Neither the question posed, nor my answer to it, had any
 >>relevance . As my reply made clear I was purposefully avoiding
 >>discussing exotic theories of UFO origin (all of them) and any
 >>possible revelations that these have brought. Instead I was
 >>simply offering some less contentious benefits that Ufology has
 >>brought about in my own experience from case investigation.

 >I am sorry but this answer reminds me of the film clip in Jaws,
 >where Chief Brody is trying to convince the board assembled that
 >there is a shark in the pictures but just gets fobbed off.

I'm reminded of the scene where Brody panics, thinking there is
a shark in the water, makes a great deal of fuss, scares the
shit out of people, and it turns out not to be a shark at all...
kids messing about, if I remember rightly. You know, a mundane
explanation.

 >Are
 >you not able to tell anyone on this list what you think of Radar
 >& Trace cases in respect of UFO investigations?

Radar and trace cases are just that and can still be attributed
to things other than alien spaceships.

 >>By all means please dispute them, but don't assume they mean
 >>anything about the unconnected questions that you raise.

 >So because I come straight to the crux of the matter' I am
 >accused of writing unconnected questions? I didn't realize we
 >were debating the finer aspects of Koi Carp keeping!

Koi Carp keeping? Unconnected? UFOs? OH! Irony! (chortle!)

 >And my questions cannot be answered can they Jenny, without
 >giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia with nothing but
 >the same answers you mention in the first instance?

<snip>

 >Jenny for the List, will you please state your final position on
 >UFO case reports across the UK & World?

Wouldn't such an answer, considering you want it to involve, I
take it, _all_ UFO case reports from across the UK & World
involve "giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia "?

Keep smiling,

Dave Baker







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                      Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:01:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:00:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 03:20:07 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe

 >>From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:31:47 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:35:46 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Tarter's Sore UFO Toe - Young

 >>>Hi Bob, Josh,

 >>>Just a note. Betty Cash passed away earlier this year. I believe
 >>>her death was directly related to the (radiation induced?)
 >>>illness she had been fighting since the sighting. Do either of
 >>>you know anything about the condition of the grandson or the
 >>>other female witness that was in the car? Were either of them
 >>>ever affected? Also, I know Betty had litigation pending against
 >>>the government. She was sueing them for her medical expenses.
 >>>Does anybody know what the outcome of that case was? Just
 >>>curious.

 >>John, Josh, List:

 >>I don't know, to all of the above questions. It would be
 >>interesting to find out.

 >Hi Bob, John, and all,

 >I've been so wrapped up in the election conundrum that I didn't
 >get around to replying till now.

Hi Josh, hi All,

Damn! I didn't catch this until after I sent out my last reply.
Sorry for the 'double' response!

Josh, you wrote:

 >Vicki and Colby were irradiated much less than Betty Cash
 >because they did not get outside the car.

Hmmm, just 'how much' damaging radiation would the windshield of
a car screen? Betty was standing by the drivers side door when
she got out of the vehicle. Which means that (at best) Vicky and
the boy couldn't have been more than just a couple of feet
farther away from the source of the radiation than Betty herself
was!

I'm not certain of this detail but: logically; Vicki would have
been riding shotgun (in the passenger seat next to the driver)
and the boy would have been in the backseat. That still puts
them squarely in front of whatever the source of that radiation
was that ruined Betty's body and eventuall took her life.

Why didn't Vicky or the boy get radiation sickness as well?
There was no "lead/radiation shielding" in the car or the
window. By rights both Vicky and the boy 'should have' gotten as
sick as Betty did!

I hope that Stan or somebody with some knowledge of these things
gets to read this and address this point. It's important.

What do you think Josh? This 'oddity' never occured to me
before. Have you ever given this particular 'angle' any thought?
If so, how do you explain the fact that both Vicky and the boy
are fine?

Ufology! The deeper you go,... the deeper it gets!  <LOL>

Regards, look forward to your thoughts on this.

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                               Virus Follow Up

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:41:19 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:13:40 -0500
Subject: Virus Follow Up


List members,

In response to my query as to why he was spreading a
virus, I just received the following:

"The virus spread was totally unintentional. My equipment was
invaded by a virus called Natividad.exe. It is self-running and
installs itself on the System folder. Then it starts reading
your messages and fragmenting them to send to people from your
address book. I was infected and in a matter of seconds, when I
realized that something had fooled my anti-virus, Natividad.exe
sent over 1,000 e-mails...

"I am very sorry and please accept my appologies."

The virus is actually named navidad.exe, _not_ Natividad.exe.

I don't have any indication here that my own machine sent out
e-mails containing navidad.exe as an attachment.

However, please be careful! If you receive an e-mail from me
with navidad.exe attached, do _not_ open it by double clicking
on it!

The e-mail in which I received it originally came from Brazil.

Again, this is not an Internet joke or personal paranoia on my
part.

Navidad.exe is a real virus -- and you don't want it!

Dennis Stacy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes UtterMole@cs.com
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:15:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:15:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles - Rhodes


 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:34:06 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale >royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Big Story On Crop Circles


 >So statistically can we say that Matthew & Co were capable of
 >creating every Circle this year gone in Wiltshire' after taking
 >onboard witness statements and time differentials on when
 >circles appeared in this years Circle season?

I think you're asking whether Matthew was capable of making
all this seasons crop circles in Wiltshire, is that right?

May I suggest to you that there is actually more than one crop
circle team in operation! So the answer is no, Matthew was not
responsible for all the crop circles in Wiltshire this year.
However, by no means were any of the formations created by
aliens.

 >Do you realize how many 'Locals' hold anti-hoax watches when the
 >season is on?

You shouldn't listen to the locals, they have made plenty of
money out of the tourist trade over the years. Polly Carson
claimed last year that the East Field was searched in the early
hours with high powered torches the night the 'Big One' appeared
and no one was seen. She then proceded to be the guide to
Japanese tourists hosting barge trips etc. Surely the farmers
and their (ex) wives would be scouring the skies for the
perpertraters not the fields!

Bring on the evidence that humans do not make crop circles!

Tel








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:30:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:18:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:58:33 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:05:39 -0600

 >>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:40:50 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll
 >>>>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:07:23 -0600

 >>>>>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:05:47 +0000
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Clark


John,

 >>>You do make a good point. What drives me up the wall are people
 >>>like who seem to think we have to choose between belief in
 >>>extraterrestrial spaceships or rejection of a strange
 >>>experiential phenomenon. I point which I make frequently and
 >>>which Clarke seems to have missed.

 >>I presume you are referring to Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps you
 >>could cite a reference for his conviction that "we have to
 >>choose between belief in extraterrestrial spaceships or
 >>rejection of a strange experiential phenomenon." That seems a
 >>foolish idea, and I don't recall that anybody on this list
 >>suggested it. As far as I can tell, you and your fellow
 >>pelicanists are the only ones discussing alien spacecraft here.
 >>In any event, let's see the Clarke reference. It strikes me as
 >>extreme even for a veteran debunker like Clarke, but I could be
 >>wrong.

 >This is a bizarre one even by your standards, Jerry: refuse to
 >answer a question because someone spelt your name wrong.

Jeez, is that what you were doing? As if it weren't bad enough
to misrepresent my views, you have to spell my name wrong. It
does go to show you, however, that if you misrepresent somebody
enough, he'll thinking you're referring to somebody else. I wish
I could say that such misrepresentation were bizarre even your
standards, but alas, I can't.

 >Jerry constantly makes the point that much UFO evidence points
 >to the conclusion that some UFO reports, particularly CEII and
 >radar-visual cases, are caused by solid, apparently metallic,
 >apparently artificially constructed physical craft which appear
 >to have performance characteristics beyond anything currently
 >available to terrestrial technology. Jerry, being a
 >not-quite-ETHer carefully refuses to say that these objects are
 >extraterrestrial. Well fair enough, but I do feel that if you
 >think it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you may as
 >well say it's a duck (or at the very least a goose). Obviously
 >fearing the ridicule that he assures us will descend on anyone
 >who suggests an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs, Jerry
 >carefully refuses to take that final step.

As why shouldn't I, when your purpose is tediously transparent?
What you seek to do, of course, is to turn attention from UFO
cases you can't explain to a theory about them that no one can
prove. Nice try, John.

 >>>Hufford's analysis of the problems attached to the "Old Hag"
 >>>phenomeon seem to bring it closer to the abduction phenomenon
 >>>than to the apparent solid, engineered objects that Jerry claims
 >>>constitute the 'real' UFO mystery - the CE2s and radar-visual
 >>>cases. Although Hufford may think that conventional
 >>>psychological explanations do not adequately explain the actual
 >>>experiences involved in Hag accounts, I still doubt very much
 >>>that he thinks there actually *is* an 'objectively existing' old
 >>>woman who perpetrates the Hag attacks.

 >>Huh? You lost me there. I must be scoring some points if this is
 >>the best you can do. Again, I don't recall anybody's ever saying
 >>- except you - that the existence of an actual Old Hag is what
 >>we're discussing.

 >But of course that's what we're discussing. In the absence of
 >the old dear creeping in and trying to suffocate us, we're left
 >with a purely physiological phenomenon of the kind discussed at
 >by Susan Blackmore. This does not mean to say that there is
 >nothing unknown to contemporary science going on, but it least
 >is does suggest that researchers need not waste time checking
 >for fingerprints after each Hag attack. Hope I haven't lost you
 >again here - you do seem to need a roadmap quite a lot of the
 >time.

Again, you demonstrate that you haven't a clue to what Hufford
is saying. You're trying to argue a lunatic literalness which
distorts Hufford's meaning and obfuscates the crucial issues he
raises. As I have demonstrated by quotes from Hufford himself,
Hufford _does not_ think we are "left with a purely
physiological phenomenon of the kind discussed by Susan
Blackmore." He writes about a very strange, deeply anomalous
series of perceptions which occur in a particular physical state
(sleep paralysis), but does not use that particular physical
state to _explain_ the perceptions. He specifically states that
there is no known explanation, psychological, physical, or
cultural, for the perceptions.

My word. The blinders the pelican wears in its flight are
truly ... er, blinding.

 >>>>Hufford participated in the 1992 MIT abduction studies
 >>>>conference and contributed a fascinating paper to its
 >>>>proceedings, taking issue with both debunkers and proponents for
 >>>>loose thinking about a phenomenon that he freely acknowledges is
 >>>>most puzzling. He cites a case he learned of through a physician
 >>>>associate, noting that there were multiple witnesses and
 >>>>physiological evidence associated with it. Hufford remarks, "I
 >>>>know of no non-abduction explanation for these events.... To
 >>>>simply say this must ... be a case of folie a deux is to merely
 >>>>state that no amount of evidence will count in such cases."
 >>>What is this case, and where can I find an account of it?

 >>Hufford doesn't go into details but mentions it at the beginning
 >>of his paper in the MIT conference proceedings.

 >So basically it's a friend-of-a-friend story.

Yeah, the sort of anecdotal experiential account that gets
reported and taken seriously in psychological , medical, and
psychiatric literature all the time. The only difference - and
the only reason you're so responding with such characteristic
smugness - is that Hufford does not pretend, as you're trying to
do here, that the incident is easily dismissible or ascribable
to conventional causes. If Hufford were discussing some mental
abnormality his friend had described to him --say, a diagnosable
mental disorder that had caused the patient to believe aliens
had abducted him - we'd no doubt see the identical anecdote used
in Magonia as yet more evidence that nothing, or at least
nothing important or potentially unsettling, is happening that
we can't explain.

 >>>>>Does Hufford believe that the Old Hag is a real, evil old
woman >>>>>(or other physical phenomenon) who creeps into
windows.

 >>>>No. Hufford thinks that the Old Hag is a very strange. >
 >>>phenomenon, poorly and even absurdly explained by
pelicanists, >>>>part of which we now understand, but some of
the most baffling >>>>aspects of which remain unaccounted for.

 >I thought it was a bit of a joke when it started, and went along
 >with it quite readily, but I'm beginning to get a bit tired of
 >this 'pelicanist' business, especially as you now seem to use it
 >to mean anyone who disagrees with Jerome Clark and his chums.

Sorry you're tired of it, John. To be honest about it, I'm
getting even more tired of hearing tired psychosociologist
arguments which you can't defend except by misrepresenting the
views of your critics. Maybe you ought to give them a rest and
do some serious rethinking of your position. In return I can't
promise that I will retire the useful phrase pelicanism, which
has already entered the vocabulary of ufology (even Andy Roberts
boasts that he uses it often), but I _will_ promise not to
employ it in reference to you.

 >>Wow - finally, a leading psychosociologist admits that the
 >>abduction phenomenon has _not_ been explained and that
 >>baffling aspects remain unaccounted for. Reading Magonia, I
 >>never would have guessed. I would have thought that in your
 >>estimation it was only dimwitted ufologists who thought like
 >>that. You're coming around, John. Good for you. Be
 >>gentle, though, when you break the news to Peter
 >>Rogerson.>

 >Oh, dear, another confusion of titles. Please tell me how I can
 >subscribe to the magazine called Magonia that claims that the
 >abduction phenomenon has been explained. It's certainly not the
 >one I edit.

Wow, I am still more surprised. Please tell us which aspects of
the abduction phenomenon you feel to be unexplained. And you
might go on to tell us if, and which, aspects of it may defy
current knowledge. These are not rhetorical questions, by the
way. I am genuinely curious. Your unconvincing disclaimer
notwithstanding, the pages of Magonia offer us no answers to
these questions, I'm afraid.

 >Obviously, trying to continue this discussion is like trying to
 >nail jelly to a wall [sub-editor's translation: UK, Jelly; US,
 >Jello]. If anybody asks Jerry a question he doesn't want to
 >answer he goes off on a tangent because you've spelt his nam
 >wrongly, or expresses bafflement and gives you a reading list.
 >Let me try again:

Please do, John. Gosh, if only we all appreciated how wise you
are. Perhaps you could begin by putting forth better arguments.
Or maybe it's just easier to insult those who disagree with you.

 >You claim that there is a resemblance in the way critics have
 >treated accounts of UFOs and the Old Hag. You claim that direct
 >witness accounts of both sets of events have a lot to tell us
 >about the nature of the phenomena described. That they are
 >accounts of actual events, not simply folklore, literary devices
 >or 'radical mispereceptions'. In both cases the phenomena as
 >described by the witnesses or experients have an internal
 >consistency, and correspond closely to other similar events
 >described by other people. (I'm not going to fast, am I?)

Actually, these are points Hufford makes. You ascribe them to
me. Perhaps a small point, since I agree with them, but no doubt
you consider it easier to slam me than a prominent, influential
folklore/medical professional like Hufford. More seriously,
however, I urge you again to go back and reread him before you
go on and on and on about this.

 >Now many of the most convincing UFO events, according to Jerry,
 >are so consistent in their nature that the initial impression
 >that they are physically constructed extraterrestrial craft is
 >an idea that is "a reasonable provisional interpretation". (OK
 >so far?)

Condescension noted.

 >Now many of the cases reported by Hufford likewise have a
 >remarkable consistency. In fact, as Jerry points out, this
 >consistency seems to be independent of the sort of
 >culturally-determined imagery that psychosocial ufologists are
 >keen to describe. The initial impression of Old Hag cases is
 >that they are caused by a malevolent old woman attempting to
 >smother the 'witness'. But Jerry does *not* seem to think that
 >this is a "reasonable provisional interpretation". Fair enough,
 >nor do I, but I'm just asking what's the difference between this
 >and his conclusion on UFO cases? Now please note here that I'm
 >asking *Jerry's* opinion, not Jerry's interpretation of
 >Hufford's opinion. Yes, I am going to re-read Hufford. Who
 >knows, when I do I might disagree with him and not think he is
 >the fount of all wisdom.

I'm glad you're going to reread Hufford. I only wish you had
done so before you put yourself so far out on a limb.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. You seem
obsessed with the reality of witches (where the phrase "Old Hag"
comes from), while Hufford was using this simply as one
striking, telling instance of an anomalous experience which
psychosocial theorists have misrepresented. misunderstood, and
inadequately explained. Beyond that, as I have already written,
Hufford argues that other kinds of anomalous experiences, on
which a great body of witness testimony exists and which do not
occur in the particular physiological state in which the Old Hag
is encountered, have been similarly misunderstood and
misrepresented by those who sought to explain them
conventionally. In some instances witnesses' descriptions proved
correct, their interpretations wrong; in others, description and
interpretation were both validated.

Hufford takes the lessons learned from these episodes and
applies them to anomalous claims and controversies yet
unresolved.

If I can follow your argument - no small feat - you would have
us believe that Hufford is arguing simply that persons who
report unorthodox experiences may describe them more or less
accurately but that their interpretations more or less can be
counted on to be mistaken. This is not remotely Hufford's point
of view. That view - let me repeat - is that sometimes the
interpretations are wrong and sometimes they aren't. And I think
he's right.

Come on, John. You're smarter than you're making yourself out to
be here. Or, since recently you slagged me for saying something
nice things about Andy Roberts and you, maybe you aren't. Either
way, you're starting to bore the hell out of me.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:19:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:48 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:10:28 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
 >>walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
 >>abductee reports for some time.

<snip>

 >I have come across a number of ghost cases where the witness
 >describes the apparitional figure (here assumed to be some sort
 >of projection through time) to have their feet out of view below
 >the ground.   The argument used by paranormal researchers tends
 >to be that if this is a projection of an event say 500 years ago
 >the figure is walking along a floor surface as then was but
 >which has since been built upon by successive centuries of
 >habitation, road laying, house floors etc.

<snip>

 >On that basis any silver suited figure floating a foot or two
 >above the ground might not be what we nearly always assume it to
 >be (an alien that is hovering by some means) but a person from
 >the future. If so, would we not then see them walking on what
 >would be the elevated floor level of this spot at some future
 >time?

Hi Jenny.

Like John, I am also aware of several UFO cases where alleged
aliens were observed to move very effortlessly or float through
the air.

One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
weightless." This alien could not likely have been one of your
hypothetical persons projected from the past or from future
since it used its hands on a present-day post to help it move.

During the past few years I have had increased contact with
ascetics who live at monasteries (very many new ones throughout
Canada and the U.S.) and with the people who visit them. Once
they got to know me, the abbots and monks of these monasteries
would talk about unusual lights in the sky or UFOs and the
unseen but very real spiritual warfare that is going on all
around us. The personal battles they relate resemble some alien
abduction experiences I have read about, except that they know
who their tormenters are. Although I have not seen this myself,
some people that I feel I can trust who have visited these
monasteries have seen many strange sights, including walking
monks whose feet would not touch the ground; priests who would
disappear in front of their eyes; objects that would materialize
out of the air or pass through walls, etc. When I have
confronted some monks and priests about these claims, they would
often down play these incidents as not being important but never
deny that they actually happened.

Even if aliens from distant worlds do exist, I feel we cannot
ignore this evidence that suggests our own world may be shared
by some other alien intelligence too which is unknown by the
general population, including ufologists.

Are you or others aware of similar such accounts and what are
your thoughts on this?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                 Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:29:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:21:19 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Sandow


 >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates  -  Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:34:22  - 0500

I'm not sure I wrote all of my reply to Martin Kottmeyer as
clearly as I might have. And in any case I'd like to expand on a
couple of points.

First, why do we need social science when we talk about
psychoscocial explanations for UFO reports? Essentially for the
same reasons that we need physics. But I didn't give a concrete
example when I wrote my post, so I'd like to give one now.

Sometimes the abduction phenomenon is explained, by skeptics, of
course, as "mass hysteria." If we were talking about a light in
the sky, and a skeptic explained that as a mirage, we'd have to
talk about the physics of mirages, to see whether the light
really could be explained that way. Mirages obey certain laws;
if the light didn't behave the way mirages are known to behave,
it's not likely to be a mirage.

Social science offers something similar, though of course not as
decisively. For instance, the abduction phenomenon has been
explained, by skeptics, of course, as mass hysteria. Somehow --
since these are skeptics talking, and since this is social
science - nobody stops to ask what mass hsyteria is. Is there,
in truth, such a phenomenon? What examples of it are there? If
it does exist, does it have laws that it seems to follow, as
mirages do? Would those laws apply to abductions?

In the proceedings of the 1992 abduction conference at MIT,
sociologist Robert Hall addressed this question. He described
several examples of mass hysteria, but none of them lasted very
long, and all were centralized in particular locations. None
behaved like the abduction phenomenon, which is international,
and has been around for many years. This, of course, doesn't
prove that abductions are real, but it does suggest that mass
hysteria isn't - at least on the basis of current knowledge --
all that useful as an explanation. (Of course, you could argue
that abductions were a new kind of mass hysteria, but that would
be circular reasoning. Here you are, trying to prove that
abductions are mass hysteria, and to do so, you simply assume
that they are.)

How would this apply to Kottmeyer? His thesis - he apparently
doesn't like to call it a theory, probably because he takes it
for granted as established fact - is that some crucial part of
abduction narratives is derived from science fiction. One of my
complaints about him is that he doesn't place this in any social
science context. He'll find big-eyed aliens in a science fiction
movie, and talk as if that had some connection with big-eyed
aliens in abduction reports.

But how does he know the connection is there? Here we need to
turn to social science, though I have to say that I'm not a
social scientist, and can't supply the necessary knowledge.
Still, I have some idea of what that knowledge might be.
Kottmeyer believes that elements of narrative can move from
fiction into perceived fact - that something like the idea of
big-eyed aliens can start in a movie, and end up as something
people believe is real.

But does that really happen? A social scientist - most likely a
sociologist - could tell us whether any cases of this are known.
And, if cases really do exist, what are they like? Do they
behave the same way as the abduction phenomenon, or are they
different?

I'll take a stab at answering this, though again I'll say that
I'm not a social scientist. But I can think of a few cases where
something that started in fiction became established in the real
world. My first example would be the name Cora. This, I was
astonished to learn some years ago, began as a made-up name,
used by James Fennimore Cooper in "The Last of the Mohicans," to
make his  heroine sound exotic and romantic. Readers must have
liked the name, because it caught on; soon people were naming
their daughters Cora.

Is this like the abduction phenomenon? Well, one key difference
is that "The Last of the Mohicans" was a wildly popular book,
something that, because of its popularity, was in a position to
have a strong influence on real life. Kottmeyer found his
science-fiction big-eyed aliens in "Killers From Space," a very
minor '50s film that wasn't popular at all. It's easy to see how
a romantic name in a popular novel might spread from fiction to
reality, but it's hard to see how or why one trait of aliens in
a negligible movie would have become one of the most prominent
elements of something as widespread and powerful as the
abduction phenomenon. (Even skeptics acknowledge its power, when
they call it a modern myth.)

Another example might be the word "grok," first used in Robert
Heinlein's '60s science fiction novel "Stranger in a Strange
Land," and now evidently coming back into use. I just saw an
explanation of its origin in one of the newspapers I read. Here,
too, there's no analogy to science fiction details making their
way into abduction belief, because the book was a real
phenomenon in the '60s, something you more or less _had_ to read
if you were part of the counterculture. The science fiction
movies Kottmeyer cites didn't have that kind of force.

A third, and maybe more relevant example, might be conspiracy
theories. These have been around for centuries - in the 19th
century, for instance, many Americans believed that Catholics
were something like an underground Satanic movement, taking
orders from the Pope as they killed non-Catholic babies. But in
recent decades, conspiracy theories have really taken off. It
might be reasonable to theorize that this comes from speculation
about the John Kennedy assassination, combined with the
assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. It
wasn't crazy, especially back then, to reject official
explanations, and look for some deep plot that might explain
three assassinations happening more or less at the same time.

Once conspiracy explanations began to be even one-quarter
legitimate, then they began spreading quickly. But is this
anything like abductions? No, because, once again, it takes off
from something very important, in this case absolutely central
to our social and political life. Kottmeyer, by contrast, asks
us to believe that a relatively minor bit of popular culture -
and relatively minor examples of that relatively minor bit -
would have helped spawn something as strong as abductions are
now.

I'm sure I'm missing some very obvious case of something
spreading from fiction to belief. I'd love any and all examples.
(It just occured to me, by the way, that maybe it's not easy for
things to take root this way. Look at vampires - all those
vampire movies, the deep vogue for Anne Rice - and hardly anyone
thinks vampires are real.)

Finally, was anyone confused by the passage from Borges I quoted
at the end of my post? I don't think I explained it clearly.

Borges talks about a great writer's predecessors. His example is
Kafka. Browsing through the literature of the 19th century, he
finds three anticipations of Kafka. In the background are
various wars among literary critics, in which the reputations
even of famous writers sometimes rise and fall as if they were
traded on the stock market. Sometimes a critic might devalue a
writer, by finding earlier writers who'd done something similar.
Then the writer in question doesn't seem very original.

Borges cautions us not to think that way. The precursors of
Kafka that he finds have nothing in common with each other.
Nothing links them together except Kafka himself - who for that
reason has created his predecessors. The three examples Borges
cites would mean nothing to a literary critic, if Kafka hadn't
existed. No critic would have linked them together; no critic
would have imagined they had any significance at all. The
influence, then, works backward. These three apparent precursors
didn't influence Kafka; instead, Kafka influences them, by
giving them a significance they wouldn't have without him.

If this is a powerful line of thought in literary criticism, how
much stronger is it when we're talking about real life!
Kottmeyer thinks science fiction films influence abduction
reports. His examples are, mostly, very minor films, and, worse
still, minor, almost random details taken from those films. If
the abduction phenomenon weren't around, nobody would pay any
attention to those details. If we listed the main elements in
'50s science fiction films, aliens with big eyes and mysterious
pregnancies wouldn't rate at all. Certainly they wouldn't
compare to giant insects, or monsters in general, which loomed
very large back then.

How, then, can anyone say these minor details influenced
something as apparently deep-rooted as the abduction phenomenon?
Borges helps us see that, in this case, too, the influence may
very well run backward. Common sense tells us it isn't too
likely that minor details in '50s films would emerge 20 years
later with such force. But Borges shows us that the abduction
phenomenon can pull random elements from our culture into its
orbit, making them seem - at least to Kottmeyer - far more
important than they really are.

Greg Sandow







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                      Re: On What is Known - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:09:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:24:53 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Deschamps


 >From: David Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:42:33 -0000

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:36:33 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:17:17 -0000

 >Hi Jenny, Roy, list-dudes,

 >a few thoughts...

 >>>Hi,

 >>>Its a pity you are not like the (incredible) British weather
 >>>right now since your answers are much easier to forecast.

 >>And yet we shall continue to get the same old piped out message
 >>that nothing is happening it's all mundane things it can all be
 >>explained away as we experts know it all, well I am slightly
 >>bored on reading this tosh being put out' so please end the
 >>argument Jenny, you have done your 25 year stint' you have come
 >>to your Psychological and Natural conclusions on the UFO
 >>subject' so the point of carrying on is what exactly?

 >I'm getting slightly bored by your constant attacks on Jenny,
 >Roy. And it's pretty obvious that you have come to ETH
 >conclusions on the UFO subject so what is the point of
 >_you_ carrying on exactly?

<snip>

 >>>Neither the question posed, nor my answer to it, had any
 >>>relevance . As my reply made clear I was purposefully avoiding
 >>>discussing exotic theories of UFO origin (all of them) and any
 >>>possible revelations that these have brought. Instead I was
 >>>simply offering some less contentious benefits that Ufology has
 >>>brought about in my own experience from case investigation.

 >>I am sorry but this answer reminds me of the film clip in Jaws,
 >>where Chief Brody is trying to convince the board assembled that
 >>there is a shark in the pictures but just gets fobbed off.

 >I'm reminded of the scene where Brody panics, thinking there is
 >a shark in the water, makes a great deal of fuss, scares the
 >shit out of people, and it turns out not to be a shark at all...
 >kids messing about, if I remember rightly. You know, a mundane
 >explanation.

 >>Are
 >>you not able to tell anyone on this list what you think of Radar
 >>& Trace cases in respect of UFO investigations?

 >Radar and trace cases are just that and can still be attributed
 >to things other than alien spaceships.

 >>>By all means please dispute them, but don't assume they mean
 >>>anything about the unconnected questions that you raise.

 >>So because I come straight to the crux of the matter' I am
 >>accused of writing unconnected questions? I didn't realize we
 >>were debating the finer aspects of Koi Carp keeping!

 >Koi Carp keeping? Unconnected? UFOs? OH! Irony! (chortle!)
 >
 >>And my questions cannot be answered can they Jenny, without
 >>giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia with nothing but
 >>the same answers you mention in the first instance?

 ><snip>

 >>Jenny for the List, will you please state your final position on
 >>UFO case reports across the UK & World?

 >Wouldn't such an answer, considering you want it to involve, I
 >take it, _all_ UFO case reports from across the UK & World
 >involve "giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia "?


Radar/Visual and Trace cases are just a few of the best
indicators in some of the most famous UFO cases. They _can_ be
directly attributed to Alien Spacecraft when corroborating
evidence is present, as well as multiple credible eyewitnesses.

It is a misconception on the public's part that these aspects of
the UFO phenomenon can easily be attributed to natural
phenomena. But the facts lead in another direction.

I suggest that readers of this list who may still be unsure of
the facts go check out the following site and see for themselves
what has been discovered in regards to trace cases. They might
be surprised!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/cptr/main.html


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                   An Open UFO Letter to President Clinton

From: <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:16:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:30:51 -0500
Subject: An Open UFO Letter to President Clinton


[Non-subscriber Post]

Your friend, Larry W. Bryant, found a posting on our system
regarding An Open UFOletter to Pres. Clinton which he thought
you'd be interested in seeing.

I welcome you to our site at:

http://www.im-ur.com

to search for that text and find a whole lot more.

  - The Editor


Forwarding comment: As usual, please spread the word about this
latest attempt to gain the UFOlogical attention of Everyman.
Thanks. -- OO








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                      Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:49:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:32:57 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:16:36 -0400

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:19:01 EST
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:25 -0400

 >>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>>>Subject: On What is Known
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>I would welcome a reasoned response to this question. In the
 >>>>nearly 50 years since the UFO conundrum has been a fact, just
 >>>>what has been discovered? What revelation exists which in part
 >>>>or whole, has been uncovered by UFO research?

 >>><snip>

 >>Well, that certainly is an awful lot, Stan. However my primary
 >>concern and focus, and that of most of the direct percipients of
 >>this phenom, is to learn when, where, why and how of the UFO and
 >>abduction phenom.

 >>Just what the is it, Stan?

 >>Are you, in the above, suggesting that all of which we learn,
 >>much of which you uncovered, has anything to do with whether or
 >>not I really was abducted, as my memory suggests? Does is
 >>explain whether the UFO is an object of this or another
 >>dimension? Or this galaxy? Or whether it is an object even?

 >>Nope. And with all the respect I can muster for you and your
 >>efforts, not one thing you mentioned (which I may discern)
 >>answers even one small question relating to UFOs, their form,
 >>fit and function or for that matter, reality. Let alone
 >>abduction.

 >>As I mentioned in the original post, this is an indictment, but
 >>without focus. Because I can't blame anyone for our ignorance.
 >>Although the researcher is the only target at this brief moment
 >>in time. To plagiarize a phrase.

 >>Stan. There are no answers. No information which points to one.
 >>Not even one. You, me, all of us have _failed_ in 50 years, to
 >>find one shred of science with which to answer the question,
 >>"Just what the hell is going on?"

 >>I have the utmost respect for you. But you went around and came
 >>around at least twice and gave no answers. Answers. Answers.
 >>_Answers!_

 >Sorry, Jim. But you didn't ask why you were abducted. I named
 >some of the things that have been learned. I didn't say this was
 >all we have learned.

 >Now you are asking what the hell is going on. That is a
 >different question. You can't blame a good washing machine for
 >being a lousy dryer. Better rephrase your questions.


Dear Stan and others,

I went back to the original post and saw that you are quite
correct. However exact you are in your response, I imagined that
I was conveying a larger picture; one that accuses researchers
of having determined nothing relative to the UFO abduction
conundrum.

True, we've learned a great deal about a great deal. But when it
comes to what a UFO is and if and whether folks have been
abducted, and why, there are no answers. No bottom line. No
formulae. No conclusions. Only guesses and few of those appear
credible.

It was the above about which I was complaining. Of course, being
a marketing type for 30 years as opposed to you, a scientist, my
thinking is a bit skewed. It tends to drift in the direction of
what is on my mind more than anything else in this world, except
my wife. What the hell has been happening to me and why? That's
my thrust. In that direction points my vector. I was at one
glorious time, an engineer. What my first college degree says.
No longer. Now I am an alta cocka with a buring desire to find
the truth. When you find some of which I need, you may feel free
to call me collect. I'll be here. In the north woods of NY
State. Waiting for the election results and answers which I am
certain will not come in my life.

So thank you for pointing out what we've learned. But I cannot
thank you for not providing the rest. Maybe someday, Stan. Maybe
not.

Jim Mortellaro








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                        UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:19:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:35:38 -0500
Subject: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online


'UFO 2000' Coming To ABC Online

ABC's Chris Wallace to explore UFO issue

ABC newsman Chris Wallace will be taking a look at the UFO
phenomena sometime in  November via his online forum 'Chris
Wallace's Internet Expose'. The website:

http://www.internetexpose.com

lists the following description of the program entitled "UFO
2000, The Search Continues":

"Coming in November: Chris gets to the bottom of the UFO
phenomenon and investigates the COMETA Report, a document about
UFOs recently released by top military and government officials
in France. What he discovers may surprise you."

Rumors persist the program will air convincing footage of a UFO
taken over New York. Internet Expose's Senior Technical Producer
Erik Olsen tells 'eXpose' that he is unable to comment on the
footage. Olsen did however state that the program interviewed
"Nick Pope, Michael Shermer and Michio Kaku, all respected
individuals in their fields of research."

The program was slated for webcast on November 13th, but Olsen
stated the program would be delayed for a week "due to
unforeseen circumstances."


eXpose News http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
UFO Hall o' Shame http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it yet again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                         Re: On What is Known - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:24:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:41:35 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hale


 >From: David Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:42:33 -0000

 >Hi Jenny, Roy, list-dudes,

 >a few thoughts...

 >I'm getting slightly bored by your constant attacks on Jenny,
 >Roy. And it's pretty obvious that you have come to ETH
 >conclusions on the UFO subject so what is the point of
 >_you_ carrying on exactly?


Hello there Dave,

Sorry didn't realize you were on UpDates I have never seen you
post anything, but it seems the good old Northern Ufologist band
together when shit hit's the fan, how's Yorkshire these day's
many sightings for you to get along with, or many pelicans
flying around. I have accepted (like many researchers have) that
we have and are having some kind of Alien Visit for what ever
purpose. I await the abuse ( that is standard here in the UK ).

 >I'm reminded of the scene where Brody panics, thinking there is
 >a shark in the water, makes a great deal of fuss, scares the
 >shit out of people, and it turns out not to be a shark at all...
 >kids messing about, if I remember rightly. You know, a mundane
 >explanation.

Did you get to see the episode of 'Hartbeat' where he sees a
UFO? That was near you wasn't it Dave, good sighting that one.
Be definitely alien.

 >Radar and trace cases are just that and can still be attributed
 >to things other than alien spaceships.

Typical answer from one of the many northern UFO sceptics but
try commenting on what the substantial data contained in some
radar & trace cases have given us second thoughts. Just keep
toeing the line - it suits you better.

 >Koi Carp keeping? Unconnected? UFOs? OH! Irony! (chortle!)

That's right Jenny. Sorry Dave... ooh I am getting confused? I
best be putting ma feet up and resting a while... Second
thoughts I'll go and feed me Carp!

 >Wouldn't such an answer, considering you want it to involve, I
 >take it, _all_ UFO case reports from across the UK & World
 >involve "giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia "?

As a UFO investigator Dave, do you rule out completely the Alien
possibility? And why do you all seem to toe the same line. Boy
there has been a rallying of the troops!

 >Keep smiling,

I am sure being a Yorkshire man, you can make your own
sign off!


Roy

Keep Smiling








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                     Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:45:11 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:43:36 -0500
Subject: Re:  Rendlesham Book Update - Gates


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:42:30 -0000

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Rendlesham Book Update - Easton
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:04:01 -0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >One of the major players you have used to try to discredit this
 >case - is Cabansag. You claim he saw only the lighthouse.

 >Cabansag positively denies the lighthouse had anything to do
 >with it.

 >He told me:

 >'It wasn't the lighthouse, I saw the lighthouse, this wasn't it,
 >it was to the right of the lighthouse.'

Apparently the lighthouse bulb is has burned out, or a
pelican flew into the glass causing the bulb to break.

 >He did not type the statement you have promoted to support your
 >theories. He signed it (that same morning) without reading it - he
 >was terrified.

Apparently the statement James is talking about is bogus

 >There is much more information to support Cabansag's testimony,
 >including Adrian Bustinza's interrogation, which he has never
 >talked about until now. There is also the testimony of other
 >witnesses and people I have talked to, including photographs of
 >the landing site and indentations in the ground... which, for
 >your information, look nothing like rabbit scratchings.

What about Pelican droppings?

 >I suggest you read the book, which is now available in the shops
 >or on:

 >www.amazon.co.uk

One suspects that he won't, as it obviously doesn't support the
lighthouse theory, and gee, the lighthouse is the center of the
universe.   :)

 >The truth is, the lighthouse theory is now no longer an issue.
 >There are much more interesting things about the case than that
 >tired old theory.

It sounds pretty dim, if you ask me..... :)

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                  Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:47:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:46:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:09:44 +0000
 >From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

 >Hi all

 >Can anyone remember the name of the contactee who ran a
 >restaurant on Telegraph St in Berkeley, California in the 70s,
 >maybe the late 60s too.

 >Or am I confabulating?

 >I thought it was mentioned in Vallee's Messengers of Deception,
 >but can't find it.

 >Any info about him and the restaurant would be much appreciated.


Hello Mark:

Sorry, I cannot help much! My browsing led nowhere and
everywhere, but no real match for the Berkeley contactee with
the restaurant on Telegraph Avenue.

I can only add that it was Telegraph Avenue, not street, and
that indeed was in Berkeley, CA before the city fathers renamed
it Martin Luther King in a fit of political correctness, if I am
not mistaken.

Berkeley is known as the only city with its own foreign policy
among other things.

A walk down Telegraph/MLK with the burned out druggies of yore
is pretty depressing. Its not hard to imagine contactees among
the gurus, and yogis of the 1960s/70s. One of them may indeed
have operated a restaurant.

Vallee's Messengers of Deception was published in Berkeley, CA
in 1979 (And/Or Press) which might have suggested that source.

Sorry I cannot offer more than that.

Good luck!


- Larry Hatch

PS: Herb Caen (deceased), a well known columnist in
San Francisco dubbed the city Berzerkely.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                       Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:05:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:47:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer - Bowden


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:14:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:17:04 +0000
 >>From: Dave Bowden >grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Crop Circle Hoaxer

 >>It would be rather naive to assume that Mr Williams and Co. are
 >>the only people making crop circles.

 >This sounds very much like the beginning of a confession, care
 >to elaborate?

Only you could misunderstand a two line email.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                                Biblical ETs?

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:29:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:49:19 -0500
Subject: Biblical ETs?


Bernard E. Northrup Th.D

On Friday, Nov. 10, 2000, Dr. Bernard E. Northrup was the guest
on Horizons Webcast.  The interview with Lan Lamphere, Horizons'
host, has now been archived at the Horizons webpage:

http://www.oklahomasky.com

Faith and Science do not necessarily collide!! In this edition
of Horizons Webcast, they merged in a most graceful fashion.
Whether or not you are a person of faith, thistopic will stretch
the bounds of your "need to know", linking it directly with
studied, researched fact.

Dr. Bernard E. Northrup, theologian, geologist, Creation
Scientist and Hebrew scholar was our guest for nearly two hours
of incredibly thought-provoking discussion. Since 1949 Dr.
Northrup has sought and researched facts revolving around issues
of biblical history, geology and timetables, resulting in a
fresh and stimulating new look at the events of the Old
Testament and our Geological record.

And if you thought that the Bible and extraterrestrials are
inconsistencies, just listen... you may learn something you
never knew before.

Horizons webcast is a product of Three Horizons Broadcasting.

Bobbie "Jilain" Felder

http://www.oklahomasky.com
IRC Undernet #horizons
ICQ #7524076

~~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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                            Military Abductions?

From: Jean Meiners <legalco@uswest.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:49:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:13:55 -0500
Subject: Military Abductions?


To the List:

I do not hide the fact that I am an abductee and as such I would
like to ask a question of the general list... at least, insofar
as the military abductions are concerned.

Is there anyone here that has had the experience of an
underground complex where people have been taken?

It appears to a dome with glass (?) curved ceiling supported by
curving support structures, much like a pie divided. Quite high,
as seen through the eyes of a child.

Physical examinations go on there, may be other things also.
Lines of people with name tags, some adults with small children.
The military personnel wear olive drab uniforms, and some have
the blue air force uniform. There are also some in white.  There
was another uniform, black - one that I have not seen before or
since.

Any help?

G'ma









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:20:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:48 -0000

 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:10:28 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
 >>>walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
 >>>abductee reports for some time.

 ><snip>

 >>I have come across a number of ghost cases where the witness
 >>describes the apparitional figure

<snip>

 >>On that basis any silver suited figure floating a foot or two
 >>above the ground might not be what we nearly always assume

<snip>

 >Hi Jenny.

 >Like John, I am also aware of several UFO cases where alleged
 >aliens were observed to move very effortlessly or float through
 >the air.

 >One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
 >encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
 >According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
 >went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
 >weightless."

<snip>

 >Even if aliens from distant worlds do exist, I feel we cannot
 >ignore this evidence that suggests our own world may be shared
 >by some other alien intelligence too which is unknown by the
 >general population, including ufologists.

 >Are you or others aware of similar such accounts and what are
 >your thoughts on this?


Dear Nick, Jenny, John and all:

I recall a very similar account from LDLN if I am not mistaken.
It may have occurred in Italy, again no guarantees.

Strange floating entities were described in fairly good detail,
by numerous witnesses with fairly consistent accounts.

Their descriptions were good enough to finally identify the
source: Mylar balloons shaped like little men, which burst on
the scene like a new brand of soda pop. [burp!]

I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this possibility. Maybe I
missed something.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 11

                        Re: Virus Follow Up - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:42:44 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:22:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Virus Follow Up - Ledger


 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:41:19 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Subject: Virus Follow Up

 >List members,

 >In response to my query as to why he was spreading a
 >virus, I just received the following:

 >"The virus spread was totally unintentional. My equipment was
 >invaded by a virus called Natividad.exe. It is self-running and
 >installs itself on the System folder. Then it starts reading
 >your messages and fragmenting them to send to people from your
 >address book. I was infected and in a matter of seconds, when I
 >realized that something had fooled my anti-virus, Natividad.exe
 >sent over 1,000 e-mails...

 >"I am very sorry and please accept my appologies."

 >The virus is actually named navidad.exe, _not_ Natividad.exe.

 >I don't have any indication here that my own machine sent out
 >e-mails containing navidad.exe as an attachment.

 >However, please be careful! If you receive an e-mail from me
 >with navidad.exe attached, do _not_ open it by double clicking
 >on it!

 >The e-mail in which I received it originally came from Brazil.

 >Again, this is not an Internet joke or personal paranoia on my
 >part.

 >Navidad.exe is a real virus -- and you don't want it!

 >Dennis Stacy

Hi Dennis and listers,

I don't know if there is any connection or not but I had a total
systems failure about a week ago. I eventually lost everything
on my hard drive. I have no way of knowing what caused it
because everything was lost. I was operating an OS 7.5.1 on a
Mac.

Best

Don Ledger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                        Re: On What is Known - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:44:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:17:21 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:49:26 EST
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:16:36 -0400

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:19:01 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:25 -0400

 >>>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:31:50 EST
 >>>>>Subject: On What is Known
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Dear Stan and others,

 >went back to the original post and saw that you are quite
 >correct. However exact you are in your response, I imagined that
 >was conveying a larger picture; one that accuses researchers
 >of having determined nothing relative to the UFO abduction
 >conundrum.

 >True, we've learned a great deal about a great deal. But when it
 >comes to what a UFO is and if and whether folks have been
 >abducted, and why, there are no answers. No bottom line. No
 >formulae. No conclusions. Only guesses and few of those appear
 >credible.

 >t was the above about which I was complaining. Of course, being
 >a marketing type for 30 years as opposed to you, a scientist, my
 >thinking is a bit skewed. It tends to drift in the direction of
 >what is on my mind more than anything else in this world, except
 >my wife. What the hell has been happening to me and why? That's
 >my thrust. In that direction points my vector. I was at one
 >glorious time, an engineer. What my first college degree says.
 >No longer. Now I am an alta cocka with a buring desire to find
 >the truth. When you find some of which I need, you may feel free
 >to call me collect. I'll be here. In the north woods of NY
 >State. Waiting for the election results and answers which I am
 >certain will not come in my life.

 >So thank you for pointing out what we've learned. But I cannot
 >thank you for not providing the rest. Maybe someday, Stan. Maybe
 >not.

 >Jim Mortellaro


My Dear fellow Jim ( et al)

For me, the sheer and utter lack of physical evidence of ET
visitation is as frustrating as anything related to the ABD
(abduction) scene.

For me, ( a nut-and-bolts republican of sorts ) a good piston
rod from Antares would a nice jolt, as long as it didn't come
from some old car.

I can deal with unresolved issues (unlike religious sorts) but
find it harder and harder to maintain an interest in UFO matter
when there seems to be no realistic hope of a resolution to
these matters.

One might call it "UFO burnout", and people deal with it
differently. Jim McCampbell for example, and old star of N&B has
drifted off into some stuff I find unrelated to UFOs.

Jacques Vallee, for whom I have the highest respect, has
theories I find too expensive for my mental budget.

Others, well known names included, have drifted into nearly
mystic dimensions, places haunted with lurking spiders and
salamanders and democrats.

I want nothing less than the Holy Grail of ufology.

[ to wit ]  A complete manual on alien semiconductors,
their pinouts, forms/dimensions and an applications manual.

- or -  An alien photoresist spinner, dripping with orange
or green photoresist  - or -   some a broken tool, a lost
part, a discarded container made of unobtainium ..
[ high quality magnesium left on a Brazilian beach isn't
  quite good enough. ]

Barring that, we are only left with theories, and
observations.

If it were not for observations like the one at Vins-sur- Caramy
in southern France, (there are many others) I would find better
use for my time. Lots and lots of time, none of it cheap.



- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

             Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Jim Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:46:42 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:21:40 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Jim Mortellaro


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:19:33 -0800

 >'UFO 2000' Coming To ABC Online

 >ABC's Chris Wallace to explore UFO issue

 >ABC newsman Chris Wallace will be taking a look at the UFO
 >phenomena sometime in November via his online forum 'Chris
 >Wallace's Internet Expose'. The website:

 >http://www.internetexpose.com

 >lists the following description of the program entitled "UFO
 >2000, The Search Continues":

 >"Coming in November: Chris gets to the bottom of the UFO
 >phenomenon and investigates the COMETA Report, a document about
 >UFOs recently released by top military and government officials
 >in France. What he discovers may surprise you."

<snip>

Dear Royce, Researchers, Book Binders and of course, Errol,

I took the liberty of snipping most of the above. Of course, the
only important words, the only important sentence in the entire
announcement is the one I shill... uh, shall, repeat below.
Meanwhile, allow me the pleasure and honor of repeating ... a
little like repeating that Sushi I had for lunch, the one with
the rotten salmon... Ready?

"Chris gets to the bottom of the UFO phenomenon and investigates
the COMETA Report, a document about UFOs recently released by
top military and government officials in France."

Let me refine that a bit. Increase the resolution.

"Chris gets to the bottom of the UFO phenomenon..."

Now wait a minute, boys, isn't that similar to, "Finally, the
truth revealed"? Whew. Too close for me. Think I'll have me
another mood altering Gripple and play with myself. Where the
hell is Pia when you need her?

Jim Mortellaro








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                        Re: On What is Known - Baker

From: Dave Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:29:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:22:47 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Baker


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:24:07 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: David Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:42:33 -0000

 >>Hi Jenny, Roy, list-dudes,

 >>a few thoughts...

 >>I'm getting slightly bored by your constant attacks on Jenny,
 >>Roy. And it's pretty obvious that you have come to ETH
 >>conclusions on the UFO subject so what is the point of
 >>_you_ carrying on exactly?


 >Hello there Dave,

Ey up, Roy,

 >Sorry didn't realize you were on UpDates I have never seen you
 >post anything,

I didn't realise you would remember me, Roy. Our only previous
discussion was when I contacted you to see if you wanted to
exchange magazines. I sent you a copy of PRB, and never heard
anything else from you. Must have been something I said. Is
'Down To Earth' still hitting the newsagents? My offer still
stands. Let's bridge the North/South divide!

 >but it seems the good old Northern Ufologist band
 >together when shit hit's the fan, how's Yorkshire these day's
 >many sightings for you to get along with, or many pelicans
 >flying around. I have accepted (like many researchers have) that
 >we have and are having some kind of Alien Visit for what ever
 >purpose. I await the abuse ( that is standard here in the UK ).

Yeah, I'm friends with Jenny, Dave Clarke, Andy Roberts, Rory
Lushman and others, but I also communicate with Omar Fowler, one
of the most pro ETH ufologists in England, as well as
anti-pelicanists such as Jerry Clark, John Schuessler, Bill
Chalker and others. And I love 'em all, gos bless em! So I'll
stick with anyone. I just don't generally stick the knife in to
anyone who I don't happen to agree with. Andy, or Jenny or
whoever are pretty sure in their beliefs, and you are sure about
yours, so I can't see the point in goading each other into
endless arguments. Let's face it, they're never going to fess up
and admit to the absolute existance of aliens and you are never
going to turn into a pelicanist.

As for sightings, I'm in the middle of a very interesting case
investigating a UFO video showing two unknown objects that can't
-yet- be identified. They _may_ be large birds - such as herons
(not pelicans!), or they may be microlites or hang-gliders. Or
they may be something else. My point in my previous post was
that just because we haven't -yet- identified these objects it's
a big jump to say that they are ET spacecraft, just because we
can't think of anything else they could be. We might as well say
that they could be super-humans flying around out there. If I
never identify the two objects in this video, they will remain
UFOs, in the broadest sense of the word.

And no abuse, Roy. I didn't verbally abuse you. Just a bit of
interjection -Oo-er! at what seemed to be the start of another
round of pointless arguments and back-stabbing. You're the one
coming on all North-ist!

 >>I'm reminded of the scene where Brody panics, thinking there is
 >>a shark in the water, makes a great deal of fuss, scares the
 >>shit out of people, and it turns out not to be a shark at all...
 >>kids messing about, if I remember rightly. You know, a mundane
 >>explanation.

 >Did you get to see the episode of 'Hartbeat' where he sees a
 >UFO? That was near you wasn't it Dave, good sighting that one.
 >Be definitely alien.

The episode of Heartbeat you mention was more or less ripped off
from the _solved_ case you refer to, which I'm sure Jenny can
explain in detail. I wasn't actively involved in ufology then,
but it was _near_ to me as in it was the North.

 >>Radar and trace cases are just that and can still be attributed
 >>to things other than alien spaceships.

 >Typical answer from one of the many northern UFO sceptics but
 >try commenting on what the substantial data contained in some
 >radar & trace cases have given us second thoughts. Just keep
 >toeing the line - it suits you better.

It might be a typical answer, but that's probably because it's a
pretty sensible one. I agree with you that there are some
fascinating physical trace and radar cases out there, which may
well show that we are dealing with something as yet unknown. But
_why_ does this mean that the only explanation is ET? It could
be a new form of science,above black military craft or even Time
Travellers From Beyond The Void. Or something. _Why_ ET?

 >>Koi Carp keeping? Unconnected? UFOs? OH! Irony! (chortle!)

 >That's right Jenny. Sorry Dave... ooh I am getting confused? I
 >best be putting ma feet up and resting a while... Second
 >thoughts I'll go and feed me Carp!

Oh.... yes.

 >>Wouldn't such an answer, considering you want it to involve, I
 >>take it, _all_ UFO case reports from across the UK & World
 >>involve "giving an answer the length of an encyclopaedia "?
 >>As a UFO investigator Dave, do you rule out completely the Alien
 >possibility? And why do you all seem to toe the same line. Boy
 >there has been a rallying of the troops!

No, I don't rule it out as a _possibility_. There are a lot of
things I don't rule out as a possibility. I just haven't seen
enough to convince me that it is even _likely_. But if you know
different.

 >>Keep smiling,
 >
 >I am sure being a Yorkshire man, you can make your own
 >sign off!

Well, that was just my little joke. You haven't used it for a
bit, and I kinda missed it. So my own sign off... how about,
"Anyway, enough of my yakkin'. Let's boogie." (C'mon Roy. You
appear to like your films. What's that from then?)

Anyway, enough of my yakkin'... let's boogie.

Dave Baker









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                 Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:32:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:24:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Gehrman


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:47:11 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

 >>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:09:44 +0000
 >>From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

 >>Can anyone remember the name of the contactee who ran a
 >>restaurant on Telegraph St in Berkeley, California in the 70s,
 >>maybe the late 60s too.

 >>Or am I confabulating?

 >>I thought it was mentioned in Vallee's Messengers of Deception,
 >>but can't find it.

 >>Any info about him and the restaurant would be much appreciated.

 >Sorry, I cannot help much! My browsing led nowhere and
 >everywhere, but no real match for the Berkeley contactee with
 >the restaurant on Telegraph Avenue.

 >I can only add that it was Telegraph Avenue, not street, and
 >that indeed was in Berkeley, CA before the city fathers renamed
 >it Martin Luther King in a fit of political correctness, if I am
 >not mistaken.

Sorry Larry but you are mistaken.

The street that had its name changed to Martin Luther King was
Grove St., not Telegraph Ave. The good citizens of Berkeley and
Oakland desired that the name change occur.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                      Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-11-00

From: "Rense E-News" <e-news@the-i.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:42:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:27:52 -0500
Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-11-00



----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                          The Week Ahead
                      11-11-00 thru 11-18-00

             Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                          From rense.com
                 Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
                 exclusively by Free Subscription.

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                    * FROM JEFF�S DESK *

                Was Palm Beach 'Ballot Confusion'
                  A Ruse To Hide Bigger Fraud?

The Albatross Brief - Election Fraud In Palm Beach County

By Charles McFarling
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0c999e110e.htm

11-11-00
Palm Beach County is home to one of the largest, most organized,
liberal election machines in Florida. They have created an
impressive network of campaign workers living in nursing and
retirement homes throughout the county to guarantee the largest
possible turnout for their candidates. The efforts of
Congressman Wexler and other Democrat county officials to
solidify the Democrat vote in PBC have been wonderfully
successful, and nobody has worked harder than these people. It
seems odd that such an organized entity as the Palm Beach
Democrats would have such trouble with a ballot commonly used in
many States throughout the nation with few problems.

There are several puzzling aspects involved with all the stories
coming from Wexler and Gore supporters in that county, for
example;

  1) Why would a Ballot that is clearly marked be such a problem for
     so many to figure out?

  2) Why did "thousands" of people call Robert Wexlers's office
     "crying" about filling out a Ballot for the wrong candidate,
     but only realizing it after the fact.....and knowing exactly
     who to call?

  3) Why is Robert Wexler claiming that the 3400 votes for Pat
     Buchanan were all mistakes made by Democrats who actually were
     trying to vote for Gore...when he knows Buchanan got about
     8,000 votes there in 1996 and has family that lives and
     campaigns for him there?

  4) How did 19,000 Ballots (between three and four percent of all
     ballots) get double-punched and then invalidated?

  5) Why did the Palm Beach County districts wait til the last
     minute to drop a huge share of votes into the count, knocking
     Bush's lead from 50,000 plus down to around 12,000?

  6) Why is the Democrat election official who created and sent out
     samples of these Ballots so miffed about all the commotion over
     them? Why does she insist they aren�t a problem when others are
     screaming for a new election?

  7) Why is Jesse Jackson trying to turn it into a racial imbroglio
     when there is absolutely no evidence race plays any part?

The Albatross Brief

Robert Wexler and Democrat operatives have been lining up the
huge senior vote in this area for a very long time. Wexler has
been right down in the trenches, helping organize campaign
workers and setting up organizations within nursing homes and
retirement centers to maximize the vote for Gore. According to a
friend of mine that lives in Palm Beach County, Wexler has been
very hands-on when not in Washington.

After all this work and effort, there was no way they were gonna
let the evil GOP steal this election, at least not in this
county, they would steal it first. At some time they made the
decision they were going to do a little more than is allowed by
the law and believed they wouldn�t get caught.  Corrupt poll
workers started adding another punch to the some of the Bush
ballots to invalidate them, possibly when they saw Bush pull
ahead by a couple hundred thousand votes, or maybe earlier than
that. Some time later they had to realize if this was a very
close race his County would come under scrutiny if and when
election officials were required to perform a recount. How were
they going to explain the huge number of invalidated Ballots,
mostly Bush Ballots?

They needed an excuse so they manufactured one. Wexler knows
that Buchanan got 8,000 votes in PBC in 1996, he's no dummy. The
story he is floating about the 3,400 votes being given to
Buchanan by mistake instead of Gore creates a smokecreen and
gives the impression of a ballot problem rather than a
corruption problem. So he began yelling to the press about the
poor Ballot design and fed them the Buchanan vote "problem".

Robert Wexler flat out knows Buchanan, with family living in PBC
campaigning for him, probably got three thousand votes or
better. He would have to be a complete idiot not to. Hell, they
have used an airplane carrying Buchanan banners several times in
this County and it has made some news since it is a fairly
uncommon practice. Wexler's dumb alright, dumb as a Fox.

People weren�t confused about these Ballots either, they are
used all over the country and have been used in PBC the last two
elections. That explains why the Democrat official that printed
and sent out the Ballots is so miffed and is denying the Wexler
contentions. She isn�t willing to give up her political career
to help Wexler save his and Gore's arse. The Democrats will get
to her though, they will guarantee her future if she play's
ball.

Many people have commented on the fact that Bush suddenly had a
fifty-thousand plus vote lead which induced the Networks to call
the election for Bush, but within an hour Bush had lost 40
thousand votes and his lead was down to about 12,000 votes.
Shortly thereafter it was a couple thousand.

If you had been screwing with a large percentage of ballots,
enough that the discrepancy between the ratio of voters to those
registered might be noticed, when would you finally transmit
your vote count to the central collection center?? You would do
it after a winner had already been decided so as to keep it
under the radar. While everybody else was  celebrating or
co-miserating you drop your dirty little secret into the mix and
hope nobody notices. Unfortunately for Mr. Robert Wexler and the
precinct workers, the scrutiny is just beginning.

The 19,000 ballots could be anything now. At some point they
knew a recount was coming. They probably added an extra punch to
thousands of Gore Ballots to obfuscate their crime once they
knew they would be caught. Now they want a recount using the
Buchanan story and the very same 19,000 Ballots they tampered
with as their excuse. I will bet that there is still a
disproportionate amount of Bush Ballots in that 19,000.

One election official in PBC that came in for the recount said
that the 19,000 invalidated ballots was an "incredibly high
number". She said she was "stunned".

The Albatross Brief is the ONLY theory that explains all these
contradictions. Why is Wexler complaining about Buchanan votes
when he knows damn well they are legit? How in the world could 3
to 4 percent of all Ballots be double-punched when these ballots
are used all over the country without any significant problems?
Why was Wexler screaming about Ballot problems election night
when these ballots were used in PBC the last election without
problems. Why were there absolutely no complaints about the
ballots when samples were printed up and sent out to voters
before the election?

I hope some of you have contacts that can look into that names
punched on the 19,000 ballots that were made invalid.  If there
is a disproportionate amount of Bush ballots when compared to
the Bush/Gore ratio of votes in that county, it is very likely
we have a major, major case of election fraud.  Someone has to
look at this.... who can help.......or at least contact someone
with leverage at, or on, the FBI or with a connected politician?

Again, my theory is the only one that answers every question.
After all... if it quacks like a Duck.....

Freegards,

Charles McFarling
Cape Coral, FL 33990

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

           "Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
          Those who count the votes decide everything."
                               -- Josef Stalin

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

     NOTE:  Reader�s corner quotes will be back next week.
         Got a favorite quote?  Feel free to send it:
            mailto:e-news@the-i.net?Subject=quote

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

            CAVERNS, CAULDRONS & CONCEALED CREATURES
                       By Wm. Michael Mott

The first book of its kind examining the striking similarities
between folklore, religious, mythic, and historical accounts of
cryptid and reptilian figures.  Profusely illustrated.
See side menu on:  http://www.hiddenmysteries.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                        * TOP STORIES *

           Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                       http://rense.com

   * Russia Asks NATO States To Prove Their Subs Did Not Ram Kursk
   * Hot Coffee, Tea May Raise Cancer Risk Four Times
   * The Magic Of Melody - Music Is Therapy
   * Election Theft 101 - How To Steal An Election
   * Why A Beaten Richard Nixon Accepted Losing Fixed Election
        In 1960
   * Israel's Assassination Of Fatah Leader - A Change In Tactics
   * Post-Election Glee From Moscow, Mexico City, Rome
   * Amazing Sony UFO Ad - Cattle Mutilation Disinfo?
   * ADL, FBI Teaching Lawyers To Deal With 'Thought' Crimes
   * Russians Tipped Off In Advanced About US Election VoteScam?
   * Famed Indian Magician Makes Taj Mahal 'Vanish' For Two Minutes
   * Congressman Ron Paul Re-Elected
   * Hopi Elder Chief Dan Evehema's Message To Mankind
   * Huge Amounts Of Radioactivity Flowing Into Two Russian Rivers
   * Britain Under Attack From 'Super Rats'
   * Brazil Becomes Model In AIDS Fight
   * Ohio Egg-Shaped UFO - Strange Craft Chases Car In Texas
   * Chemtrails Reported In Texas Newspaper
   * State Department Give US Territory To Cuba
   * Children Expected To Die In Gaza - Palestinian Family Planning
        Stops
   * Organic Pesticide Linked With Parkinson's Disease
   * Was Shakespeare A Dope Smoker? That Is The Question
   * Licensed Gun Owners Make Model Citizens

        Read these stories and more at http://www.rense.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       Haven�t read it yet?

Rulers of Evil - an incredible expose of who�s *really in control.
         http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index36.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                     * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                      11-12-00 thru 11-17-00

           (Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can
           change due to late breaking stories, etc).

SUN 11-12-00
    Special Guests: Exploring The Worlds Mysterious Places

MON 11-13
    Bill Northern:  Talking To Zoo Animals
    Jay Weidner: Fulcanelli And End Of The World

TUE 11-14
    Peter Davenport/NUFORC: UFO Eyewitness Recordings
    Andy Stahl:  Saving Our Forests

WED 11-15
    Judi Vance: Beauty To Die For

THU 11-16
    Dr. Louis Turi: Divine Astrology Readings

FRI 11-17
    Dr. Ernest Martin: Temple Mount's True Location

    Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://rense.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

            Need a great CHRISTMAS gift for someone?

                          Give a book.

                 http://www.hiddenmysteries.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                    * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
         Live Coast-To-Coast-now broadcast nationally
         over the Talk Radio Network a total of over
         200 hours a month.
      Monday-Friday
         7-10 pm  Live
         10-1 am  Immediate Rebroadcast
          1-3 am  First 2 hours of prior night's show
      Saturday
         9p-3 am  Best Of Rense - 2 shows
      Sunday
         8-11 pm  Live
Call in Line:
         800 TRN 4123
Sightings Artwork/Digital Illustration & Webdesign
         http://www.anc.net/~neff/
Rense.com Store:
         http://www.sightings.com/store/store.htm
Program Audio Tapes
         888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
         http://www.sightings.com
Advertising-Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com each month
         Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
         http://www.sightings.com/adv.htm
Sightings.com info/email center
         http://www.sightings.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Free Greeting Cards featuring the artwork of James Neff:
         http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Share with your friends!
    Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense
    Weekly E-News 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.egroups.com
-------------------------

To subscribe:  Visit: http://www.immunotex.com
Or 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 TGS
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 *Jeff's Desk* segment.

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:51:13 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:31:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Rudiak


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:57:30 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:04:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:44 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >David Rudiak must have been having a difficult Sunday and has
 >far too much spare time on his hands.

Really Andy? I'll bet your posts outnumber mine by a ratio of 10
or 20 to 1. Of course, it's not hard to post a lot of trash when
you don't have to put any thought into it.

 >As I noted last week, when 'believers' can no longer offer
 >coherent argument for their case they resort to childishness, of
 >which Rudiak's example was a spectacularly good one.

 >But I'd hate not to have to deal with his nonsense,
 >so, very briefly:

 >Headaches
 >AIDS
 >Sex
 >Asprin
 >Air crashes

 >But David, all the above subject, effects and their causes are
 >well known about and documented.

As I've noted before, when 'non-believer' can no longer offer
coherent arguments for their case, they resort to childishness,
of which Roberts' example was a spectacularly good one.

My point, which Roberts conveniently dodged, is that one can't
conclude that something is absolutely false (or true) 100% of
the time because it has been false (or true) 90%, 95%, 99%, or
even 99.99% of the time. This is especially the case with
phenomena which tend tend to be concealed in a lot of noise,
which are very common in the sciences and everyday life. That's
what the "headache, AIDS, Sex, Aspirin, and Air crashes"
examples were supposed to illustrate.

 >We are not dealing with the unknown here in the same way we are
 >with 'UFOs'.

Total BS. Very often we are dealing with unknowns even with very
mundane subjects.

Is a new drug safe and effective, or are there _unknown_ serious
side effects?  This is a very big question for drug companies.
There can be clinical trials on a 10,000 people and everything
may look fine, but number 10,001 may have an allergic reaction,
keel over and die. Things like this DO happen.

But if the drug companies applied your flawed logic, they would
state "Well, we've had no serious side effects after testing
10,000 people, so it is reasonable to assume that the drug is
100% safe."

 >The end result in the above is an accepted and documented
 >scientific 'fact'. Your analogy was ludicrous, to put it
mildly.

Oh yeah? Before something becomes a "fact", someone first has to
notice a cause and effect relationship.  Does HIV cause AIDS?
Nobody initially "knew" what caused AIDS.  There were all sorts
of theories. Eventually the virus was isolated. People with AIDS
tested positive to the HIV virus, which established a causal
link.

But still this was not a "fact". Medical researchers had to be
convinced of the link. Most now do, but not everybody. There are
serious researchers who still believe the connection is not
proven or that other unknown factors are involved.

Something only becomes a "fact" generally after a long period of
evidence gathering. The evidence may eventually becomes
overwhelming, at least to most of the experts in the field, at
which point the evidence evolves into a "fact." But often there
are still holdouts.

You don't seem to realize that there so-called "facts" have a
strong sociological component. Something only becomes a "fact"
when the preponderance of people accept something as a "fact."

But often the situation is not clear. Does the Higg's boson
exist? Theory predicts it, but after combing through millions of
events in particle accelerator experiments, it still hasn't been
found. Does this disprove the theory? No it doesn't. It may mean
simply that the energies aren't high enough, or maybe they'll
have to comb through 100 million events to find a single
candidate.

There are all kinds of "facts." Some are blinding obvious
because they are commonplace and easily reproducible or
predictable (e.g. the sun rises every morning), but many have to
be dug out with a lot of hard work.

Situations like this where the exceptions are deeply hidden in
the noise abound in medicine. A vaccine or a drug may seem
completely safe, but then there inevitably turns up that 1 in
100,000 person who is killed by it.

Until these exceptions start turning up, they are not "known"
nor are they "documented." Even when they do occur, they are
difficult to document and "prove."  It may take many years, a
very large data sample, and a lot of data analysis to extract
good evidence for causal relationships and establish something
as a "fact" or a "known" to most people's satisfaction.

Furthermore, all it takes is one clear exception to turn what
may seem to be an established "fact" back into a "rule of
thumb", or maybe even disprove a "fact" altogether.

Are all swans white? For thousands of years to Europeans it was
a truism or "fact" that all swans were white. Then the Brit
explorers found the black swans in Australia. The exception
disproved the rule.

It may be a "fact" that _most_ UFO cases do turn out to have
mundane explanations. But it is far from a "fact" that _all_
cases have such explanations. The number of "knowns" doesn't
begin to approach the 99+% as in my more extreme examples. It is
more like 70 - 95% depending on who is defining the "knowns" and
the "unknowns."

Probably the most stringent statistical analysis of UFO cases
was the Battle Institute study for the Air Force in the early
50's. They pegged the unknowns at about 22%, and even higher for
the better quality cases. Furthermore, something was only
labeled "unknown" when the panel of four analyzing the cases
unanimously agreed that there was sufficient data to make a
determination but they could find no known conventional
explanation. (Thus "insufficient information" cases were placed
in a completely separate category from the "unknowns.")

Your repeated proclamations that these large numbers of unknowns
would inevitably become knowns with sufficient investigation is
merely a statement of your religious beliefs. The results of the
Battelle study did not support your pelicanist religion. The
best cases with more data yielded the most unknowns, and the
worst cases with the least data had the most knowns, exactly the
opposite of what your religion would predict.

 >My point about UFO cases and UFO photos is that there is _no_
 >proof or evidence of 'alien craft' (as per Stanton, Macabbee and
 >Clark's witterings), therefore, based on what we know so far all
 >UFO cases/photos will be resolved into IFOs of mudane origin.

Your _real_ point is to blur the distinction between "proof" and
"evidence." Do you know the difference? Either you are
incredibly dense or simply being disengenuous with this
persistent, banal debunking tact of yours.

Seldom is there "proof" or unambiguous evidence of anything,
even in the sciences. There is no "proof" of black holes or
neutron stars or quarks or the big bang. However there is a body
of _evidence_ to support these abstract intellectual constructs.

There is also considerable _evidence_ to support that UFOs are
real artificial craft not of human origin. There are numerous
close-up sightings by credible witnesses including mass
sighitngs, consistency in described UFO properties, movies,
videos, pictures, radar trackings and radar/visual cases (e.g.
Belgium 1989,Washington D.C. 1952, RB-47, 1957) , landing traces
(e.g. Socorro), physiological effects (e.g. Cash-Landrum,
Michalak), electromagnetic interference cases (e.g. Levelland,
1957), military documents, intelligence documents, etc.

 >When you find one which *is* resolved and of which the outcome
 >is not some form of terresttrial, astronomical or meterological
 >phenomena, please let us know.

Please define "resolved" for us so we know when something has
been truly "resolved." To you, apparently, something is
"resolved" if you can tag it with any conventional
"explanation", proven or unproven, what Bruce Maccabee calls
"the failure of skepticism."

Which "explanation" clearly "resolves" the Kenneth Arnold
sighting? Is it Menzel's windshield water droplets, mirages, or
snow blown off of mountain crests? He proposed them all. Or is
it Klass' meteors or Easton's pelicans? All have been proposed
as "resolutions" for the sighting, yet all come up seriously
short.

The real fact of the matter is that no conventional explanation,
terrestrial, astromonical, meteorological, or any other (except
the assumption of outright fabrication by Arnold) "resolves" the
Arnold sighting.

In addition, Arnold's sighting had corroboration from other
high-caliber sightings from that period by other pilots and
military personnel. Based on these high-quality reports, Gen.
Schulgen's Air Intelligence Staff proclaimed the saucers to be
real craft only a month later and started defining their basic
flight characteristics and physical description. This was
reiterated by the Twining memo 3 months later. The saucers were
real, high-performance craft of unknown origin. The infamous
Project Sign "Estimate of the Situation" a year later stated
they were likely of extraterrestrial origin.

We can argue forever whether these early military intelligence
estimates were based on unambiguous evidence or "proof" (e.g.
close-up detailed gun-camera photos, crashed saucers, alien
bodies, etc.) or based merely on lower evidentiary findings
(high-quality sightings, consistency of data, suggestive but
unprovable photos, etc.). But there is no question that the
early _evidence_ was strong enough to convince these people that
they were dealing with real anomalous, physical craft.

 >Happy Trails

Yeah, whatever.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                                 Book Wanted

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:41:34 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:37:15 -0500
Subject: Book Wanted



Greetings List

I am searching to obtain a copy of a book and wonder if anyone
on the List can help me

The book I wish to obtain is:-

GEORGE ADAMSKI The Untold Story
by Lou Zinsstag & Timothy Good
first published 1983

I would prefer a Hardcover Edition if one exists but the
softcover would do if this is in good condition. (I have only
seen one copy in New Zealand being the softcover edition)

I am also seeking to obtain an Email address for Timothy Good if
he has one Can anyone help me here ??

I would be prepared to purchase this copy although I would be
prepared to offer a trade for a New Zealand UFO Book.

I currently have spare copies of the following New Zealand UFO
Books

'The Kaikoura UFO' by Capt Bill Startup with Neil Illingworth
(Published 1980) - Hardcover edition

'The NZ Files' by Peter Hassall
(Published 1998) - Softcover edition only available.

Would anyone interested please contact me at the address below.

Regards
Murray

Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                               Anne Druffell?

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:49:13 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:37:46 -0500
Subject: Anne Druffell?



Greetings List

Does anyonehave an Email Address for Anne Druffell - UFO
Researcher and Author

Would anyone Knowing her e-mail address please advise me at the
address below.

Regards
Murray Bott

Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:07:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:43:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:48 -0000

 >>>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:10:28 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>>Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
 >>>>walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
 >>>>abductee reports for some time.

 >><snip>

 >>>I have come across a number of ghost cases where the witness
 >>>describes the apparitional figure

 ><snip>

 >>>On that basis any silver suited figure floating a foot or two
 >>>above the ground might not be what we nearly always assume

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Jenny.

 >>Like John, I am also aware of several UFO cases where alleged
 >>aliens were observed to move very effortlessly or float through
 >>the air.

 >>One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
 >>encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
 >>According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
 >>went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
 >>weightless."

 ><snip>

 >>Even if aliens from distant worlds do exist, I feel we cannot
 >>ignore this evidence that suggests our own world may be shared
 >>by some other alien intelligence too which is unknown by the
 >>general population, including ufologists.

 >>Are you or others aware of similar such accounts and what are
 >>your thoughts on this?

 >Dear Nick, Jenny, John and all:

 >I recall a very similar account from LDLN if I am not mistaken.
 >It may have occurred in Italy, again no guarantees.

 >Strange floating entities were described in fairly good detail,
 >by numerous witnesses with fairly consistent accounts.

 >Their descriptions were good enough to finally identify the
 >source: Mylar balloons shaped like little men, which burst on
 >the scene like a new brand of soda pop. [burp!]

 >I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this possibility. Maybe I
 >missed something.


Hi All,

First, so sorry for such a long winded response. But here goes.

Many the details that were a part of the original "entity
sighting" report that initiated this thread, rang 'familiar' to
me when I first read it. That's what motivated me to contribute
my comment that;

 >Don't forget that "aliens floating around", as opposed to
 >walking normally like any other biped, have been turning up in
 >abductee reports for some time.

In all candor there's more to it than that for me though. When I
read that report it sent a bit of a chill up my spine because of
something that came up during a hypnosis session. The folks on
this List know that I go out of my way _never_ to introduce
material that I "recovered" (if that term can be accurately
applied) through the use of hypnosis.

Disclaimer

It has not been proven by anyone (or to my own satisfaction)
that hypnosis is able to _reliably_ assist in the recovery of
completely accurate recollections of past events. Not enough
research has been done, and very few papers published on the
accuracy/reliability of hypnosis as a valid technique when it is
utilized specifically for the purpose of retrieving lost or
hidden memory.

For me, there's simply no way to verify any of material I
obtained that way. I have no way to know what parts may (or may
not) represent accurate recollection of actual events, or what
parts of it may be *contributions/'fillers' from my own
subconscious. (*Confabulations; mentally or psychologically
supplied 'fillers' for gaps in a sequence of events.)

I don't place much stock in _any_ 'abduction' related material
that I do not recall (on my own) consciously and clearly as
_events_ that I lived through. Events that I recall as 'living'
memories.

All that said... I'm going to break my own rule about never
introducing hypnotically recovered material into discussions 'on
the List' because this particular "entity sighting" report
relates directly to something that came out of a hypnosis
session that I did with Budd about six years ago.

I'm just going to share the particular detail from that session
that relates directly to this thread because providing a blow by
blow report would simply take too long.

Bear in mind that what I'm relating was a rapid-fire sequence of
events.

I'm laying in bed fast asleep when I hear a _very_ loud 'Bang!'
I was awakened by the sound of the door to my bedroom being
thrown open fast and hard. The door was slammed against the wall
directly behind it. (Ergo the loud 'Bang.')

I sat bolt upright in bed and my mind and body went into an
immediate fight or flight response. I was still a bit
dazed/fuzzy headed and my heart had started pumping a mile-a
-minute and I instinctively looked over to where the sound had
come from. All I could do was to sit there frozen because what
met my gaze was the sight of a bunch of little grey "aliens"
(all in a line like soldiers) that floated (about six inches
off the floor) into the room and stopped at the foot of my bed.
It gets _weirder_.

They greeted me politely/formally in my native Spanish, they
opened up a spot in the middle of their rank and then I quite
suddenly _snapped_ out of bed (like I was attached to a giant
powerful rubber band) and I popped into the spot/position that
they had cleared for me in the straight little line/formation
that they were all standing in.

I was standing straight as a board and I couldn't move my limbs
but I was able to look down by rolling my eyes in that direction
and I could see/feel that I too was "floating" about six inches
off of the floor.

We _all_ performed a military style Left Face in perfect
unison. (the 'turn' was executed with a clean, crisp, rapid
motion.) We _all_ reared back just a bit as if cocking a
trigger and we then made a fast and powerful surge forward and
out of the room. (again, in _perfect_ unison.)

Until I read 'Missing Time' in 1994 I had no knowledge of
ufology or _any_ of the details that were associated with
reports of 'alien' contact/abduction. I was an ignorant virgin.
(Although I'm no longer a virgin there are many that will
testify to my ignorance. <LOL>) The point is, I had no knowledge
of this (and many other) details _prior_ to launching my own
investigation into these odd doings (recollections) in my life.

A couple of months after I started working with Budd he invited
me to one of his meetings (that he hosts at his home) and it
was the very first time that I had met any body else that was
reporting UFO contact and abduction experiences. I was shocked
to hear the exact same set of oddities/details/memories that I
had kept locked away in my own head for all my life coming out
of the mouths of complete strangers. I don't know if you can
imagine what a shock an experience like that can be. When I left
Budds' place that night I was literally bouncing off the
walls/reeling from all the confirmations I had gotten that
evening.

There are a great many -specific- details that many "alleged
abductees" recall in common. I commented in an earlier post to
Thiago that if we were discussing anything other than UFO
abduction that such independent testimony would be considered
significant. But... because it is UFOs and abductions, the
exact same testimony becomes the result of pop culture
pollution or outright lies.

I'm 51. I get called for Jury duty every couple of years. My
testimony would be good enough under the right circumstances
to get somebody convicted in an open court of law. Yet my
testimony about my UFO experiences (and that of many other
perfectly sane, ordinary and otherwise reliable individuals) is
held separate and apart and considered to be less than
reliable by the same people that would accept my (our) word in
court.

Honest, I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. I consider it
my social duty and responsibility to report in as accurate (and
un-embellished) a way as I can. To 'stand up and be counted.' No
matter what the flak. Take my testimony for whatever value you
wish to assign it. I personally don't care who believes it or
not. I am discharging the dictates of my conscience so that I
can look the guy in the mirror squarely in the eye. What anybody
'does with it' after that is up to/ on them.

The original 'floating entity with long skinny arms' report did
freak me out a little though for all of the above reasons.

For what it's worth.

Warm regards to all,

John Velez, Just one of the boys.


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                         Re: Virus Follow Up - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:45:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:47:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Virus Follow Up - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:42:44 +0000
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Virus Follow Up

 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:41:19 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Subject: Virus Follow Up

 >>List members,

 >>In response to my query as to why he was spreading a
 >>virus, I just received the following:

 >>"The virus spread was totally unintentional. My equipment was
 >>invaded by a virus called Natividad.exe. It is self-running and
 >>installs itself on the System folder. Then it starts reading
 >>your messages and fragmenting them to send to people from your
 >>address book. I was infected and in a matter of seconds, when I
 >>realized that something had fooled my anti-virus, Natividad.exe
 >>sent over 1,000 e-mails...

 >>"I am very sorry and please accept my appologies."

 >>The virus is actually named navidad.exe, _not_ Natividad.exe.

 >>I don't have any indication here that my own machine sent out
 >>e-mails containing navidad.exe as an attachment.

 >>However, please be careful! If you receive an e-mail from me
 >>with navidad.exe attached, do _not_ open it by double clicking
 >>on it!

 >>The e-mail in which I received it originally came from Brazil.

 >>Again, this is not an Internet joke or personal paranoia on my
 >>part.

 >>Navidad.exe is a real virus -- and you don't want it!

 >>Dennis Stacy

 >Hi Dennis and listers,

 >I don't know if there is any connection or not but I had a total
 >systems failure about a week ago. I eventually lost everything
 >on my hard drive. I have no way of knowing what caused it
 >because everything was lost. I was operating an OS 7.5.1 on a
 >Mac.


Dear Don:

We missed you of course, but the obvious question remains:

What is an intelligent Canadian (or other English speaking soul)
doing with a Mac?

Did your mother pass away and leave it to you?

Don't answer that, an unfair question clearly.

Maybe it came in the mail.

My computer crashes too, all too often in fact, but somehow I
find it worth the time to re-boot and start all over again.]

Call this provincialism, but I don't think I would bother with a
MacIntosh.

My Catholic sister, who lives in Santa Monica, CA also has a
Mac. She has jillions of kids and grandchildren, and I cannot
send her a .jpeg file because it crashes the Mac.

The father of her husband (Moosebrugger) sank so many Japanese
ships that the named a ship after him! Not even Moose jr. can
look at .jpg or .bmp images because they bought the "computer
more trodden".

Ease of use comes at a dear price.

Sorry.

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

             Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:01:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:56:42 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso


 >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:29:53 -0500


 >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:34:22 - 0500

Please, excuse my English.

After reading the comments of Greg Sandow about "madcap Martin
Kottmeyer" several things are clear.

Mr. Sandow downplays the works of Kottmeyer. Not only has Martin
provided precedents for all and every one of the abduction
elements, but he also has tackled with some of the most
important themes of the abduction myth, like the Big Head motif,
showing its origin, not only in pulp science fiction, but also
in discarded theories of evolution. Besides, if Mr. Sandow is so
worried about all this being only in Kottmeyer's mind, he should
really look at Ms. Michael Meurger's work to understand how many
cultural threads (not just old SF pulps) converge in the modern
abduction narratives

I was tempted to point out that precisely the one example
selected by Mr. Sandow results perfectly appropriate. Allowing
for the spatial and temporal constrictions imposed by a 77
minutes' footage (plus the low budget FX effects of the time),
"Village of the Dammed" transmits exactly the same message that
David Jacobs' 'The Threat': aliens developing human hybrids with
psi powers in order to conquer the world. We may even get the
fictional "happy end" in the real world, if Jacobs' hybrids
finally rebel against their masters!

But, of course, Mr. Sandow will disagree, and my arguments will
be futile against the impregnable position he has built for
himself: Nothing short of a 50's SF film portraying a mid-90's
abduction storyline, also including all and every one of those
abductions elements, will satisfy him.

Even worse, it should be a "wildly popular" film (strangely, he
has forgotten about SF histories), "in a position to have a
strong influence on real life".

And to cap it all, the skeptics should prove that neither the
director, nor the scriptwriter were really "silent abductees"!

Good news, Mr. Sandow. I can confirm you that no such a film
exists (even though, I have not given up hope regarding a SF
pulp story). The only classic SF film that may fulfill your
standards, '2001, A Space Odissey' falls short of them.
Certainly, the Bowman's "abduction" inside the alien monolith
looks promising, and the final fetus-like hybrid has a family
resemblance with the Greys, but all this is 'peccata minuta'. If
there were such a film already in existence, nobody would had
given any "reality bonus" to the abduction phenomena. Its
precursor would be indisputable, Borges' opinion not
withstanding.

On the other hand, Mr. Sandow`s stand would be more appealing if
he would show the same zeal about the abductionists' position.
Even though I consider myself a total skeptic about the alien
origin of abductions (and UFOs), I am quite dissatisfied with
the PSH because I, too, would like a step-by-step explanation of
the abduction phenomena, still clearly lacking (even though
Randle�s ideas about the iatrogenic effects of abduction
researchers and abductees' support groups, plus the sleep
paralysis condition, looks very promising IMHO). But if our work
as PSH-ers is hard, the ETH-ers one is harder.

To put just one example. Mr. Sandow asks PSH-ers to provide with
a cultural precedent for the complete abduction storyline. But,
which one?

+The initial one, pre-Hopkins (up to 1980), when the abduction
were isolated events happening in the countryside to a lone
person? Eddie Bullard in his 1987 study presented a 8-step
abduction scenario, but Kottmeyer (yes, he again!) completely
dismantled it in his "Entirely Unpredisposed" essay, showing
that it was an "intuitive ordering principle subconsciously
acquired from drama".

+ The primary Hopkins (mid-80s), when abductions become
household events and the abductees began to describe successive
attacks?

+ The actual Jacobs & Hopkins (1990s), with its hybrid alien
agenda at full speed (14 abductions in one month!!!!! -The
Threat, p. 126-)?

+ The post-Jacobs one, where we encounter MILABs, reptiloids and
even giant mantis? Did you say something about large insects
looming very large in 1950s SF films, Greg?

In slightly different words, where are all those recent
developments of the abduction scenario in the "old, good"
abductions of the 70s? Last time I look, Mrs. Betty Hill is
still alive and proudly chortling - or maybe even giggling - to
the present versions. Where are her marks, missing fetus, etc.?
How do you explain Mrs. Andreasson affair along Hopkins'
storyline? Even Linda "Cortile" has not mentioned any missing
fetus nor any scar -apart from the amazing and embarrassing
incident of the X-rayed implant-? What is the validity of such
storyline when the MUFON ATP logged ONLY 79/142 abduction cases
where subjects reported an examination (Dan Wright,
"Commonalities & Disparities", 1995 MUFON Suymposium
Proceedings, p. 180)?

Once again, Mr. Sandow appeals to his theoretical "panel of
impartial judges". Please, you can, do assemble a panel of
literary critics and let them compare Linda "Cortile"'s 3 new
developments in the abduction scenario, with the 3 main points
of the previous thriller 'Nighteyes'. I am still waiting.

I can answer Mr. Sandow real question. David Ritchey's 14
abductees were 'friends and clients' not-randomly selected, and
I am not even sure all of them qualify as abductees, the
expression employed by Ritchey was "transpersonal experiences".
But neither were randomly selected the 9 abductees studied by
Slater and Clamar, and the fantasy-prone personalities
hypothesis was prematurely buried (Joe Nickell recently showed
in the Skeptical Inquirer that it really applies to John Mack's
abductees). All depends in how to measure them. To me, Ring &
Rosing subjects, describing OBEs, psi-powers, childhood
companions, etc. did qualify as fantasy-prone personalities;
they just do not think so.

Besides, with your doubts about those 14 abductees, you seems to
imply (excuse me if I am mistaken, Mr. Sandow) that you admit
the possibility that there are false abductees "out there".
Good! If you really think so, we may have a way out of this
dilemma. Compare the narratives of those false abductees with
those of real ones, create tables and compare the results. I'm
guessing that you'd find there are very few differences.

If I am allowed to borrow from another thread, I completely
concur with Mr. Mortellaro. After 50 years, Ufology (in sharp
contrast with any real scientific endeavor of the XX century)
has been unable to provide any real and indisputable knowledge
about those aliens that supposedly are visiting us. This alone
shows that the ETH clearly has very BIG problems. I do not deny
the PSH shortcomings, but even by default, it should be
preferred (at least, up to when - or if - anything better -
which the ETH is NOT - comes along).

You keep asking the skeptics to do your work for you, Mr.
Sandow. The burden of proof about the abduction reality is on
its proponents. Please, convince your colleagues Hopkins,
Jacobs, etc. to really apply the scientific method, to
acknowledge the criticisms of other ufologists and skeptics (I
am referring now to the Roper survey fiasco, for instance)
modifying his experiments accordingly and above all, to SHARE
their data (it annoys me very much how the MUFON organization
has sit upon his ATP raw data, refusing to share it with the UFO
community). Then, maybe, we all would be able to advance in our
quest.

Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez Manso (Spain)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                      Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:56:36 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:02:11 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:44:03 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:49:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >My Dear fellow Jim ( et al)

 >For me, the sheer and utter lack of physical evidence of ET
 >visitation is as frustrating as anything related to the ABD
 >(abduction) scene.

Good post Larry. Full of something one does not often find

Truth.

Nothing is revealed by UFO's or by those who perceive they were
abducted, in terms of evidence. But neither were there any first
hand observations of little microscopic bugs which are all over
the place, especially surgeons' hands and fingers. That did not
stop mainstream science (after a few cherry bombs went off under
their respective... uh... rears) from continuing research in the
face of abuse both verbal and written by their so-called peers.

We could all name so many more examples of how science, physics
and astronomy missed the mark. Often by a lot.

And the reason for this? Just one. Some huge egotistical boil on
the ass of the society. Society of doctors, physicists, etc.
Ego. They all knew better than that jerk Pasteur or that
syphilitic (and he was) Lister.

Ego.

 >For me, (a nut-and-bolts republican of sorts) a good piston
 >rod from Antares would a nice jolt, as long as it didn't come
 >from some old car.

 >I can deal with unresolved issues (unlike religious sorts) but
 >find it harder and harder to maintain an interest in UFO matter
 >when there seems to be no realistic hope of a resolution to
 >these matters.

 >One might call it "UFO burnout", and people deal with it
 >differently. Jim McCampbell for example, and old star of N&B has
 >drifted off into some stuff I find unrelated to UFOs.

There is one group which will never burn out. That would be the
aggregate of those whose memory tells them they were abducted.
In fact, as we speak right now, there appears to be a flurry of
activity among some abductees. And while I cannot attest to
this myself (I am probably too old for them lizard turds anyway,
(I aint' got the Motts no more) I am certain that the people with
whom I've interfaced of late are real and truthful in their own
personal observations. It may be interesting to see how many
others come forward with stories right now. Here on UpDates.

 >Jacques Vallee, for whom I have the highest respect, has
 >theories I find too expensive for my mental budget.

Vallee was at one time "the" champion of thinkers in this field.
It may be that your theory of burnout may be true in his case.
Certainly nothing was revealed by his serious efforts. I get the
impression that Vallee gave up his thrust largely because he saw
no one embracing the field as he did. As a science. Too
frustrating. I hear tell he went on to abuse Gripple and other
mood altering stuff. But I do believe this was just a cruel
untruth. It usually is.

 >Others, well known names included, have drifted into nearly
 >mystic dimensions, places haunted with lurking spiders and
 >salamanders and democrats.

Yah, but who really knows, Larry. There is much which science,
religion, philosophy and spiritualism share. Perhaps when
science comes up with that unified equation they've been looking
for so long, they will discover components in all of these
fields.

 >I want nothing less than the Holy Grail of ufology.

 >[ to wit ] A complete manual on alien semiconductors,
 >their pinouts, forms/dimensions and an applications manual.

 >- or - An alien photoresist spinner, dripping with orange
 >or green photoresist - or - some a broken tool, a lost
 >part, a discarded container made of unobtainium ..
 >[ high quality magnesium left on a Brazilian beach isn't
 >quite good enough. ]

 >Barring that, we are only left with theories, and
 >observations.

 >If it were not for observations like the one at Vins-sur- Caramy
 >in southern France, (there are many others) I would find better
 >use for my time. Lots and lots of time, none of it cheap.

And the time comes for me to abuse you for doing such great work
as you've done with your research information. I mean that, as
you know. But you must be abused. For anyone doing the work
you've done and charging nothing is crazy. I say, charge
admission to your site. And I have the answer as to the fee. A
notice posted before entering the site shall require the
researcher to sign a statement. It reads.....

"All who enter here must agree not to act the fool on UpDates or
any other venue. Further, you will never, ever, act the fool by
calling someone else one. And never abuse your friends."

Now here's where I come in. Being Itralien an all, I have
available to me, a plethora of kneecappers a la prima classa.
Anyone breaking your rules have their kneecaps similarly
accoutered.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                          UFO*BC Updates - 11-12-00

From: David Pengilly <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:48:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:05:08 -0500
Subject: UFO*BC Updates - 11-12-00


The following items are linked from our Homepage, under "What's
New".

1) "Recently Reported Sightings"
  - All the sightings to cross our desk since early September.
  - http://ufobc.org/BC_Sightings/recent.htm

2) Autumn 2000 issue of UFO*BC Quarterly now out.
  - Our new Editor, Dwight, has added a professional look
    to our magazine. Subscription still only $20!
  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_Store/fall2000.htm

3) News Coverage of the Yukon UFO Conference
  - Martin Jasek's Whitehorse Conference was very successful!
  - "304 People Pack UFO Conference"
  - http://www.ufobc.org/yukon/conference/press.html

4) "Oscillating UFO Mesmerizes Two Young Brothers"
  - a 1997 Yukon Report
  - http://www.ufobc.org/yukon/cigarcrestview97.htm

5) "Be Careful of UFO Light Beams"
  - An incident on Marsh Lake, Yukon - late 50s or early 60s
  - http://www.ufobc.org/yukon/ufolightbeammarsh.htm

6) "The New Westminster Boomerang"
  - recently updated by Roger Smith
  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_History/nwboomerang.htm

7) The 1999 Avebury Avenue 3-D Cubes, Another Scam?
  - crop circle article by local researcher Chad Deetken
  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_Supernatural/cropscam.htm

8) "A Mute Companion" by Graham Conway
  - cattle mutilations haven't gone away
  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_Supernatural/amutecompanion.htm

9) "An Encounter on Burnaby Mountain"
  - a strange sight and sound!
  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_History/burnabymountain.htm


Dave Pengilly

dave@ufobc.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                   Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:27:25 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:07:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Evans


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:11:22 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucer Rock 'n' Roll - Cashman

Hello, Mark!

Been offline for the last week working on a show for the
Discovery Channel about NASA. In an attempt to catch up, I
noticed you wrote:

 >Basic experiments to attempt to reproduce the Trent photos
 >can't be that hard. After all, Trent, who was hardly a
 >scientist, created them in the first place. But the skeptics
 >refuse to do the experiment and see just how hard it is to
 >match, even in general terms, the characteristics derived by
 >Bruce Maccabee.

Actually, this is not true. It is our intention to replicate the
Trent photos as soon as it is convenient. The players in this
little saga live in different areas of the country and have
different schedules. We would like to do it during the same time
of year as Trent and under similar conditions. Your are correct
that the technique he used was simple. However, he was not
burdened with having to line up other elements such as the right
time, right weather, scheduling, etc. In addition, we have made
it clear that we want to find a mirror that Bruce feels is an
exact match before doing the shot. Perhaps you feel this is not
necessary. I do not feel it is, either. However, most of the die
hard Trentites are not as reasonable as you or me, I'm afraid.

Finally, you wrote:

 >The same thing is true of all of the radical misperception
 >nonsense. If it were so common as to give rise to the immense
 >database of UFO reports, we would never be able to identify the
 >IFOs, the cognitive and perceptual literature would be full of
 >descriptions of it and its mechanisms... but that isn't the
 >case.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is, here. Radical
misperceptions do exist. I don't think that anyone will argue
that point (well, maybe some would ;). However, the fact that
UFOs can become IFOs has no real correlation. Are you saying
that because UFOs can become IFOs that radical misperceptions do
not exist? I am not being argumentative. I just don't understand
the point you are tying to make.

take care,

King Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 12

                    MUFON Opens Its Doors In Denver Mall

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:35:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:09:16 -0500
Subject: MUFON Opens Its Doors In Denver Mall


Source: The Denver Post,

http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1112l.htm

Stig

***

UFO Network opens its doors in Ken Caryl mall

By Kieran Nicholson

Denver Post Staff Writer

**

Nov. 12, 2000 - The search for UFOs now leads to a strip mall in
the Ken Caryl area. The Mutual UFO Network, which claims 4,000
members worldwide, is located between a liquor store and an
optometrist, across the parking lot from a bar and grill.

John Schuessler, the international director of the network,
which investigates reports of sightings or contacts with
unidentified flying objects, says he feels right at home.

"I'm surprised at how cordial everyone is," said Schuessler. "I
didn't expect this kind of reception."


1 'Book' closes, 1 opens


MUFON, a nonprofit corporation, moved into its new digs on Oct. 29,
relocating from Seguin, Texas, a suburb of San Antonio. The office in
the Market Place at Ken Caryl, which is just off Kipling Parkway and
Chatfield Avenue, is filled with books, magazines and reports on UFOs
and aliens.

Among Schuessler's collection are items sent to the network by people
who claim to have seen or been contacted by aliens. A miniature flying
saucer flashes red lights. Also on display is a small "alien" pickled in
a jar filled with lime-green liquid.

"We enjoy it, too," Schuessler said. "You have to live in the real
world, and the real world has fun as well as the serious side."

The network was formed in 1969 after the Air Force closed its project
"Blue Book," which investigated UFO reports, said Schuessler, who was
among MUFON's founding members.

"There was nowhere to report, and UFO sightings sure continued, so we
filled the gap," said Schuessler.

The recent move, however, was not prompted by Colorado's status as a
hotbed for sightings. The San Luis Valley generates a number of UFO
reports, and a few decades ago, there were widely reported accounts of
cattle mutilations by aliens on the state's Eastern Plains.


Worked at Space Center


Schuessler and his wife, Kathy, moved to the area to be near their
daughter's family, including two new grandchildren, and the organization
moved with them.

Denver's weather, of course, is a plus.

"We wanted to get out of Houston," said Schuessler with a smile. "We had
enough of the heat, humidity and bugs." From 1962 until 1998, when he
retired, Schuessler worked as an engineer with aerospace firms,
including a stint at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston on
the Mercury space program, he said. Reports from all over

Schuessler said his organization regularly receives UFO reports from
around the world, either by telephone, e-mail or on its Web site,
www.mufon.com.

"If we get a report and someone says, "I saw something go across the
sky, and it took 20 seconds,' we can't do anything about that. We don't
know what it was," said Schuessler. But MUFON will record the
information and file it, he said. Perhaps there will be similar reports
from the same area, and patterns could begin to emerge. "We're in the
business of collecting data," he said. But when the network, which has
members and field offices in every state and several foreign countries,
receives what it believes to be valid reports of UFO contacts or
abductions, it sends investigators to the scene.


Bodies with evidence


Schuessler said some people who report "close encounters" - of which the
network has investigated hundreds over the past three decades - bear
physical abnormalities to support such claims, such as burned skin and
injured eyes from exposure to the alleged UFO.

"It tells us there are things that are physically real that affect the
environment and affect people that we can't explain," he said.

"I call them unconventional flying objects. They do exist. Not
necessarily extraterrestrial, but I won't rule that out."

**

Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.





ABOUT US/HELP

ARCHIVES

BUSINESS

CLASSIFIEDS

COMMUNITY

DISCUSSION

ENTERTAINMENT

LIFESTYLES

MARKETPLACE

NEWS
-Columbine
-Columnists
-JonBenet Ramsey
-Legislature
-National News
-Obituaries
-Politics
-Stadium
-World News

OPINION

PROMOTIONS

SPORTS

WEATHER

DPO MAIN


SEARCH DPO:



UFO Network opens its doors in Ken Caryl mall

By Kieran Nicholson
Denver Post Staff Writer

Nov. 12, 2000 - The search for UFOs now leads to a strip mall in
the Ken Caryl area. The Mutual UFO Network, which claims 4,000
members worldwide, is located between a liquor store and an
optometrist, across the parking lot from a bar and grill.

John Schuessler, the international director of the network,
which investigates reports of sightings or contacts with
unidentified flying objects, says he feels right at home.

"I'm surprised at how cordial everyone is," said Schuessler. "I
didn't expect this kind of reception."

1 'Book' closes, 1 opens

MUFON, a nonprofit corporation, moved into its new digs on Oct.
29, relocating from Seguin, Texas, a suburb of San Antonio. The
office in the Market Place at Ken Caryl, which is just off
Kipling Parkway and Chatfield Avenue, is filled with books,
magazines and reports on UFOs and aliens.

Among Schuessler's collection are items sent to the network by
people who claim to have seen or been contacted by aliens. A
miniature flying saucer flashes red lights. Also on display is a
small "alien" pickled in a jar filled with lime-green liquid.

"We enjoy it, too," Schuessler said. "You have to live in the
real world, and the real world has fun as well as the serious
side."

The network was formed in 1969 after the Air Force closed its
project "Blue Book," which investigated UFO reports, said
Schuessler, who was among MUFON's founding members.

"There was nowhere to report, and UFO sightings sure continued,
so we filled the gap," said Schuessler.

The recent move, however, was not prompted by Colorado's status
as a hotbed for sightings. The San Luis Valley generates a
number of UFO reports, and a few decades ago, there were widely
reported accounts of cattle mutilations by aliens on the state's
Eastern Plains.

Worked at Space Center

Schuessler and his wife, Kathy, moved to the area to be near
their daughter's family, including two new grandchildren, and
the organization moved with them.

Denver's weather, of course, is a plus.

"We wanted to get out of Houston," said Schuessler with a smile.
"We had enough of the heat, humidity and bugs." From 1962 until
1998, when he retired, Schuessler worked as an engineer with
aerospace firms, including a stint at the Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Center in Houston on the Mercury space program, he said.
Reports from all over

Schuessler said his organization regularly receives UFO reports
from around the world, either by telephone, e-mail or on its Web
site, www.mufon.com.

"If we get a report and someone says, "I saw something go across
the sky, and it took 20 seconds,' we can't do anything about
that. We don't know what it was," said Schuessler. But MUFON
will record the information and file it, he said. Perhaps there
will be similar reports from the same area, and patterns could
begin to emerge. "We're in the business of collecting data," he
said. But when the network, which has members and field offices
in every state and several foreign countries, receives what it
believes to be valid reports of UFO contacts or abductions, it
sends investigators to the scene.

Bodies with evidence

Schuessler said some people who report "close encounters" - of
which the network has investigated hundreds over the past three
decades - bear physical abnormalities to support such claims,
such as burned skin and injured eyes from exposure to the
alleged UFO.

"It tells us there are things that are physically real that
affect the environment and affect people that we can't explain,"
he said.

"I call them unconventional flying objects. They do exist. Not
necessarily extraterrestrial, but I won't rule that out."

Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                  Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:50:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:42:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats? - Hatch
 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:32:44 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:47:11 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

 >>>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:09:44 +0000
 >>>From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Telegraph St Contactee Eats?

 >>>Can anyone remember the name of the contactee who ran a
 >>>restaurant on Telegraph St in Berkeley, California in the 70s,
 >>>maybe the late 60s too.

 >>>Or am I confabulating?

 >>>I thought it was mentioned in Vallee's Messengers of Deception,
 >>>but can't find it.

 >>>Any info about him and the restaurant would be much appreciated.

 >>Sorry, I cannot help much! My browsing led nowhere and
 >>everywhere, but no real match for the Berkeley contactee with
 >>the restaurant on Telegraph Avenue.

 >>I can only add that it was Telegraph Avenue, not street, and
 >>that indeed was in Berkeley, CA before the city fathers renamed
 >>it Martin Luther King in a fit of political correctness, if I am
 >>not mistaken.

 >Sorry Larry but you are mistaken.

 >The street that had its name changed to Martin Luther King was
 >Grove St., not Telegraph Ave. The good citizens of Berkeley and
 >Oakland desired that the name change occur.


Hello Ed:

I stand corrected on that one! It was indeed Grove Street in
Berkeley. The North-South orientation should have tipped me off,
Telegraph being an Avenue. I presume they intersect at some well
know corner.

I seldom visit that way, and didn't know it extended into
Oakland, where the name change would have been popular.

I paid to park in a guarded lot in Berkeley a few years back,
and dug thru the bookstores for our favorite topic. One cashier
asked if there was a UFO convention in town as he rang up my
used books.

Grove St. became MLK Way, not street. Spelled out in full, it
must have been a long job for the street-sign people.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                        Re: On What is Known - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:01:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:46:17 -0500
Subject: Re: On What is Known - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:56:36 EST
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:44:03 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:49:26 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>My Dear fellow Jim ( et al)

 >>For me, the sheer and utter lack of physical evidence of ET
 >>visitation is as frustrating as anything related to the ABD
 >>(abduction) scene.

 >Good post Larry. Full of something one does not often find

 >Truth.

 >Nothing is revealed by UFO's or by those who perceive they were
 >abducted, in terms of evidence. But neither were there any first
 >hand observations of little microscopic bugs which are all over
 >the place, especially surgeons' hands and fingers. That did not
 >stop mainstream science (after a few cherry bombs went off under
 >their respective... uh... rears) from continuing research in the
 >face of abuse both verbal and written by their so-called peers.

 >We could all name so many more examples of how science, physics
 >and astronomy missed the mark. Often by a lot.

 >And the reason for this? Just one. Some huge egotistical boil on
 >the ass of the society. Society of doctors, physicists, etc.
 >Ego. They all knew better than that jerk Pasteur or that
 >syphilitic (and he was) Lister.

 >Ego.

<snip>

 >>I can deal with unresolved issues (unlike religious sorts) but
 >>find it harder and harder to maintain an interest in UFOs
 >>when there seems to be no realistic hope of a resolution to
 >>these matters.

 >>One might call it "UFO burnout", and people deal with it
 >>differently.

<snip>

 >There is one group which will never burn out. That would be the
 >aggregate of those whose memory tells them they were abducted.
 >In fact, as we speak right now, there appears to be a flurry of
 >activity among some abductees. And while I cannot attest to
 >this myself (I am probably too old for them lizard turds anyway,
 >(I aint' got the Motts no more) I am certain that the people with
 >whom I've interfaced of late are real and truthful in their own
 >personal observations. It may be interesting to see how many
 >others come forward with stories right now. Here on UpDates.

 >>Jacques Vallee, for whom I have the highest respect, has
 >>theories I find too expensive for my mental budget.

 >Vallee was at one time "the" champion of thinkers in this field.
 >It may be that your theory of burnout may be true in his case.
 >Certainly nothing was revealed by his serious efforts. I get the
 >impression that Vallee gave up his thrust largely because he saw
 >no one embracing the field as he did. As a science. Too
 >frustrating. I hear tell he went on to abuse Gripple and other
 >mood altering stuff. But I do believe this was just a cruel
 >untruth. It usually is.

 >>Others, well known names included, have drifted into nearly
 >>mystic dimensions, places haunted with lurking spiders and
 >>salamanders and democrats.

 >Yah, but who really knows, Larry. There is much which science,
 >religion, philosophy and spiritualism share. Perhaps when
 >science comes up with that unified equation they've been looking
 >for so long, they will discover components in all of these
 >fields.

 >>I want nothing less than the Holy Grail of ufology.

<snip>

 >>.. some broken tool, a lost part, a discarded container
 >>made of unobtainium ..

<snip>

 >>Barring that, we are only left with theories, and
 >>observations.

 >>If it were not for observations like the one at Vins-sur-Caramy
 >>in southern France, (there are many others) I would find better
 >>use for my time. Lots and lots of time, none of it cheap.

 >And the time comes for me to abuse you for doing such great work
 >as you've done with your research information. I mean that, as
 >you know. But you must be abused. For anyone doing the work
 >you've done and charging nothing is crazy. I say, charge
 >admission to your site. And I have the answer as to the fee. A
 >notice posted before entering the site shall require the
 >researcher to sign a statement. It reads.....

 >"All who enter here must agree not to act the fool on UpDates or
 >any other venue. Further, you will never, ever, act the fool by
 >calling someone else one. And never abuse your friends."

 >Now here's where I come in. Being Itralien an all, I have
 >available to me, a plethora of kneecappers a la prima classa.
 >Anyone breaking your rules have their kneecaps similarly
 >accoutered.

 >Jim

Thanks for you kind comments!

A kneecap job sounds very extreme though. There is space for the
odd-cog. Who knows? One of them might come up with a new insight
or two. That's if it isn't drowned out in bilge.

I still charge for the *U* Database software package. Only the
website is free, as it should be.

I'll do the odd data lookup, if its reaonably small. That's a
fun way to show off or advertise the database.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                     Re: 'Heartbeat' Sightings - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:53:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:02:41 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Heartbeat' Sightings - Randles


 >From: Dave Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:29:03 -0000

 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:24:07 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: On What is Known

 >>>From: David Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: On What is Known
 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:42:33 -0000

 >>>Hi Jenny, Roy, list-dudes,

 >>Did you get to see the episode of 'Heartbeat' where he sees a
 >>UFO? That was near you wasn't it Dave, good sighting that one.
 >>Be definitely alien.

 >The episode of Heartbeat you mention was more or less ripped off
 >from the _solved_ case you refer to, which I'm sure Jenny can
 >explain in detail. I wasn't actively involved in ufology then,
 >but it was _near_ to me as in it was the North.


Hi,

For those not familiar with 'Heartbeat' - its a long running
(about 10 years and counting) British TV drama series that is
set during the l960s in rural North Yorkshire (not the Pennines
as such). It combines a 'lost world' of this era with 60s
lifestyles, lots of music and fun characters and that's why it
has proven such a huge hit in the UK and various other countries
where it is screened.

Filmed in the real North Yorks Dales small towns of Goathland
and Whitby (with its famous Dracula heritage) it is often linked
on screen with one of the UK's longest and most scenic steam
railway lines that the series uses to great effect as the area
is still very l960s in feel and so little needs altering to be
used as a backdrop for months on end each year.

The series is based on a long run of 'fictionalised' books
relating the real life of an actual country copper (The
'Constable' books published by Robert Hale) - who,
coincidentally, have also published many of my UFO titles.

The series has in fact twice had stories based on UFO cases and
both were taken from my book 'The Pennine UFO Mystery'
(published in l983).

In the first episode one of the policeman (Ventriss) was
abducted from his patrol car in a story that was based on the
Alan Godfrey abduction (one of the main themes of 'The Pennine
UFO Mystery' - indeed Alan closely co-operated with the
production of this book). Godfrey assisted the Heartbeat
scriptwriter to aid in the accuracy of this episode. I think
this aired in the l996 series.

The second episode (a sequel to the above made in the l998
series) is the one to which David refers. It came from another
chapter in 'The Pennine UFO mystery' that describes the
investigation that the UFO group MUFORA (now NARO) did in the
l970s along with a friendly police sergeant who had joined our
group after having his own UFO sighting in the Pennines (also in
the book).

At the time we faced a series of reports of a low level, silent
running orange/red glow that terrified hill farmers in the dead
of night and that we eventually solved by a series of logic,
guesswork and in the end a remarkable coordinated sky watch where
ufologists and the authorities covertly worked together. This
saw us monitor the UFO whilst one of our team was able to work
with the radar operator at Manchester Airport to confirm our
suspicions as to its identity.

In this way we proved the startling theory that we had developed
that the UFO was a gliding jet aircraft. It was a cargo jet
operated by a major international carrier (still world renowned
today) who literally glided over the Pennines, switched off all
their lighting (except the tail fin illumination that gave the
eerie red glow) and the crew sat back watching the sky! As soon
as they reached habitation (just north of Greater Manchester)
they powered up their engines and switched on the lights,
creating the effect reported to us by stunned farmers that the
UFO accelerated away and upwards with a cacophony of noise.
They had not realised the effect this would have on those out on
the moors in the middle of the night!

This extraordinary investigation led to the CAA taking action to
stop this tactic and they admitted to us that they had suspected
it had unofficially gone on but could not prove it. Thus did
ufology expose this practice and - hopefully - stop it. But it
is more than possible IMO that some other cases in UFO history
are examples of 'gliding' aircraft. So why not check out your
old files.

There's an update on this case in 'The UFOs that Never Were'.

In 'Heartbeat' the story was fictionalised only lightly but the
ufologists were not given any credit in solving the case as we
did, needless to say! Instead a retired copper did the whole
sky watch/investigation thing and came up with the solution by
himself. The scene at the end where he tries to explain what
sounds like a madcap theory to the police house is priceless.
Most viewers probably had no idea this was a true story!

That the episode did dramatise our investigation is not in
doubt. Heartbeat even wrote into the plot that it was a cargo
plane flying from Scotland (as indeed was the real one).  I had
some correspondence with the producer afterwards who affirmed it
was indeed based on this real case.

So 'Pennine UFO Mystery' has actually spawned two different
episodes of this 'Heartbeat' drama series. And - in case you are
wondering - no - I wasn't paid a penny nor were ufologists given
any recognition by the TV show. Not that it would have mattered.
This book was only ever a single print run paperback in l983.
There was no reprint or overseas edition and it remains by far
the most requested title of mine since it is so hard to get. I
often get asked for copies. Sadly they all sold out within weeks
17 years ago.

Maybe one day it will get reprinted and updated, but as a
regional study its viability to modern publishers is not
attractive. Sadly US sales didn't happen in l983 for the same
reason that it probably never will get reprinted.

As for this case definitely being 'alien'. Well there were two
cases on this series. The gliding aircraft certainly wasn't even
a UFO. It was an extraordinary IFO. And  the Alan Godfrey -
Todmorden, West Yorkshire - case is indeed one of the best known
British abductions. But there is a lot behind this case little
known outside of the investigation team. Peter Hough and I told
some of the complex background in our l988 book 'Death by
Supernatural Causes?'. Alan got treated incredibly poorly by the
West Yorkshire police.

But the bottom line is that Alan saw something amidst one of the
most significant UFO hot spots in Europe. Others saw it too that
same night. He lost 10/15 minutes of time but had no conscious
recall of an alien contact. This emerged only nine months later
under hypnotic regression and Alan has told me more than once
that whilst he would swear in court that he saw the UFO and it
was unquestionably real, he had no way of knowing how true was
the (rather confused) alien contact saga. This rather weird saga
includes such oddities as a carpets and a big black dog inside
the UFO and few of the elements you would recognise from a more
traditional modern abduction - i.e. no greys, or rectal probes.

Indeed Alan was happy to consider it a possible product of the
UFO literature that he read between the incident in November
l980 (just a month before Rendlesham and during the major
autumn/winter wave that year) and August l981 when the
regressions began.

This is certainly a classic case and IMO a bona fide abduction.
The questions remain though as to precisely what one of those is
and I am afraid it doesn't come close to proving this was an
alien reality.  The other witnesses that night saw only a light
phenomenon in the same area - not even any obvious kind of
craft. Nobody saw Alan being abducted nor was there any
conscious sighting of aliens by anybody.The only thing that
elevates this fascinating case into an alien abduction is the
regression testimony that got tacked on later and I don't
consider that a sound enough basis to jump to conclusions other
than that something very intriguing clearly did take place.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:00:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:17:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:51:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

David wrote:

 >I'll bet your posts outnumber mine by a ratio of 10
 >or 20 to 1. Of course, it's not hard to post a lot of trash
 >when you don't have to put any thought into it.

This is just the sort of standard now set on UpDates by those
committed to a belief they cannot prove or justify. When faced
with reasonable debate and suggestions, backed up by case
studies and research, all people like David Rudiak can do is the
above.

Sad but true.

If David goes over my previous posts he will find I have said
nothing outrageous or unreasonable. Simply that:

* UFO cases follow a UFO to IFO pattern

* Many 'good' unresolved cases which have lasted for years have
   eventually become IFOs also

* Therefore it is reasonable to suggest - to predict even - that
   that pattern will continue

It's not a hanging matter, nor indeed a capital crime.

Despite all David's blathering he can offer nothing in response
save to say that one day this may not be the case.

I agree. It may not. But, to date, the above is a demonstrable
fact.

If David chooses to term this: 'a lot of trash', then that can
only be a reflection of his refusal to accept what has been the
case for the past fifty three years and which shows no signs of
changing. In fact quite the reverse because we have fewer 'good'
cases these days (at least in the UK and I suspect in the USA)
and the 'good' which once involved traces, photos, multiple
witnesses etc have been replaced with the woolly area of
'abductions'.

 >There is also considerable _evidence_ to support
 >that UFOs are real artificial craft not of human origin.
 >There are numerous close-up sightings by credible witnesses
 >including mass sightings, consistency in described UFO
 >properties, movies,

No, no David. What you are saying there is not evidence of what
you are claiming. It's just evidence people are seeing
'something'. But there is no evidence what is seen are: 'real
artificial craft not of human origin'. I think that's your, ah,
'religion' calling you to prayer there, old boy. As I've said
before misperception and its dark shadow, radical misperception,
plays a far, far larger role in the subject of UFOs. Not just
visually but on many levels. We are finding - certainly in the
UK - that when many of the old 'classic' cases are revisited the
original investigation is found to be lacking, ufologists have
repeated the mistakes in the literature and a case is conjured
out of 'evidence' which simply didn't exist. There are one or
two such textual howlers in some of the cases in Jerry's
encyclopaedia, for instance. Even the great are not above
duplicating others errors!

Now, obviously you aren't going to accept any of this. But from
my experience in the subject, and of many people I know in the
subject, that appears to be the case. And each time a 'classic'
case is resolved it only strengthens my view.

Obviously we can only base our viewpoints on our experience as
ufologists/researchers/investigators. I base mine on 18 years of
fairly intensive R & I. Obviously you base your view on your
experience which, I'm sure, is just as extensive as mine. But
you obviously have the added element of wishful thinking which
helps you see 'evidence' and or 'proof' in cases which is just
not there.

If you wish to continue adding to the mystification of the
subject instead of getting out there and solving cases then good
luck to you. As I've said to Jerry, when you come up with the
real article, which in your case is, 'real artificial craft not
of human origin', then if you can stand my company I'll gladly
fly over, dry my wings, spit the fish out of my bill, and buy
you a case of whatever gets you off.

Until that day just watch those cases go from UFO to IFO!

 >>Happy Trails

 >Yeah, whatever.

Bingo!

Happy Trails

Andy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                          Secrecy News -- 11/13/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:41:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:52:55 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/13/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 13, 2000

**      LEAKS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
**      NEW FRUS VOLUME PUBLISHED ON KOREA, 1964-1968
**      PHYSICIST WALTER GOAD DIES


LEAKS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

While some unauthorized disclosures of classified information
may cause damage to national security, even senior intelligence
officials admit that other leaks can positively serve the public
interest.

CIA Inspector General Britt Snider recently described a case
from 1975, when he was a staff member on the congressional
Church Committee investigating the U.S. intelligence community,
in which a leak to the press served a beneficial purpose.

The Church Committee had been seeking to arrange a briefing from
the National Security Agency -- without success.  But then:

"In early August, a press leak appeared in an article in The New
York Times alleging that NSA had eavesdropped on the
international communications of US citizens.  The article
discussed in general terms the matters we were investigating,
and it was a source of considerable consternation for the
Committee as well as NSA.  The leak had the salutary effect,
however, of breaking the bureaucratic logjam that had stymied
us.  With the allegations now a matter of public record, NSA
wanted to explain its side of the story.  So, in late August,
NSA told me that a briefing was being arranged."

The possibility of such a real-world benefit from an
unauthorized disclosure of classified information was not
acknowledged in the now-vetoed congressional initiative to
criminalize all such disclosures.

Britt Snider's anecdote appeared in an article published in the
unclassified edition of Studies in Intelligence, Winter
1999-2000, which is posted here:

        http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art4.html

The congressional sponsors of the ill-fated legislation to
outlaw all leaks responded to the President's veto with "howls
of betrayal," writes Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post.  He
reviews the veto and its aftermath in his online column
IntelligenCIA:

        http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52574-2000Nov9.html


NEW FRUS VOLUME PUBLISHED ON KOREA, 1964-1968

The State Department has published a new volume of the Foreign
Relations of the United States (FRUS) series concerning U.S.
policy towards Korea during 1964-1968.  The FRUS series,
established during the Abraham Lincoln Administration, is
nowadays composed largely of declassified government records
that document the official history of U.S. policy.

The latest FRUS volume notably includes an extensive compilation
of records concerning the North Korean seizure of the U.S.S.
Pueblo, an American intelligence gathering vessel, in January
1968.  The crew of the Pueblo was held hostage by North Korea
for nearly a year.  The ship itself was never recovered, in what
was described as an unprecedented compromise of U.S. cryptologic
operations and techniques.

The text of the new FRUS volume is posted here (see documents
212-331 on the Pueblo Crisis):

        http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxix/index.html

Publication of a companion FRUS volume on U.S. relations with
Japan from 1964-1968 has been blocked, because the Office of the
Historian at the State Department was unable to secure
declassification of numerous key documents.  As a result, "the
Japan ... volume did not constitute a 'thorough and accurate,
and reliable documentary record of major United States foreign
policy decisions'," as required by law.  "This volume on Japan
will not be printed until it meets these standards.  The
Historian and the Advisory Committee will continue to seek
declassification of the documents withheld," wrote outgoing
State Historian William Z. Slany in his Preface to the new
volume.

A major obstacle to publication of the FRUS volume on Japan is
presumed to be the CIA's "covert" funding of Japan's Liberal
Democratic Party, since the CIA has not acknowledged its role in
financing the LDP.  Nevertheless, one can read about it in a
front-page story by Tim Weiner that appeared in the New York
Times on October 9, 1994 ("C.I.A. Spent Millions to Support
Japanese Right in 50's and 60's").


PHYSICIST WALTER GOAD DIES

Walter Goad, a nuclear weapons physicist who spoke out against
the government's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case, died November
2.

Speaking with the authority of a senior weapons designer who had
participated in the development of the first thermonuclear
weapons, Goad declared that government assertions about the
severity of Wen Ho Lee's actions were "exaggerations, grossly
misleading in their import."

Goad's disinterested and straightforward arguments, along with
those of a few colleagues, helped to deflate the government's
more extreme claims and to lay the groundwork for the court's
eventual apology to Wen Ho Lee.

The full text of Dr. Goad's May 2000 declaration in the Wen Ho
Lee case is now posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/goad.html

According to an obituary notice circulated by the Stanford
Alpine Club, "memorial donations may be made to the Wilderness
Society, 900 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-2506,
or to the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, P. O.
Box 80915, Albuquerque, NM 87198."


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this comman
d in the body of the message:
        subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this command in the body
of the message:
        unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 13

                        Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:26:44 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:54:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000


Filer's Files #45 -- 2000,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer,  Director,  Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 13, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren  http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

SPACE WATCHERS ALERT -- On October 30, 2000, a large near earth
asteroid (NEA) 600 meters in size came close enough to the
Earth to be named a 'near miss.'  The asteroid passed the Earth
without prior warning from NASA, whose astronomers have now
named it Toutatis.  If the asteroid it hit the Earth it could
have resulted in a major catastrophe.

There should be a brilliant display of Leonid meteor showers on
November 17, and 18th between local midnight and dawn.  There
could be a modest outburst of Leonids this year with brief
flurries of shooting stars that should be seen over most parts
of the Earth.  Three streams of the debris storm should pass
near our Moon.  On November 17, around 0500 UT the Moon will
pass approximately four Earth-diameters from the center of a
dust trail left behind by comet Tempel-Tuttle in 1932," says
David Asher of the Armagh Observatory, an expert on Leonid
debris filaments.  "The Moon will be considerably closer to the
trail than Earth," raising the possibility of vigorous Leonid
activity there.  When Leonid meteoroids rain down on the
airless Moon, they won't cause "shooting stars" as they do on
our planet.  There's no atmosphere on the Moon where cosmic
debris particles can incinerate as fiery streaks of light.
Lunar Leonids will simply hit the surface at 140,000 mph.  Some
larger impacts may be seen from Earth with telescopes.  Last
year surprised Moon-watchers captured video footage of at least
six exploding Leonid meteorites while the Moon passed through
comet Tempel-Tuttle debris stream.  Various lights and what
appear to be UFOs traveling across the surface of the Moon are
more common than generally believed.

Astronomers have also discovered the Moon has a tail made of
sodium that extends behind as it moves through space.
Sensitive cameras that can detect sunlight scattered from as
few as 5 sodium atoms per cubic centimeter can pick up the
tail.  The Lenoids are expected to add dust to the tail after
impacts by the meteorites.

AWESOME EVIDENCE OF ADVANCED ALIEN INTELLIGENCE

Jan Lamprecht writes, "For decades many people have been
looking for evidence of advanced Alien life in space --
hopefully nearby.  I was watching the BBC's "Earth" Series of
geology program that claimed there is a big mystery surrounding
the Moon's existence and how it got here.  The odds against
random capture of the Moon are billions if not trillions to
one.  This has led some people to suggest that the Moon was
STEERED into orbit by someone.  Amazingly too, the angular
diameter of the Moon, as seen from the Earth matches that of
the Sun, as seen from the Earth almost exactly thereby giving
rise to total eclipses.  In my book "Hollow Planets," I made
the point that maybe our view of the universe is back-to-front
or inside out.  What if, our whole view of the universe is
SKEWED by the fact that we live on the OUTSIDE of a planet?
Thus, we think (naturally), that all life forms should exist on
the outside of planets and that is where we go to look.  We
never stop to think that maybe we are NOT THE NORM!  Our whole
thinking is conditioned around the concept that we are THE
NORM.  Logic dictates that this is the most likely possibility.
Yet, what if our views are wrong?  For example, life on the
outside of planets is actually a dangerous business.  Think
about it.  Living  on the OUTSIDE of a moving object is not a
good idea.  It is like someone driving a car at breakneck speed
along a highway with you sitting on the hood!  That is crazy
isn't it!  And yet, living on the outside of a planet is no
crazier.  There is ample evidence that life here is dangerous.
Meteors are the main danger.  Even tiny meteors can decimate
life on the outside.  And meteors are a real danger.  Lots of
them abound and it is only a matter of time before they strike
us.  The surfaces of neighboring worlds are pockmarked with
craters caused by them.  Even a single strike could decimate
the world.

There is, I believe, one argument that is FRIGHTENING in its
implications in showing that our position here upon the Earth
is completely UNNATURAL and therefore something that has been
planned and devised by a higher intelligence.  It is this!.  In
the BBC's Earth series, they ended on a rather strange note.
They mentioned the calculations done by a French scientist.  He
wrote a computer program to calculate the effects of  planets
and the Moon on the rotation of the Earth.  He found that when
he factored in the presence of the Moon, that the Earth wobbled
slowly around its axis (precession) over a period of 26,000
years.  Then, he did a fascinating thing.  He removed the Moon
from the equation.  His model then showed that the Earth, like
all other planets without large moons like ours, would then
become UNSTABLE.  Over a long period the Earth would flip this
way and then that, and even lie on its side like Uranus does.
And that was when it all struck home.

If the Earth were a "normal planet" and were that unstable, it
would destroy all the life on its surface.  If the Earth
wobbled this way and then that way, it would cause tremendous
harm to all the things living on its surface.  Instead, the
presence of the Moon, and the Moon alone, makes the Earth a
much more stable place.  So, going back to the fact that the
Moon must have been steered here, it would seem that maybe,
those who steered it here did so with the purpose of using it
to stabilize this planet's rotation.  Could it be, that whoever
put the Moon here ALSO put US here?  And that whoever did this
must therefore have intelligence so great, and a science so
great that it boggles the mind.  All this suggests to me that
the presence of the Moon is definitely NO ACCIDENT, and that
the presence of the Moon must therefore be linked to the
presence of life on the outside of the planet - and that it is
an aid to the existence of life here.  Surely, this proves that
there is an incredible intelligence out there with
capabilities, which stun our little minds!  Thanks to: Jan
Lamprecht WWW.HollowPlanets.com  and Jeff Rense.

Editors Note: Genesis 1 tells us:  "Then God said, "Let there
be bright lights in the sky to give light to the earth and to
identify the day and the night; they bring about the seasons on
the earth, and mark the days and years"  And God made two great
lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light
to rule the night."  Zecharia Sitchin told me that Genesis is
true and a summation of Sumerian writings.  We must consider
that our alien visitors may have placed the Moon in orbit
around the Earth.  Further it may be normal to live underground
on planets where meteors are numerous.

NEW YORK GLOWING DISC

WESTBURY, LONG ISLAND -- October 20, 2000, my wife and I are
educated professionals who were driving northbound on the
Wantagh Parkway in Nassau County at 8:45 PM.  As we approached
Hempstead Turnpike I noticed a glowing disc in a clear sky.  I
must admit it appeared to be very similar to those I have seen
on TV documentaries about UFO's.  There was a light emitting
from the top downward to create the shape of the saucer.  The
color of the light was whitish blue.  I pointed it out to my
wife who also had the same reaction of awe as I did.  I noticed
that it moved toward the east, then slightly north, then
ultimately westbound until we lost it behind some trees.
Because of its appearance and movement, we knew it could not
have been a plane, helicopter or even a blimp.  I assumed it
would be clearly seen by thousands. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director of NUFORC- www.ufocenter.com.

LONG ISLAND -- Betty LaRosa writes that her friend who is quite
shy, tells her of frequent sightings of triangle shaped objects
which fly over just before dawn.  She lives on the South Shore
of Long Island near the inland waters before entering the
Atlantic Ocean.  She says they are always traveling in a
southerly or southwesterly direction.  They are barely visible,
but their forms appear to be triangular with white lights on
two sides and a red light in the center of the craft.  They
make no sound, and appear to travel in groups of three to five
craft.  Thanks to Betty LaRosa Editor's Note:  We have frequent
reports of unidentified craft over Long Island so if your in
the area keep looking up.

PENNSYLVANIA POLICE SEE UFO

SAXTON -- Bob Loughry reported watching the object on November
1, 2000, after dark for about twenty minutes.  Bob reported
that the unusual object was watched by several neighbors using
binoculars, and also by Saxton Borough police officer and also
an officer from neighboring Liberty Township.  "I went outside
on the front porch about 7:30 PM and saw a bright object in the
sky.  I called several neighbors, and also "911" which is why
several police officers stopped to look.  It was glowing white
and as viewed from the porch, about the size of a quarter to a
half dollar.  "The object was probably.  He was looking in the
direction of E. Eichelberger and Son store, and the object as
big as a car was hovering in the sky to the right of the store.
It was between 250 and 1,000 feet in the air.  It gradually
descended and may have landed on Abbott's Ridge, for at that
point the lights went out.  "Both police officers said they
didn't know what it was, except a UFO.  Several Stonerstown
residents reported seeing a similar object on October 25, after
dark.  It was more distant than the one seen Oct. 28, and they
said it made erratic maneuvers in the sky, the kind that a
conventional aircraft could not make.  Thanks to Jon Baughman
btbull@nb.net Broad Top Bulletin, Saxton, Pa. 11/7/00.

READING -- On October 31, 2000, a witness whose home overlooks
a valley noticed a Moon size white light moving slowly across
the valley.  He was able to get his father who also witnessed
the unusual object.  It was flying at low altitude over the
valley for about a half hour.  The next night the object also
appeared but flew off to the west.

OHIO CHEMTRAILS

DAYTON - Scientist Robert Collins says,  "Tonight at 9:30 PM I
stepped out side to look at the night sky which I do often when
it's clear. I noticed an aircraft flying west close to the
Dayton airport: I'm 5 minutes away from the airport here:
Something struck me about this aircraft because it's position
lights didn't look right:  Besides the normal flashing red and
green there were two steady orange looking lights on both
wings.  I've never seen this type of light formation before.  I
got my binoculars out and sure enough this aircraft was
spraying a thick trail of what has been video taped and seen
before.  I didn't think this was interesting  and I didn't
think it was beautiful .  was damn mad !   That Chemtrail is
now spreading itself out so it looks like a typical cirrus
cloud right over the top of me.  Seeing is believing !   Thanks
to:  Robert Collins rcollins632@earthlink.net

INDIANA FLYING TRIANGLE HOVERS ABOVE HUNTERS

CHALLIS -- The Challis Messenger by Anna Means reports,  "Many
rational people believe we are not alone in this universe.
Three hunters in an unspecified location near Challis learned
for themselves on the night of September 27 that this theory
may hold water.  The National Institute for the Discovery
Science (NIDS) e-mailed the Messenger two weeks ago asking for
help locating three individuals who reported an "anomalous
encounter" in these environs.  The report revealed that one
individual spotted a dark triangular object floating silently
above him while he was standing by his pickup. The hunter said
he and his three buddies were in a dry camp, so alcohol
couldn't be blamed for what he and two of the others saw.  The
man indicated that as he approached his pickup at about 9:45
PM, he "got a feeling of a thick, heavy blanket above me and
chills down my spine."  He said he shined his flashlight on the
"dark triangular object floating directly above us and our camp
trailer."  The man fell into profane disbelief and then called
out for his buddies to come see for themselves.  He said he
could see rounded dark edges and a flat bottom that had a
texture like suede leather and was colored gold-gray.  He said
that after he shined his light on the object it throttled up
with a deep low sound of intense power and floated straight up
and then forward up a steep canyon moving like a hockey puck
sliding on ice.

Two other party members grabbed their binoculars to check it
out until it moved out of sight.  The account said that as the
object throttled up, three lights, one on each corner of the
triangle, came on.  Each light was about 10 feet in diameter
and glowed like a dim dome light.  Another light in the center
was described as being 20 feet in diameter, protruding below
the bottom of the object about eight feet, was deep red and
pulsed once a second. The outline of the entire object had a
light halo around it.  The shape, wrote the hunter, was a
perfect triangle with radius corners and radius edges.  "There
was no smell, no feeling of blowing, prop wash or thrust of any
sort."  Thanks to Gerry at Far Shores and NIDS www.nidsci.org
www.topcities.com/OuterSpace/farshores/farshores/index.htm.

MICHIGAN SIGHTING ON HALLOWEEN

ONSTED IRISH HILLS -- Todd Lemire says between 6:45 and 7:00 PM
while out trick-or-treating with my husband, our seven year old
son, a friend and her ten year old son,  "I looked up and saw
this greenish-white light cruising west at an incredible
speed."  The object was about 300 feet high and made absolutely
no sound.  I told the others to look up.  We were awestruck!
As this pulsing light that never lost its glow passed before
us.  A part seemed to disengage itself and fall to the east and
disappear.  It was similar to when the Challenger explosion in
1987.  My husband and I both said to each other, right then.
"That was no falling star!" My husband,  and I are both
star-gazers.   There was absolutely no arc moving parallel with
the earth with no trail.  It moved two to three hundred miles
per hour at a steady consistent speed. The sighting was
reported to the police.  A friend at work also saw a UFO we
come up with the conclusion that there had to be two or more.
The time of her sighting was closer to 7:00 PM and it was more
white in color.  I was talking with one of the farmers in the
area and said his son and he were outside working around 7:00
PM, when his son asked him, "Did you see that?"  The farmer
said he'd only seen a greenish glow as he had his head faced
toward the ground.  His son told him that he had just seen a
light pass directly overhead their barn."  Thanks to Todd
Lemire tlemire@home.com

NORTH DAKOTA V-SHAPED CRAFT

SOUTH WEST, ND --- David Fugere reports, "I had a sighting
similar to the Woodlands  October 26, sighting  at 9:00 PM.   I
saw the formation of circular white lights on the bottom of the
craft but wouldn't call them lights in the usual way of
thinking about lights.  I can best describe these lights by a
glow in the dark toy.  If you take one of these toys and light
it up good and then put it in a dark room and let it dim down
for a while you got the lighting that I saw.  I'd be curious to
know if this person could relate to that as I'm quite convinced
we saw the same thing.  My craft too had six lights on each
side, but did not line up perfectly with the ones on the other
side.  Perhaps there was a light missing on one side.  My
sighting definitely had one light at the point and then tapered
down on each side forming a perfect 'V' with both lights at the
end.  Each was side lit up, joining some in the back.  I was
looking straight up when  it popped up over my house.  I doubt
if it was any higher than 300 feet. I could not make out any
solid structure in-between the lights even when I got my
binoculars on them.  It flew south west over our town for at
least 15 seconds.  I've also seen discs that have displayed the
exact same type of lighting.  The lights and the shape match.
Thanks to Dave Fugere: DFugere@goesp.com

NEW MEXICO RING UFO SEEN NEAR

DEMING -- On Thursday, October 26, 2000, Todd Hall "was driving
west on Interstate Highway I-10 at 8:10 PM when he watched an
object hovering over a mountain.  As I descended the mountain,
I saw the object was hovering over the town of Deming.  Todd
noticed that it changed shape from time to time.  Most of the
time, the object kept a short cylinder shape and periodically
changed to a wedge shape.  Todd watched the object for about 30
minutes.  Todd said, "At one point, I even pulled to the side
of the road so as to pay more attention to the thing."  "After
about 30 minutes, the object changed to a flat shape and moved
up vertically for about three seconds and then just vanished."
Todd described the UFO as "dark in color with a slight metallic
look at an altitude of 1,000 to 2,000 feet.  Object stayed
fairly stationary, moving slightly to the west."  Thanks to Joe
Trainor Editor of UFO Roundup 11/9/00 #45.

CALIFORNIA CYLINDER UFO SEEN BY AIRLINE PILOTS

San Francisco -- Field investigator Chris Altman reports that
October 21, 2000, a United Airlines pilot that does not want
his name released at this point.  The plane is a 737 Boeing
aircraft that was coming into San Francisco at about 3:00 PM.
The pilot as well as twenty other witnesses all stated that
they saw a large cylindrical object pace the plane for about 12
minutes. The plane was about 35 miles out of San Francisco when
the pilot observed a large object about 1 mile away on the port
side of the plan.  The plane was at about 15,000 feet at the
time of the sighting.  The object was 45 degrees low on the
port side.  It was estimated to be about 300 feet long, very
dark in color, and clearly had no windows on it.  After about
10 minutes of being paced, the object rose very rapidly to a
point where it was about 2000 feet over them.  Then after 2
more minutes it just simply shot up and out of sight.  The Air
Traffic Control stated to him that they had nothing on radar
other than the 737.  Other witnesses are being contacted, as
someone took photos and video tape of the object.  The pilot
also told me that he noticed that many instruments fluctuated
when the craft rose by them.  Thanks to Chris Altman.

LAKE COUNTY -- David Shields and I just wanted to tell a short
story related to triangles.  This is a rural area, and in the
early 1970s, my brother and several of his friends and many
residents observed a huge black triangle over this area for
about four days.  They described this black craft as being
about 100 feet across with lights on the three corners.  My
brother and his friends said it just seemed to silently float
along at 40 mph just above the trees.  They often fly on
moonless nights.  Just thought that you might be interested in
the triangles not being a new thing, but maybe a return.
Thanks to  David Shields

CANADA FIREBALLS

MONTREAL -- B. J. Callaghan a skeptic writes I was sitting in
my living room watching TV on October 13, 2000, between 6:00
and 7:00 PM.  Four different times, about 15 minutes apart a
large white ball streaked across our picture window and sky.
My window is quite large, taking up the entire wall.  The
fireballs were about the size of a basketball, bright white and
moved extremely fast, crossing my window in a second.  This
happened four times in an hour and may have been meteors .
Thanks to B J Callaghan bjcallaghan@hotmail.com

F-15 AIRCRAFT UFO ENCOUNTER

Nick Balaskas writes, "My friend Michael DeRobertis and the
F-15 pilot who had the experience with a UFO don't have any
good explanations for this strange encounter.  Michael allowed
me to share this UFO incident with you.  Michael writes, "The
wingman was flying an F-15 single-seat fighter on a mockup
aerial combat mission of two planes."  His leader was flying a
two-seater F-15.  They were entering downwind for landing at
about noontime, and he was following his leader about a mile
back at 2500 feet at 250 knots.  It was a sunny day, no clouds,
and visibility unlimited.  When he was looking at his leader,
he saw a bright yellow spot on the ground or near the ground.
The light then started to rise, apparently toward the leader.
Before he had a chance to warn him, he realized it was moving
towards him.  When it got close, it passed from the front
window to the side left window, and passed a few hundred meters
away (very close in aviation terms).

It then continued to "fly continuously in the opposite
direction while climbing.  The object was round, with bright
yellow circle of lights on top.  Its surface was metal-like,
with silver-platinum color.  It left no trails or fumes behind.
He estimated that it was doing some 300 knots when it passed
him.  The whole thing lasted 15 to 20 seconds. It did not look
like any known aircraft or a missile.  He was so stunned, that
he did nothing.  As a trained and veteran fighter pilot, he
admits that he should have retracted his gear, gone to
afterburners, and chased the son-of-a-bitch!  But he admits
that he was shocked to his bones.  When he reached debriefings,
he talked to his leader.  The guy saw nothing -- he was already
preparing for landing and watched the runway on his right.
However, the back-seat guy DID see something, but only that
some yellow lights passed them on the left and below.  The next
thing he did, was to call his friend from the Air Force, and
ask him if he has any explanation.  The reply was, "We don't
have budget for those things but I don't believe it was any
secret aircraft.   He says that he cannot explain what he saw.
Thanks to  Michael De Robertis, mmdr@trentu.ca and Nick
Balaskas nikolaos@yorku.ca

UNITED KINGDOM 'UFO SPOTTED WITHIN FEET OF A JET

NEWCASTLE -- Gerry @ Far Shores reports investigators remain
baffled after more sightings emerged today of an unidentified
flying object over Wearside on October 31, 2000.  The five-foot
pear-shaped piece of silver metal was first spotted hurtling
towards the ground by Jenny Cook in Hendon on Tuesday morning.
Police launched an inquiry following the report by the
18-year-old Sunderland University student but, despite a ground
search of the area, failed to find any trace of the object.
The Echo has now learnt that officials at Newcastle Airport
were alerted after a similar sighting three hours later above
Penshaw.  Ron Atwill spotted a mysterious five-foot long gray
object narrowly miss a passenger jet as it made its descent
towards Newcastle Airport.  Mr. Atwill, a retired prison
service worker, saw the object at 11:45 AM.  He said, "I was
looking up as a passenger jet was flying quite low in the
distance and I saw this thing almost hit it.  I rang the
airport to see if they might have spotted it.  It was about 20
feet away from the plane.  It was a silvery gray and very flat,
pear shaped and about four to five feet long.  Detective
Inspector John Watts, of Sunderland City Center Police, said:
"We had a report of a strange object in the skies about the
size of a small car.  Thanks to Gerry at farshores@inorbit.com

CATTLE MUTILATIONS

Jack Petersen writes, "I am in the middle of going over the one
and only UFO cattle mutilation movie ever made called
"ENDANGERED SPECIES"  In it I find almost every single aspect
you mentioned in last weeks Filer's Files #44 dated 11/7/00.
This amazing movie starring JoBeth Williams and Robert Urich
was produced way back in 1982.  You should go rent it at the
local video store if it hasn't been removed by some agency to
cover-up the truth long ago.  I read a small film magazine
report at that time making a short comment on how the
government was highly angered about the content of this film.
They finally had it removed from general circulation at the
time.  I was lucky to find it several years ago.  Thanks to
Jack Peterson jrb99@hotbot.com

Richard Buchli writes, "If the abductions are real, and they
are really growing the babies in artificial media, is it not
possible that all of this missing blood is in some way being
used as part of the nutrients in the supporting fluids?"  What
do you think of that idea?  Thanks to Richard Buchli D.V.M.
Ph.D. of Dori Presentations, LTD. docrib@kc.rr.com

Harv Howard writes, Last week you had two very revealing areas
of real news!  I would suggest that the findings of the
meteoric specimens is vastly important to giving us some
insight into the manner of power for the craft.  Perhaps they
are dislodged as a "door" opens to allow the animal to be
off-loaded.  That opening, whether a genuine hatch-type door or
some miraculous opening in the solid side/bottom of the ship,
then cause the collected space dust to be dislodged and fall to
the ground directly underneath the craft.  However, I think
there is a better explanation.  I've long been a proponent of a
null-mass drive for UFOs rather than the more commonly cited
"antigravity" drive.  A craft generating a null-mass field for
itself would not repel space dust that came within its vicinity
as it travels.  While not attracted to the mass of the vehicle,
perhaps there is still a magnetic attraction (simple static
electricity perhaps) between ship and particle.  Such a ship
coming down to hover near the ground may have this attraction
charge overcome or neutralized by the close proximity to the
Earth's surface.  And/or if it were to depart at a sudden high
velocity, it would probably "shake loose" some of this loosely
bound material.  Thanks to Harv Howard  hhoward@ecpi.com

Editors Note: One of the field workers who helped collect the
hemoglobin evidence in the cattle mutilation case was Royce
Myers.  I inadvertently left out his name.  Again I want to
thank Nancy Talbot, William C. Levengood, Phyllis Budinger,
Jean Bilodeaux for their ground breaking research.



BLACK BOXES AND REVERSE ENGINEERED CRAFT /SAUCERS ?

AREA 51/Watertown Saucer: Robert Collins writes..It has been
reported over the last several years that in Reverse
Engineering these reportedly recovered Saucers the Air Force
and others were required to design our own control systems
around the "Alien" technology because it was said that the
"Alien" control systems were so far advanced that we had no
hope of understanding them if we were to get a working device
within a reasonable amount of time. Well, whats reasonable ?
Fifty years ?  See,
http://home.earthlink.net/~rcollins634/reports/reverse_eng_warp
drives.htm

"TIEN" OUR SIAMESE CAT

This weeks Filer's Files are dedicated to "Tien" our Siamese
cat who passed away in his sleep a few hours ago.  He was a
friendly cat who lived with us for 14 years.  He was a talker
and constantly meowed or talked to us.  He frequently sat on my
lap as I typed these files, so my life is a lonelier because I
lost a friend.  I assume he has gone to kitty heaven and
perhaps we will meet again.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage.  Jeff has noticed
that when NASA is picking up UFOs they have tendency to first
zoom in to observe the UFO better and then they cut the feed to
the outside world.  Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the
shuttle broadcasts from space.  He is now an expert on NASA
missions and even those onboard the shuttle are unlikely to see
what Jeff does.  He has gained his experience from watching
numerous shuttle missions and using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice
crystals and real UFOs.  Using his experience you can also
learn the difference.  One segment has 24 UFOs watching the
shuttle from space.  I feel confident we could go into a court
of law and convince any jury that there are UFOs moving at high
speed around the Earth.  Send $25 to: Jeff Challender 2768
Mendel Way - Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same?  Some real estate
agents or sales representatives are part timers and
inexperienced.  Others are experts with an excellent experience
and capabilities.  When you are selling or buying your home,
you need to make sure you have the best real estate agent
working for you before you make any important financial
decisions on one your biggest investments!  Remember, the
majority of people do not know the right questions to ask, and
what pit falls can cause major problems.  Picking the right
real estate agent can be a wonderful experience, and picking
the wrong one can be a big mistake that can waste your time and
cost you thousands!  Find out, " What you need to understand
before hiring any real estate agent!" These are the questions
that many agents do not want you to ask.  Learn how you can
obtain the best real estate agent for your needs.  To get a
free copy of this report, just call (609) 654-0020 or e-mail us
at Majorstar@aol.com. We can also help you with your own or
corporate Worldwide Relocation to Australia, Benelux, Canada,
Cayman Islands, England, France, Guam, Hong Kong, Israel,
Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the US.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com.  Mention I
recommended you for membership.  Filer's Files is copyrighted
2000 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved.  Readers may post
items from the files on their Web Sites provided that they
credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date
of issue that the item appeared.  Caution: Most of these are
initial reports and require further investigation.  These
reports and comments are not necessarily the official MUFON
viewpoint.  Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com.  Sending
mail automatically grants permission for us to publish and use
your name.  Please state if you wish to keep your name,
address, or story confidential.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:51:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:01:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:00:16 -0000

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:51:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >David wrote:

 >>I'll bet your posts outnumber mine by a ratio of 10
 >>or 20 to 1. Of course, it's not hard to post a lot of trash
 >>when you don't have to put any thought into it.

 >This is just the sort of standard now set on UpDates by those
 >committed to a belief they cannot prove or justify. When faced
 >with reasonable debate and suggestions, backed up by case
 >studies and research, all people like David Rudiak can do is the
 >above.

All talk aside. The entire issue falls upon 'interpretation of
evidence.' Skeptics interpret _all_ evidence to be either hoax,
weather balloon, venus, ball lightning, stars, mis
identification of natural phenomna and so on. Skeptics also
operate under the theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."
Gulliable believers interpret _every_ aircraft landing light to
be an alien space ship.

 >Sad but true.

 >If David goes over my previous posts he will find I have said
 >nothing outrageous or unreasonable. Simply that:

 >* UFO cases follow a UFO to IFO pattern

Not correct. Many UFO cases do follow a UFO to IFO pattern after
investigation, but some still remain unknown in spite of Air
Force and or people trying to hang every explaination they can
possibly think of from weather balloons, venus, and so on.

So the correct statement should be: While many UFO cases follow
a pattern from UFO to IFO, some do not.

 >* Many 'good' unresolved cases which have lasted for years have
 > eventually become IFOs also

Which so called 'good unresolved cases" that eventually become
IFOs? I suspect that if you listed every case you are thinking
of, you would find some would maintain some of the cases were
being skewed to fit a skeptical explaination.

 >* Therefore it is reasonable to suggest - to predict even - that
 > that pattern will continue

The correct statement should be "It is reasonable to suggest -
to predict even - that the pattern will continue, except for
those cases that remain unknown.

 >It's not a hanging matter, nor indeed a capital crime.

 >Despite all David's blathering he can offer nothing in response
 >save to say that one day this may not be the case.

 >I agree. It may not. But, to date, the above is a demonstrable
 >fact.

Not a demonstration of fact at all. Just an opinion.

 >If David chooses to term this: 'a lot of trash', then that can
 >only be a reflection of his refusal to accept what has been the
 >case for the past fifty three years and which shows no signs of
 >changing. In fact quite the reverse because we have fewer 'good'
 >cases these days (at least in the UK and I suspect in the USA)
 >and the 'good' which once involved traces, photos, multiple
 >witnesses etc have been replaced with the woolly area of
 >'abductions'.

'Abductions' appear to have become the center of the universe
for many people. They are the hot topic of the moment. I have
long suspected that a good many cases are neglected or ignored
because they are not abduction cases.

 >>There is also considerable _evidence_ to support
 >>that UFOs are real artificial craft not of human origin.
 >>There are numerous close-up sightings by credible witnesses
 >>including mass sightings, consistency in described UFO
 >>properties, movies,

 >No, no David. What you are saying there is not evidence of what
 >you are claiming. It's just evidence people are seeing
 >'something'. But there is no evidence what is seen are: 'real

Let's see. The Hubbell space telescope took photographs of
pockets of older matter. The space telescope did not tell us it
was older matter, but the scientists who interpreted the photo
told us it was older matter. Did the scientists get an actual
sample of this older matter to verify its age? Heavens no. So
none of us on planet earth can touch, feel, or even have some
respectable scientists examine an actual sample of this matter,
so other then a photograph that was interpreted for us, we have
no other physical evidence that this material is what it is
claimed to be.

In the mean time science, based upon these photos have now told
us the universe is 14 million years old. Using the skeptical
logic, few people have ever actually physically handled or
examined a moon rock. Other then people telling us what they
saw, photographed, and or what NASA came up with and released, I
can't actually physically touch and feel a rock that I know for
a fact came from the moon. So the skeptics would tell us, all we
have evidence of is that people handled rocks, but we don't know
for a fact, nor can we conclusively prove that they came from
the moon. For all the skeptics know, the moon is made of cheese
and the earth is flat. By the way their are people who believe
the earth is flat, that all evidence points to the earth being
flat, and any evidence that suggests other wise is some kind of
hoax and or misidentification.

 >artificial craft not of human origin'. I think that's your, ah,
 >'religion' calling you to prayer there, old boy. As I've said
 >before misperception and its dark shadow, radical
 >misperception, plays a far, far larger role in the subject of
 >UFOs. Not just visually but on many levels. We are finding -
 >certainly in the UK - that when many of the old 'classic' cases
 >are revisited the original investigation is found to be
 >lacking, ufologists have

Who is to say that when they were "revisited" that the cases
wern't polluted even more?

 >repeated the mistakes in the literature and a case is conjured
 >out of 'evidence' which simply didn't exist. There are one or
 >two such textual howlers in some of the cases in Jerry's
 >encyclopaedia, for instance. Even the great are not above
 >duplicating others errors!

 >Now, obviously you aren't going to accept any of this. But from
 >my experience in the subject, and of many people I know in the
 >subject, that appears to be the case. And each time a 'classic'
 >case is resolved it only strengthens my view.

Phil Klass essentially claims that _all_ cases are resolved,
whether classic or otherwise. Point being is that being
"resolved" depends on the interpretation of evidence. If you are
a skeptic of the "it can't be so therefor it isn't" everything
is explainable. If you are a gulliable believer... well you know
the rest.

 >Obviously we can only base our viewpoints on our experience as
 >ufologists/researchers/investigators. I base mine on 18 years of
 >fairly intensive R & I. Obviously you base your view on your
 >experience which, I'm sure, is just as extensive as mine. But
 >you obviously have the added element of wishful thinking which
 >helps you see 'evidence' and or 'proof' in cases which is just
 >not there.

Essentially after 18 years you have come to the conclusion that
all UFOs are really IFOs in waiting. On the other hand, many people
after investigating for say similar amounts of time have come to
other conclusions.

 >If you wish to continue adding to the mystification of the
 >subject instead of getting out there and solving cases then good
 >luck to you. As I've said to Jerry, when you come up with the
 >real article, which in your case is, 'real artificial craft not
 >of human origin', then if you can stand my company I'll gladly
 >fly over, dry my wings, spit the fish out of my bill, and buy
 >you a case of whatever gets you off.

The question boils down to what will _you_ accept as being real?
Do you have to touch and feel it your self? Modern science is
asking people to accept as being real that the universe is 14
billion years old. Neither you or scientists can touch or feel
the matter they claim is that old, yet people including
scientists accept it as fact, never to be doubted.

Modern, main stream science has told us that all dino bones are
fossilized because of the 65 million years between us and them,
earth changes, ice ages and so on, yet last summer a _partially_
fossilized T-Rex bone was found

 >Until that day just watch those cases go from UFO to IFO! The
skeptics operate under the same principle as the gulliable
believers. The skeptics say all cases go from UFO to IFO, and
the gulliable believers say every aircraft landing light is an
ET space ship. Not much difference.

Cheers,

Robert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                  Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:17:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:36:07 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online - Myers


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO 2000 Coming To ABC Online
 >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:19:33 -0800

 >'UFO 2000' Coming To ABC Online

 >ABC's Chris Wallace to explore UFO issue

 >ABC newsman Chris Wallace will be taking a look at the UFO
 >phenomena sometime in  November via his online forum 'Chris
 >Wallace's Internet Expose'. The website:

 >http://www.internetexpose.com

 >lists the following description of the program entitled "UFO
 >2000, The Search Continues":

 >"Coming in November: Chris gets to the bottom of the UFO
 >phenomenon and investigates the COMETA Report, a document about
 >UFOs recently released by top military and government officials
 >in France. What he discovers may surprise you."

 >Rumors persist the program will air convincing footage of a UFO
 >taken over New York. Internet Expose's Senior Technical Producer
 >Erik Olsen tells 'eXpose' that he is unable to comment on the
 >footage. Olsen did however state that the program interviewed
 >"Nick Pope, Michael Shermer and Michio Kaku, all respected
 >individuals in their fields of research."

 >The program was slated for webcast on November 13th, but Olsen
 >stated the program would be delayed for a week "due to
 >unforeseen circumstances."


Just found out that the show will be webcast on 20 November.

Regards

Royce J. Myers III

eXpose News http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
UFO Hall o' Shame http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it yet again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                           'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:11:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:21:09 -0500
Subject: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze


No, I'm not talking about Clinton. And don't confuse this with
'Dubya'.

We have heard the 'Bubba' has now appeared in Phoenix. What/who
was Bubba? You can 'bone up' on Bubba at brumac.8k.com

I have just added to my web site "Red BUBBA in Gulf Breeze."
Here you can learn to distinguish Bubba from other UFOs and even
from other "Presidential Candidates" .

These were sightings that became famous worldwide during the
time period Nov 1990 through July 1992. 'Bubba' appeared live on
the radio and was videotaped for TV several times. 'Bubba' is
the only UFO ever to be photographed with a diffraction grating
that produced a valid spectrum. Bubba's spectrum was NOT that of
a red flare (also spectrally analyzed).

My own sighting of a ring of lights is in the collection. See
color photos and newspaper reports along with the triangulations
and other analyses.

(You can also read about the Jan 8, 1990 multiple witness
sighting with photos and the Sept 1992 Magnetic Field UFO case)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:12:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:25:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:51:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:57:30 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:04:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts>

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:21:44 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Your repeated proclamations that these large numbers of unknowns
 >would inevitably become knowns with sufficient investigation is
 >merely a statement of your religious beliefs. The results of the
 >Battelle study did not support your pelicanist religion. The
 >best cases with more data yielded the most unknowns, and the
 >worst cases with the least data had the most knowns, exactly the
 >opposite of what your religion would predict.>

 >>My point about UFO cases and UFO photos is that there is _no_
 >>proof or evidence of 'alien craft' (as per Stanton, Macabbee and
 >>Clark's witterings), therefore, based on what we know so far all
 >>UFO cases/photos will be resolved into IFOs of mudane origin.

 >Your _real_ point is to blur the distinction between "proof" and
 >"evidence." Do you know the difference? Either you are
 >incredibly dense or simply being disengenuous with this
 >persistent, banal debunking tact of yours.

 >Seldom is there "proof" or unambiguous evidence of anything,
 >even in the sciences. There is no "proof" of black holes or
 >neutron stars or quarks or the big bang. However there is a body
 >of _evidence_ to support these abstract intellectual constructs.

 >There is also considerable _evidence_ to support that UFOs are
 >real artificial craft not of human origin. There are numerous
 >close-up sightings by credible witnesses including mass
 >sighitngs, consistency in described UFO properties, movies,
 >videos, pictures, radar trackings and radar/visual cases (e.g.
 >Belgium 1989,Washington D.C. 1952, RB-47, 1957) , landing traces
 >(e.g. Socorro), physiological effects (e.g. Cash-Landrum,
 >Michalak), electromagnetic interference cases (e.g. Levelland,
 >1957), military documents, intelligence documents, etc.

 >>When you find one which *is* resolved and of which the outcome
 >>is not some form of terresttrial, astronomical or meterological
 >>phenomena, please let us know.

 >Please define "resolved" for us so we know when something has
 >been truly "resolved." To you, apparently, something is
 >"resolved" if you can tag it with any conventional
 >"explanation", proven or unproven, what Bruce Maccabee calls
 >"the failure of skepticism."

 >Which "explanation" clearly "resolves" the Kenneth Arnold
 >sighting? Is it Menzel's windshield water droplets, mirages, or
 >snow blown off of mountain crests? He proposed them all. Or is
 >it Klass' meteors or Easton's pelicans? All have been proposed
 >as "resolutions" for the sighting, yet all come up seriously
 >short.

 >The real fact of the matter is that no conventional explanation,
 >terrestrial, astromonical, meteorological, or any other (except
 >the assumption of outright fabrication by Arnold) "resolves" the
 >Arnold sighting.

 >In addition, Arnold's sighting had corroboration from other
 >high-caliber sightings from that period by other pilots and
 >military personnel. Based on these high-quality reports, Gen.
 >Schulgen's Air Intelligence Staff proclaimed the saucers to be
 >real craft only a month later and started defining their basic
 >flight characteristics and physical description. This was
 >reiterated by the Twining memo 3 months later. The saucers were
 >real, high-performance craft of unknown origin. The infamous
 >Project Sign "Estimate of the Situation" a year later stated
 >they were likely of extraterrestrial origin.>

 >We can argue forever whether these early military intelligence
 >estimates were based on unambiguous evidence or "proof" (e.g.
 >close-up detailed gun-camera photos, crashed saucers, alien
 >bodies, etc.) or based merely on lower evidentiary findings
 >(high-quality sightings, consistency of data, suggestive but
 >unprovable photos, etc.). But there is no question that the
 >early _evidence_ was strong enough to convince these people that
 >they were dealing with real anomalous, physical craft.

Bravo, Dave!

Let mE repeat a statement by Andy:

 >>My point about UFO cases and UFO photos is that there is _no_
 >>proof or evidence of 'alien craft' (as per Stanton, Macabbee and
 >>Clark's witterings), therefore, based on what we know so far all
 >>UFO cases/photos will be resolved into IFOs of mudane origin.

Too arrive that the conclusion that there is NO proof or evidence of
'alien craft' you would have to be able to demonstrate that
in the cases/sightings for which, after invesigation, there is no
conventional explanation, that thedescribed phenomenon could
_not_ be an unintelligent natural (or manmade) phenomenon.

Of course, the proposal that the phenomenon could be one of
these (unintelligent and natural or manmade) should already have
been considered in the chain of analysis/logic that led to the
conclusion that some sighting was unexplained. In other words,
all reasonable possibilities should have been considered by the
time one arrives at the True UFO (TRUFO) conclusion. A TRUFO
could be a presently unknown but natural and unintelligent (no
evidence of intelligence involved) phenomenon. But the most
interesting ones are the cases for which the "shadow of
intelligence" looms over the description of the
object/phenomenon. Kenneth Arnold's sighting is the first widely
reported of this type. His descriptions of the shape and speed,
if correct, argue against a natural phenomenon (birds, meteors)
and against manmade phenomena (planes) but nevertheless suggest
that the objects were products of intelligence. Hence Other
Intelligence (OI) from wherever, however they got here, etc.

To find out whether or not OI culd be inviolved, the first thing
Andy has to do is to decide for himself whether or not whether
or not there is ANY sighting that cannot be explained in a
conventional manner. He argues, however, that because most
sightings end up explained, that therefore ALL sightings will
eventually be explained in some conventional way and so there is
no sighting, even if unexplained right now (Nov,. 14, 2000),
that is "unexplained." Clearly Andy is clairvoyant.... he can
see the future of each sighting.. I am reminded of a comment by
Hynek in his 1952 paper presented to the American Optical
Society meeting. (I think that's where it is) Anyway, he alluded
to a free electron in a metal (I think), bouncing around,
undergoing a sort of Brownian motion , moving hither and yon,
until it is finally captured by an ion. In this case, the
explanation plays the role of the ion, and the UFO sighting is
the electron. Continuing the analogy, then, the real question
is, can the electron break free, or is it guaranteed to be
captured. The answer, of course, depends upon the electron
energy... some electrons DO break free.

Consider the New Zealand sightings of December 31, 1978, Plenty
of "hard" data there supported by witness testimony. Tape
recordings and film were made during the sightings. Numerous
explanations were offered at the time. As time went on the
explanations, one after another, "bit the dust." (Popular song
says "another one gone, another one bites the dust") However,
debunkers applying Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking have
proposed further explanations in the (vain?) hope similar to
this: if you sling enough old mouldy, rotten socks at the wall ,
one sock will stick.

For one of the sightings the last remaining "sock" explanation
was "squid boat" in spite of a _total_ lack of evidence for a
squid boat being involved and in spite of the fact that
comparison photos of a squid boat do not look like the images on
the film. So, after the asembled genius of mankind (as embodied
in PJK and some scientists in New Zealand) have struck out, what
is next?

Andy would say there must be at least one more dirty sock to
try. I say no.

Now, what about ET? Well, whatever this bright object was, it
shouldn't have been there (based on conventional thinking).
Furthermore, it appeared to take evasive action when the
airplane (which carried the witnesses) turned toward it. Sounds
like a "shadow of OI" to me.

And this isn't the most bizarre portion of the New Zealand sightings.
(If you want to see more check:

brumac.8k.com

and read "Applied Optics and the Case of the Flying Squid Boat"
Also, see the last part of the paper "Prosaic Explanations: the
Failure of UFO Skepticim" and try:

www.jse.com

and look under Online Articles for "Atmosphere or UFO", the
second half of which contains the description of other NZ
events.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                    Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:15:12 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:27:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2000 - Young


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:26:44 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #45 - 2000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Filer's Files #45 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
 >George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
 >November 13, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
 >C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

<snip>

 >There should be a brilliant display of Leonid meteor showers on
 >November 17, and 18th between local midnight and dawn.
 >There could be a modest outburst of Leonids this year with brief
 >flurries of shooting stars that should be seen over most parts
 >of the Earth.

Dear fellow List Skywatchers:

However, the last quarter Moon will rise on the 17th at about
10:45 local time and just after Midnight on the 18th, spoiling
much of the show. It should be possible, though, to observe some
nice Leonid meteors _before_ Moonrise, in the evening hours and
even up to maybe an hour or soafter Moonrise if one looks away
from the Moon, or you position yourself in the shadow of the
Moon or nearby streetlights. It is best to get away from city
lights into the country.

 >Three streams of the debris storm should pass
 >near our Moon. On November 17, around 0500 UT the Moon will
 >pass approximately four Earth-diameters from the center of a
 >dust trail left behind by comet Tempel-Tuttle in 1932," says
 >David Asher of the Armagh Observatory, an expert on Leonid
 >debris filaments. "The Moon will be considerably closer to the
 >trail than Earth," raising the possibility of vigorous Leonid
 >activity there. When Leonid meteoroids rain down on the
 >airless Moon, they won't cause "shooting stars" as they do on
 >our planet. There's no atmosphere on the Moon where cosmic
 >debris particles can incinerate as fiery streaks of light.
 >Lunar Leonids will simply hit the surface at 140,000 mph. Some
 >larger impacts may be seen from Earth with telescopes. Last
 >year surprised Moon-watchers captured video footage of at least
 >six exploding Leonid meteorites while the Moon passed through
 >comet Tempel-Tuttle debris stream. Various lights and what
 >appear to be UFOs traveling across the surface of the Moon are
 >more common than generally believed.

This year, nearly all of the projected lunar meteor strikes will
occur on the far side, out of view of us. The 3% or so on the
near, leading edge of the Moon, will be on its bright
illuminated side, therefore will probably be invisible to
telescopes on Earth. For information on this, please see the
following interesting site:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/alpo/lunarstuff/moonhits1.htm

<snip>

 >PENNSYLVANIA POLICE SEE UFO

 >SAXTON -- Bob Loughry reported watching the object on November
 >1, 2000, after dark for about twenty minutes. Bob reported
 >that the unusual object was watched by several neighbors using
 >binoculars, and also by Saxton Borough police officer and also
 >an officer from neighboring Liberty Township. "I went outside
 >on the front porch about 7:30 PM and saw a bright object in the
 >sky. I called several neighbors, and also "911" which is why
 >several police officers stopped to look. It was glowing white
 >and as viewed from the porch, about the size of a quarter to a
 >half dollar. "The object was probably. He was looking in the
 >direction of E. Eichelberger and Son store, and the object as
 >big as a car was hovering in the sky to the right of the store.
 >It was between 250 and 1,000 feet in the air. It gradually
 >descended and may have landed on Abbott's Ridge, for at that
 >point the lights went out. "Both police officers said they
 >didn't know what it was, except a UFO. Several Stonerstown
 >residents reported seeing a similar object on October 25, after
 >dark. It was more distant than the one seen Oct. 28, and they
 >said it made erratic maneuvers in the sky, the kind that a
 >conventional aircraft could not make. Thanks to Jon Baughman
 >btbull@nb.net Broad Top Bulletin, Saxton, Pa. 11/7/00.

If this wasn't Venus, at the same place on both nights, I'll eat
my hat.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:41:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:31:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:51:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hi Robert - you wrote:

 >All talk aside. The entire issue falls upon 'interpretation of
 >evidence.' Skeptics interpret _all_ evidence to be either hoax,
 >weather balloon, venus, ball lightning, stars, mis
 >identification of natural phenomna and so on. Skeptics also
 >operate under the theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."
 >Gulliable believers interpret _every_ aircraft landing light to
 >be an alien space ship.

Utter nonsense. But at least you've described me correctly as a
sceptic not a debunker.

There are many cases which I accept as being unexplained at this
moment in time - so where does your analysis above come from.

As I said, utter nonsense.

 >Not correct. Many UFO cases do follow a UFO to IFO pattern after
 >investigation, but some still remain unknown in spite of Air
 >Force and or people trying to hang every explaination they can
 >possibly think of from weather balloons, venus, and so on.
 >So the correct statement should be: While many UFO cases follow
 >a pattern from UFO to IFO, some do not.

Some do not - so far! Otherwise you are implying that some cases
are and will always remain UFOs - and we don't know that. On the
other hand we do know that by and large cases go from UFO to IFO
and that many 'good' cases, even though they withstand the
rigours or years and even, gulp, Air Force analysis, are also
eventually resolved.

 >Which so called 'good unresolved cases" that eventually become
 >IFOs? I suspect that if you listed every case you are thinking
 >of, you would find some would maintain some of the cases were
 >being skewed to fit a skeptical explaination.

Plenty in the UK. For an overview I suggest (in true Jerry and
Brucie stylee) that you read the last book I wrote with Jenny
Randles & Dr David Clarke.

 >The correct statement should be "It is reasonable to suggest -
 >to predict even - that the pattern will continue, except for
 >those cases that remain unknown.

But you don't _know_ that these cases will remain unknown and
the pattern suggest they may well not do.

 >Not a demonstration of fact at all. Just an opinion.

No, it's a demontstable fact that the pattern exists so far.
It's an opinion that it will continue to do so.

 >'Abductions' appear to have become the center of the universe
 >for many people. They are the hot topic of the moment. I have
 >long suspected that a good many cases are neglected or ignored
 >because they are not abduction cases.

We agree!

 >Who is to say that when they were "revisited" that the cases
 >wern't polluted even more?

It's possible. But I think I or any sceptical investigator would
be happy to have our work gone over by others.

For instance in the UK Nick Redfern was once a staunch supporter
and proponent of the alleged Berwyn Mountain UFO Crash (see A
Covert Agenda & Cosmic Crashes). Nick, having seen work I and
others have done on the case, now accepts it is largely
resolved.

If complete records, tapes of interviews etc etc are kept there
is no reason for any reinvestigation to 'pollute' the case as
the 'facts' can all be checked.

 >Phil Klass essentially claims that _all_ cases are resolved,
 >whether classic or otherwise. Point being is that being
 >"resolved" depends on the interpretation of evidence. If you are
 >a skeptic of the "it can't be so therefor it isn't" everything
 >is explainable. If you are a gulliable believer... well you know
 >the rest.

But that Phil Klass's problem. I agree that Klass is a debunker
and has jumped too readily to conclusions, conclusions he's
already formed. The problem on this list is that a great many
people - some who should know better - can't see the difference
between good, sceptical investigations and debunking. They are
two diffreent things and on this list it seems that the moment
scepticism is expressed the word debunker is carried out of
Jerry Clark's ET temple on a silver salver and waved around as
if it meant anything to us.

It doesn't.

Give me pelicanist any time.

 >Essentially after 18 years you have come to the conclusion that
 >all UFOs are really IFOs in waiting. On the other hand, many people
 >after investigating for say similar amounts of time have come to
 >other conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that based on what I have seen and
read and they way cases tend to go from UFo to IFO, that that is
a very real possibility. Others have concluded differently. But
unfortunately they cannpt actually prove their conclusions.>

 >The question boils down to what will _you_ accept as being real?
 >Do you have to touch and feel it your self? Modern science is
 >asking people to accept as being real that the universe is 14
 >billion years old. Neither you or scientists can touch or feel
 >the matter they claim is that old, yet people including
 >scientists accept it as fact, never to be doubted.

Well, seeing as there has been a tendency on this List for
people to refer to physical 'craft' I think the proof of the
pudding is in just that - something tangible. If people are
claiming the bizarre is taking place then the onus is on _them_
to prove it I'm afraid. Merely stating that 'they' exist is not
proof I'm afraid.

 >The
 >skeptics operate under the same principle as the gulliable
 >believers. The skeptics say all cases go from UFO to IFO, and
 >the gulliable believers say every aircraft landing light is an
 >ET space ship. Not much difference.

But Robert the sceptics _don't_ say that. They say what I have
been writing for weeks now in a number of ways, which is that so
far the majority of cases, including many 'difficult' or
'classic' ones have gone that way and that it is reasonable to
suggest this pattern will continue.

The sceptics can prove that this takes place. The 'believers' -
for want of a better word cannot prove their case. Lest you
think that I'm set in concrete about these matters I can assure
you I'm not and if any case yielded something exotic or possibly
'alien' in nature etc etc I would be as happy about that as I am
about the cases which are resolved to IFO status.

Thanks for the reasonable message Robert - it makes a change on
this List to debate with someone without them telling me who
they know, how long they've known them or why only they can
understand them!

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                          Secrecy News -- 11/14/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:06:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:33:49 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/14/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 14, 2000

**NRO COMMISSION CALLS FOR MORE SECRECY
**CHILE DOCUMENTS DECLASSIFIED
**HOUSE APPROVES REVISED INTELLIGENCE BILL


NRO COMMISSION CALLS FOR MORE SECRECY

A new Report of a congressionally-chartered "National Commission
for the Review of the National Reconnaissance Office" complains
that the growing openness of the post-cold war period has
undermined U.S. intelligence capabilities and that stricter
secrecy is now needed.  The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
is the intelligence agency within the Defense Department that
develops, acquires, and operates the nation's spy satellites.

Among various other recommendations intended to revitalize the
organization, the Commission calls for establishment of a new
Office of Space Reconnaissance that would operate within the
kind of tightly compartmented security environment that
characterized the NRO's earliest days.

The new proposed Office "would be under the direction of the NRO
Director, but would operate in secure facilities separated from
NRO activities. It would create and defend a separate budget
element within the National Foreign Intelligence Program and
have its own security compartment.... It would respond, through
a special Executive Committee, to direction from the President,
the Secretary of Defense and the DCI.  The new Office would
attack the most difficult intelligence problems by providing
advanced technology that will lead to frequent, assured, global
access to protect U.S. national security interests."

In short, it would be a sort of NRO within the NRO.

The Commission blames the openness that has ensued since the
"fact of" NRO's existence was officially acknowledged in 1992
for some of the NRO's current shortcomings:

"Widespread knowledge of the NRO's existence and public
speculation on how NRO satellites are used has aided terrorists
and other potential adversaries in developing techniques of
denial and deception to thwart U.S. intelligence efforts," the
new Report states without evidence or elaboration.

"This is basically an assertion that the 'fact of'
acknowledgment was a mistake-- which is breathtaking," said John
Pike of the Federation of American Scientists.  Pike noted that
one of the most important post-cold war failures of U.S.
intelligence was the failure to correctly assess the status of
the Iraqi nuclear weapons program-- which resulted from Iraqi
denial and deception efforts during the 1980s, well before the
NRO was officially acknowledged.

The NRO Commission was chaired by House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Porter Goss and by retiring Senator Robert Kerrey.  The
Commission's report, published today, is posted here:

http://www.nrocommission.com/


CHILE DOCUMENTS DECLASSIFIED

In the culmination of one of the most successful
declassification campaigns in recent memory, the Clinton
Administration yesterday released over 16,000 documents on U.S.
relations with Chile during 1968-1991.

"One goal of the project is to put original documents before the
public so that it may judge for itself the extent to which U.S.
actions undercut the cause of democracy and human rights in
Chile," the White House said in a statement. "Actions approved
by the U.S. government during this period aggravated political
polarization and affected Chile's long tradition of democratic
elections and respect for the constitutional order and the rule
of law."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh111300.html

Peter Kornbluh, a Chile expert at the National Security Archive,
the public interest research center that led the campaign to
declassify the Chile documents, called the release a "victory
for openness over the impunity of secrecy."  A selection of key
documents was prepared by the National Security Archive and
posted here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/


HOUSE APPROVES REVISED INTELLIGENCE BILL

The House of Representatives yesterday approved a revised
intelligence authorization bill, after removing the provision to
criminalize unauthorized disclosures of classified information
which had led President Clinton to veto the original bill.

The new bill, H.R. 5630, "is identical to the version of H.R.
4392 that passed the House and the Senate on October 12 of this
year with one major exception," said Intelligence Committee
chairman Rep. Porter Goss.  "The language, formerly section 304,
prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information has been removed in its entirety.  All the other
provisions remain the same."

See yesterday's action on the House floor here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_cr/h111300.html

Although Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby
has not publicly declared his own intentions with respect to the
vetoed leak statute, the swift House action yesterday makes it
more likely that Congress will defer any further consideration
of the issue until next year.

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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:31:42 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:35:59 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Bourdais


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:01:43 +0100

 >>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:29:53 -0500

 >>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@nyc.rr.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:34:22 - 0500

 >Please, excuse my English.

 >After reading the comments of Greg Sandow about "madcap Martin
 >Kottmeyer" several things are clear.

 >Mr. Sandow downplays the works of Kottmeyer. Not only has Martin
 >provided precedents for all and every one of the abduction
 >elements, but he also has tackled with some of the most
 >important themes of the abduction myth, like the Big Head motif,
 >showing its origin, not only in pulp science fiction, but also
 >in discarded theories of evolution. Besides, if Mr. Sandow is so
 >worried about all this being only in Kottmeyer's mind, he should
 >really look at Ms. Michael Meurger's work to understand how many
 >cultural threads (not just old SF pulps) converge in the modern
 >abduction narratives


For your information, Mr (not Ms) Michel Meurger is one of our
well known skeptics in Franc , of the most radical
psycho-sociologist kind. Which means that, for him, all UFO
"tales" (not only abductions) are myth.

I don't think there is anything scientific in that shape of
mind.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         UFO Researchers In Montana?

From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:37:45 -0500
Subject: UFO Researchers In Montana?


[Non-subscriber Post]

Would someone refer me to a UFO researcher in Montana who is
on-line?

Thanks,

Ken Kelly









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                     Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:43:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:40:13 -0500
Subject: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?


Source: BBC News,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1022000/1022712.stm

Stig

_____________________________________

Tuesday, 14 November, 2000, 09:32 GMT

First contact for UFO mecca?

The Roswell Incident made the area infamous

**

Scotland's UFO hot-spot could be set to make contact - with a
city known across the world as a mecca for alien enthusiasts.

A local councillor wants to twin Bonnybridge with Roswell, the
US city which has been synonymous with other-worldly encounters
for more than 50 years.

The area sealed its place in folklore when it was claimed that a
spaceship had landed in New Mexico in 1947.

It was said that an alien was taken to a secret military base,
where an autopsy was carried out and captured on film.

We in Bonnybridge have an affinity with Roswell, and the common
denominator is UFOs


Councillor Billy Buchanan


However, the Scottish town of Bonnybridge could have usurped its
crown, having been dubbed the UFO capital of the world by some
enthusiasts.

Dozens of unexplained sightings have been recorded in the area,
which attracts visitors from across the globe.

Councillor Billy Buchanan is holding a public meeting which
could pave the way for a twinning arrangement between them.

He believes the link would be a progressive step for the
regeneration of the area.


Intense media


"We in Bonnybridge have an affinity with Roswell, and the common
denominator is UFOs," he said.

"Obviously that has been the mecca because of the intense media
at that time in 1947.

"But it is not as active as Bonnybridge. It is the UFO hot-spot
of the world because of the ongoing sightings in the area.

"Bonnybridge has had more sightings than anywhere else in the
world."

He said experts from across the world had touched down in the
area to examine the phenomena, but no-one could say why the area
had so many sightings.


Full support


He hoped the general public would turn out for Tuesday night's
meeting to discuss the proposed link.

"The cultural, tourist, social and economic advantages would be
tremendous for the area and I think I will get full support for
this," he said.

He also said that an Anglo-American company was planning to
visit the area to present plans for a �20m theme park.

"We have got to move forward. There has been a lot of discussion
lately about the tourism situation in Scotland and how it is
diminishing with the established tourist sights that we have.

"We have got to move forward and regenerate and I think this
could be the way forward for a theme scenario in the central
belt of Scotland," he said.

**

Copyright BBC







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                      TMP News: Wekly Briefing 11.14.00

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:09:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:45:46 -0500
Subject: TMP News: Wekly Briefing 11.14.00

TMP NEWS
The E-News Service of The Millennium Project

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

November 14, 2000

_____________________________


TMP News is the e-news service of The Millennium Project,
providing a Weekly Briefing summary of the latest news and
reports relating to the most phenomenal, enigmatic and
controversial issues of our time in science, technology and
global change and their present and future implications as we
enter the 21st century and a new millennium, as well as other
periodic information and updates on TMP- related projects and
events. TMP News is available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING
11.14.00


* 'UFO2000' Coming to ABC Online
* Mars May Still Rumble
* The Cydonian Imperative: The "Cliff" - Predictions for Future
   High-Resolution Images
* Hubble Observes Fast-Moving Neutron Star
* Whatever it Is, it May Hit the Earth in 2030
* 'Make or Break' Talks on Climate Change
* Scientists Discover 'Second Brain' in the Stomach
* Large Light-Emitting Squid Found



'UFO2000' COMING TO ABC ONLINE

"Coming in November: Chris Wallace gets to the bottom of the UFO
phenomenon and investigates the COMETA Report, a document about
UFOs recently released by top military and government officials
in France. What he discovers may surprise 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:47:30 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


 >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:47:53 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Fish reconstruction could
 >be applied to a large number of configuations in our galaxy
 >alone. With hundreds of billions of stars, finding some purely
 >spurious matches seems just about inevitable.

 >Carl Sagan argued this point on his "Cosmos" program. And while
 >I usually don't agree with his generalizations about UFOs, I
 >thought I had a particularly good point in this case.

<snip>

Hi Mac.

In Chapter 8 of John G. Fuller's book 'The Interrupted Journey:
Two Lost Hours "Aboard a Flying Saucer"' Betty Hill describes
the now famous star map that was shown to her by the alien
"leader" while aboard the UFO. I would agree with you and Carl
Sagan if Betty didn't say the following to Dr. Simon:

   So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
   port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
   laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
   know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
   where I am from."

Since the star map that Betty later reproduced under hypnosis
had only a few stars, many of which were connected by lines
(heavy lines were trade routes, solid lines were places the
aliens went to occasionally and broken lines were expeditions),
it is only reasonable to assume that it was a map of our
immediate stellar neighbourhood and that it also included our
own Sun (after all, the aliens were here) as well as their own
home star(s). If this assumption is correct, then only one match
is possible - the one school teacher Marjorie Fish discovered
with her 3-D models.

If it can be shown that under certain unusual circumstances like
Betty's, a witness under hypnosis could indeed accurately recall
and reproduce something like Betty's simple star map with its
few different lines, then we may have not only legal proof of
alien visitation but we would also have information on where
these aliens came from.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                           Richard Hoagland - 1965

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:53:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:53:44 -0500
Subject: Richard Hoagland - 1965




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca

Source: Springfield Journal
         Volume 26, No. 3, August 10 2000
         Springfield, Massachusets

http://www.springfieldjournal.com/archives/8-10-2000/celestialwanderings.html

Celestial Wanderings

Springfield's Link to the Red Planet
By RICHARD SANDERSON


35 years ago this summer, as our military was embroiled in the Viet
Nam War and Beatle-mania was sweeping the nation, an exciting
drama was unfolding in deep space. The unmanned spacecraft
Mariner 4 was sailing toward history's first close-up look at the
mysterious planet Mars, and Springfield residents had a front-row
seat for this cosmic adventure.

Since the 1890s, people have been tantalized by the possibility of life
on Mars. The fascination began when a wealthy businessman from
Massachusetts, Percival Lowell, began observing this distant world
from his large observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Lowell glimpsed
what appeared to be straight lines criss-crossing the Martian surface
and identified them as canals built by intelligent beings to save their
drought-stricken world.

Lowell's theories were disputed by many astronomers, but his ideas
captured the imaginations of science fiction writers like H.G. Wells,
Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Ray Bradbury. The concept of life on
Mars became ingrained in our culture and by 1965, the canal mystery
still had not been solved.

Mars is only about half the diameter of our own planet, and from
Earth-bound telescopes it appears as a tiny orb with ghostly
markings on its surface. Mariners 3 and 4 were launched in
November of 1964 to unravel some of Mars's mysteries at close
range.

Before Mariners 3 and 4 even left the launch-pad, a popular
planetarium lecturer at the Springfield Science Museum, 19-year-old
Richard Hoagland, had embarked on an ambitious project called
"Mars: Infinity to 1965." Hoagland outfitted a large room in the
museum with 200 seats surrounded by space murals, pictures of
Mars, projection screens, closed circuit TV equipment, a status
board, and an exhibit about extraterrestrial life. A ceiling model of the
solar system was designed to show the relative positions of the Earth,
Mars, and the two Mariners during their 7 1/2-month trip to Mars.

The Springfield Science Museum was the only museum in the country
to undertake such extensive coverage of the historic Mars missions.
Several celebrities visited the museum to speak about the flights,
including Dr. J. Allen Hynek, whose book inspired the movie "Close
Encounters of the Third Kind," and Dr. Edwin Land, developer of
the Polaroid camera.

A couple weeks before the Science Museum's dedication of "Mars:
Infinity to 1965" on November 21, 1964, disaster struck. Mariner 3
had blasted off from Cape Kennedy as planned, but a serious
problem developed an hour into the flight. The spacecraft's solar
panels were not generating any power, and NASA scientists
eventually determined that a shroud which protected the spacecraft
during liftoff had failed to pop off in space. Starved for power,
Mariner 3 died less than nine hours after its mission began and
entered into an eternal orbit around the Sun. Everyone's attention
now focused on the remaining spacecraft, which would be launched a
week after the museum's dedication event.

Mariner 4 lifted off flawlessly on November 28, 1964, and
excitement built as the lone spacecraft sailed toward the Red Planet.
On the evening of July 14, 1965, it sped past Mars at an altitude of
6,188 miles. Its automated television camera snapped 22 pictures,
one every 48 seconds. Each picture was broken into tiny dots and
converted into a numerical code for storage on computer tape within
the spacecraft.

Mariner required ten days to radio the 22 pictures back to Earth,
along with data about Mars's atmosphere, radiation belts, and
magnetic field. A series of radio telescopes called the Deep Space
Network received the weak signals and relayed them to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in California, where scientists reconstructed
them into photographs.

Richard Hoagland's Mariner 4 program at the Springfield Science
Museum featured a direct, two-way link between the museum and
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which was financed by Union Carbide
and the Travelers Insurance Company. As Mariner 4 radioed it's
pictures of the Martian surface back to Earth, NASA relayed them
to the Science Museum, where hundreds of visitors watched
breathlessly as the first picture slowly emerged, line by line, on a
screen in the museum's Mars Complex. Hoagland provided an
up-to-the-minute commentary based on direct communications with
NASA.

According to newspaper accounts, the Science Museum made
history's first laser audio transmission during Mariner 4's flight past
Mars. The laser was provided by Perkin-Elmer Corporation and was
mounted on the roof of the George Walter Vincent Smith Art
Museum, next door to the Science Museum. The laser transmitted
the Science Museum's live Mariner 4 broadcast to a telescope ten
miles away on Provin Mountain, where the beam was converted into
an audio signal and broadcast over the radio.

Although Mariner 4 photographed only 1% of the Martian surface,
the pictures revealed a moon-like world more hostile than many
people believed at the time. They also provided an answer to the
age-old question about canals on Mars. According to a NASA
spokesman, "Although the line of flight crossed several canals
sketched from time to time on maps of Mars, no trace of these
features was discernible."

Richard Hoagland left the Science Museum a few years later, but
remained active in astronomy and space science. He conceived the
now-famous plaque that was carried aboard the Pioneer 10
spacecraft, the first manmade object to leave the solar system.
Hoagland also served as an advisor to Walter Cronkite during the
epic Apollo moon landings.

Hoagland's 1987 book "The Monuments of Mars" was one of his
more controversial achievements. This book investigates a mountain
formation on Mars photographed by the Viking spacecraft in 1976
which bears an uncanny resemblance to a human face. Hoagland saw
this and other Martian features as evidence that intelligent beings
once lived on the Red Planet. A more detailed picture taken by the
Mars Global Surveyor in 1998 revealed that the face is nothing more
than a rocky mesa which had been transformed by a temporary trick
of lighting.

Other spacecraft have followed in Mariner 4's footsteps, revealing
that Mars is a geologically fascinating world with huge volcanoes,
gigantic canyons, and dried riverbeds. Scientists continue to search
for evidence that primitive life once existed on Mars, but the famed
Martian canals are now identified as optical illusions created by
natural features in rough alignment on the Martian surface.

The Mars Complex at the Science Museum was dismantled after the
Mariner flight. The gallery now houses the museum's life-size
Tyrannosaurus Rex model, but for many years it was called the
"Mars Room" in fond remembrance of that historic evening 35 years
ago when the city of Springfield was intimately linked to one of the
most important space adventures of all times.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                          Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:13:26 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies



 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

<snip>

 >In Chapter 8 of John G. Fuller's book 'The Interrupted Journey:
 >Two Lost Hours "Aboard a Flying Saucer"' Betty Hill describes
 >the now famous star map that was shown to her by the alien
 >"leader" while aboard the UFO. I would agree with you and Carl
 >Sagan if Betty didn't say the following to Dr. Simon:

 > So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
 > port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
 > laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
 > know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
 > where I am from."

 >Since the star map that Betty later reproduced under hypnosis
 >had only a few stars, many of which were connected by lines
 >(heavy lines were trade routes, solid lines were places the
 >aliens went to occasionally and broken lines were expeditions),
 >it is only reasonable to assume that it was a map of our
 >immediate stellar neighbourhood and that it also included our
 >own Sun (after all, the aliens were here) as well as their own
 >home star(s). If this assumption is correct, then only one match
 >is possible - the one school teacher Marjorie Fish discovered
 >with her 3-D models.

<snip>

Good points. I've read Fuller's book but didn't remember if the
"routes" depicted in Betty Hill's hypnotically recollected map
were Fish's inventions or "real" features. The Hill case
intrigues me for many reasons, and I accept it as a real event
of some sort with or without a map.

The question in my mind: Should we accept that the Hills were
abducted by extraterrestrial aliens just because the supposed
"aliens" said that's who they were? I'm inclined to address
things abductees are told with some suspicion.



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 14

                         Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:14:27 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0800

<snip>

 >one would think that in the search for planet(s)  The
 >Reticuli Twins would be a prime target for research. Nothing
 >yet, and I wonder why.

Gliese 86 is one star which appears in Betty Hill's star map (it
is not one of the those connected by lines to other stars) that
has been found to have at least one planet. It is a very large
one, probably about four times the size of our gaseous planet
Jupiter.

You may also recall that there was an announcement of a planet
orbiting one of the two Zeta Reticuli stars which was withdrawn
a few days later. Artie Hatzes, one of the astronomers involved,
informed me that it was a premature announcement based on a few
observations. This was very exciting news to me since he did not
rule out the possibility that there could still exist one or
more rocky Earthlike planets orbiting Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli
within their "habitable zones" because the doppler technique
they employed to find extrasolar planets cannot detect these
much smaller planets.

Smaller rocky planets as opposed to larger gaseous ones are the
most likely to harbour intelligent beings similar to us. Other
detection techniques now being used and new instruments being
designed solely to search for extrasolar planets should sometime
in the next few years answer our questions on whether or not
Earthlike planets are orbiting around Zeta 1 and/or Zeta 2
Reticuli.

 >I know that there has been much bandwidth eaten up over the Hill
 >issue and maybe we can talk about the Star Map again , but I
 >feel that the mere mention of two Sun-like stars and possibly
 >inhabited is worthy of a discussion.

Terry Dickinson correctly pointed out in his 1974 'The Zeta
Reticuli Incident' article in Astronomy magazine that since Zeta
1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are separated by about 100 times the
Sun-Pluto distance, it is very possible for planets to form and
continue to orbit unperturbed around any one of these two stars.

Does anyone know if our SETI friends have checked out these two
stars for radio signals?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

               Re: UFO UpDate: Richard Hoagland - 1965 - Velez

From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:35:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:50:18 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Richard Hoagland - 1965 - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:53:44 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Richard Hoagland - 1965

 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca

 >Source: Springfield Journal
 >         Volume 26, No. 3, August 10 2000
 >         Springfield, Massachusets

 >http://www.springfieldjournal.com/archives/8-10-2000/celestialwanderings.html

 >Celestial Wanderings

 >Springfield's Link to the Red Planet
 >By RICHARD SANDERSON

 >35 years ago this summer, as our military was embroiled in the Viet
 >Nam War and Beatle-mania was sweeping the nation, an exciting
 >drama was unfolding in deep space. The unmanned spacecraft
 >Mariner 4 was sailing toward history's first close-up look at the
 >mysterious planet Mars, and Springfield residents had a front-row
 >seat for this cosmic adventure.

<snip>

 >The Mars Complex at the Science Museum was dismantled after the
 >Mariner flight. The gallery now houses the museum's life-size
 >Tyrannosaurus Rex model, but for many years it was called the
 >"Mars Room" in fond remembrance of that historic evening 35 years
 >ago when the city of Springfield was intimately linked to one of the
 >most important space adventures of all times.

Hi All,

Well, the way I figure it, Richard Hoagland 2000 (heretofore
known as; RH2000) must have 'eaten' Richard Hoagland 1965
(heretofore known as; RH1965) sometime during the 70's. There
sure isn't any sign of the 1965 incarnation to found anywhere.
Maybe we should start a  campaign to pressure the RH2000 model
to regurgitate the meal and give us back the saner/more
intelligent RH1965 model!

Regards,

John Velez  ;)

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:56:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:40 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:01:02 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 ><snip>

 >>In Chapter 8 of John G. Fuller's book 'The Interrupted Journey:
 >>Two Lost Hours "Aboard a Flying Saucer"' Betty Hill describes
 >>the now famous star map that was shown to her by the alien
 >>"leader" while aboard the UFO. I would agree with you and Carl
 >>Sagan if Betty didn't say the following to Dr. Simon:

 >>So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
 >>port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
 >>laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
 >>know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
 >>where I am from."

 >>Since the star map that Betty later reproduced under hypnosis
 >>had only a few stars, many of which were connected by lines
 >>(heavy lines were trade routes, solid lines were places the
 >>aliens went to occasionally and broken lines were expeditions),
 >>it is only reasonable to assume that it was a map of our
 >>immediate stellar neighbourhood and that it also included our
 >>own Sun (after all, the aliens were here) as well as their own
 >>home star(s). If this assumption is correct, then only one match
 >>is possible - the one school teacher Marjorie Fish discovered
 >>with her 3-D models.

 ><snip>

 >Good points. I've read Fuller's book but didn't remember if the
 >"routes" depicted in Betty Hill's hypnotically recollected map
 >were Fish's inventions or "real" features. The Hill case
 >intrigues me for many reasons, and I accept it as a real event
 >of some sort with or without a map.

 >The question in my mind: Should we accept that the Hills were
 >abducted by extraterrestrial aliens just because the supposed
 >"aliens" said that's who they were? I'm inclined to address
 >things abductees are told with some suspicion.

Hiya Mac,

You wrote:

 >I'm inclined to address things abductees are told with some
 >suspicion.

Speaking as an "abductee" I know that I question all of it. If
more abductees would approach what is happening to them with a
more critical eye, and learn to ask themselves all the really
hard questions, the noise level would go down immediately and
dramatically. I've found that a lot of what is needed in order
to cope with the situation has to do with learning how to live
with a lot of open questions. (As opposed to jumping to
conclusions, or adopting unfounded or unproven beliefs.)

Regards,

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:55:04 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez

 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >
 >
 > >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 > >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 > >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0800
 >
 ><snip>
 >
 > >one would think that in the search for planet(s)  The
 > >Reticuli Twins would be a prime target for research. Nothing
 > >yet, and I wonder why.

(snip)

 >Terry Dickinson correctly pointed out in his 1974 'The Zeta
 >Reticuli Incident' article in Astronomy magazine that since Zeta
 >1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are separated by about 100 times the
 >Sun-Pluto distance, it is very possible for planets to form and
 >continue to orbit unperturbed around any one of these two stars.
 >
 >Does anyone know if our SETI friends have checked out these two
 >stars for radio signals?

Hiya Nick,

Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
success is because technologically advanced societies may be
as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

We may one day discover a 'medium' of communication that can only
have been attained/discovered by climbing the technological ladder
one rung at a time. If we do discover such a medium we may then
find that when we train our receivers on the the 'Universe' it will
prove to be a noisey clatter and din of interstellar communication.

We are only in our second century of technological exploration and
discovery. Babies have to crawl before they can walk. Maybe we'll
just have to do the same before we are able to join in on the Galactic
dialog.  :)

Regards,

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:02:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:57:14 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:47:53 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 ><snip>

 >>I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Fish reconstruction could
 >>be applied to a large number of configuations in our galaxy
 >>alone. With hundreds of billions of stars, finding some purely
 >>spurious matches seems just about inevitable.

 >>Carl Sagan argued this point on his "Cosmos" program. And while
 >>I usually don't agree with his generalizations about UFOs, I
 >>thought I had a particularly good point in this case.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Mac.

 >In Chapter 8 of John G. Fuller's book 'The Interrupted Journey:
 >Two Lost Hours "Aboard a Flying Saucer"' Betty Hill describes
 >the now famous star map that was shown to her by the alien
 >"leader" while aboard the UFO. I would agree with you and Carl
 >Sagan if Betty didn't say the following to Dr. Simon:

 >So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
 >port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
 >laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
 >know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
 >where I am from."

 >Since the star map that Betty later reproduced under hypnosis
 >had only a few stars, many of which were connected by lines
 >(heavy lines were trade routes, solid lines were places the
 >aliens went to occasionally and broken lines were expeditions),
 >it is only reasonable to assume that it was a map of our
 >immediate stellar neighbourhood and that it also included our
 >own Sun (after all, the aliens were here) as well as their own
 >home star(s). If this assumption is correct, then only one match
 >is possible - the one school teacher Marjorie Fish discovered
 >with her 3-D models.

 >If it can be shown that under certain unusual circumstances like
 >Betty's, a witness under hypnosis could indeed accurately recall
 >and reproduce something like Betty's simple star map with its
 >few different lines, then we may have not only legal proof of
 >alien visitation but we would also have information on where
 >these aliens came from.

 >Nick Balaskas

- - - -

Hello Nick and Mac:

Please note the facility with which the "alien" finesses this
most unwelcome question from Betty.

He could have easily said " Well, your Sun is over here, see?
(pointing to one star) while we come from here (pointing to
another) while this other star is the one you call Arangutangus
or whatever.

No. Of course not! Its Betty's fault for not being an astronomer
you see... and once again the mystery being provides _no_ useful
information whatsoever.

I don't know how seriously to take this encounter, but that one
aspect fits neatly into a well worn mold. I'm surprised they
showed her any sort of map at all, which raises certain doubts
in my mind.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                   Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO?

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:44:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:02:11 -0500
Subject: Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO?


Source: EFE News Agency (Spain)
Date: November 14, 2000

Russia: Flying Saucer Jeopardizes Army Near Chechnya

Majachkal (Russia), 14 nov (EFE).- An alleged UFO has
jeopardized and eluded Russian troops near Daguestan, a republic
bordering Chechnya.

Alarms went off at 01.00 local time (22:00 hrs GMT yesterday)
and an hour later, confusion was extreme in the garrisons on the
ridges separating Dagestan from Chechnya and the war which has
raged the area north of the Caucasus for over a year and a half.
At 02.00 local time (23:00 GMT) the most lucid reports began to
arrive from the Magaramkent region on the Caspian Sea regading
the "unidentified flying object" which had caused Russian forces
to sound battlestations.

Soldiers provided a detailed description of the artifact or
device they witnessed for a long time as it flew slowly eastward
toward the sea. Some garrisons noted that it was an object
flying at low altitude (some 100 meters) and had three
fluorescent lights above it with 2 meter spaces between them,
according to the Russian Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan.
Several civilian witnesses agreed on the description and light
arrangement of the mysterious phenomenon, while hesitating to
ascribe its origin to a secret weapon of the Russian army or a
new weapon in the hands of Islamic separatists.

Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Dagestan were
cautious and stated their unwillingness to state if the object
in question was indeed a UFO or a natural optical phenomenon.
Military reports, the alarm caused by the apparent UFO and  the
jet fighters scrambled -too late - in its pursuit, have renewed
mistrust regarding the traditional secrecy shown by Russian
authorities in the light of such situations.

Acting quickly to forestall any possible reprimands, the most
mistrusting military officers indicated that it could be a NATO
spy plane interested in Russian maneuvers in the Caucasus and
the Caspian, which are rich in gas and oil. Muslim leaders in
Dagestan were less ambiguous in their statements: the strange
heavenly event was a portent which bore a message from Allah
himself. Even a mufti or spiritual legislator from Dagestan
showed no compuction in stating that without any doubt it was "a
djinn, an angel or other heavenly being, since God's masterpiece
is filled with them."

############

Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

              Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:51:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:09:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:43:25 +0100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?

 >Source: BBC News,

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1022000/1022712.stm

 >Stig

 >_____________________________________

 >Tuesday, 14 November, 2000, 09:32 GMT

 >First contact for UFO mecca?

 >The Roswell Incident made the area infamous

 >**

 >Scotland's UFO hot-spot could be set to make contact - with a
 >city known across the world as a mecca for alien enthusiasts.

 >A local councillor wants to twin Bonnybridge with Roswell, the
 >US city which has been synonymous with other-worldly encounters
 >for more than 50 years.



Hi,

This story is interesting but a little worrying as it
demonstrates how we ufologists have lost control of our own
subject. No longer do facts, evidence and carefully recognised
truths matter quite so much as hype, publicity and money. Maybe
they never have.

I am sure councillor Billy Buchanan is a decent guy, doing his
best for this small Scottish town. I don't blame him for the
stand he is taking or begrudge any betterment he brings his
people. And, yes, there have been some sightings there (amidst
massive hype). And a few interesting ones amidst the numerous
IFOs.

But Bonnybridge is nevertheless a manufactured UFO window. It
was created by publicity - not deliberately as in a fraud - just
as a consequence of social pressure and response to
circumstance.

Prior to the early l990s nobody in even Scottish Ufology had
ever heard of this place as somewhere of note because it wasn't
generating any more UFO sightings than any other similar sized
location. It appears to do so now because the right social
conditions have allowed that to happen.

Similar pressures have no doubt applied in Roswell, where
notoriety and fame stems from a 53 year old case that has been
well exploited. But is there seriously any evidence that this
New Mexico town has more UFO sightings than any other location
as a matter of fact rather than legend?

And to what extent (as in Bonnybridge) is that a consequence
anyway of the massive attention, the local facilities to record
sightings, the easier climate whereby it is less of a stigma to
see something there (indeed probably a little odd if you go
there and do not!) and the assurance that more notice will be
taken of any light in the sky spotted here than somewhere else?

My take on ufology shows that there are two types of 'window
area'.

The real key to our understanding are those locations where UFO
activity is genuinely greater than normal. Something causes
these places to produce such phenomena - usually across the
centuries and independent of any mass publicity. There are
certainly places where this is true and they are the real
windows.  Knowing the how and why of these areas will tell us
something about ufology and the forces that combine to produce
at least part of the mystery.

The other type of window area owes its status  almost totally to
social factors. An active ufologist or UFO group can trawl in
many cases from the vicinity and artificially enhance the number
of recorded (as opposed to reported) sightings. This generates
an illusionary hot spot.

Or perhaps a highly publicised event (like at Roswell or
Bonnybridge) can lead to a spate of media attention that will
see all subsequent cases given promotion in the same area (as at
Gulf Breeze).

As a result of such factors the location appears to be more
active but probably in real terms it is not - simply on the
basis that if town 'A' has 100 sightings in any year and only 2
of these are reported (probably typical in my experience) it
seems to be a 'quiet' locale - whereas if town 'B' has 100 and
social pressures ensure that 50 of them get reported it becomes
a UFO mecca. If this massive number of sightings is well
promoted by the locals (and why wouldn't they boost their town in
this way?) then it simply ensures that the snowball keeps on
rolling.

These factors are at work much more than we realise in ufology.

Now we see how the ability to commercialise ufology by promoting
these locations as focal points of activity and today the value
to tourism and industry (via things like theme parks) can never
be underestimated.  Where will this all lead?

My question - to which I am not presupposing an answer BTW -
just posing it to see what people think - is to ask to what
extent this can be perceived as a good or bad thing for ufology?

Do we accept the attention such hype brings? Do we appreciate
its benefits in raising the status of our subject in the eyes of
the public? After all the Loch Ness monster has spawned an
entire cottage industry that has ensured that hoteliers, shops,
writers and documentary film makers are still in business almost
regardless of whether its real, a few floating logs or an entire
myth.

But what do we do about the misleading impression this UFO hype
creates? I can never honestly tell a journalist who asks me that
Bonnybridge is special - because I don't think it is. But in
saying this I appear to be attacking the heart of this location
- almost downing ufology in the process - and I have even been
accused of anti Scottish feeling (which is nonsense - I would
say exactly the same if my home village had been promoted as
some sort of UFO haunted location). So location, per se, has
nothing to do with it. The means by which it has attracted the
status does.

The danger is that by creating legends and myths around the UFO
subject and by handing over the deeds to our own phenomenon to
the money makers we lose sight of the real issues surrounding
UFO reality and replace them with rhetoric and even competitions
along the lines of 'my town is bigger than your town'.  How does
this serve our quest to figure out what is really going on?

As we all know the media are never going to promote UFOs in a
totally objective fashion. They are rarely going to make the
effort to root out the facts as they typically have five minutes
to make a programme and UFOs can seem an easy story in which the
crew can take a vacation and let the kooks do their job for them
by performing on camera. This is a mentality all too evident out
there. I have seen the media apply it. Its why there are a few
good but a lot of really awful UFO documentaries made.

As such the media are very prone to furthering legends and
hyping myths since it creates their own next story. We few might
see through the facade as working ufologists. But today's hype is
tomorrow's believed in truths by the denizens of UFO Trek: The
Next Generation - especially within a field as confusing and
story driven as this one.

And so - what obligation do we have - if any - to say 'hang on a
minute' - before you build this theme park here and put up signs
saying this is the most UFO haunted town in the world - lets
look at the facts first?

Or in doing so are we being party-poopers, taking bread from the
mouths of needy citizens and raining on our own parade?

Not easy questions but ones I think we have to face up to if
this commercialisation of ufology (of which the Bonnybridge
experience is by no means the only current example) is to
continue.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                          Re: ET Evidence - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:12:07 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Murray


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence


 >>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0800

John Velez wrote:

 >Hiya Nick,

 >Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 >We may one day discover a 'medium' of communication that can only
 >have been attained/discovered by climbing the technological ladder
 >one rung at a time. If we do discover such a medium we may then
 >find that when we train our receivers on the the 'Universe' it will
 >prove to be a noisey clatter and din of interstellar communication.

 >We are only in our second century of technological exploration and
 >discovery. Babies have to crawl before they can walk. Maybe we'll
 >just have to do the same before we are able to join in on the Galactic
 >dialog.  :)


Howdy John, Nick & All!

To what John has said above, I say a big AMEN! The chances of us
finding another civilization nearby, still communicating with
radio, I think are pretty remote. There must surely be more
powerful and more efficient means of communication which we
haven't even thought of yet, and if we don't know where to look,
we aren't going to find them! For the most part I think that
SETI, as it stands now, is nothing but a big waste of time.

Take care,

Marty









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                             NIDS: NARCAP Report

From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 15 Nov 2000 11:10:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:32:53 -0500
Subject: NIDS: NARCAP Report


Delivered-To: mailing list discoveryscience@listbot.com
Subject: NARCAP report

National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

Posted on the NIDS website is a new report written by Dr.
Richard Haines, a Senior research scientist at NASA Ames. It is
the flagship report for the newly formed National Aviation
Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).

Three kinds of reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported
consequences are addressed in Haines� report, each of which can
affect air safety: (1) near miss and other high speed maneuvers
conducted by the UAP near aircraft, (2) transient and permanent
electromagnetic effects onboard the aircraft that affect
navigation, guidance, and flight control systems, and (3) close
encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit
distractions which inhibit the flight crew from flying the
airplane in a safe manner.

More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP
and commerical, private, and military airplanes are reviewed
relative to these three topics. These reports are drawn from
several sources including the author�s personal files, aviation
reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation
Safety Reporting System"(ASRS).

To read the report, see:

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/narcap.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

               Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:15:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:36:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale


From: royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:51:58 -0000


 >Now we see how the ability to commercialise ufology by promoting
 >these locations as focal points of activity and today the value
 >to tourism and industry (via things like theme parks) can never
 >be underestimated.  Where will this all lead?

 >My question - to which I am not presupposing an answer BTW -
 >just posing it to see what people think - is to ask to what
 >extent this can be perceived as a good or bad thing for ufology?


Hi Jenny,

I must admit to agreeing with a lot what you said, and I would
go slightly further. Anyone putting on a conference on UFOs
should donate the whole proceeds to charity, the sooner we stop
the commercial band wagon (paying people for theories) in books
lectures etc.. ufology will soon be a cleaner act. Perhaps it
could even knock some of the UFO myths on the head!

All the best,

Roy..


www.thelosthaven.co.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                              Stupid UFO Tricks

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:43:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:39:29 -0500
Subject: Stupid UFO Tricks

Horizons Webcast | Tonight Wednesday Nov. 15, 2000 | 8 PM CST

Stupid UFO tricks

This is one you won't want to miss. Anyone who has followed the
rise of Horizons Radio and Webcast knows that the majority of
our audience comes from outside the established UFO Community.
We are finding that people coming 'cold' into this arena are
expressing a lot of confusion over who is who and what is what.

Coming 'cold' into this field of interest can be hazardous to
your mental health what with all the fantastic claims being made
by the 'top researchers' in the field of ufology. Wednesday
night's show will focus on some of the more promonent
individuals that seem a little shady, vague and controversial.
These 'UFO personalities' will find themselves in the middle of
a debate concerning their apparent motives.

Special Guest | Royce J. Myers | 'The WatchDog Of The UFOlogy'
UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags, Dupes, and Morons

http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog/index.html

If you are a ufologist, and have made some interesting claims on
your webpage, in books, on video, in your CDs, or in open
public, you will not want to miss this show. We might start
talking about you! Phone lines will be opened for those of you
that want to call in with your comments about the leading
personalities in the field of ufology.

Our new toll-free number will be given out on the air tonight.

You can access the webcast through our homepage at:

http://www.oklahomasky.com

Horizons Radio and Webcast is a production of Three Horizons
Broadcasting.

Bobbie "Jilain" Felder

http://www.oklahomasky.com
IRC Undernet #horizons
ICQ #7524076

~~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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:55:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:41:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:12:02 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >Of course, the proposal that the phenomenon could be one of
 >these (unintelligent and natural or manmade) should already have
 >been considered in the chain of analysis/logic that led to the
 >conclusion that some sighting was unexplained. In other words,
 >all reasonable possibilities should have been considered by the
 >time one arrives at the True UFO (TRUFO) conclusion. A TRUFO
 >could be a presently unknown but natural and unintelligent (no
 >evidence of intelligence involved) phenomenon.

Yes it should. And no doubt is. But this simplistic way of
looking at the investigation of cases doesn't stand up. What
about the cases where that process has taken place and then,
weeks, months, years later a resolution is found or
contradictory evidence comes out. Because we have evidence that
most UFO cases resolve to IFO relatively quickly and many others
do given time and reinvestigation it's reasonable to suggets
they all may resolve to IFO.

 >But the most
 >interesting ones are the cases for which the "shadow of
 >intelligence" looms over the description of the
 >object/phenomenon. Kenneth Arnold's sighting is the first widely
 >reported of this type. His descriptions of the shape and speed,
 >if correct, argue against a natural phenomenon (birds, meteors)
 >and against manmade phenomena (planes) but nevertheless suggest
 >that the objects were products of intelligence. Hence Other
 >Intelligence (OI) from wherever, however they got here, etc.

I'm gald you put 'if correct' in there Bruce. I thought for a
minute you'd had an attack of the 'credible witnesses'!

Yes, those are interesting cases. But my original paragraph
applies here. I'm sure there have been cases which display the
attributes you mention above, which have later been resolved to
an IFO.

As you're always so keen to refer us to your articles may I
refer you to The UFOs That Never Were for a few such 'TRUFO'
cases, many of which had the full credible witness/big
investigation/longevity etc and all of which were eventually
found to be IFOs.

I'm afraid that for every 'pro ET' argument there is an opposing
sceptical argument. But with added demonstrable proof!

 >To find out whether or not OI culd be inviolved, the first thing
 >Andy has to do is to decide for himself whether or not whether
 >or not there is ANY sighting that cannot be explained in a
 >conventional manner. He argues, however, that because most
 >sightings end up explained, that therefore ALL sightings will
 >eventually be explained in some conventional way and so there is
 >no sighting, even if unexplained right now (Nov,. 14, 2000),
 >that is "unexplained."

But as I keep pointing out I don't say that. I just say it's
likely, based on what we have seen and know. It's entirely
possible that we may have one or one hundred sightings which
cannot (but over what time scale) be explained or which turns
out to be something truly 'alien'. But that doesn't alter what
we know to be true so far and nor has it happened as yet,
outside the fantasies of many who inhabit the dense foliage of
Updates.

 >Clearly Andy is clairvoyant....

I knew you were going to say that.

 >Consider the New Zealand sightings of December 31, 1978,

Yes, I agree that case is still unresolved. But we shouldn't
infer that whatever caused the sightings was a craft from
'elsewhen' or wherever it was you said things were coming from.
It's an as yet unexplained case is all.

 >Andy would say there must be at least one more dirty sock to
 >try. I say no.

Yes I would. Otherwise you are failing ufology and enquiry
generally by just accepting the event as a 'UFO'. All UFOs have
to be something. It's our job to work that out -whether they be
IFOs or Zog from Elsewhen looking for some action. Your way of
dealing with the case is just putting your head in the sand and
making assumptions Bruce.

Happy Trails

Andy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                    Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 15 Nov 2000 12:47:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:44:19 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Hamilton


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:11:17 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >No, I'm not talking about Clinton. And don't confuse this with
 >'Dubya'.

 >We have heard the 'Bubba' has now appeared in Phoenix. What/who
 >was Bubba? You can 'bone up' on Bubba at brumac.8k.com

Tom King sent me two shots of Bubba over Phoenix taken recently.
One was a frame from a video, the other taken with his camera.
He said it was moving slowly, then sped away. I will be sending
you an email with the photos attached.

 >I have just added to my web site "Red BUBBA in Gulf Breeze."
 >Here you can learn to distinguish Bubba from other UFOs and even
 >from other "Presidential Candidates" .

 >These were sightings that became famous worldwide during the
 >time period Nov 1990 through July 1992. 'Bubba' appeared live on
 >the radio and was videotaped for TV several times. 'Bubba' is
 >the only UFO ever to be photographed with a diffraction grating
 >that produced a valid spectrum. Bubba's spectrum was NOT that of
 >a red flare (also spectrally analyzed).

I do not think Tom thought of using a diffraction grating, but I
am sure he is on the lookout for another sighting of Bubba so
maybe I can get an explanation from you as to how to take the
next photo.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                           Secrecy News - 11/15/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:44:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:47:40 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News - 11/15/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 15, 2000

**      INCREASED MISSILE DEFENSE SECRECY PROPOSED
**      CLINTON'S DECLASSIFICATION LEGACY


INCREASED MISSILE DEFENSE SECRECY PROPOSED

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has drafted a
new security classification guide that would sharply increase
the secrecy of many aspects of the troubled national missile
defense program. If approved, the new classification guide would
entail many millions of dollars of new security costs, and could
severely limit public oversight of the controversial program.

"Many things now unclassified will become Secret and things now
classified as Secret will become Top Secret," according to a
defense contractor who has reviewed the draft "BMDO National
Missile Defense Security Classification Guide," dated October
2000.

"The estimate for complying at the company I work for is around
$1 million for increased security equipment for the building and
for computers. And my company is a small player in the NMD
[National Missile Defense] program. Not only will it cost a lot,
it will be very difficult for the government to investigate and
grant TS [Top Secret] clearances to all the people who will need
them," the contractor official said.

Of particular note, the new draft guide dictates that the dates
of interceptor flight tests, which have been unclassified until
now, would become classified. "I had been told previously that
interceptor flight test dates would become Confidential," the
contractor official said. "The new class guide makes the date
Secret."

"It also makes TS many areas which have been criticized in the
past, such as the ability of the system to discriminate real
warheads from decoys and debris. Once these issues are TS, the
government is essentially relieved of the responsibility to
respond to criticism," the contractor said.

"These changes are questionable on two counts," he said. "The
first is that TS is almost always reserved for operational
military systems, where weaknesses should not be public
knowledge. The NMD program is not operational, and should still
be subject to scrutiny. The second is that some of the
classifications are precisely to avoid scrutiny. Media coverage
of the last NMD test was probably the cause of this recent
classification," he speculated.

"The NMD program has areas with serious shortcomings. It is
unfortunate that many of the technical criticisms are not very
accurate. This is mainly because the critics are not in the
program and thus can't know the real weaknesses. If the
classification guide goes into effect, the critics will be
locked out for good and will become little better than
conspiracy theorists," the contractor said.

Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a BMDO spokesman, defended the need to
increase secrecy. "As you move closer toward a production
design, then you have to upgrade things that might have been
unclassified, because you might be dealing with the final
design," Col. Lehner told Secrecy News.

But why would interceptor flight test dates suddenly become
Secret? "I asked General Nance about that," said Col. Lehner,
referring to Major General Willie B. Nance, Jr., the National
Missile Defense program executive officer. "He said that he has
made no final determination about whether flight test dates will
be classified."

"BMDO has always said, It needs to be unclassified unless you
can convince me otherwise," Col. Lehner said. "You need a
compelling reason for classification."

The new draft security classification guide will not be
finalized for a month or more, according to Col. Lehner. "It's
a work in progress."


CLINTON'S DECLASSIFICATION LEGACY

"President Bill Clinton has done more than any other president
to lift the veil of secrecy that shrouds much of the United
States' cold war history," wrote Eli J. Lake in a United Press
International story yesterday. "But with his successor in
doubt, so is the future of Clinton's policy of national security
sunshine."

See:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/upi111400.html

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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email: saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                          Re: ET Evidence - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:19:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:49:40 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Liddle


 >From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

 >Howdy John, Nick & All!

 >To what John has said above, I say a big AMEN! The chances of us
 >finding another civilization nearby, still communicating with
 >radio, I think are pretty remote. There must surely be more
 >powerful and more efficient means of communication which we
 >haven't even thought of yet, and if we don't know where to look,
 >we aren't going to find them! For the most part I think that
 >SETI, as it stands now, is nothing but a big waste of time.

WOAH there bessy. SETI is far from a waste of time. No-one with
a high school education should be thinking that SETI is looking
for current modes of ET communication. Radio is the simplest
form of wireless communication that we came up with when a less
advanced species, so why not look for this mode of communication
when peering into the past of other potential beings. Sure, a
race that could pop by our planet for a visit probably would use
some other form of wireless communication, but since we are
looking back in time, who is to say that some ETs didn't use
radio. The finding of a radio source would be used to pinpoint
life, not communicate with it (unless we wanted them to reply in
a few hundred to thousand years).


Sean Liddle
KAPRA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

                          Re: ET Evidence - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:04:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:54:26 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Wilson


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:02:59 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >Hello Nick and Mac:

 >Please note the facility with which the "alien" finesses this
 >most unwelcome question from Betty.

 >He could have easily said " Well, your Sun is over here, see?
 >(pointing to one star) while we come from here (pointing to
 >another) while this other star is the one you call Arangutangus
 >or whatever.

 >No. Of course not! Its Betty's fault for not being an astronomer
 >you see... and once again the mystery being provides _no_ useful
 >information whatsoever.

 >I don't know how seriously to take this encounter, but that one
 >aspect fits neatly into a well worn mold. I'm surprised they
 >showed her any sort of map at all, which raises certain doubts
 >in my mind.

 >Best wishes

 >Larry Hatch

Regarding Star Maps and locations: If you click on

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_III/Doreensmap.html

there is an example of the ETs giving an abductee (at least) a
way home. There is also an interesting quote at the top of the
page as well, which clearly shows that an ET was trying to
explain where he came from.

Sorry John Velez: I'm giving another URL to my web site. That is
only because I couldn't cut and paste the entire article into
the UFO UpDates List.

On the other side of the coin: People interested in the star map
discussion may want to review Martin Cannon's opinion about
Betty's Star Map experience.

 From Cannon's _The Controllers_: "The Hill case provided a
particularly controversial piece of evidence: The celebrated
_star map_ recalled by Betty Hill under hypnosis....Allegedly,
the map points to Zeta Reticuli as the aliens' home system and
pictures Zeta Reticuli as a single star, a view consistent with
scientific opinion of the 1960s. Yet, in later years, scientists
discovered that Zeta Reticuli is binary....

"The celebrated star map ought to be recognized for what it was:
a prop, a seemingly confirmatory circumstantial detail meant to
convince her - and perhaps us - of the reality of her
abduction."

Thanks -

K. Wilson











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:32:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:58:41 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Borraz


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:15:50 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:02:31 +0100

<snip>

 >Hello Manuel:

 >I agree that the object was seen right where the moon was, and
 >the witnesses failed to notes that they saw it _in addition_ to
 >the moon. They should have seen and mentioned both.

<snip>

 >_If_ that was all there was to the case, I would have to agree
 >with you. The dolts misidentified the moon. Similar cases are in
 >the literature, amazing as that may seem.

 >But, the details to the contrary were snipped, so now I have to
 >type them back in.

<snip>

 >All I'm saying is that all the details must be examined, not
 >just those that favor one particular interpretation or another.

Hello Larry:

I agree. _All_ must be examined: It's the only way of learning!
I just focused on the overwhelming "pro-Moon" evidence first,
leaving for a next posting (this one) the discussion of the rest.
I won't snip any detail.

Here you'll find some comments on the details that you
mentioned and other ones that I'd like to add
(source: account  in pp 172-176 of "The Hynek UFO Report",
Dell Publishing, 1977).

1) "Just then [having stopped to inspect an open store window]
the spotlight and their [car] headlights dimmed very much, so
much so that... a match would have been brighter." "As the
object moved down the alley, but above the alley, the car lights
came back on."

 >That could be coincidence of course.

I think so. Perhaps the spotlight drained too much current from
a battery poorly charged.

2) The men "followed" the object down the alley, a good half
mile to a cemetery.

Later, they "pursued the object down Belmont Street." At the
end, they "pursued the object again westward."

Note that in every occasion they chased the object _westward_,
toward the Moon. It's well known that any observer
misinterpreting a celestial body for a close object get the
impression of "chasing" it  when driving (or sometimes flying)
towards it.

3) The men "followed" the object down the alley, a good half
mile to a cemetery where they turned off their lights. The
object slowly descended.

"Here officer ____ kicked on the 'brights' [high beams] and the
object ascended very rapidly "fifty or sixty miles an hour". It
also took off Westward."

The Moon was descending indeed, but too slowly to be noticed in
a short period of time. Were these displacements along the line
of sight, as in other cases?

If so, It would be interesting to explore if turning off and on
the lights (modifying the ambient lighting) could influence the
perception of the size of and distance to a "close" Moon.
Consider also that all this happened while the object was
assuming a cigar shape. As I commented before, this could be the
Moon playing with clouds. So,_ actual_ changes in the size and
shape of the apparent Moon may also have been at play.

(BTW, Saturday night I saw a nice display of a deep orange full
moon that went through several shapes -dome, cigar, sphere,
blurred patch of light,...).

4) "...it cavorted from curb to curb, back and forth as though
"playing games with them." "

 >There are a couple of dog-leg bends, but for the most part
 >it [West Belmont Avenue] looks straight as an arrow .
 >Presumably these bends could explain the object "moving
 >from curb to curb" (but above of course).

It can be shown that slight bends or even a little bit erratic
car's course along the street could account for this effect (I
can provide some sketches if needed).

5) The witnesses lost sight of the object and turned around,
headed back East toward the town center.

Since the object reappeared later, this couldn't be the setting
of the Moon. Was there any cloud hiding the Moon at that moment?
Was there any element of the landscape obstructing the sight at
that place? Only a walk along Belmont Av. could tell us.

6)  "As they got back into Elmwood Park, the object approached
them [reappeared] from the left from a stand of trees, passed
over them and to the rear." Then, they "pursued the object again
westward."

 >I don't have much invested in this particular sighting, for all
 >I know a second object, a shooting star perhaps, came from the
 >North. Hynek himself was clearly less than pleased with the
 >witnesses.

Maybe it isn't necessary to introduce a second object.
As Bob Young commented some days ago, if  the object
approached from the left and _ behind_ (though it's not clear),
it could be the same one that would be chased again
westward (the Moon).

7) Finally, "...the object ascended to a great height" and
disappeared.

As I said in point 3 above, the question is: was this
displacement along the line of sight? If yes, then a
"diminishing" Moon could explain the apparent ascent reported by
the observers.

In fact, also as in point 3, we find that actual changes of size
and shape took place at that moment (I already commented on the
disappearance of the object).

8) Hynek stated that "the object definitely passed in front of
objects from time to time and the object could not be seen
through the light."

In view of all that we've discussed so far, I strongly doubt it.
By the way, the objects in front of which passed the glowing
sphere are not detailed. On the contrary, we read that "the
object periodically became lost behind the trees."

 >This case is still listed in my database, but I am going to
 >light up the MID (misidentification) attribute, a possible CE
 >with the Moon! .. if I have not done so already. I have to
 >agree that I would not take a case like this to court.

<snip>

I agree.

One last consideration. After reading many reports of similar
cases, I'm still surprised to find that the raw material is
probably a banal "big" redish Moon quite near the horizon.
However, I don't think that these events involve "dolts"
misidentifying the Moon, but rather average people caught for
once in a perceptive trap. For instance, driving toward a full
Moon located at an astronomical distance, or chasing an actual
glowing sphere of same angular size flying a quarter of mile
ahead, would make no difference. We would see _exactly_ the
same. There are two possible interpretations for the same scene,
just like those images that show up visual illusions (the white
cup _or_  the two black faces in profile...). We must introduce
some assumptions to break up this ambiguity. And once we
"choose", we stick to it, and we perceive, think and act
accordingly. If for whatever reason we choose to assume that the
round luminous patch in the sky is a_ nearby_ object, we will
see this assumption "confirmed" time and time again in a sort of
feedback. We start thinking the glowing "thing" it's a close
object and we try to approach it, but it stays ahead, hence it's
moving with us, and if it moves then it cannot be the Moon but a
close object. No way out of such a circular thinking...

But how can several observers get mistaken at once? This could
result from mutual influence and mutual reinforcing of the wrong
interpretation. Surely, there are also many more cases in which
the witnesses realized they were in error. But obviously those
cases never reach the ufologists.

So maybe we should conclude that the Moon could sometimes fool
all the people (within a group) all the time...

Best wishes

Manuel Borraz







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 15

             Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:53:36 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32 - Gonzlez Manso


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:31:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement #32
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >For your information, Mr (not Ms) Michel Meurger is one of our
 >well known skeptics in Franc , of the most radical
 >psycho-sociologist kind. Which means that, for him, all UFO
 >"tales" (not only abductions) are myth.

 >I don't think there is anything scientific in that shape of
 >mind.

 >Gildas Bourdais

Well, Mr. Bourdais. After 25 years studying UFOs in Spain I find
myself agreeing with Mr. Meurger. You may qualify us as you
wish, but precisely "non-scientific" is the less appropiate
term.

I would prefer than instead of tagging us as enemies, in order
to avoid having to read our criticisms, you (and all those
ufologists that follow your same tactic) would address them and
improve your "scientific" investigations.

Luis R. Gonzlez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                          Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:37:55 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

<snip>

I'm in your school of thought on this, John. Quantum
entanglement is but one of the options an advanced
space-colonizing civilization could use to communicate. We're
already doing this under laboratory conditions. It amounts to
nothing less than instantaneous transmission of information, and
mainstream SETI considers it paradoxical that we haven't heard
anything yet over _radio_?

Radio would be used, one thinks, only to communicate to
"primitive" civilizations like our own. But the list of reasons
why an ETI _wouldn't_ choose to actively "reach out and touch"
underdeveloped neighbors is at least as long and probably more
persuasive than the list of why they _would_.

I don't expect anything to turn up from radio SETI. That said, I
hope I'm wrong! It's interesting to me that many people curious
about the possibility of UFOs representing some sort of ETI are
usually SETI supporters--but never the other way around.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:39:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

<snip>

 >>One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
 >>encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
 >>According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
 >>went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
 >>weightless."

<snip>

 >Strange floating entities were described in fairly good detail,
 >by numerous witnesses with fairly consistent accounts.

 >Their descriptions were good enough to finally identify the
 >source: Mylar balloons shaped like little men, which burst on
 >the scene like a new brand of soda pop. [burp!]

 >I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this possibility. Maybe I
 >missed something.

Hi Larry.

A man from Thurso, Quebec witnessed such a seemingly weightless
alien being which attracted much attention by the local media.
I have photocopies of this evolving story from the October 9, 10,
11 and 12, 1990 issues of 'LeDroit', a French language newspaper
of the Ottawa-Hull area.

My reading and comprehension abilities in French are no longer
as good as they once were so I cannot give further details but a
sketch of this alleged alien made it in the October 10 issue and
it looked very much like a mylar helium balloon creation with
similar big eyes and legs which was published the following day
by the same newspaper. It was presented as a likely explanation
to the alien the man from Thurso saw, but was it the
explanation?

Considering that this region of Canada has the largest number of
sex shops per square kilometer which include inflatable dolls in
their large inventories (of course, this research was done
solely in the interest of finding the truth about UFOs), one
would think that witnesses living in this area could certainly
tell the difference between a humanoid alien and a humanoid
shaped helium filled balloon, wouldn't you?  ;o)

Nick Balaskas

If your French is better than mine Larry, I would be happy to
mail to you copies of these four newspaper articles in a plain
brown envelope.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:19:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:40:48 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:02:59 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

<snip>

 >>So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
 >>port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
 >>laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
 >>know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
 >>where I am from."

<snip>

 >Please note the facility with which the "alien" finesses this
 >most unwelcome question from Betty.

 >He could have easily said " Well, your Sun is over here, see?
 >(pointing to one star) while we come from here (pointing to
 >another) while this other star is the one you call Arangutangus
 >or whatever.

 >No. Of course not! Its Betty's fault for not being an astronomer
 >you see... and once again the mystery being provides _no_ useful
 >information whatsoever.

 >I don't know how seriously to take this encounter, but that one
 >aspect fits neatly into a well worn mold. I'm surprised they
 >showed her any sort of map at all, which raises certain doubts
 >in my mind.

Hi Larry.

Reading Betty Hill's account of her alien abduction experience,
I find that she was a very curious individual who asked her
alien abductor a lot of questions who, unlike Barney, she didn't
seem to fear. Of course the "leader" didn't have to show Betty
anything but the fact that he did suggests to me that the alien
considered Betty as very intelligent and something of an equal.

I do not know if other abductees have been shown anything as
potentially important as this map but I suspect that this alien
"leader" probably regrets the effects this single simple
revelation back in 1961 had to all humanity and our culture not
to mention the additional unwanted attention to their activities
here on Earth. To err is human but it seems that some aliens at
least are very humanlike too. Ask any New Ager or kid who has
grown up on science fiction and they will tell you that Zeta
Reticulli is the home base of E.T.s. My feelings are that they
may very well be right on this one.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                                'About UFOs'

From: Steve Wilson Snr. <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:42:16 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:49:27 -0500
Subject: 'About UFOs'


From: ufos.guide@ABOUT.COM


About UFOs

November 13, 2000 - Vol. 2, No. 45


~ "In The News"
~ "Links of the Week"
~ "Readers' Sightings"
~ "Pilot error"

------------------ Hot Picks ------------------

"In The News"
..Mysterious Airborne Goop Was Bee Waste!
..Twenty UFO Sightings Over Texas
..Dark Triangular UFO Hovers Over Idaho Camp
..Ohio UFO on Videotape?
..A12 Avenger...Is this the Flying Triangle UFO?
..US Carrier Carrying Nuclear Weapons Buzzed By UFO In 1954
..The Pretenders: UFOs And Camouflage
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blnews.htm

"Links of the Week"
..Online reprint of a rare 1967 UFO magazine
..New Information on the Disappearance of Frederick Valentich
..Hundreds of UFO Photos
..The Truth is in Here
..Temporal Doorway
..WAPIT UFO Group UFO photo gallery
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/bllinks.htm

"Reader's Sightings"
Your sightings! Now 19 pages! New sightings added 11/00!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blreadersnew.htm

"Pilot Error"
The story of what really happened to the lost airmen of Flight
19, the flight of 5 Avenger aircraft that disappeared in the
Bermuda Triangle in 1945.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/weekly/aa103000a.htm

"Who Wants to Be a UFO Expert?"
Find out how much of an expert you are by taking this UFO
trivia test based on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/millionaire/blwhowants.htm

The chatroom is always open.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mpchat.htm

*SEND ME YOUR SIGHTING!* *SEND ME YOUR UFO PHOTO!*
For inclusion on the "Reader's Sightings" page.
Be sure to include the date and location of
the sighting. Go to the submission form at:
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blreadersnew.htm

"U.S. UFO Sightings"
A database of UFO sighting reports.
Now a clickable image map.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blsight2.htm

"UFO Encyclopedia"
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blguidea.htm

----------------------------------------------
UFO Timeline: UFO events of the 20th Century!
Updated!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/bltime.htm

"UFO Poll"
Give your opinion!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blpolls.htm

Hundreds of UFO links.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mlibrary.htm

------------- Talk about It With Others ---------------

The UFOs/Aliens Chatroom:
The chatroom is always open! If you want to be a chat host,
e-mail me.

Exploding with activity! Give your opinion!
The UFOs/Aliens Forum:
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mpboards.htm

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=440.1
It seems like an alien was elected as senator in N.Y..

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=438.4
The odds are far more likely that any space traveling
civilization is much, much older than our own.

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=443.1
The third pic is one of Mary and other's, whilst an "airship" is
in the background over their left shoulders a "classic UFO"

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=323.61
You may or may not be aware of this photo, but it is a rare one
of a "Unknown aircraft" taken near Roswell from a Military
Gunship camera, 7 days AFTER the Roswell incident.

-----------------Elsewhere on About.com-----------------

If you like my site, you should also check out these related About.com
Sites: http://archaeology.about.com; http://aviation.about.com;
http://conspiracies.about.com; http://newage.about.com;
http://paranormal.about.com; http://physics.about.com;
http://scifimovies.about.com; http://space.about.com;
http://kidsastronomy.about.com; http://urbanlegends.about.com and
http://xfiles.about.com


Until next week,

Loy Lawhon
UFOs
http://ufos.about.com
ufos.guide@about.com

About.com

------------ Clickable Links for AOL Users -------------
(E-mail me if these don't work!)
UFOs/Aliens Home

Who Wants to be a UFO Expert?

"Apollo 11 and the UFOs"

Reader's Sightings

In The News

New Links

Hundreds of Links

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About UFOs...

Polls Page

U.S. UFO Sightings

Previous Features by Topic

UFO Timeline

UFOs/Aliens Forum

UFOs/Aliens Forum:
UFO FORUM

UFOs/Aliens Chatroom









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:50:18 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


 >From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

<snip>

 >>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 >>We may one day discover a 'medium' of communication that can only
 >>have been attained/discovered by climbing the technological ladder
 >>one rung at a time. If we do discover such a medium we may then
 >>find that when we train our receivers on the the 'Universe' it will
 >>prove to be a noisey clatter and din of interstellar communication.

<snip>

 >To what John has said above, I say a big AMEN! The chances of us
 >finding another civilization nearby, still communicating with
 >radio, I think are pretty remote. There must surely be more
 >powerful and more efficient means of communication which we
 >haven't even thought of yet, and if we don't know where to look,
 >we aren't going to find them! For the most part I think that
 >SETI, as it stands now, is nothing but a big waste of time.

Hi Marty and John.

I would suspect that E.T.s living in our Milky Way neighbourhood
would all have had roughly the same time to get up to speed or
evolve technologically since the stars in this region have very
similar average ages as opposed to stars in other neighbourhoods
of our galaxy. Of course, these E.T.s may have a very different
form of communicating with each other than using radio waves but
I do not feel they would totally ignore this large part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Even if they did, radio waves can
still give away their presence. For example, the starter of for
an internal combustion engine car produces a very unnatural
radio signal which has been known to generate many false alarms
among our SETI friends. Same with the computer I am working on
tonight or the microwave oven that I just used to reheat a meal
here at work rather than go home for dinner instead of staying
to reply to some of these UFO UpDates e-mails. Maybe some of the
latest E.T. communication equipment can also produce such
unnatural radio wave noise too.

Until we and our SETI friends actually do point our radio
telescopes towards Zeta Reticulli, we remain (to borrow a few
expressions used by Stan Friedman) nothing more than the same
noisey negativists who don't bother to check for themselves
before making their proclamations.

Would you happen to know if Zeta Reticulli is or has been on any
of the list of stars radio SETI people plan to listen to? If
not, maybe it should be added to their lists of candidate stars
likely to harbour an intelligent E.T. civilization.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                       Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:27:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:51:34 -0500
Subject: Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Stacy


 >From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
 >Date: 15 Nov 2000 11:10:35 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: NARCAP Report

 >Delivered-To: mailing list discoveryscience@listbot.com
 >Subject: NARCAP report

 >National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

 >Posted on the NIDS website is a new report written by Dr.
 >Richard Haines, a Senior research scientist at NASA Ames. It is
 >the flagship report for the newly formed National Aviation
 >Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).

FWIW,

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, Haines has been seriously retired
from NASA Ames for some years now.

Which is not necessarily to disparage Haines, NASA, or NIDS.

Just trying to keep the record straight.

Dennis Stacy
http://www.anomalist.com







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                     Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 01:17:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:56:04 -0500
Subject: Re: NIDS: NARCAP Report - Salvaille


 >From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net
 >Date: 15 Nov 2000 11:10:35 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: NARCAP Report

 >Delivered-To: mailing list discoveryscience@listbot.com
 >Subject: NARCAP report

 >National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

 >Posted on the NIDS website is a new report written by Dr.
 >Richard Haines, a Senior research scientist at NASA Ames. It is
 >the flagship report for the newly formed National Aviation
 >Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).

 >Three kinds of reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported
 >consequences are addressed in Haines' report, each of which can
 >affect air safety: (1) near miss and other high speed maneuvers
 >conducted by the UAP near aircraft, (2) transient and permanent
 >electromagnetic effects onboard the aircraft that affect
 >navigation, guidance, and flight control systems, and (3) close
 >encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit
 >distractions which inhibit the flight crew from flying the
 >airplane in a safe manner.

 >More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP
 >and commerical, private, and military airplanes are reviewed
 >relative to these three topics. These reports are drawn from
 >several sources including the author's personal files, aviation
 >reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
 >National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National
 >Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation
 >Safety Reporting System"(ASRS).

 >To read the report, see:

 >http://www.nidsci.org/articles/narcap.html

Hello Colm and List,

Many thanks.

The report, in Acrobat format, should become a classic in
ufology.

This one is a _must_ read for any scientific inquiring mind.

Sorry. This excludes all debunkers.

Cheers,

Serge Salvaille






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                           Re: ET Evidence - McCoy

From: Gt McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:24:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:03:26 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - McCoy


Hello, all Nick ,John.

 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0800

 >><snip>

 >>>one would think that in the search for planet(s)  The
 >>>Reticuli Twins would be a prime target for research. Nothing
 >>>yet, and I wonder why.

 ><snip>

 >>Terry Dickinson correctly pointed out in his 1974 'The Zeta
 >>Reticuli Incident' article in Astronomy magazine that since Zeta
 >>1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are separated by about 100 times the
 >>Sun-Pluto distance, it is very possible for planets to form and
 >>continue to orbit unperturbed around any one of these two stars.
 >>
 >>Does anyone know if our SETI friends have checked out these two
 >>stars for radio signals?

 >Hiya Nick,

 >Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 >We may one day discover a 'medium' of communication that can only
 >have been attained/discovered by climbing the technological ladder
 >one rung at a time. If we do discover such a medium we may then
 >find that when we train our receivers on the the 'Universe' it will
 >prove to be a noisey clatter and din of interstellar communication.

 >We are only in our second century of technological exploration and
 >discovery. Babies have to crawl before they can walk. Maybe we'll
 >just have to do the same before we are able to join in on the Galactic
 >dialog.  :)

Absolutely. Kind of like using the Telegraph and your neighbors
are using a DSL internet hookup. Aalthough my local provider
(the only show in town) is somewhat better than an Alderwood
fire and a Pendelton blanket, only if it's a small
blanket, however.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: ET Evidence - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 01:29:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:04:50 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:19:42 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

Hello Sean, Marty and List,

<snip>

 >WOAH there bessy. SETI is far from a waste of time. No-one with
 >a high school education should be thinking that SETI is looking
 >for current modes of ET communication. Radio is the simplest
 >form of wireless communication that we came up with when a less
 >advanced species, so why not look for this mode of communication
 >when peering into the past of other potential beings.

<snip>

I understand that "SETI" looks good on a curriculum, but...
smoke signals are waaaaaaaayyyyyyy cheaper.

And as [in]efficient.

Regards,

Serge Salvaille







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

             Re: Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:55:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:45:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO? - Hatch


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:44:28 -0500
 >Subject: Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO?

 >Source: EFE News Agency (Spain)
 >Date: November 14, 2000

 >Russia: Flying Saucer Jeopardizes Army Near Chechnya

 >Majachkal (Russia), 14 nov (EFE).- An alleged UFO has
 >jeopardized and eluded Russian troops near Daguestan, a republic
 >bordering Chechnya.

 >Alarms went off at 01.00 local time (22:00 hrs GMT yesterday)
 >and an hour later, confusion was extreme in the garrisons on the
 >ridges separating Dagestan from Chechnya and the war which has
 >raged the area north of the Caucasus for over a year and a half.
 >At 02.00 local time (23:00 GMT) the most lucid reports began to
 >arrive from the Magaramkent region on the Caspian Sea regading
 >the "unidentified flying object" which had caused Russian forces
 >to sound battlestations.

 >Soldiers provided a detailed description of the artifact or
 >device they witnessed for a long time as it flew slowly eastward
 >toward the sea. Some garrisons noted that it was an object
 >flying at low altitude (some 100 meters) and had three
 >fluorescent lights above it with 2 meter spaces between them,
 >according to the Russian Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan.
 >Several civilian witnesses agreed on the description and light
 >arrangement of the mysterious phenomenon, while hesitating to
 >ascribe its origin to a secret weapon of the Russian army or a
 >new weapon in the hands of Islamic separatists.

 >Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Dagestan were
 >cautious and stated their unwillingness to state if the object
 >in question was indeed a UFO or a natural optical phenomenon.
 >Military reports, the alarm caused by the apparent UFO and  the
 >jet fighters scrambled -too late - in its pursuit, have renewed
 >mistrust regarding the traditional secrecy shown by Russian
 >authorities in the light of such situations.

 >Acting quickly to forestall any possible reprimands, the most
 >mistrusting military officers indicated that it could be a NATO
 >spy plane interested in Russian maneuvers in the Caucasus and
 >the Caspian, which are rich in gas and oil. Muslim leaders in
 >Dagestan were less ambiguous in their statements: the strange
 >heavenly event was a portent which bore a message from Allah
 >himself. Even a mufti or spiritual legislator from Dagestan
 >showed no compuction in stating that without any doubt it was "a
 >djinn, an angel or other heavenly being, since God's masterpiece
 >is filled with them."

 >############

 >Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
 >Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi.

Hello Scott:

I note that the soldiers and even scientists had plenty of time
to see the object and make detailed descriptions of it.

Sadly, there is no mention of the shape! Given estimates (100
meters) of its altitude, one could extrapolate a rough real size
from its apparent size. But these are not given either.

There is mention of lights in a certain arrangement, but not
what the particular geometry or arrangement was; linear,
cruciform, rectangular, circular.....

The object went slowly eastward, but no real or angular velocity
is given. Still it "eluded" Russian troops.

If indeed all they saw was an assembly of night-lights, (as one
might presume from interpretations which range from Islamic
djinns to well lit Nato spy planes) I wish they would just say
so.

Given the EFE news account, it could have been literally
anything in the air with lights. How they came to call it a
"saucer" is not clear at all.

Most likely, the reports were filtered thru various channels and
media, each dropping vital bits of information until we are left
with the above.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                          Re: ET Evidence - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:58:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:47:44 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Lemire


 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

<snip>

 >Terry Dickinson correctly pointed out in his 1974 'The Zeta
 >Reticuli Incident' article in Astronomy magazine that since Zeta
 >1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are separated by about 100 times the
 >Sun-Pluto distance, it is very possible for planets to form and
 >continue to orbit unperturbed around any one of these two stars.

 >Does anyone know if our SETI friends have checked out these two
 >stars for radio signals?

 >Nick Balaskas

In answer to your question Nick, which is easily answered within
the publication offered by Stanton, SETI, then known as Project
Ozma, searched Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti.

Other intriguing information concerning a Russian radio
astronomer and a strange intelligent (?) radio signal dubbed
CTA-102 can be found within The Zeta Reticuli Incident offered
by Stanton.


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









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

              Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:44:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:52:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles



 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:15:48 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:51:58 -0000

 >>Now we see how the ability to commercialise ufology by promoting
 >>these locations as focal points of activity and today the value
 >>to tourism and industry (via things like theme parks) can never
 >>be underestimated.  Where will this all lead?

 >>My question - to which I am not presupposing an answer BTW -
 >>just posing it to see what people think - is to ask to what
 >>extent this can be perceived as a good or bad thing for ufology?

 >Hi Jenny,

 >I must admit to agreeing with a lot what you said, and I would
 >go slightly further. Anyone putting on a conference on UFOs
 >should donate the whole proceeds to charity, the sooner we stop
 >the commercial band wagon (paying people for theories) in books
 >lectures etc.. ufology will soon be a cleaner act. Perhaps it
 >could even knock some of the UFO myths on the head!


Hi,

Commercialism of ufology is indeed a problem. And, to an extent,
you are right that this involves ufologists as well. But
commercialism is also an opportunity. Perhaps we should accept
its existence and run with the tide.

However, there is a crucial difference when ufology itself are
the commercialisers. When someone organises a conference (at
least most of the ones I have seen) it rarely makes much of a
profit since that is not really why they are organised. The
ticket sales go towards hire of the room, equipment, travel
costs etc. And if a few hundred pounds (dollars) are made on top
then the UFO group involved will be happy and will put the money
back into the subject in some way, I expect.

This is very different from, say, a businessman recognising the
potential of exploiting public interest in UFOs big style and
staging some UFO themed event in a way to make large sums of
money that will not come back into ufology.

In such a case who is right and who is wrong? The businessman
for making pots of money off the back of ufology? Or ufology for
not recognising how much money it could make and what it could
do with it to the benefit of all?

Interesting questions to ask ourselves.

Much the same applies with books, I suspect. Most UFO books are
written by researchers who are able to use the money to do more
research. Its a field open to anyone to enter (even you Roy).
Not a closed shop. And lest you think its incredibly lucrative,
it isn't. A few authors may have been paid big money  for some
books - and we know they have - but these are rare events. And
if so what they do with their windfall in so far as funding the
UFO community afterwards is a matter for their own conscience.

I know if anyone was ever daft enough to pay me (or if one of my
books ever miraculously earned) a tidy sum I have plans drawn up
as to how to put that money back into ufology to create new
things that ufology could benefit from having. But I am well
aware that its as likely that I will win the lottery (and do the
same). Or indeed that you will win the lottery - because in real
terms the money I earn from writing isn't of the order that would
fund anything.

I have a very firm principle of supporting the UFO community by
not charging fees to lecture or to write (as some do). I simply
feel that as a person who has benefited from being a ufologist
its the least I can do to repay the community upon whom I
constantly depend. But I don't question what stands others may
take on such matters as it is their choice and the choice of
anyone willing to pay them within the UFO community. And I doubt
we can start making moral issues out of this. It has to be a
personal choice.

However, even those people who make money in a commercial sense
from within ufology are usually (exceptions are rare I suspect)
genuinely adding to our knowledge in some way and therefore not
merely using the phenomenon for personal reasons.

Unfortunately ufology is - and always has been - an underfunded,
voluntary community that needs some inflow of money to keep it
ticking over. And there is never anything like enough. As such
there is a case to argue that we ourselves need to be more
commercially minded, not less, rather than to let the money
makers from without bleed ufology dry.

Just think. If the UFO community clubbed together to create its
own publishing house (its an idea I've tossed about in my mind
from time to time as the UFO community collectively could make
it happen if we wanted to do) and as a consequence we published
a proportion of the literature ourselves, not only would we have
some say in the quality of output but also would be able to
plough profits back into funding UFO research projects.

In a way this is what many of our groups do right now by
publishing their own material from time to time, but this is
small scale by comparison. Collectively ufology might be able to
really raise some good funds to spend wisely in future rather
than to repay shareholders as publishers would do.

Because, Roy, believe it or not authors are not the main
beneficiaries from a book. If I write a book and it sells for
say $20 the vast majority of that never goes anywhere near an
author. There are many who share a slice of the cake and it this
that makes books so expensive and creates the myth that UFO
writers make large sums of money.

But, of course, if you cut out many of the hands that bite into
the cake by forming your own company that exists to fund ufology
not to make money for other people then you do stand a chance of
raising useful annual incomes that could truly benefit ufology.
Although - admittedly - you also take a risk of failure as well.

The above - on a very small UK based scale BTW - is one of the ways that
UFOIN is doing ufology differently.

Moreover, if ufology got together and planned some sort of
mega-fund raiser event (like we could have done - for instance -
in l997 - if we had been less busy arguing and spent more time
thinking about how to raise ufology onto the next level) then we
might have made some useful progress.

What I mean is a huge commercial venture to utilise public
interest and where all participants agreed to donate their
services for free. Then - once more - we could probably build up
a useful 'pot' out of which we could fund meaningful
investigation and research long term.

There have been cross party attempts to do this before (like
FUFOR) but these relied on donations rather than creating a
commercial community spirit from within ourselves. And what I am
suggesting here is merely a different style of thinking.

It requires two things to happen that may not be easy, of
course. ufologists of all persuasions would have to stop
bickering and start thinking as a community about ways to really
work together in a commercial sense. And ufologists would need
to be self sacrificial - that is willing to do something that
will not actually benefit them personally but will boost the
community of which we are all a part.

I am not optimistic such things could happen. But its one way to
regain control of our own subject and to turn from the exploited
into the exploiters. And maybe its worth making an effort.

Because there is nothing inherently wrong with ufology being
commercial or with ufology making money. What is wrong is that
ufology is failing to benefit from both the commercialism and
money making that goes on all around it.

Obviously, a line has to be drawn. Too much hype would be self
destructive and make us open to well earned derision. But like
it or not we are in a public interest field and maybe it is time
we woke up to the opportunity to do something with that fact and
created a funding structure that could kick start moribund
research.

As always, just a thought.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

               Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:59:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:25:27 -0500
Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere - Hatch
 >Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:32:34 +0100

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:15:50 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere

 >>>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: The Squad Car & The Glowing Sphere
 >>>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:02:31 +0100

<snip>

 >One last consideration. After reading many reports of similar
 >cases, I'm still surprised to find that the raw material is
 >probably a banal "big" redish Moon quite near the horizon.
 >However, I don't think that these events involve "dolts"
 >misidentifying the Moon, but rather average people caught for
 >once in a perceptive trap. For instance, driving toward a full
 >Moon located at an astronomical distance, or chasing an actual
 >glowing sphere of same angular size flying a quarter of mile
 >ahead, would make no difference. We would see _exactly_ the
 >same. There are two possible interpretations for the same scene,
 >just like those images that show up visual illusions (the white
 >cup _or_  the two black faces in profile...). We must introduce
 >some assumptions to break up this ambiguity. And once we
 >"choose", we stick to it, and we perceive, think and act
 >accordingly. If for whatever reason we choose to assume that the
 >round luminous patch in the sky is a_ nearby_ object, we will
 >see this assumption "confirmed" time and time again in a sort of
 >feedback. We start thinking the glowing "thing" it's a close
 >object and we try to approach it, but it stays ahead, hence it's
 >moving with us, and if it moves then it cannot be the Moon but a
 >close object. No way out of such a circular thinking...

 >But how can several observers get mistaken at once? This could
 >result from mutual influence and mutual reinforcing of the wrong
 >interpretation. Surely, there are also many more cases in which
 >the witnesses realized they were in error. But obviously those
 >cases never reach the ufologists.

 >So maybe we should conclude that the Moon could sometimes fool
 >all the people (within a group) all the time...


Hello Manuel:

All your points are well taken, and I think we can lay this
matter to rest as highly questionable at best.

Personally, I don't see how people can mistake the Moon for a
UFO unless they have very poor eyesight, or very special
conditions. I hope those folks didn't vote in Florida recently.

Yet, there are exactly such cases on record, and not just one or
two!

I note that the one fireman on the scene disagreed that the
object was very close. The policeman may have indeed influenced
one another that it was near.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: ET Evidence - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 16 Nov 2000 09:26:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:55:46 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hamilton



 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 ><snip>

 >>>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 >>>We may one day discover a 'medium' of communication that can only
 >>>have been attained/discovered by climbing the technological ladder
 >>>one rung at a time. If we do discover such a medium we may then
 >>>find that when we train our receivers on the the 'Universe' it will
 >>>prove to be a noisey clatter and din of interstellar communication.

 ><snip>

 >>To what John has said above, I say a big AMEN! The chances of us
 >>finding another civilization nearby, still communicating with
 >>radio, I think are pretty remote. There must surely be more
 >>powerful and more efficient means of communication which we
 >>haven't even thought of yet, and if we don't know where to look,
 >>we aren't going to find them! For the most part I think that
 >>SETI, as it stands now, is nothing but a big waste of time.

 >Hi Marty and John.

 >I would suspect that E.T.s living in our Milky Way neighbourhood
 >would all have had roughly the same time to get up to speed or
 >evolve technologically since the stars in this region have very
 >similar average ages as opposed to stars in other neighbourhoods
 >of our galaxy. Of course, these E.T.s may have a very different
 >form of communicating with each other than using radio waves but
 >I do not feel they would totally ignore this large part of the
 >electromagnetic spectrum. Even if they did, radio waves can
 >still give away their presence. For example, the starter of for
 >an internal combustion engine car produces a very unnatural
 >radio signal which has been known to generate many false alarms
 >among our SETI friends. Same with the computer I am working on
 >tonight or the microwave oven that I just used to reheat a meal
 >here at work rather than go home for dinner instead of staying
 >to reply to some of these UFO UpDates e-mails. Maybe some of the
 >latest E.T. communication equipment can also produce such
 >unnatural radio wave noise too.

 >Until we and our SETI friends actually do point our radio
 >telescopes towards Zeta Reticulli, we remain (to borrow a few
 >expressions used by Stan Friedman) nothing more than the same
 >noisey negativists who don't bother to check for themselves
 >before making their proclamations.

 >Would you happen to know if Zeta Reticulli is or has been on any
 >of the list of stars radio SETI people plan to listen to? If
 >not, maybe it should be added to their lists of candidate stars
 >likely to harbour an intelligent E.T. civilization.


Hi Nick, Marty, and John

Even SETI scientists are getting creative and not all are
relying on the radio spectrum.  This comes from part of an
article I was working on:

In a new twist on this search the Planetary Society in the US
has funded projects in California and Massachusetts to look for
short pulses of light from nearby stars similar to the Sun, as
well as from globular clusters and galaxies. A third project
will examine existing data from telescopes for steady,
narrow-band signals. These two types of signal might be visible
if extraterrestrials were pointing powerful lasers in our
direction. It is the assumption of SETI that ET will broadcast
radio signals or transmit information via powerful lasers from
one planet to another. Most SETI scientists think it is more
likely that we will make contact with ET through radio than to
expect ET to land near Devil's Tower.

An active SETI program would involve sending signals toward
target stars instead of passively searching for signals.
Physicists have announced such a project and designed a message
to be broadcast in the direction of nearby stars in order to
search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

This is the first time in a quarter of a century that such a
cosmic call will be attempted. This experiment is promoted by
the Encounter 2001 project, an international spaceflight project
which is planned for launch into interstellar space in the year
2001.

The complete message is about 400,000 bits long and will be
transmitted three times over a 3-hour period in the direction of
the four selected stars. Then, it will be followed by a series
of greetings from people around the world. The transmission will
start on March 15 1999. This message is much larger in size,
duration and scope than the one sent by Frank Drake on November
16th, 1974 from the Arecibo observatory which consisted of only
1,679 bits sent over a 3 minute duration.

A sea of backyard satellite dishes stretching across an area the
size of several football fields will be the latest attempt to
listen for life on other planets, the Redding Record Searchlight
reported early this year.. The search, popularized by the movie
"Contact," is usually done with massive satellite dishes, but
this project will use the unique configuration of about 750
dishes in a remote Northern California valley.

Another means of establishing ETI contact is a suggestion for
using the elusive neutrino. On earth, neutrino communications
have lagged radio communications by about 100 years, during
which time our ability to send and receive radio signals has
increased drastically. We can hope for similar improvements in
neutrino communications in the next decades. The suggestion is
that the transmission of modulated neutrino signals would be a
sign of an extraterrestrial civilization. We have not yet built
neutrino receivers that could demodulate such signals, but it
may be another means worth exploring.


Bill Hamilton








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                         Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:42:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:03:34 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


 >Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:58:05 -0500
 >From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:02:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 ><snip>

 >>Terry Dickinson correctly pointed out in his 1974 'The Zeta
 >>Reticuli Incident' article in Astronomy magazine that since Zeta
 >>1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are separated by about 100 times the
 >>Sun-Pluto distance, it is very possible for planets to form and
 >>continue to orbit unperturbed around any one of these two stars.

 >>Does anyone know if our SETI friends have checked out these two
 >>stars for radio signals?

<snip>

 >In answer to your question Nick, which is easily answered within
 >the publication offered by Stanton, SETI, then known as Project
 >Ozma, searched Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti.

 >Other intriguing information concerning a Russian radio
 >astronomer and a strange intelligent (?) radio signal dubbed
 >CTA-102 can be found within The Zeta Reticuli Incident offered
 >by Stanton.

Hi Todd.

Since the first radio SETI search, Project Ozma, used a radio
telescope located in the northern hemisphere, then they could
not possibly have listened for radio signals coming from the two
stars Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli. They are found very low in the
southern sky and would always have been below the horizon. Do
you know if any of the later radio SETI searches using radio
telescopes in the southern hemisphere have listened in to Zeta 1
and Zeta 2 Reticuli? If not, I think it would be worth the try.

This CTA-102 radio source is located in the northern sky and has
since been identified as a pulsar, a natural radio source. There
were other earlier attempts to identify the stars that made up
the Betty Hill star map before Marjorie Fish discovered what now
many believe to be the actual stars. One of these early attempts
included this then mysterious CTA-102 radio source but the stars
they selected to try to match Betty's star map were a very poor
match at best and an illogical selection in many ways.

I understand that Dr. Frank Drake of Project Ozma initially got
some very startling positive results when they listened in to
Epsilon Eridani (recently discovered to have a large planet
orbiting around it) and/or Tau Ceti (one of the stars connected
by lines in Betty Hill's star map). These results were not
published in the scientific literature because they were one
time observations and as such not really proof of anything.

If E.T.s are already here on Earth they should be aware that we
are now actively listening for radio signals from their home
star(s) so I would guess that they would be more careful on how
they used the powerful radio emitting devices they have. This
may explain all the very mysterious and still unexplained
signals coming from space which were picked up in the very early
days of radio. Do you think it is likely that Earth could now be
within an E.T. created "Radio Silent Zone" about a few hundred
light years in diameter - the same region of space our present
day radio telescopes are currently listening for E.T. radio
signals?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:24:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:11:06 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 46
November 16, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

METALLIC SPHERE UFOs SPOTTED IN ARGENTINA

"The sphere with a metallic appearance shining in the sunlight
were seen this past October 5 (2000) in the sky to the east of
Resistencia in broad daylight by four members of the same
family."

Resistencia is in Argentina's Chaco province, about 140
kilometers (84 miles) west of Buenos Aires, the national
capital.

"Moments later, another one appeared, descending and ascending
with swift guided movements and managed to be caught on
videotape for one whole minute."

"This is the news that ufologist Osvaldo Sanchez, a research
analyst with the Red Argentina de Ufologia (Argentinian Network
of Ufology--J.T.) gave (the newspaper) Norte, having analyzed
all the reports including an examination of the film taken by
Diego Romero, 21, a student at the School of Economics at
UNNE." (Universidad Nacional de Nord-Este--J.T.)

"Sr. Atilio Romero, head of the respected household in
Residencia, was on the lower floor of his house on October 5,
considering the possibility of cleaning out a swimming pool with
his two sons and wife. The time was about 12:20 p.m when he
looked eastward and saw something glinting in the sun."

"He told his family about it, and they were all able to see two
small spheres, about 20 degrees above the horizon, darting
rapidly about, appearing and disappearing, flying up and down
and vice versa. A third sphere then entered the scene."

"The family was fascinated by the scene, but then remembered
that they had a camcorder in the bedroom. Diego ran for it and
quickly tried to film the objects, although he had trouble in
doing so. Ultimately he managed to focus on one of the objects
with a zoom lens and was able to make out that the UFO, while
spherical, had a disc-shaped structure on its upper part which
spun like a top."

"Osvaldo Sanchez's analysis adds that Sr. Romero was able to
distinguish, prior to the camcorder being brought into play, a
spindle-shaped object or form that appeared to accompany the
UFOs. This was not captured on the film, but it is worth bearing
min mind that the sighting itself lasted four minutes and it
was in view the whole time," until the UFOs moved out of view
behind a neighbor's house.

"According to the witnesses, the objects were quite a distance
from where the sighting took place. The sky was spectacular
(clear) with high visibility. When the video is seen in slow
motion and frame-by-frame, the last seconds of the Romero video
give the impression of seeing a physical metallic vehicle
moving through the atmosphere and engaging in planned maneuvers
prior to landing. The top-like spinning motion is a known
behavior pattern relating to UFO phenomena." (See the
Argentinian newspaper Norte for November 6, 2000, "UFO seen
moving in the skies over Resistencia." Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales, autor de los libros Cupacabras and Other Mysteries y
Forbidden Mexico para eso articulo de diario.)

Chupacabras And Other Mysteries is available from Amazon.com
and Amazon.co.uk

"BALL OF FIRE" WREAKS HAVOC IN ARGENTINA

"A strange meteorological phenomenon disturbed siesta time in
Tafi Viejo on Wednesday," November 8, 2000,. "Shortly after 3
p.m., a deafening explosion was heard, followed by an electrical
discharge that burned out dozens of TV sets, VCRs, telephones
and other devices--a computer among them."

"A few witnesses of the phenomenon claim having seen 'a ball of
fire' crossing the street at the corner of the Calle 25 de Mayo
and the Calle Bolivar, where an EDET (a local Argentinian
electrical utility--J.T.) electric meter was literally fused
together into an enormous lump of metal."

"The most curious event, according to residents, was that the
event did not occur during a thunderstorm, which are common
during the summer months."

(Editor's Note: Right now it's late spring in Argentina and the
other countries of the southern hemisphere.)

"Some distant thunder could be heard until the 'blowout' caused
all those enjoying a well-deserved siesta to jump out of bed."

"Since no one could envision such a large detonation,
attributed by some to a lightning bolt, the majority of
electrical appliances remained plugged-in and working."

"It appears that the current distributed itself through the
power grid and telephone cables, burning everything in its path.

"'It exploded the meter, box and all, and burned the electrical
insulation. A tremendous explosion was heard from blocks away,'
said Hugo Castelli, whose home is located in another part of the
building. Light switches were blown out of their sockets as well
as the power outlets. While repairing the burned cables, the
electricians said they had never seen anything like it."

"'People came from my son's bar on the Avenida Alem to see what
had caused such a tremendous sound,'" Castelli added.

"Two houses away, Norma de Martinez noticed that the detonation
seemed very close to her. 'It was like nothing I'd ever heard.
My neighbors told me that it was a fireball that crossed from
one end of the street to the other at a height of some three
meters (10 feet). It struck a pillar where the meter is
located. Three TV sets and a telephone were burned out at my
house.'"

"Both the sound and the flash of the electrical discharge
traveled very far. (The newspaper) La Gaceta was able to learn
that burned artifacts could be found two blocks from where the
phenomenon occurred, and in the house of electrician Benito
Baez, who lost a TV and a VCR. Baez that a neighbor living 150
meters (496 feet) away had brought in a computer to be repaired
since it had been destroyed by the event."

Tafi Viejo is located about 350 kilometers (219 miles)
northeast of Buenois Aires." (See La Gaceta of Tucuman,
Argentina for November 11, 2000, "Ball lightning stuns Tafi
Viejo.")

SUNDERLAND UFO SEEN BY A SECOND EYEWITNESS

"Investigators remained baffled as more sightings emerged today
(Friday, October 27, 2000) of an unidentified flying object over
Wearside."

"The five-foot (1.5-meter) pear-shaped piece of silver metal
was first spotted hurtling towards the ground by trainee teacher
Jenny Cook in Hendonon on Tuesday evening (October 25, 2000.)"
(Fore more on this story, see UFO Roundup, volume 5, number 44
for November 2, 2000, "UK teacher trainee spots teardrop-shaped
UFO," page 3.)

"Police launched an investigation following the report by the
18-year-old Sunderland University student, but, despite a ground
search of the area, failed to find any trace of the object."

"The (newspaper) Echo has now learned that officials at
Newcastle Airport were alerted three hours later after a similar
sighting above Penshaw."

"Ron Atwill spotted a mysterious five-foot long grey object
narrowly miss a passenger jet as it descended towards Newcastle
Airport while walking his dog near the old Harrington Colliery
yard."

"Mr. Atwill, a retired prison services worker, saw the object
at 11:45 a.m. He said, 'I was looking up as a passenger jet was
flying quite low in the distance, on a flight path between the
colliery and Penshaw Monument, and I saw this thing almost hit
it. I rang the airport because they appeared that close, and I
thought they might have spotted it, as well. It was about 20
feet (6 meters) from the plane.'"

"It looked exactly the way it was described in the Echo. It was
silvery grey in colour and from where I was standing, it looked
very flat, pear-shaped, about four to five feet long. I watched
it for a little while and then turned away and took my eye off
it as it had disappeared. It almost looked as if it was standing
still, moving very slowly earthward towards Sunderland, if you
can imagine a piece of corrugated iron but not corrugated and
oblong.'"

"Mr. Atwill, 64, of Elm Place, Newbottle, added, ' 'I hadn't a
clue what it was, and I decided not to say anything because of
what people might think. But I definitely saw something. It
wasn't a speck in the sky. It was big enough to make out even
if it was a bit in the distance, but I am beginning to think,
What was it? I can't imagine that I should know. It wasn't a
weather balloon or a model.'"

"Detective Inspector John Watts of the Sunderland City Centre
Police said, 'We had a report of a strange object in the skies.
about the size of a small car. We couldn't find anything, but it
has been reported to the relevant authorities.'" (See the UK
newspaper Sunderland Echo for October 28, 2000, "Wear UFO
spotted within feet of a jet." Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for
forwarding this newspaper article.)

ANOTHER UFO VIDEOTAPED IN ASHTABULA, OHIO

"It's been three months since she spotted several unidentified
objects in the night sky, but Mary Standy said it's time to
speak out about her findings."

"Standy has about 15 minutes of tape shot with her family's
camcorder to prove what she saw back on July 17 (2000)."

"Standy was recording the full moon at about 11:30 p.m. 'I was
going to use the pictures to make a poster for my daughter's
room,' Standy said."

"What she saw as she aimed the camcorder at the night sky from
her bedroom window turned out to be more than just a scenic view
of the moon and picturesque wispy cloud, however."

"As Standy videotaped from the east side of her Lincoln Drive
home, suddenly she noticed tiny round white lights streaking
from left to right above, below and around the moon.."

"'They weren't planes, and they weren't shooting stars,' Standy
said, beginning to shake with the memory of her experience."

"One of the lights drifted to the right of the moon,
disappeared behind a large cloud, then seconds later zipped to
the left and was gone from sight. During the ten minutes of
recording, more than a half dozen such 'lights' alternately
appeared and disappeared around the edge of the moon, Standy
said."

"Standy said she was forced to brace her arms on the window's
edge to steady them as she began to react to the incident. Her
dog, a cocker spaniel, hopped onto the nearby bed and began to
growl. Standy also recalled that the fur on the dog's head stood
on end as it reacted to whatever was traveling in the sky.

"An hour later, Standy's daughter suffered a further shock when
she went to her front yard and recorded an even more spectacular
sight. Carefully focusing th camcorder into the cloudless sky,
Standy's daughter captured another five minutes of a rapidly
darting object, which alternately changed shape from round to
elliptical to tubular."

The object appeared white as it darted across the sky, but when
she caught it on freeze-frame, it turned green, red and purple."

On Saturday, October 21, 2000, "Standy again caught something
unidentified on film. This time it was a large white ball of
light. At first she thought it was the moon. However, the orb
was not in the right position of the sky at the time of the
recording--about 2 a.m., Standy said."

"'I've been seeing objects in the sky since the age of nine,'
Standy said."

Located just south of Lake Erie, Ashtabula is on Ohio Route 20
approximately 66 miles (105 kilometers) east of Cleveland. (See
the Ashtabula Star-Beacon for November 5, 1000, "Ashtabula
Township woman videotapes UFO near her house" by Pamela E. Gran.
Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for forwarding this newspaper
article.)

MASSIVE SAUCER HOVERS OVER SAN FRANCISCO BAY

On Friday, November 10, 2000, at 6:04 p.m., Shelah J. was at
her apartment in San Rafael, California, across the bay from San
Francisco, when she spied something odd outside the window.

"At first the object seemed like it was not moving and was
standing stationary," Shelah reported. "Its light, or the
brightness of the vehicle, was brighter than the surrounding
planes."

"It moved very slowly and flew low over the mountains and then
just seemed to move (west) over the water towards the city of
San Francisco. After watching for what seemed like ten minutes.
I ran downstairs to get the binoculars. Through the binoculars,
the object looked incredible."

"At first the object seemed to be elongated and looked like a
cigar shape. But after watching for a longer period of time, it
seemed more like a saucer shape and glowed brightly. It was the
same color as a fire ember. It was bright orange and its glow
seemed to radiate much energy from inside."

"The vehicle was massive in size. I cannot estimate how large
but very, very large and easy to see through such binoculars."

"It seemed as if two planes were circling around or near it,
and later a third plane also monitored it.."

"My roommates came home at about 6:45 p.m. and I told them what
I saw. I thought the object was gone because it had gone out of
sight earlier. But then Michael, my roommate, looked from his
bedroom (window) and saw a gleaming object adjacent to planes'
lights and asked me if that was it. We took the binoculars out
and a small telescope and indeed it was the same. This was when
I saw the third plane tracking the vehicle."

"Even though the vehicle was further away than when I
originally saw it, it gleamed with a very bright fiery orange
glow. Michael said, 'I've never seen anything like it.' He was
also able to make out some red and white lights on the side of
it and the light that circled around it." (Email Form Report)

GREENISH-WHITE UFO SEEN OVER OSTEND, MICHIGAN

Five Michiganders got an unexpected thrill on Halloween night
when they spotted a fast-moving UFO.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2000, "between 6:45 and 7 p.m.," the
female eyewitness, "my husband, my seven-year-old son, a friend
and her ten-year-old son were walking north on the main street
of" Ostend, Michigan (population 2,300) when "I looked up and
saw this greenish-white light cruising straight from the east
to the west at an incredible speed approximately 300 feet (90
meters) up with absolutely no sound. I told the others to look
up. It was as if time stood still. We were awestruck!"

"As the pulsating light passed before us, a part of it
disengaged itself and fell to the east and disappeared. It was
similar to when the (space shuttle) Challenger exploded in
(January) 1987. We kept on following it to the north, trying to
follow it with our eyes as it headed west, only to have our view
obscured by the trees."

"Once we were into a clearing, I saw a faint greenish glow,
then it disappeared, more like vanished over the Dewey Lake
area. My husband and I both said to each other, right then,
'That was no falling star!'"

"There was absolutely no arc to this. There was no trail. It
moved at a steady consistent speed, perhaps 200 to 300 miles per
hour (320 to 480 kilometers per hour). My husband and I were in
disbelief. The friend who was with us didn't really dismiss it
but was just not as enthused. Her expression was more like Wow!
and that was it." (Email Form Report)

BLINKING UFO SIGHTED IN BIRDSBORO, PENNSYLVANIA

On Monday, November 6, 2000, at 11:15 p.m., Alan Broskey was
driving his car on a westbound road in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania
(population 1,400), not far from Reading, when he spotted
something unusual through the windshield.

""Driving westward, I saw a light in the sky that was three
times as big as the North Star (Polaris). The object had
blinking white, blue, yellow and red lights. Flying low over the
valley from the north and then turning to the southwest. And it
continued its flight until it was out of my view. It made no
sound." (Email Form Report)

PERMIAN LIZARD HOLDS EVOLUTIONARY SURPRISE

"The first known creature to walk upright on two feet was a
speedy, long-legged lizard that scurried on to the scene 80
million years before the dinosaur, a newly-found fossil shows."

"The lizard, less than one foot long and weighing under one
pound, was a plant-eater. Researchers believe that it used its
speed and unique way of running to avoid the hungry meat-eaters
that roamed the world" during the Permian Period 290 million
years ago.

"Walking on two feet is an example of 'repeated evolution in
which a physical advantage evolves in different species at
different times, says Robert Reisz, a University of Toronto
researcher and author of a study appearing in the current issue
of the journal Science."

"'It was just such a good idea that it happened again and
again,' he says, 'To find an example of an animal that did this
before dinosaurs or mammals is particularly exciting.'"

"The remains of the lizard were found in a German quarry. It
took researchers more than two years to painstakingly remove the
rock that encased the fragile 10-inch long fossil."

"When the remains were analyzed, Reisz says, it was clear the
lizard was a new species, now called Eudibamus cursoris, and
that it was designed for swift running on two feet."

"'The most compelling evidence for bipedalism is the length of
the hind limbs,' Reisz says, 'They are much longer than the
forelimbs, and it would have been relatively awkward for this
animal to move around on four legs.'"

"The hind legs are longer than the body. Trailing behind is a
tail that is about as long as the body. The forelegs are short,
which would be expected from a bipedal lizard, Reisz says."

"The formation where the fossils were found has been dated at
about 290 million years old. The first dinosaur is thought to
have appeared 210 million years ago."

"'This little animal was built for speed,' says David Berman of
the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh
(Pennsylvania)., the lead author of the study. 'It was very,
very fast.'"

"That speed was essential to its survival, he says. The world
290 million years ago was populated with a variety of
meat-eating reptiles, including the dimetrodon, a fierce
carnivore whose fossils were found in the same German quarry as
Eudibamus cursoris."

"Even so, Berman says, Eudibamus and its close relatives made
only a brief appearance in the fossil record and were gone by
the time dinosaurs appeared."

"Just why it died off despite its speed, Reisz says, We really
don't know. It's one of those continuing mysteries." (See USA
Today for November 7, 2000, "Upright lizard sprinted into
history long before dinos," page 8D.)

(Editor's Note: The end of the Permian Period was also the end
of the Paleozoic Era, which was characterized by a mass
extinction of life on Earth. About 80 percent of the planet's
marine life forms died at the end of the Permian period,
including the highly successful trilobites, which had been
around since the Cambrian Period 300 million years earlier.
Nobody knows why all these species suddenly disappeared,
although some have theorized that a cataclysm in outer space was
responsible.)

ISRAEL SENDS THOUSANDS OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO FLORIDA

"Roz Soltz, an Israeli from Miami (Florida) was a little sad
when she left for a community meeting Wednesday morning
(November 8, 2000), persuaded by television that her mail-in
vote for U.S. president had once again made little difference."

"Within minutes, her gloom turned to glee when a secretary ran
into the meeting with a note indicating that Soltz and hundreds
of other Floridians in Israel may have mailed in the votes that
could decide it." (The USA's prewidential election, which is
still up in the air as of this writing--J.T.)

"'It's mazel. It's luck, ' said Soltz, 73, an Al Gore supporter
who moved to Israel in 1995 but still owns a travel agency in
Coral Gables, Fla. 'It's our mazel that we are destined to have
some special input into America's future.'"

"As Florida churned with debates over recounts and lawsuits
Thursday (November 9, 2000), the possibility arose that the race
between Vice President Gore and Texas governor George W. Bush
(nickname Dubya--J.T.) could be decided by absentee ballots to
be counted in Florida, and no place has a more concentrated
piece of Florida abroad than Israel."

"Many of these residents moved to the Jewish state and went
through aliya, the citizenship process technically open to all
Jews under Israel's Law of Return."

"The Republican and Democratic parties try to get ballots into
the hands of U.S. citizens in Israel."

"Florida officials say that 26,000 state residents requested
absentee ballots for the 1996 presidential vote and that this
year's number was higher. By law the state will accept the
ballots as much as 10 days after Election Day as long as they
were postmarked by Election Day."

"Traditionally the bulk of those absentee ballots have been
cast for Republicans, many of them by U.S. soldiers and sailors
serving overseas."

"Like Jewish voters elsewhere, 90 percent of Israeli Floridians
were expected to vote Democratic. The idea that they could swing
the election is a bit far-fetched but perhaps no more so than
other scenarios that have become reality in the U.S. since
Election Day." (See the Chicago Tribune for November 10
November 10, 200-, "Americans in Israel now at race's center,"
section 1, page 5.)

(Editor's Comment: My question is, how many of these are
legitimate Florida absentee ballots? And how many are forgeries
printed by the Israeli government, complete with November 7
postmarks? Israel has a vested interest in keeping Dubya out of
the White House. For more on that, see our O Jerusalem Dept. in
this issue.)


from the UFO Files...

1982: JANGO'S SPACE PRINCESS

Since abduction research began in 1980, there have been a
number of tales of sexual encounters aboard UFOs. Many abductees
claim to have met their future lovers or spouses as children or
adolescents during an abduction experience.

Brazil has the highest number of recorded abduction sexual
experiences. The majority of these cases have taken place in
southern Brazil. Usually there is no physical evidence to
support the abductee's claim that such activity took place.

Joao Valerio da Silva is the exception. And here's what
happened to him in November of 1982.

Joao, nicknamed Jango, lived in an apartment in Botucatu, a
mid-sized city in Sao Paulo state located 250 kilometers (150
miles) west of the city of Sao Paulo, which is the largest city
in South America.

One evening, Jango was in the kitchen cooking some roupa velha
(Brazilian dish featuring beans and rice--J.T.) for supper. As
the pot began to simmer, he spied a brilliant white light just
outside the front window.

Jango entered the living room for a closer look. As he did so,
an intense, multi-megawatt beam of dazzling light came streaming
through the window. Crying out, he lifted his arm to shield his
eyes. A weird humming sound invaded his ears.

Jango felt himself being drawn upward, pulled towards the
ceiling. But instead of hitting whitewashed plaster, he found
himself moving slowly into what felt like a warm fog. Behind his
closed eyes, he saw a kind of dazzle field, twinkling
multicolored lights moving around in random patterns.

Suddenly, Jango found himself on his knees on what felt like a
warm spongy floor. Looking up, he saw that he was in a circular
room about 10 meters (33 feet) in diameter. The room was well
illuminated, but he could not see any lamps or recessed
lighting.

And Jango was not alone in the room.

Nearby stood a half dozen gaunt hooded figures. The hood's
shadow covered most of their faces leaving only a glimpse of a
narrow chin and a lipless mouth.

The entities began to close in, then stopped. A smaller hooded
figure came to the fore. A scaly three-fingered hand reached out
and pulled back the hood, exposing the face of a beautiful
woman.

She's gorgeous, he thought.

Indeed she was. She had a slender oval face with a slim
aquiline nose, muted cheekbones, fine eyebrows, gleaming
chocolate brown eyes. Her lush lips were rose red, exposing
gleaming white teeth which had a slight overbite. Her glossy
chestnut hair, with its golden highlights, cascaded down to her
shoulders and collarbone. She was wearing a floor-length black
cape with red sating showing at the collar.

He gaped in amazement. A space princess...

Large golden hoop earrings dangled from each ear. She stared
straight ahead, her dark sensuous eyes devoid of any reaction or
emotion. The alien hand reached out again and undid the silken
knot at the base of her throat. With a whisper, the satin-lined
cape slid from her shoulders and landed in a soft pile around
her feet.

"Aiiiii! Santa Madre!" he blurted, his eyes bulging wide open.

Jango's stunned gaze descended the length of her nubile body,
past her bodacious bosom, nipped-in waist, dimpled navel and
rounded hips hinting at a voluptuous rear. Her skin was a dark
shade of sunny gold, and she reacted not at all to his
open-mouthed stare, just looking ahead as if her mind was
several light-years away.

Jango's reaction was instantaneous. And masculine. He took an
instinctive step forward, reaching out to embrace her, and the
princess and her alien entourage moved forward, as well.

All at once, he felt a weird prickling sensation on the back of
his neck. He heard a rapid noise, a sudden
beep-beep-beep-beep-beep.

And suddenly he found himself lying flat on his back on a hard
wooden floor. The voices of his family drifted in from the
kitchen. "Jango? Where are you?"

"In here," he croaked, barely able to speak.

As John Spencer points out in The UFO Encyclopedia, Joao
Valerio da Silva "was found by his family on the floor of his
house, naked and unconscious, his clothes piled next to him. His
skin was covered in red marks, and his watch had stopped."

The Brazilian physicians who treated him also found other
evidence of his strange experience. As the medical report noted,
"The penile epidermis of the patient was covered with a number
of unusual lesions about 0.5 centimeters in diameter. At first
they appeared to be an advanced case of keritosis (a skin
disorder that sometimes leads to skin cancer--J.T.). However,
the lesions proved to be a form of severe dermatitis, the
stimulus for which is unknown." (See the book The UFO
Encyclopedia, edited by John Spencer, Avon Books, New York,
N.Y., 1993, page 89.)


O JERUSALEM DEPT: It isn't bad enough that we have Israeli
troops desecrating the mosques of Haram as-Sharif (the Temple
Mount to Jews) every Friday, keeping the Muslims from their
noonday prayers. Or that Israeli tanks are shelling Beit Jala, a
town south of Jerusalem with a population that is 90 percent
Christian, equally split between Greek Orthodox and Roman
Catholics, people who have absolutely nothing to do with the
Intifada. Now the West Bank's six-week war of religion has
spilled over into the USA's presidential election. Here's
how...

Ten days ago, Gov. Bush turned up in Detroit, Michigan to woo
the large Arab-American population in that city. Surprisingly,
he brought his national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, with
him. Reading between the lines, my guess is that Dubya and ms.
Rice sent a backchannel "Let's talk" message toYasser Arafat.

At 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, about an hour
before Vice President Gore called to concede the election,
Yasser Arafat phoned Dubya to congratulate him on his voictory.
Probably Arafat was trying to sell Bush on his "Send
peacekeepers to Jerusalem" idea, which so far has been resisted
by Israel and the Clinton administration.

This probably alarmed the Israelis, who dislike the Bush family
anyway. It all goes back to the Gulf War ten years ago. The
Israelis wanted Poppy, the governor's father, to invade Iraq and
crush Saddam Hussein for good. Then-President Bush figured the
CIA and Kurd uprisings would finish off Saddam. Well, he was
wrong, and Saddam proved to be more durable than anyone
expected.

All in all, the Zionists feel that the Bush family is too
friendly with the moderate Arabs, and they prefer a Democrat in
the White House.

Three hours after Arafat's phone call, a bunch of Palm Beach,
Florida Jews start complaining that the governor's evil kid
brother, Jebbie Bush, Florida's governor, somehow tricked them
into voting for their arch-enemy, Pat Buchanan.

All of which has me wondering, why do the Zionists want Al Fore
in the White House? Are the Democrats planning to wage another
war of religion on behalf of the Jews, like they did in the
1940s? Are they going to send a few hundred thousand American
troops to the Middle East to hold off the Arabs while those
Hasidic rabbis blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque?

Lord knows I'm no fan of the Poppies. I didn't even vote for
Dubya. But he did win the popular vote in Florida and the last
three recounts. With Florida's 25 electoral votes added to those
of the other states he won, under the terms of our country's
Constitution, Dubya has clearly won the presidential election.

If the Zionists succeed in helping Al Gore steal this election,
perhaps the GOP will reconsider its support of the State of
Israel.

It might be a good idea to double the number of Texas Rangers
guarding the Bush family. Considering last week's murder of
Hussein Abayat, the Mossad is more than willing to assassinate
political leaders it doesn't like.

Stay the course, Dubya. You won the electoral vote. You are the
president-elect. Come January 20, you can set your own foreign
policy. If people don't like it, they can express their opinion
at the polls in November 2004.

And if those rabbis in Jerusalem disapprove...well, you know
what they say in New Hampshire. "If you don't like them apples,
find another orchard."

We'll be back next week with more UFO and paranormal news from
around the planet, brought to you by "the paper that goes
home--UFO Roundup." See you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2000 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO Roundup on
their websites or in newsgroups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

                          Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:13:11 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 16 Nov 2000 09:26:00 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

<snip>

 >An active SETI program would involve sending signals toward
 >target stars instead of passively searching for signals.
 >Physicists have announced such a project and designed a
 >message to be broadcast in the direction of nearby stars in
 >order to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

<snip>

It would be nice to envision a galaxy where all technological
civilizations build multi-frequency communications devices and
lob them into space where they will continue to function even if
their creators bute the dust. Sagan's novel "Contact" describes
a world-size machine of this sort very well...it's a kind of
galactic switchboard.

In any case, sending a message to another civilization is as
much about conquering time as it is surmounting space. A
civilization would necessarily have to build to last, whether
they're building orbiting switchboards or sculpting faces into
deserts.

I personally think it's likely we'll discover ETI acidentally,
not through a concentrated search.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 16

               Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Dave

From: Dave Ledger <dledger@igclick.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:30:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:18:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Dave


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:43:25 +0100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?

 >Source: BBC News,

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1022000/1022712.stm

 >Stig

 >_____________________________________

 >Tuesday, 14 November, 2000, 09:32 GMT

 >First contact for UFO mecca?

 >The Roswell Incident made the area infamous

 >**

 >Scotland's UFO hot-spot could be set to make contact - with a
 >city known across the world as a mecca for alien enthusiasts.

 >A local councillor wants to twin Bonnybridge with Roswell, the
 >US city which has been synonymous with other-worldly encounters
 >for more than 50 years.

 >The area sealed its place in folklore when it was claimed that a
 >spaceship had landed in New Mexico in 1947.

 >It was said that an alien was taken to a secret military base,
 >where an autopsy was carried out and captured on film.

 >We in Bonnybridge have an affinity with Roswell, and the common
 >denominator is UFOs

 >Councillor Billy Buchanan

 >However, the Scottish town of Bonnybridge could have usurped its
 >crown, having been dubbed the UFO capital of the world by some
 >enthusiasts.

 >Dozens of unexplained sightings have been recorded in the area,
 >which attracts visitors from across the globe.

 >Councillor Billy Buchanan is holding a public meeting which
 >could pave the way for a twinning arrangement between them.

 >He believes the link would be a progressive step for the
 >regeneration of the area.

 >Intense media

 >"We in Bonnybridge have an affinity with Roswell, and the common
 >denominator is UFOs," he said.

 >"Obviously that has been the mecca because of the intense media
 >at that time in 1947.

 >"But it is not as active as Bonnybridge. It is the UFO hot-spot
 >of the world because of the ongoing sightings in the area.

 >"Bonnybridge has had more sightings than anywhere else in the
 >world."

 >He said experts from across the world had touched down in the
 >area to examine the phenomena, but no-one could say why the area
 >had so many sightings.

 >Full support

 >He hoped the general public would turn out for Tuesday night's
 >meeting to discuss the proposed link.

 >"The cultural, tourist, social and economic advantages would be
 >tremendous for the area and I think I will get full support for
 >this," he said.

 >He also said that an Anglo-American company was planning to
 >visit the area to present plans for a �20m theme park.

 >"We have got to move forward. There has been a lot of discussion
 >lately about the tourism situation in Scotland and how it is
 >diminishing with the established tourist sights that we have.

 >"We have got to move forward and regenerate and I think this
 >could be the way forward for a theme scenario in the central
 >belt of Scotland," he said.

 >**

 >Copyright BBC


Dear Errol and List members,

FYI, Bonnybridge has no more UFO sightings than anywhere else,
please do not be duped by all this hype and media
sensationalism.

Being from Scotland myself, I find this kind of baloney an
insult to my intelligence and every other serious UFO researcher
for that matter.

Mr Buchanan wrote:

 >Dozens of unexplained sightings have been recorded in the area,
 >which attracts visitors from across the globe.

<LOL> At the last count a few years ago, I believe the quoted
figure for Bonnybridge sightings lay somewhere around the 8000
mark. Most of these reports I have requested in the past from
various researchers. I am still waiting. However, I have managed
to find approximately ten or so from Bonnybridge and surrounding
areas <G>

Time to set the record straight I think. 99% of UFO reports
coming from Bonnybridge in Scotland are either lies,
misidentifications or a hoax campaign to bring more folks and
interest to the area. Nothing more I'm afraid.

 From your friend,

Dave Ledger - UFO Scotland









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:25:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:32:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Maccabee

 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:55:45 -0000

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:12:02 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>Of course, the proposal that the phenomenon could be one of
 >>these (unintelligent and natural or manmade) should already have
 >>been considered in the chain of analysis/logic that led to the
 >>conclusion that some sighting was unexplained. In other words,
 >>all reasonable possibilities should have been considered by the
 >>time one arrives at the True UFO (TRUFO) conclusion. A TRUFO
 >>could be a presently unknown but natural and unintelligent (no
 >>evidence of intelligence involved) phenomenon.

 >Yes it should. And no doubt is. But this simplistic way of
 >looking at the investigation of cases doesn't stand up. What
 >about the cases where that process has taken place and then,
 >weeks, months, years later a resolution is found or
 >contradictory evidence comes out. Because we have evidence that
 >most UFO cases resolve to IFO relatively quickly and many others
 >do given time and reinvestigation it's reasonable to suggets
 >they all may resolve to IFO.

<snip>

 >>Consider the New Zealand sightings of December 31, 1978,

 >Yes, I agree that case is still unresolved.

Good. We agree on something. But why is it unresolved, that is
the next question. Or to phrase it another way, what _more_
needs to be done to resolve it. Andy might say... well, wait
another year or another five years or another ten years to find
out if

(a) they admit to it being a hoax

(b) an airplane that somehow avoided radar (this was before
     stealth was flying) suddenly is "found"

(c) a squid boat captain finally admits that he was fishing in
     the Pegasus Bay ("explanation" for the most widely
     publicised portion of the sightings/film)

(d) the cameraman finally admits that he filmed a light he had
     created which flashed red to white (etc.) (a non-publicized
     portion of the sightings/film)

And so on.

 >But we shouldn't
 >infer that whatever caused the sightings was a craft from
 >'elsewhen' or wherever it was you said things were coming from.
 >It's an as yet unexplained case is all.

Hey, as long as it is unexplained unconventional hypotheses can
be considered. For example, one suggestion was an earthquake
light as a precursor to an earthquake. But in the years since
there has been no earthquake. Nevertheless one might hypothesize
some amazing ball lightning type phenomenon (which managed to
hover, or travel at the speed of the plane and faster and to
appear to avoid the plane).

A giant ball lightning would be a TRUFO with no evidence of
intelligence (I presume!).

 >>Andy would say there must be at least one more dirty sock to
 >>try. I say no.

 >Yes I would. Otherwise you are failing ufology and enquiry
 >generally by just accepting the event as a 'UFO'. All UFOs have
 >to be something. It's our job to work that out -whether they be
 >IFOs or Zog from Elsewhen looking for some action. Your way of
 >dealing with the case is just putting your head in the sand and
 >making assumptions Bruce.>

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Pot calling the kettle black?

Your way of dealing with the case is to bury your head deeply
under the assumption or should I say "hope" that an explanation
is waiting out there somewhere and all you have to do is sit
back wait for it to come along?

IF that were _not_ your armchair approach you would propose an
explanation. You would be in good company. Sir Bernard Lovell,
the astonomer at the Christchurch observatory and scientists at
the Department of Science and Industrial Research and also
Philip Klass (and a bunch of others... including me) proposed
explanations. Why not you?

If you know enough about the sightings to say they are in your
opinion, unresolved, then you know enough about them to be able
to propose solutions.

Of course, it would only make sense to propose solutions which
have not already been ruled out.

But suppose you propose an explanation: then the case could be
unresolved only because the explanation has not yet been
rejected as conflicting with the data.

So get your head out of the sand and propose. At least in the NZ
case, unlke Arnold and a host of other _good_ sightings, you
have multiple witnesses unknown to each other before the
sightings (conspiracy unlikely, hoax unlikely) and you have
radar, film and tape recordings made at the time.

Two books and a bunch of papers and have been published on it.
And in PJK's book UFOs the Public Deceived and in Sheaffer's UFO
Verdict book you have the avowed skeptics points of view.

What more do you need?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                    Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:25:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:35:22 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze - Maccabee


 >Date: 15 Nov 2000 12:47:45 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze

 >>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:11:17 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: 'Bubba' In Gulf Breeze
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>We have heard the 'Bubba' has now appeared in Phoenix. What/who
 >>was Bubba? You can 'bone up' on Bubba at brumac.8k.com

 >Tom King sent me two shots of Bubba over Phoenix taken recently.
 >One was a frame from a video, the other taken with his camera.
 >He said it was moving slowly, then sped away. I will be sending
 >you an email with the photos attached.

One thing Gulf Breeze Bubba did _not_ do was speed away! In
fact, in none of the sightings was great speed noted. On the
other hand, several that were triangulated showed that the
speeds were as high as 40-50 mph.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

               Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:55:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:49:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Hale


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?
 >Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:44:59 -0000

 >Commercialism of ufology is indeed a problem. And, to an extent,
 >you are right that this involves ufologists as well. But
 >commercialism is also an opportunity. Perhaps we should accept
 >its existence and run with the tide.


Hi Jenny,

I think you are right here, I mean we do live in a very
materialistic World, and I don't think we can get away with the
notion that all must be free. In an ideal world I guess we would
all love to have everything free. And I must admit over the last
ten to fifteen years, I have listened to some great and
fascinating UFO lecturers - including you Jenny - and so I felt
comfortable with paying the entrance fee.

I think where commercialism in ufology falls down, is when there
seems to be quite open and tactful exploitation of the subject.
I can think of a handful of videos that have been made, which
really was what I term the "Bandwagon Mentality", they were
appalling to watch and had no new evidence to present.

But this also highlights the other problem with such videos and
books. If those outside ufology get to see these, they must
surely make people look at us as all cranks and jokers?

 >However, there is a crucial difference when ufology itself are
 >the commercialisers. When someone organises a conference (at
 >least most of the ones I have seen) it rarely makes much of a
 >profit since that is not really why they are organised. The
 >ticket sales go towards hire of the room, equipment, travel
 >costs etc. And if a few hundred pounds (dollars) are made on top
 >then the UFO group involved will be happy and will put the money
 >back into the subject in some way, I expect.

I agree again, having had some experience with putting on local
UFO events one can plainly see the struggle on which the group
has to manage such finer details like payment for refreshments,
speakers etc. I think you would find that most dedicated UFO
groups would hold a meeting for the sole purpose of getting some
group funds, to be able to hold trips, print newsletters and
possibly buy much needed equipment for research purposes.

 >This is very different from, say, a businessman recognising the
 >potential of exploiting public interest in UFOs big style and
 >staging some UFO themed event in a way to make large sums of
 >money that will not come back into ufology.

And I think ufology has had its fair share of these! One day I
shall sit down and organise the wackiest UFO event ever, it can
only make us giggle if nothing else.

 >In such a case who is right and who is wrong? The businessman
 >for making pots of money off the back of ufology? Or ufology for
 >not recognising how much money it could make and what it could
 >do with it to the benefit of all?

I tend to take the viewpoint, that maybe ufologists are not the
greatest business minds on the planet, so perhaps those that do
have the great business minds may see a chance of exploitation.
And I find this happens in quite a few proffesions. Take for
example a nephew of mine who is a vet. He is a great vet but
when it comes to business he admits to not being at the sharp
end of business strategy. Perhaps there should be a UFO business
Association formed whereupon those who need advice on setting up
conferences and highlighting their particular avenue, could find
some help? I tried some years ago with the East London Business
help group and they couldn't understand why anyone would like to
start something which looked into UFO studies (or as one said,
looking at bright peas in the sky!)

 >Interesting questions to ask ourselves.

Lets hope Jenny more people starting raising them!

 >Much the same applies with books, I suspect. Most UFO books are
 >written by researchers who are able to use the money to do more
 >research. Its a field open to anyone to enter (even you Roy).
 >Not a closed shop. And lest you think its incredibly lucrative,
 >it isn't. A few authors may have been paid big money for some
 >books - and we know they have - but these are rare events. And
 >if so what they do with their windfall in so far as funding the
 >UFO community afterwards is a matter for their own conscience.

You're correct and we do know the big pay out cheques are rare
but have been written at some stage. I must admit of toying with
the idea of a book for some time now. I am actively researching
(although not specifically UFOs) sightings of Ghost Planes in
the Essex area, more so my surrounding areas as there seems to
be a wealth of information which has accumulated and which is
pretty fascinating to read. So who knows, Jenny, I may yet
publish a book.

As for conscience, those who exploit for financial gain, will
only find themselves slowly being exposed for what they really
are.

 >I know if anyone was ever daft enough to pay me (or if one of my
 >books ever miraculously earned) a tidy sum I have plans drawn up
 >as to how to put that money back into ufology to create new
 >things that ufology could benefit from having. But I am well
 >aware that its as likely that I will win the lottery (and do the
 >same). Or indeed that you will win the lottery - because in real
 >terms the money I earn from writing isn't of the order that would
 >fund anything.

Jenny I am sure that in the future, you may find yourself having
the chance to do so... just change your ticket numbers every
week. <g>

 >I have a very firm principle of supporting the UFO community by
 >not charging fees to lecture or to write (as some do). I simply
 >feel that as a person who has benefited from being a ufologist
 >its the least I can do to repay the community upon whom I
 >constantly depend. But I don't question what stands others may
 >take on such matters as it is their choice and the choice of
 >anyone willing to pay them within the UFO community. And I doubt
 >we can start making moral issues out of this. It has to be a
 >personal choice.

Some of us have families to support, and that I take on board so
personal choice has to be at the helm of such writings.

 >However, even those people who make money in a commercial sense
 >from within ufology are usually (exceptions are rare I suspect)
 >genuinely adding to our knowledge in some way and therefore not
 >merely using the phenomenon for personal reasons.

And sometimes we get phoned up by the media for UFO detail, so
in the end it all kind of slides into the commercial world once
again, but if we didn't have any books written we certainly
would be in a worse position.

 >Unfortunately ufology is - and always has been - an underfunded,
 >voluntary community that needs some inflow of money to keep it
 >ticking over. And there is never anything like enough. As such
 >there is a case to argue that we ourselves need to be more
 >commercially minded, not less, rather than to let the money
 >makers from without bleed ufology dry.

 >Just think. If the UFO community clubbed together to create its
 >own publishing house (its an idea I've tossed about in my mind
 >from time to time as the UFO community collectively could make
 >it happen if we wanted to do) and as a consequence we published
 >a proportion of the literature ourselves, not only would we have
 >some say in the quality of output but also would be able to
 >plough profits back into funding UFO research projects.

 >In a way this is what many of our groups do right now by
 >publishing their own material from time to time, but this is
 >small scale by comparison. Collectively ufology might be able to
 >really raise some good funds to spend wisely in future rather
 >than to repay shareholders as publishers would do.

 >Because, Roy, believe it or not authors are not the main
 >beneficiaries from a book. If I write a book and it sells for
 >say $20 the vast majority of that never goes anywhere near an
 >author. There are many who share a slice of the cake and it this
 >that makes books so expensive and creates the myth that UFO
 >writers make large sums of money.

Amen to that Jenny. I think there should be a testing of the
water just to see how many of the UFO groups and researchers
would be in favour of such a development. And, if I write a
book, I would hope that proceeds would made available to some
kind of UFO business package!

 >But, of course, if you cut out many of the hands that bite into
 >the cake by forming your own company that exists to fund ufology
 >not to make money for other people then you do stand a chance of
 >raising useful annual incomes that could truly benefit ufology.
 >Although - admittedly - you also take a risk of failure as well.

In new business start-ups there is a very high failure risk.
Background research to such ventures is essential and this is
one aspect you'll usually find missing!

 >The above - on a very small UK based scale BTW - is one of
 >the ways that UFOIN is doing ufology differently.

If it all brings in results then it all helps either way.

 >Moreover, if ufology got together and planned some sort of
 >mega-fund raiser event (like we could have done - for instance -
 >in l997 - if we had been less busy arguing and spent more time
 >thinking about how to raise ufology onto the next level) then we
 >might have made some useful progress.

 >What I mean is a huge commercial venture to utilise public
 >interest and where all participants agreed to donate their
 >services for free. Then - once more - we could probably build up
 >a useful 'pot' out of which we could fund meaningful
 >investigation and research long term.

And I present to you all UFOs In The 21st Century, or something
along those lines!

 >Obviously, a line has to be drawn. Too much hype would be self
 >destructive and make us open to well earned derision. But like
 >it or not we are in a public interest field and maybe it is time
 >we woke up to the opportunity to do something with that fact and
 >created a funding structure that could kick start moribund
 >research.

 >As always, just a thought.

 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles

Well people what are you waiting for! Get with the program!!

All the best,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:35:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:11:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

<snip>

 >A man from Thurso, Quebec witnessed such a seemingly weightless
 >alien being which attracted much attention by the local media.
 >I have photocopies of this evolving story from the October 9, 10,
 >11 and 12, 1990 issues of 'LeDroit', a French language newspaper
 >of the Ottawa-Hull area.

 >My reading and comprehension abilities in French are no longer
 >as good as they once were so I cannot give further details but a
 >sketch of this alleged alien made it in the October 10 issue and
 >it looked very much like a mylar helium balloon creation with
 >similar big eyes and legs which was published the following day
 >by the same newspaper. It was presented as a likely explanation
 >to the alien the man from Thurso saw, but was it the
 >explanation?

<snip>

 >If your French is better than mine Larry, I would be happy to
 >mail to you copies of these four newspaper articles in a plain
 >brown envelope.


Nick,

I'll  take a crack at it, if you don't mind.

Thanks for giving out the dates. I'll look these up on microfilm
during my search at Laurentian University.

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:46:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:14:36 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 ><snip>

 >I'm in your school of thought on this, John. Quantum
 >entanglement is but one of the options an advanced
 >space-colonizing civilization could use to communicate. We're
 >already doing this under laboratory conditions. It amounts to
 >nothing less than instantaneous transmission of information, and
 >mainstream SETI considers it paradoxical that we haven't heard
 >anything yet over _radio_?

 >Radio would be used, one thinks, only to communicate to
 >"primitive" civilizations like our own. But the list of reasons
 >why an ETI _wouldn't_ choose to actively "reach out and touch"
 >underdeveloped neighbors is at least as long and probably more
 >persuasive than the list of why they _would_.

 >I don't expect anything to turn up from radio SETI. That said, I
 >hope I'm wrong! It's interesting to me that many people curious
 >about the possibility of UFOs representing some sort of ETI are
 >usually SETI supporters--but never the other way around.


Hello Mac and John:

Quantum entanglement is indeed amazing. Forcing a particle to
take some quantum state (momentum, polarization whatever) has
been shown to have an instantaneous (faster than light or FTL)
effect on a "quantum entangled", i.e. paired particle!

Sadly, and unless I'm very mistaken, no information can be
transmitted this way! Bear with me on this, its not exactly
simple.

Take two photons A and B. As I understand it, they are quantum
entangled if created together from some particle collision or
the like. Both particles have certain undetermined properties
(polarization?) until they are stopped or "observed" at some
target.

The surprise was that stopping one (A) determined the
polarization of the other (B)! I suppose some fun science
fiction was inspired by his.

Now the bad news. The polarization of A is entirely random, thus
so is B. The sender will create a long series of random numbers
(ones and zeroes really) while the receiver will get a
corresponding series of zeroes and ones! No information can be
transmitted that way.

Suppose the sender transmits a sort of Morse Code, dots and
dashes, or ones and zeros, by alternating between determined and
undetermined photons.

The receiver gets the dots and dashes, but still cannot tell a
dot from a dash, or a one from a zero!

Why? Because _he_ will be determining the undetermined
photons... and these will also be random... and the dot is
indistinguishable from the dash. This is a bit like looking for
intentionally scattered sand on a beach made of the very same
naturally distributed sand. Worse really, electrons are totally
the same, while sand particles may differ slightly.

Accordingly, and unless I am mistaken, the receiver cannot tell
if any message was ever sent at all.

I would hope and expect advanced civilizations to have
surprising means of communication, stuff we haven't dreamed of.
I just don't think quantum entanglement (QE) as now understood
is the answer to FTL communication, not yet anyway.

A second point: Long before electronics, telegraphy, even smoke
signals, people simply conversed. Now that we have dozens of
ways to communicate, has everyone stopped talking? Not at all.
You should hear the jabber over the lunch table at work.

Just because an advanced society has undreamed of modes of
communication and signaling, should they abandon radio,
microwaves, lasers etc. whenever and wherever that is the least
expensive or most convenient method?

Why give up the entire electromagnetic (EM) spectrum when its so
cheap and easy? We still use sign language when appropriate.
People still walk when we have cars. I've even seen people on
horseback .. rich folks BTW, who could easily afford a
limousine.

A third point: Earth's atmosphere blocks out most of the EM
spectrum. The entire spectrum is available once one gets out
into space. There could be a river of information going between
some airless body in the solar system and a much more distant
point.

We would never notice unless we, or our space probes, were out
in space, in line with the transmission, and knew which
gosh-darned wavelength to monitor.

'Tain't easy Magee! Its not impossible either.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:58:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:16:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 ><snip>

 >>>One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
 >>>encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
 >>>According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
 >>>went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
 >>>weightless."

 ><snip>

 >>Strange floating entities were described in fairly good detail,
 >>by numerous witnesses with fairly consistent accounts.

 >>Their descriptions were good enough to finally identify the
 >>source: Mylar balloons shaped like little men, which burst on
 >>the scene like a new brand of soda pop. [burp!]

 >>I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this possibility. Maybe I
 >>missed something.

 >Hi Larry.

 >A man from Thurso, Quebec witnessed such a seemingly weightless
 >alien being which attracted much attention by the local media.
 >I have photocopies of this evolving story from the October 9, 10,
 >11 and 12, 1990 issues of 'LeDroit', a French language newspaper
 >of the Ottawa-Hull area.

 >My reading and comprehension abilities in French are no longer
 >as good as they once were so I cannot give further details but a
 >sketch of this alleged alien made it in the October 10 issue and
 >it looked very much like a mylar helium balloon creation with
 >similar big eyes and legs which was published the following day
 >by the same newspaper. It was presented as a likely explanation
 >to the alien the man from Thurso saw, but was it the
 >explanation?

 >Considering that this region of Canada has the largest number of
 >sex shops per square kilometer which include inflatable dolls in
 >their large inventories (of course, this research was done
 >solely in the interest of finding the truth about UFOs), one
 >would think that witnesses living in this area could certainly
 >tell the difference between a humanoid alien and a humanoid
 >shaped helium filled balloon, wouldn't you? ;o)

 >Nick Balaskas

 >If your French is better than mine Larry, I would be happy to
 >mail to you copies of these four newspaper articles in a plain
 >brown envelope.


Hello Nick!

I don't catalog IFOs, so I cannot cite chapter and verse.

As I recall, this was a minor flap in Europe some years ago. I
want to say Italy, but don't quote me.

Somebody had introduced cheap mylar balloons in the shape of
little men, and kids were losing and releasing them all over the
place. One went sailing headlong past a telephone pole or some
such.

This business pretty much wound down when the source was
identified. (My source might have been LDLN. I'm not going to
dig for it now!)

Unlike regular thin-rubber balloons, mylar has almost no
"stretch" to it, and it doesn't leak hydrogen right through the
skin like a rubber balloon will.

Very light in weight, the thin mylar membranes need not be
tightly inflated, and can be formed into all sorts
non-balloonistic shapes and still fly. Little men and cartoon
figures are most popular, I bought a few for a going-away party.

I'm still surprised this was not suggested earlier with regard
to gliding entities in Pennsylvania.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:15:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:20:10 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:19:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:02:59 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:32:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 ><snip>

 >>>So I [Betty] asked him [alien "leader"] where was his home
 >>>port, and he said, "Where were you on the map?" I looked and
 >>>laughed and said, "I do not know." So he said, "If you don't
 >>>know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling
 >>>where I am from."

 ><snip>

 >>Please note the facility with which the "alien" finesses this
 >>most unwelcome question from Betty.

 >>He could have easily said " Well, your Sun is over here, see?
 >>(pointing to one star) while we come from here (pointing to
 >>another) while this other star is the one you call Arangutangus
 >>or whatever.

 >>No. Of course not! Its Betty's fault for not being an astronomer
 >>you see... and once again the mystery being provides _no_ useful
 >>information whatsoever.

 >>I don't know how seriously to take this encounter, but that one
 >>aspect fits neatly into a well worn mold. I'm surprised they
 >>showed her any sort of map at all, which raises certain doubts
 >>in my mind.

<snip>

Hello again Nick:

Re-reading my original post above, I may have not made my point
clearly enough.

I was alluding to what I perceive as a possible policy of
"non-information", on the part of these strange figures.

Taking Betty's account at face value just for the sake of
discussion, I see an "alien" who might indeed have been
surprised at her inquisitiveness and persistence.

Assuming that  - and I know its a stretch - what does he do? Try
this:

He pulls out some bogus "star-map" and distracts her entirely
with it. Once her attention is absorbed with this prop, and
anticipating her question about their home location on the map,
he baffles her with the circular, highly bogus comeback that she
cannot find Earth on it.

More importantly; he has completely diverted Betty from any
further, possibly more revealing questions she might have come
up with.

That dealt with, the ufonauts could proceed with their original
program, whatever that might or might not have been.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:46:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:23:29 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas


Hello yet again!

I cannot speak for the SETI people, but wish them success in
spite of their expressed attitudes w/r to the UFO community.

According to a paper: 'The Reticuli Incident', by Terrence
Dickerson (1980):

    "The 12 stars identified on the [Hill/Fish] map and linked by
    travel lines are all physically similar to the Sun... In fact
    some of them have been examined by astronomers searching for
    signals from alien intelligences. Unaware of the Fish
    analysis, they independently concluded that they were stars
    worth investigating."

The paper was an update to a four color brochure - both
available from Stan Friedman for a nominal fee - also by
Dickerson.

In the brochure, on page 8 are some star maps showing that Zeta
R is found deep in Southern skies, not so very far from the
South Celestial pole.

This is highly inconvenient for most SETI antennae! Arecibo
would have to rear up on its side and look over the tree tops.
Antarctica would be the best place to put up a Zeta R receiver.
Maybe some large aimable dish in Chile or New Zealand would do.


Sorry!

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

              Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:48:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:28:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell? - Randles


 >From: Dave Ledger <dledger@igclick.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?
 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:30:41 -0000

 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:43:25 +0100
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Bonnybridge To 'Twin' With Roswell?

 >>Source: BBC News,

 >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1022000/1022712.stm

 >>Stig

 >>_____________________________________

 >>Tuesday, 14 November, 2000, 09:32 GMT

 >>First contact for UFO mecca?

 >>The Roswell Incident made the area infamous

 >>**

 >>Scotland's UFO hot-spot could be set to make contact - with a
 >>city known across the world as a mecca for alien enthusiasts.

 >>A local councillor wants to twin Bonnybridge with Roswell, the
 >>US city which has been synonymous with other-worldly encounters
 >>for more than 50 years.

 >Time to set the record straight I think. 99% of UFO reports
 >coming from Bonnybridge in Scotland are either lies,
 >misidentifications or a hoax campaign to bring more folks and
 >interest to the area. Nothing more I'm afraid.

 >From your friend,

 >Dave Ledger - UFO Scotland

Hi,

There is an element of flag waving going on. No question. But
there was a 'flap' (different from a wave because it was
triggered by publicity and probably not by real forces within
the UFO phenomenon) that kick started the affair in l992. So it
began with a genuine 'apparent' rise in sightings.

It actually was partly my fault because it occurred just a few
weeks after totally unexpected large scale publicity for a book
of mine called 'UFOs and How to see them' - which reported on
'windows' in Scotland (this wasn't one of them!)

Quite why this got so much attention in Scotland (that country
was not singled out at all in the book) I don't know but it took
us all by surprise and articles appeared in all the main papers,
I was on the TV news, debates on radio etc. It was amazing for a
week or so.

There was also a very silly article from a scientist arguing
that 'UFOs are dead' because sighting totals had dramatically
fallen (I think this stemmed from a journalist misunderstanding
things said at a recent BUFORA conference in Sheffield - where
it was argued that ufologists were becoming more discriminating
and not pursuing all sorts of LITS - as one reason why
investigated sightings had indeed dramatically fallen in the
early l990s).

The Bonnybridge phenomenon came on the immediate back of all
this and at least partly I am sure was a backlash from the
population and UFO community as well as a consequence of the
newly awakened media interest. Scottish people were made aware
of the subject in a big way - given the impression UFOs had
vanished - and alerted to the possibility that Scotland was
special. So naturally this brought forward news of their own old
or recent sightings. It happens everywhere when ufology is
promoted like this and the media are willing to act as a
collecting box for sightings.

All that was different here was a short term combination of
recognisable triggers that set off a dormant time bomb.

The concentration of sightings around Falkirk was initially not
huge. But there were one or two interesting ones in the spring
and summer of l992. As soon as Billy Buchanan seized the
initiative and persuaded local ufologists to assist him in
unravelling the truth a number of other factors came into play.

Firstly, this area is amidst the densest concentration of
ufologists in Scotland (or certainly was at that time). The
prominent groups were centred hereabouts - not in Glasgow or
Edinburgh. As such they were readily able to collate sightings
and did so by creating a UFO reporting phone line that
inevitably boosted the number of events that previously would
never have been reported and turned them into reported
sightings. As a consequence there seemed to be a vast explosion
of sightings in the area but in reality it was an explosion of
the reporting of sightings. These are very different things.

Buchanan had soon recognised the political opportunity to help
his people. Partly this was down to the then recent publicity
for a town not very far away (Livingston) whose Council had
decided to mark the spot of a UFO encounter that happened there
in l979 by putting a memorial at the spot! This obvious
publicity stunt gained a lot of attention and no doubt other
councils in the area were made aware that if they wanted their
town on the world map any chance to exploit UFO interest ought
to be taken.

So politics was not entirely absent from this compiled equation
either I suspect.

Buchanan (genuinely sincere I am sure) was regularly heard
calling on the government for aid. This led to all sorts of
gimmicks (there was even talk of him recording a pop song to
promote the campaign) Town premises were turned over to big
meetings in the way there might be during orchestrated battles
to stop a new by pass road being built through woodland. By the
start of l993 the whole thing had  become ensnared within its
own PR bandwagon. And an ordinary level of UFO sightings had
been turned into an extraordinary one by what in retrospective
is an interesting sequence of social factors.

Of course, once the media got alerted to the hype and shows from
Sightings to Japanese TV sent crews there, there was no way to
stop the juggernaut. Nor did it matter much how 'real' was the
status of this town as a UFO capital. The fact that it was
hailed to be was the story. 'Town has a lot of UFO sightings'
doesn't justify sending a camera crew 10,000 miles. 'Town claims
crown as UFO capital of the world' may do. So the media had a
vested interest in egging the pudding.

I had debates like this with Scottish ufologists at the time and
some agreed with my assessment, others felt I was being too
English. But in l994 we made a TV show (Strange But True?)
around the Bonnybridge phenomenon and tried to get accurate
figures for the number of sightings to feature. The estimates
varied a lot.

In putting that show together I had 'dialogue' with the
production team that proved instructive. I wanted the numbers
being claimed to be presented realistically - since it was clear
nobody could verify such high levels being cited.  TV seemed to
me more interested by the idea that the bigger the claim the
bigger the story (inevitably true). In the end (of course) TV
won since I was employed only to advise and whilst my advice was
usually listened to on 'Strange But True? I did not have the
final say.

  In fact even when I tried to moderate the picture in the
'Strange But True?' book of that series (for which I wrote a
chapter on Bonnybridge around our research) I had to battle to
say anything that hinted at contradiction of what was said on
the TV show, even if the TV show were really only offering
figures tossed at them out of the air as to the number of
sightings and I could provide more sober assessments.

We certainly found some interesting cases from the area (i.e. the
whole area not just - nor indeed specifically - Bonnybridge
itself). We also found a lot of IFOs.  Whilst we were often told
there were vast numbers of sightings we never saw evidence of
overly huge figures. I believe a lot of this was finger in the
wind type guesstimates based on shows of hands at public
meetings and calls to hot lines saying 'I once saw a funny light'
that were never followed up.

As such exactly how many happened locally (let alone in
Bonnybridge per se) - or how many happened recently (as opposed
to any time in the past 50 years) - or indeed how many really
were UFOs (a lot of the spate of videos taken in the area seem
to me to be dubious as evidence of anything much) - is still
very much an open question.

Bonnybridge is a fascinating study in UFO terms of how a 'window
area' is created. Nobody created it for sinister reasons or even
deliberately. And the extent to which there is anything real
there to start the ball rolling and to earn any sort of status
is not entirely clear. Although there was a basis for the legend
to develop and certainly there have been a few unresolved cases
in the area.

But for me this story teaches us an awful lot about the dynamics
that fuel the public interface of our subject.

What we should be doing is learning from this and applying the
lessons elsewhere in our field. Its too easy to revel in the
hype and attention and not contemplate the meaning.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                   Bogus Contactee Prepares To Flee Brazil

From: Scott Corraleslornis1@juno.com
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:21:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:11:08 -0500
Subject: Bogus Contactee Prepares To Flee Brazil



SOURCE: ANOVNI-Agencias de Noticias Ovni
DATE: November 16, 2000
FOR DETAILS:  http://orbita.starmedia.com/~anovni.press

Bogus Contactee Prepares To Flee Brazil

Brazil, Nov. 6 (A.J. Gevaerd, Revista UFO).

Alleged alien contactee Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira will leave
the country prior to the publication of an 'explosive' book on
how he deceived 70,000 people with the 'Portal Project',
according to the source of the information. The alleged
contactee, who claimed having received healing powers to treat
AIDS and cancer, among maladies, from "space captains", is ready
to leave Brazil in the coming weeks with his wife Jessica and
newborn son.

This information was furnished by an informer who for worked
several years with Urandir and simultaneously, through one of
Brazil's foremost ufologists for placement on the Internet. Our
source does not wish to be identified, claiming to "fear for
his life". He appears not to be the only one having such
concerns.

Urandir is accused of selling property that he did not own to
hundreds of people with the pretext that they would be visited
by aliens. He was arrested in the city of Porto Alergre (and
released on bail several days later) and is currently facing
several charges. Almost two months ago, Urandir had plotted a
kidnapping, accusing the editor of Revista UFO of having
assaulted him. Shortly after, shots were fired at the residence
of one of Revista UFO's associates, according to an unidentified
source.

Persons with whom we spoke and are involved in this episode,
believe that it may have been a "counterattack" by Urandir. In
Matto Grosso do Sul, Urandir published certain material that
prompted an immediate response by the authorities and the UFO
community, as it claimed that A.J. Gevaerd had pursued him
and assaulted him. One of Urandir's former confederates provided
abundant physical proof of the different ways in which the
'contactee' exploited the public's credulity and how he had
plotted a kidnapping attempt. He was also accused by more than
15 ufologists of having employed balls, lanterns and laser
pointers to stimulate immediate contact with alien ships on his
property in Matto Grosso do Sul.

A few months ago, the 'Fantastico' TV show produced an
investigative report showing the tricks employed by the phoney
contactee to deceive more than 70,000 people who would have
attended the 'Portal Project' in search of alien contact and
cures for a wide assortment of ills. Prior to the show,
Urandir's income was estimated in 300 to 500,000 reales a
month (between one quarter and a third of a million dollars).

##### Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales/Institute of Hispanic
Ufology.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                        Re: ET Evidence - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:50:56 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:13:29 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:19:42 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence


 >>From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:30 -0500

 >>Howdy John, Nick & All!

<snip>

 >WOAH there bessy. SETI is far from a waste of time. No-one with
 >a high school education should be thinking that SETI is looking
 >for current modes of ET communication. Radio is the simplest
 >form of wireless communication that we came up with when a less
 >advanced species, so why not look for this mode of communication
 >when peering into the past of other potential beings. Sure, a
 >race that could pop by our planet for a visit probably would use
 >some other form of wireless communication, but since we are
 >looking back in time, who is to say that some ETs didn't use
 >radio. The finding of a radio source would be used to pinpoint
 >life, not communicate with it (unless we wanted them to reply in
 >a few hundred to thousand years).

Hello All,

Basically, RF communications is all we have. At least in general
knowledge. So people looking for ET use it. I've always been of
the opinion that SETI was making a mistake. Still am. But only
from my perspective. Which is to say, selfish. It is my
perception that ET is here already, interacting with us. Not
eveyone feels similarly but are notwithstanding, very interested
in determining if life other than ours exists out there in the
void.

I disagree with SETI on the basis of my own personal
perspective. I would like to see all that time, effort and money
(however much) applied to the UFO - abduction phenom.

Not likely.

So keep on listening. Maybe you guys'll hear something.

Not likely.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:16:04 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez

 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:46:21 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 >><snip>

 >>I'm in your school of thought on this, John. Quantum
 >>entanglement is but one of the options an advanced
 >>space-colonizing civilization could use to communicate. We're
 >>already doing this under laboratory conditions. It amounts to
 >>nothing less than instantaneous transmission of information, and
 >>mainstream SETI considers it paradoxical that we haven't heard
 >>anything yet over _radio_?

 >>Radio would be used, one thinks, only to communicate to
 >>"primitive" civilizations like our own. But the list of reasons
 >>why an ETI _wouldn't_ choose to actively "reach out and touch"
 >>underdeveloped neighbors is at least as long and probably more
 >>persuasive than the list of why they _would_.

 >>I don't expect anything to turn up from radio SETI. That said, I
 >>hope I'm wrong! It's interesting to me that many people curious
 >>about the possibility of UFOs representing some sort of ETI are
 >>usually SETI supporters--but never the other way around.

 >Hello Mac and John:

 >Quantum entanglement is indeed amazing. Forcing a particle to
 >take some quantum state (momentum, polarization whatever) has
 >been shown to have an instantaneous (faster than light or FTL)
 >effect on a "quantum entangled", i.e. paired particle!

<snip)

 >We would never notice unless we, or our space probes, were out
 >in space, in line with the transmission, and knew which
 >gosh-darned wavelength to monitor.

 >'Tain't easy Magee! Its not impossible either.

Hi Larry, hi All,

Several years ago a fellow cornered reporter Dan Rather outside
of his apartment building here in New York and beat the Hell out
of Rather. Everytime he'd punch Rather he'd ask him over and
over, "What's the frequency Dan?"

May have been a frustrated SETI engineer!  <LOL>

You're correct about trying to find 'another' mode of
communication to try to monitor though. 'Assuming' that we are
not the only intelligent or technological species in our own
Galaxy isn't very far fetched. If this is so, and we're not
picking up any communications at all then we -must be- looking
in the wrong place. (or the wrong way.)

"Quantum entangled particles" eh? Interesting stuff Larry. I
wonder how many other more viable means of communication are
being ignored or overlooked in favor of radio waves.

BTW, does anybody know what the verdict was on the "WOW" signal?
Has anything further ever come out of that?

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                          Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:48:53 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Tonnies


 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

<snip>

 >Several years ago a fellow cornered reporter Dan Rather
 >outside of his apartment building here in New York and beat
 >the Hell out of Rather. Everytime he'd punch Rather he'd ask
 >him over and over, "What's the frequency Dan?"

Hi John,

Actually, he kept referring to Rather as "Kenneth," hence
R.E.M.'s song "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" which R.E.M. and
Rather performed live on Letterman...

<snip>

 >BTW, does anybody know what the verdict was on the
 >"WOW" signal?

 >Has anything further ever come out of that?

It's a genuine anomaly. It could very well have been an
intelligent signal--but, having never repeated, it can't be
properly hailed as such. Actually, there have been several
unusual signals detected that haven't been borne out by repeated
observation. Interestingly enough, they come from the same
region of the galactic disk. Carl Sagan once wrote that he got
"chills" considering this "coincidence."

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 17

                          More On ABC.com's UFO2000

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:37:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:37:07 -0500
Subject: More On ABC.com's UFO2000



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Yahoo! Biz

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001117/ny_abcnews.html

Friday November 17, 5:03 pm Eastern Time

Press Release


ABCNEWS.com's Chris Wallace's Internet Expose: UFO2000 Presents
Controversial New Information About The Existence Of UFOs

Meet the scientists and the skeptics when ABCNEWS.com presents
the three-day Internet-only Webcast series, Chris Wallace's
Internet Expose

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 17, 2000-- Around the globe, the
argument about whether or not Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)
exist has been disputed for decades.

The fourth installment of ABCNEWS.com's monthly Webcast series,
CHRIS WALLACE'S INTERNET EXPOSE: UFO2000, presents
controversial, new information from top British and French
officials, raising new possibilities about the existence of
UFOs. This Internet-only Webcast premieres Monday, November 20,
and rolls out over the following two days, with new parts each
day through Wednesday, November 22. The entire presentation will
be archived so users can view on demand.

CHRIS WALLACE'S INTERNET EXPOSE: UFO2000 will stream in three
parts:

Day I - Nick Pope - "The Real Fox Mulder"

A recently released report from top French military and
government officials suggests that the French government should
begin taking questions surrounding UFOs seriously. The report
says the best explanation for at least 5% of UFO sightings is
"the extraterrestrial hypothesis." Wallace interviews Nick
Pope, an official with the British Ministry of Defense, known as
"the real Fox Mulder" from The X-Files, for his investigations
into the UFO phenomenon.

Day II - The Skeptic

We have all seen videos that show UFOs, but what is real? In
this part, ABCNEWS.com will stream a highly controversial video
filmed in 1997, in Mexico City. The video allegedly proves that
UFOs exist. Wallace discusses this video, and other evidence
presented by believers in UFOs, with Dr. Michael Shermer, head
of the Organization of Skeptics, who shows how easy it is to
create a phony UFO video.

Day III - The Scientist

UFOs, science or science fiction? What are the actual scientific
theories behind a UFO? Are there real life physics behind the
phenomenon? How does it fly? How does it travel through time and
space? Wallace interviews Dr. Michio Kaku, an internationally
recognized authority in theoretical physics and the environment.
Kaku is the author of nine books, the last two of which,
Hyperspace and Visions, are international best sellers.

This interactive Webcast on ABCNEWS.com, part of The Walt Disney
Internet Group (NYSE:DIG - news), is the fourth installment of a
regularly scheduled series and is accompanied by QuickTime
virtual reality application of a UFO, synchronous pushed
graphics, interactive video and photos, video interviews with
people on the street, timelines, message boards, photos,
ballots, quizzes, and links to related sites. ABCNEWS.com users
can chat with the Webcast's guests on the following dates:

- Monday, November 20 at 2:00 PM, ET - Nick Pope, "The Real Fox
   Mulder"

- Tuesday, November 21 at 2:00 PM, ET - Gordon Cooper, one of
   the original Mercury Seven astronauts. Cooper holds strong
   views on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence --
   claiming that there is a distinct possibility that we have
   already had contact.

- Wednesday, November 22, 2:00 PM, ET - Dr. Michio Kaku
   Pope's quotes from the Webcast:

- "I am a firm believer that some UFOs are almost certainly
   extraterrestrial spacecraft."

- "The one thing that we can say is that when we finally make
   open contact with extraterrestrials, whatever form that
   contact takes, the world is never going to be the same again."
   Shermer's quotes from the Webcast:

- "I am not willing to go with the extraterrestrial hypothesis
   until we actually have a spacecraft or an alien. I want to see
   the body."

- "When people bring so called photographic evidence or video
   evidence, that's no longer evidence, particularly in this age
   of Photoshop and computer video montages. Anybody could do
   this."

Kaku's quotes from the Webcast

- "We earthlings are too primitive right now to analyze what's
   on the other side of a wormhole, but this could be a way by
   which you could leap across distant galaxies and perhaps even
   distort time itself."

- "...if I was an alien from an advanced civilization I would
   say leave them [the Earth] alone for a few thousand years.
   Maybe play with them, but let's not make contact with them."

The Webcast was executive produced by Ira Rosen, executive
producer for ABC News Magazine Webcasts; senior technical
producer, Erik Olsen; video producer and editor, Brian
Celentano; assistant producer, Chris Fennimore; and designer,
Patricia O'Brian. Steve Jones is executive producer of
ABCNEWS.com

<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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                          UFO Historical Review #7

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:31:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:40:12 -0500
Subject: UFO Historical Review #7


The on-line edition of Barry Greenwood's UFO Historical Review,
Issue#7, 'On the Question of Tampering with the 1950 Great Falls
UFO Film' is now available on CUFON.

Go to:

http://www.cufon.org/

click the 'UFO Historical Review' button at the upper right-hand
corner of the screen, which will bring up the index to the
on-line issues of the UHR.

Folks, if you read Barry Greenwood's UHR on CUFON for free,
please help Barry to keep the UHR in production by
subscribing... and you folks who have been subscribers in the
past, please renew your subscription.

To subscribe, write to:
UHR,
PO Box 176,
Stoneham  MA  02180,
USA

- Jim Klotz
CUFON SYSOP








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:02:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:45:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:58:21 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

<snip>


Larry, Nick and List,

I find it amazing that this Thurso resident claims to have had
an encounter with a UFO and possible ocupant just three days
before my own sighting of a 40-foot craft hovering near the
former CFS Falconbridge Radar Base.

Had I inquired sooner about any other UFO activity at the time
of my sighting, I probably would have found out about this one,
too.

 From what I've read in the articles, I think this man really saw
something, and the debunkers and skeptics are passing the
encounter off as a bunch of balloons. Remember, two of the
witnesses were police officers!

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:08:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:47:48 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:12:17 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 ><snip>

 >>Several years ago a fellow cornered reporter Dan Rather
 >>outside of his apartment building here in New York and beat
 >>the Hell out of Rather. Everytime he'd punch Rather he'd ask
 >>him over and over, "What's the frequency Dan?"

 >Hi John,

 >Actually, he kept referring to Rather as "Kenneth," hence
 >R.E.M.'s song "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" which R.E.M. and
 >Rather performed live on Letterman...

 ><snip>

 >>BTW, does anybody know what the verdict was on the
 >>"WOW" signal?

 >>Has anything further ever come out of that?

Hiya Mac,

You wrote:

 >It's a genuine anomaly. It could very well have been an
 >intelligent signal--but, having never repeated, it can't be
 >properly hailed as such.

If it can't be replicated, yeah, unfortunately I'm aware of that
little sticking point. But, isn't the fact that it hasn't
repeated equally significant. I'm only an amateur astronomer and
I invite Nick Balaskas to step in and correct me if I'm wrong
but; if the origin of this signal were 'natural' it would have
repeated I would think. Pulsars, variable stars, and other
'known' cosmic phenomena all tend to be cyclical in nature. I'm
not aware of any other 'one off' astronomical event. One off
events like supernovas will leave a big trail that can be
studied for aeons.

It is also my understanding that the WOW had (internal)
integrity. (The signal repeated itself/or demonstrated a
pattern. I'm not sure which.) The point is, it _behaved_ more
like a "intentional transmission" than a natural phenomenon.

I'm surprised more isn't made of it, or that more time isn't
being spent on trying to decipher it. It could be a cosmic
Rosetta Stone! Too bad it didn't include a sub-signal that we
could understand which is identical in content/meaning to the
WOW.

 >Actually, there have been several
 >unusual signals detected that haven't been borne out by repeated
 >observation. Interestingly enough, they come from the same
 >region of the galactic disk.

Sure, makes perfect sense. It the densest star region in the
Galaxy and contains the oldest stars. Ergo, the oldest
civilizations (if any.) That's why I said in my original posting
that if we ever stumble across a means of 'almost instantaneous'
interstellar communication, that the cacophony of those who are
already "online" will blow the headset off of the guy on our end
monitoring it.

 >Carl Sagan once wrote that he got "chills" considering this
 >"coincidence."

Yeah, old Carl knew a lot more than he ever let on. Young Carl
and old Carl were diametrically opposed in their positions
concerning the possibility of intelligent/technologically
advanced, extraterrestrial life.

I wonder what changed him so. (Rhetorical)

Regards,

John Velez, <-(Who, according to Carl Sagan is only 'hallucinating'
his abduction experiences.) Quotation taken from: NOVA, "Kidnapped
by UFOs"  1995
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:20:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:51:50 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee

 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:37:07 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: More On ABC.com's UFO2000


 >Source: Yahoo! Biz

 >http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001117/ny_abcnews.html

 >Friday November 17, 5:03 pm Eastern Time

 >Press Release


 >ABCNEWS.com's Chris Wallace's Internet Expose: UFO2000 Presents
 >Controversial New Information About The Existence Of UFOs

 >Meet the scientists and the skeptics when ABCNEWS.com presents
 >the three-day Internet-only Webcast series, Chris Wallace's
 >Internet Expose

 >NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 17, 2000-- Around the globe, the
 >argument about whether or not Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)
 >exist has been disputed for decades.

 >The fourth installment of ABCNEWS.com's monthly Webcast series,
 >CHRIS WALLACE'S INTERNET EXPOSE: UFO2000, presents
 >controversial, new information from top British and French
 >officials, raising new possibilities about the existence of
 >UFOs. This Internet-only Webcast premieres Monday, November 20,
 >and rolls out over the following two days, with new parts each
 >day through Wednesday, November 22. The entire presentation will
 >be archived so users can view on demand.

<snip>

 >Day II - The Skeptic

 >We have all seen videos that show UFOs, but what is real? In
 >this part, ABCNEWS.com will stream a highly controversial video
 >filmed in 1997, in Mexico City. The video allegedly proves that
 >UFOs exist. Wallace discusses this video, and other evidence
 >presented by believers in UFOs, with Dr. Michael Shermer, head
 >of the Organization of Skeptics, who shows how easy it is to
 >create a phony UFO video.

This is journalistic hype.

The Mexico City video bit the dust in the spring of 1998 when
Jeff Sainio and I discovered, after _many_ hours of
investigation (which initially looked GOOD), that the hand
vibration smear affected the buildings in the distance but _not_
the UFO image. This was particularly obvious in a couple of
frames were there was very noticeable vertical smear of the
building images and no smear of the UFO image.

No doubt ABC will present this as if the skeptics "discovered" the
fake. Perhaps ABC will present it as if ABC discovered the fake.
Just remember, it was ufolgists hard at work that discovered the
fake.

You heard it first here, folks!

(see Sainio in the October 1998 MUFON Journal)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:55:49 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:46:21 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
 >>>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>>>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>>>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>>>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>>>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

<snip>

 >>>I don't expect anything to turn up from radio SETI. That said, I
 >>>hope I'm wrong! It's interesting to me that many people curious
 >>>about the possibility of UFOs representing some sort of ETI are
 >>>usually SETI supporters--but never the other way around.

 >>Quantum entanglement is indeed amazing. Forcing a particle to
 >>take some quantum state (momentum, polarization whatever) has
 >>been shown to have an instantaneous (faster than light or FTL)
 >>effect on a "quantum entangled", i.e. paired particle!

 ><snip)

 >>We would never notice unless we, or our space probes, were out
 >>in space, in line with the transmission, and knew which
 >>gosh-darned wavelength to monitor.

 >>'Tain't easy Magee! Its not impossible either.

 >Several years ago a fellow cornered reporter Dan Rather outside
 >of his apartment building here in New York and beat the Hell out
 >of Rather. Everytime he'd punch Rather he'd ask him over and
 >over, "What's the frequency Dan?"

 >May have been a frustrated SETI engineer! <LOL>

 >You're correct about trying to find 'another' mode of
 >communication to try to monitor though. 'Assuming' that we are
 >not the only intelligent or technological species in our own
 >Galaxy isn't very far fetched. If this is so, and we're not
 >picking up any communications at all then we -must be- looking
 >in the wrong place. (or the wrong way.)

 >"Quantum entangled particles" eh? Interesting stuff Larry. I
 >wonder how many other more viable means of communication are
 >being ignored or overlooked in favor of radio waves.

 >BTW, does anybody know what the verdict was on the "WOW" signal?
 >Has anything further ever come out of that?


Hi John!

I found a good link with lots of technical information on the
WOW signal. Click on this SETI league page:

http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

Among the details; the WOW signal was detected only once. The
SETI people do not expect a replay of this particular event.

Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

For technophobes, this is like a radio transmitter turned on,
but broadcasting only silence .. much like the pause you hear
after a game show host asks a blonde " which way is North? ".
[burp!]

By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

Since an unmodulated signal carries no information other than
the carrier frequency and the stellar coordinates of its source,
there was no "message" to puzzle over.

I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
my readings.

I wish the SETI people every success in their efforts. If they
ever do succeed in finding an undeniably alien signal, it will
at once up the odds that the Earth itself may have been visited
at some time in the past.

It might nudge a few SETI people an inch toward the UFO camp;
even if they have to dye their whiskers entirely green, and hide
behind such a large fan that they cannot be seen.

Very best wishes [burp! Grolsche this time]

- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                        Spacemen In African History?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:12:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:12:17 -0500
Subject: Spacemen In African History?




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: The Guardian - Nigeria

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/


Spacemen In African History?

By Yemi Ogunsola

Have you taken a long, hard look at the typical masquerade? And
an equally long hard look at the typical American astronaut or
Russian cosmonaut?

Have you noticed the curious semblance between the two? The face
piece, especially?

Can there possibly be a connection between, say, Yuri Gagarin,
the 'first man in space' and a common Yoruba Tombolo (type of
masque) cartwheeling to the cheers of a market crowd?

Curiously, the Yoruba call the masquerade ara orun (visitor from
heaven. But, is the astronaut not an ara orun too? After all, he
travels in deep space (the heavens  even farther than
conventional planes).

Could it be that the cult of Egungun (masquerade) really is in
remembrance of beings who in the ancient past travelled form the
'heavens' to the earth? Yoruba tradition interprets ara orun
(masquerades) as spirits of long-dead fathers returned to visit
their offsprings on earth.

But why call such spirits ara orun rather than oku orun (spirit
of the dead). Oku orun is more descriptive of someone who is in
heaven in consequence of having died here on earth.

Ara orun suspiciously sounds like a "living being" naturally
resident in 'heaven' but who elects to visit the earth.

The 'Ara' part of the name, in Yoruba means a 'resident of' or a
'visitor from'.

Interestingly, from Yoruba folklore comes a song that sounds
very relevant to this discourse. It evidently recounts an
encounter between an earthman and
an Ara Orun. The song goes:

Lead: Ara Orun, Ara Orun
Chorus:Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: Kilo wa se ni nile yi oo?
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: Emu ni mo wa da
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: Elelo lemuu re o
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: Okokan Egbewa
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: Gbemu sile ki o maa loo
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba.

Translated as:

Lead: Visitor from (the) heaven(s), visitor from (the) heaven(s)
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba
Lead: What do you seek in this land?
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba.
Lead: I've come to tap palmwine.
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba.
Lead: How much do you sell your palmwine?
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba.
Lead: Ten thousand cowries per keg.
Chorus: Inomba ntere tere nte inomba.
Lead: Put the palmwine down and go.

It is clear from the mood of this encounter that the ara orun or
visitor from (the) heaven(s) being addressed is not a ghost. The
Yoruba have a more appropriate name for ghost.

It is Oku.

Again, the average Yoruba man does not care to hold dialogue
with an oku. He (or she) is more likely to flee in terror.
However, our earthman here is clearly under the influence of
plain curiosity  as opposed to dark terror: "What was the
mission of the ara orun? He wanted to know.

Again, why did the earthman call the entity Ara Orun? Did he see
the entity descend from the skies (Heaven)?

In fact, the use of ile yi (this land) while asking the being
his mission shows that the Ara Orun was a total alien. That's
how the Yoruba use the word.

Fortunately again, the Ara Orun discloses his mission: To tap
palmwine. Hardly anything one will call spiritual. That dispels
any notion that the alien was probably a spirit being or an
'angel'.

So, our alien was flesh enough to be capable of relishing the
taste of palm wine or was from a land (or world) where palmwine
is so appreciated.

Back to the question, how did the earthman recognise the alien
as being from 'Heaven'. Did he see him float down from the
'skies'? It should be noted that the Yoruba have the same word
Orun  for both sky and heaven (supposed abode of good people
and Olodumare). Some times though, they take extra pains to use
oju orun to distinguish the skies; so did the Earthman see this
being descend?

Again, a portion of his song suggests just "descent." We must,
however, admit that at this stage, we are at the level of
conjecture but reasoned conjecture.

This portion of the song is the part of the chorus: Ntere tere
nte. What does tere nte connote in the Yoruba language.

For answer, we refer to yet another folklore. this one comes
from the Ifa literary corpus.

According to the story, reports reached Orunmila, the Yoruba
divinity of wisdom that one of his wives was having an affair
with a male mammy water (Pappy Water?)

A naturally enraged Orunmila then trailed the unfaithful woman
to the couple's rendezvous at a sea shore or river bank. He
caught them in the act  and opened fire on (or macheted) the
half-fish-half-man.

Wounded the casanova fell back into the deeps and moments later,
the water surface hen blood went blood-red.

Now in great sorrow, the apparently unrepentant woman burst into
a dirge for for her lover.

Lead: Oko omi, oko omi o.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Oko mi Oko mi o.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Ogbe mi lo terere.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Ogbemi lo tarara.
Chorus: Tere na.
lead: O tarara Oju omi
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Oju omi a feroro.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Eja nla hurungbon.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: Oju eye perere.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: My love, my dear love.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: He bore me far, far away (into the sea)
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: He bore me far, far (back from the sea).
Chorus: tere na
Lead: Along the highways of the waters.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: The expansive, limitless waters.
Chorus: Tere na.
Lead: The mighty bearded fishman
Chorus: Tere na.

Tere re in this song clearly indicates "great distance", the
great distance the lovers covered as they traversed the waters
during their illicit affair.

The other part of our original words: is easily clearer. In
Yoruba, Nte connotes "floatation", "high" or "air-borne".Thus we
have Lori Oke tente (on the very top of the hill), Ate (a hat
worn on the very top of the head. And ole tente (it floats
pretty).

Thus, a combination of tere and nte suggests something "floating
down, air-borne form great distance, from far away."

Thus what the Tere nte chorus is probably telling us is that
this visitors from the heavens, this aliens, floated down from a
great distance.

We can now wonder. Did the Yoruba, indeed , Africans, make
contact with space being or extra-terrestrials in the ancient
past? And did they preserve these encounters in their folklore
and folksongs?

I was still "brain-storming" over all these, digging into
litreatures on Egungun and allied matters when a most fortunate
clue literally fell on my laps.

There is this weekly Ifa programme on the Broadcasting
Corporation of Oyo State (BCOS). Anchored by Wale Rufai, it
features stories from the Ifa corpus by an Ifa priest, Gbolagade
Ogunleke Ifatokun.

Being one of my favourite programmes, I was listening on
Wednesday November 20, last year when a brief digression in the
discussion brought up the issue of the mutual respect between
the Ifa priesthood and the Egungun cult. Ifatokun, declared
flatly that an Egungun must never whip an Ifa priest. (Egungun o
gbodo na Babalawo), especially by reason of an ancient alliance
between Orunmila (founder of the Babalawo school) and the
Egungun at a time in the ancient past when the Earth was
threatened by a deluge of Ifatokun's story held me spellbound.

According to him, the real meaning of egungun is Mayegun that
is, "keep the world in order" or "those who keep the world
running smoothly."

In the distant past, Ifatokun related, there occurred a deluge,
which threatened all life on earth.

Seeing the earth so imperilled, Orunmila, and other (Irunmales
the divinities) who were resident on Earth then, sent an S.O.S.
to Orun, (Heaven).

In response, the Ara orun, came to the Earth in special
costumes.

These costumes, said Ifatokun, had the unique property of drying
up any portion of the inundated earth over which they were
swung.

The "Egungun" cult sprang from this incident of the invitation
of these heavenly beings.

The special and elderly egungun who wear imitations of these
today are called Babalago, Ifatokun said.

So, the Egungun (Mayegun) cam from orun (heaven, Space) to
rescue aye (Earth) form the deluge.

The modern interpretation of the Ifatokun story is glaring:

When the deluge hit the Earth, extraterrestrial beings resident
on Earth, among whom was Orunmila, himself, sent an S.O.S to
their home planet. And in response, extraterrestial hydrologists
landed on Earth in spacesuits (and, by inference, space craft)
to rid the Earth of the excess water!.

Of course, the matter does not end here. Some sailent questions
have been raised, especially by this last account.

For instance, Was Orunmila truly an extraterrestial? were the
Irunmales or orisas (divinities) extra terrestrials?

For instance, was Orunmila truly an extraterrestial? Were the
Irunmales or Orisas, extraterrestials? The answer is Yes.

However, that is another story...


Story originally published by
The Guardian - Nigeria
By Yemi Ogunsola






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:22:55 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:20:19 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:37:07 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>Day II - The Skeptic

 >>....
 >>We have all seen videos that show UFOs, but what is real? In
 >>this part, ABCNEWS.com will stream a highly controversial video
 >>filmed in 1997, in Mexico City. The video allegedly proves that
 >>UFOs exist. Wallace discusses this video, and other evidence
 >>presented by believers in UFOs, with Dr. Michael Shermer, head
 >>of the Organization of Skeptics, who shows how easy it is to
 >>create a phony UFO video.

 >This is journalistic hype.

 >The Mexico City video bit the dust in the spring of 1998 when
 >Jeff Sainio and I discovered, after _many_ hours of
 >investigation (which initially looked GOOD), that the hand
 >vibration smear affected the buildings in the distance but _not_
 >the UFO image. This was particularly obvious in a couple of
 >frames were there was very noticeable vertical smear of the
 >building images and no smear of the UFO image.

 >No doubt ABC will present this as if the skeptics "discovered" the
 >fake. Perhaps ABC will present it as if ABC discovered the fake.
 >Just remember, it was ufolgists hard at work that discovered the
 >fake.

 >You heard it first here, folks!

 >(see Sainio in the October 1998 MUFON Journal)

Hi Bruce,

You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
me do the same, if you will.

Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
reality?

Can you so easily forget or ignore that when Ed Walters sighted
a UFO on Aug. 6, 1993, and was about to aim his camera at it, he
heard a thumping sound that coincided with weird bouncing
movements of a black spot on the window glass that hadn't been
there before? And that, about then, his camera shutter clicked
all by itself? All this when the UFO was a large distance away.
The black spot and its thumping noise disappeared an instant
before the UFO itself disappeared from sight. I say, more power
to Ed Walters for having reported these events instead of
staying silent on them, in Part 1 of _UFOs are Real: Here's the
Proof_.

There are plenty of other examples of the deployment of advanced
alien technology.

I believe it would be a cop-out to shrug it all off by saying,
in effect, that one may as well claim that the aliens had
implanted the whole image on that video and also in the minds of
the eyewitnesses, and so why then even discuss the matter.
Similarly, it is a cop-out whenever scientists insist that
such-and-such a reported UFO event could not be real if our best
scientists cannot explain how it could have been achieved.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                     Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:57:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:09:16 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46


 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:24:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46

 >Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

 ><Masinaigan@aol.com>
 >==========================

 >    UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 5, Number 46
 >November 16, 2000
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


Listfolk,

 >(Friday, October 27, 2000) of an unidentified flying object over
 >ISRAEL SENDS THOUSANDS OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO FLORIDA

 >"Roz Soltz, an Israeli from Miami (Florida) was a little sad
 >when she left for a community meeting Wednesday morning
 >"The Republican and Democratic parties try to get ballots into
 >the hands of U.S. citizens in Israel."

 >"Florida officials say that 26,000 state residents requested
 >absentee ballots for the 1996 presidential vote and that this
 >year's number was higher. By law the state will accept the
 >"Like Jewish voters elsewhere, 90 percent of Israeli Floridians
 >were expected to vote Democratic. The idea that they could swing
 >the election is a bit far-fetched but perhaps no more so than
 >other scenarios that have become reality in the U.S. since
 >Election Day." (See the Chicago Tribune for November 10
 >November 10, 200-, "Americans in Israel now at race's center,"
 >section 1, page 5.)

 >(Editor's Comment: My question is, how many of these are
 >legitimate Florida absentee ballots? And how many are forgeries
 >printed by the Israeli government, complete with November 7
 >postmarks? Israel has a vested interest in keeping Dubya out of
 >the White House. For more on that, see our O Jerusalem Dept. in
 >this issue.)

As if these lunatic ravings were not enough, we also get to
read:

 >O JERUSALEM DEPT: It isn't bad enough that we have Israeli
 >troops desecrating the mosques of Haram as-Sharif (the Temple
 >Mount to Jews) every Friday, keeping the Muslims from their
 >noonday prayers. Or that Israeli tanks are shelling Beit Jala, a
 >town south of Jerusalem with a population that is 90 percent
 >Christian, equally split between Greek Orthodox and Roman
 >Catholics, people who have absolutely nothing to do with the
 >Intifada. Now the West Bank's six-week war of religion has
 >spilled over into the USA's presidential election. Here's
 >how...

 >Ten days ago, Gov. Bush turned up in Detroit, Michigan to woo
 >the large Arab-American population in that city. Surprisingly,
 >he brought his national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, with
 >him. Reading between the lines, my guess is that Dubya and ms.
 >Rice sent a backchannel "Let's talk" message toYasser Arafat.

 >At 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, about an hour
 >before Vice President Gore called to concede the election,
 >Yasser Arafat phoned Dubya to congratulate him on his voictory.
 >Probably Arafat was trying to sell Bush on his "Send
 >peacekeepers to Jerusalem" idea, which so far has been resisted
 >by Israel and the Clinton administration.

 >This probably alarmed the Israelis, who dislike the Bush family
 >anyway. It all goes back to the Gulf War ten years ago. The
 >Israelis wanted Poppy, the governor's father, to invade Iraq and
 >crush Saddam Hussein for good. Then-President Bush figured the
 >CIA and Kurd uprisings would finish off Saddam. Well, he was
 >wrong, and Saddam proved to be more durable than anyone
 >expected.

 >All in all, the Zionists feel that the Bush family is too
 >friendly with the moderate Arabs, and they prefer a Democrat in
 >the White House.

 >Three hours after Arafat's phone call, a bunch of Palm Beach,
 >Florida Jews start complaining that the governor's evil kid
 >brother, Jebbie Bush, Florida's governor, somehow tricked them
 >into voting for their arch-enemy, Pat Buchanan.

 >All of which has me wondering, why do the Zionists want Al Fore
 >in the White House? Are the Democrats planning to wage another
 >war of religion on behalf of the Jews, like they did in the
 >1940s? Are they going to send a few hundred thousand American
 >troops to the Middle East to hold off the Arabs while those
 >Hasidic rabbis blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque?


 >If the Zionists succeed in helping Al Gore steal this election,
 >perhaps the GOP will reconsider its support of the State of
 >Israel.

 >It might be a good idea to double the number of Texas Rangers
 >guarding the Bush family. Considering last week's murder of
 >Hussein Abayat, the Mossad is more than willing to assassinate
 >political leaders it doesn't like.

 >Stay the course, Dubya. You won the electoral vote. You are the
 >president-elect. Come January 20, you can set your own foreign
 >policy. If people don't like it, they can express their opinion
 >at the polls in November 2004.

 >And if those rabbis in Jerusalem disapprove...well, you know
 >what they say in New Hampshire. "If you don't like them apples,
 >find another orchard."

I hope I am not the only list member to be appalled and offended
by such expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry. Trainor's unsavory
hallucinations have no place on this list or in the discourse of
decent people. His strange charges are based on no evidence at
all - as they must be, since no supporting evidence exists.
This stuff is vile and disgusting, and Trainor should be ashamed
of himself.

Errol, where are your editing skills when we really need them?

Jerry Clark








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Milot

From: Gilles Milot <aqu@videotron.ca>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:29:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:14:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Milot


 >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:58:21 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >><snip>

 >>>>One such case that comes to my mind is Robert Sufferin's UFO
 >>>>encounter with an alien about 100 miles north of Toronto.
 >>>>According to Robert, this alien "...put his hands on a post and
 >>>>went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was
 >>>>weightless."

 >><snip>

 >>>Strange floating entities were described in fairly good detail,
 >>>by numerous witnesses with fairly consistent accounts.

 >>>Their descriptions were good enough to finally identify the
 >>>source: Mylar balloons shaped like little men, which burst on
 >>>the scene like a new brand of soda pop. [burp!]

 >>>I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this possibility. Maybe I
 >>>missed something.

 >>Hi Larry.

 >>A man from Thurso, Quebec witnessed such a seemingly weightless
 >>alien being which attracted much attention by the local media.
 >>I have photocopies of this evolving story from the October 9, 10,
 >>11 and 12, 1990 issues of 'LeDroit', a French language newspaper
 >>of the Ottawa-Hull area.

 >>My reading and comprehension abilities in French are no longer
 >>as good as they once were so I cannot give further details but a
 >>sketch of this alleged alien made it in the October 10 issue and
 >>it looked very much like a mylar helium balloon creation with
 >>similar big eyes and legs which was published the following day
 >>by the same newspaper. It was presented as a likely explanation
 >>to the alien the man from Thurso saw, but was it the
 >>explanation?

 >>Considering that this region of Canada has the largest number of
 >>sex shops per square kilometer which include inflatable dolls in
 >>their large inventories (of course, this research was done
 >>solely in the interest of finding the truth about UFOs), one
 >>would think that witnesses living in this area could certainly
 >>tell the difference between a humanoid alien and a humanoid
 >>shaped helium filled balloon, wouldn't you? ;o)

 >>Nick Balaskas

 >>If your French is better than mine Larry, I would be happy to
 >>mail to you copies of these four newspaper articles in a plain
 >>brown envelope.

 >Hello Nick!

 >I don't catalog IFOs, so I cannot cite chapter and verse.

 >As I recall, this was a minor flap in Europe some years ago. I
 >want to say Italy, but don't quote me.

 >Somebody had introduced cheap mylar balloons in the shape of
 >little men, and kids were losing and releasing them all over the
 >place. One went sailing headlong past a telephone pole or some
 >such.

 >This business pretty much wound down when the source was
 >identified. (My source might have been LDLN. I'm not going to
 >dig for it now!)

 >Unlike regular thin-rubber balloons, mylar has almost no
 >"stretch" to it, and it doesn't leak hydrogen right through the
 >skin like a rubber balloon will.

 >Very light in weight, the thin mylar membranes need not be
 >tightly inflated, and can be formed into all sorts
 >non-balloonistic shapes and still fly. Little men and cartoon
 >figures are most popular, I bought a few for a going-away party.

 >I'm still surprised this was not suggested earlier with regard
 >to gliding entities in Pennsylvania.


Hi everybody,

We had a case back in October 1998 in Grand-Mre Qu. around
midnight where the witness saw two entities searching something
in the ground at her sister's backward where was located their
garden. One of the entities was on its knees seeming very busy
working on the ground and the other one was stand up looking at
its companion. One particular detail the witness told us about
the entities was that they seemed to be floating over the ground
and this became particularity evident when they left walking in
the direction of a very thick fog which was illuminated with a
dark orange color. This case was reported in the Journal de
Montral on his edition of saturday Aug 21,1999.

The late publication of the case was due to the time we needed
to investigate the case. We had to return to the site in the
spring when the snow was completely melted. We then discovered,
at the location, five holes two inches diameter by eight inches
deep in which the soil was completely dry, like brown sand.
Just few inches outside the holes, the soil was very rich and
dark as it should be in a garden.

I'd been interviewed at that time by Errol for his radio show
Strange Days... Indeed, about the case.

Gilles Milot
AQU/QAU.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:16:51 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

Responding to Bruce Maccabee:

 >Hi Bruce,

 >You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
 >me do the same, if you will.

 >Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
 >independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
 >the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
 >Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
 >past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
 >their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

 >Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
 >manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
 >UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
 >show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
 >their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
 >with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
 >reality?

Jim,

Where are these alleged witnesses? Two television documentaries
have interviewed one or two residents who allegedly saw
something at the time of the Mexico City sighting, but there has
been no investigative follow up that I'm aware of, by either
Mexican Ufologists or anyone else of note. IMO, A craft as large
as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
public comment than we've seen.

Perhaps the aliens (or whatever) are truly able to manipulate
every means that we have to detect and record their existence.
Perhaps this is why they are so skillful at keeping themselves
hidden from view. But the circumstances outlined in the research
that has been done in this case would seem to indicate that this
was a "not so elaborate" hoax. We will all have to search our
own beliefs to define whether this has been explained "beyond a
reasonable doubt", and if Wallace is using this video in a
segment with Shermer, I would suspect that it is being used as
an example of a hoax in the field of Ufology. If he's going to
portray this as a major sighting that remains completely
unexplained, he has a long lonely road to travel.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

              Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:07:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:20:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:04:28 EST
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:36:16 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:05:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>He reported, "The first fact we learned was that a witness's
 >>memory of such exotic events fades very quickly. After one day,
 >>about half the reports are clearly erroneous; after two days,
 >>about three quarters are clearly erroneous; after four days,
 >>only ten percent are good; after five days, people report more
 >>imagination than truth."

<snip>

 >>In fact, Drake starts to contradict his own statement in the
 >>very next paragraph.

 >No, he provided an example of something which is reliable. In
 >the following paragraph, he begins discussing things which aren't.

Maybe you should go back and reread the article. After deriding
fireball witness testimony as unreliable, he then gives
_several_ examples of where it can be very consistent or
reliable: duration of sighting, direction and speed (when
landmarks are presence) and meteor sounds. And what he does
label as unreliable or inconsistent (reported colors, direction
informaton without landmarks) he doesn't quantify. He also
proposes a completed unsupported "psychological explanation" to
try to dismiss highly persistent and consistent witness reports
of anomalous meteor sounds.

In the end, all we have is Drake's anecdotal appraisal of
witness reliability backed up with nothing of substance. Drake
may be a very fine scientist in his own specialty, but his
poorly argued article in what is supposed to be a scientific
appraisal of the UFO phenomenon is anything but scientific.

<snip>

 >>Drake (or the equally over-opinionated Bob Young) also doesn't
 >>seem to take into account that witness reliability and
 >>consistency also has a great deal to do with the experience and
 >>competency of the questioner.

 >Agreed.

Thank you. Therefore, it should further be agreed that Drake's
statement about witness reliability is meaningless without
further information.

<snip>

 >>One meteor expert who figured prominently in UFO history of the
 >>late 1940's and early 1950's was Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. LaPaz had
 >>quite a reputation for his ability to recover meteorites by
 >>going out and interviewing fireball witnesses in the field.
 >>Rather than disparaging eyewitness testimony as Drake did (or
 >>Bob Young), LaPaz found it invaluable.

 >>Drake claimed that witness statements about direction and
 >>position of fireballs tended to be unreliable. But the far more
 >>experienced LaPaz through careful questioning of witnesses got
 >>highly consistent results, enabling him to accurately plot
 >>trajectories of fireballs from triangulation of elevations and
 >>azimuths provided by the witnesses. That was the secret of his
 >>success in recovering the meteorites.

 >A big part of his success was that he searched for fallen
 >meteorites in the desert Southwest and in places like Kansas.

A big part of his success was accurately determining the
trajectory and point of probable impact through careful
questioning of the witnesses. Knowing exactly where to look
helps a lot.

Dealing with the wide open spaces of the Southwest and Kansas in
some ways might have made LaPaz's job more difficult. One would
expect fewer landmarks to aid in trajectory reconstruction.

 >Anybody who has tried to find a fall in the rugged, wooded often
 >snow-covered mountains of West Virginia or Pennsylvania will
 >never have the same sort of luck.

Yes, but Drake's point wasn't about the difficulty in finding
meteorites because of terrain. He was complaining that the
witness reports weren't reliable.

 >You are right about LaPaz's
 >long experience, which obviously helped him, too.

Quite right. He had been at it for over 30 years. Drake may have been an
experienced radio astronomer, but he was a novice meteor hunter. To
paraphrase Shakespeare, perhaps the problem wasn't so much in the
star-watchers but in himself.

 >On Jan. 30, 1949, a giant green fireball was seen over most of
 >northern New Mexico and on into Texas. This was part of the
 >infamous green fireball phenomenon that started over northern
 >New Mexico in December 1948.

<snip>

 >>In a special secret conference on the green fireballs in Los
 >>Alamos Feb. 14, 1949, LaPaz reported his findings based on the
 >>witness interviews. There's a lot to this story, but I only
 >>want to mention that LaPaz stated that the green fireballs were
 >>completely silent, whereas normal large fireballs very
 >>frequently trigger witness reports of hearing sizzling sounds.

 >Most "normal" fireballs are not accompanied by "sizzling"
 >sounds, but what is even more important, only a small fraction
 >of the _witnesses_ of bright fireballs report these sort of
 >sounds.

14% of the witnesses I don't consider to be a "small fraction." It's a very
significant number.

Furthermore, I don't understand the point of you emphasizing the
word "_witnesses_" It appears you are trying to make a case
again that this is a "psychological phenomenon" and not a real
physical one.

Colin Keay proposed the now widely accepted theory explaining
the anomalous
meteor sounds back in 1980. His Web site is at:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddcsk/

and points out that these sounds have since been recorded in the
field. Lab experiments are also capable of reproducing the
effect.

Keay also explains that not all fireballs seem capable of
generating these sounds. One's with shallow trajectories do;
those with steep trajectories do not.

It is somewhat ironic that Keay also proudly proclaims himself
to be a member of the Australian skeptics society who fight
against so-called pseudo-science. The irony is, of course, that
the anomalous meteor sounds themselves before Keay where widely
dismissed by fellow scientists as having no basis in physical
reality.

 >I have been with a group which witnessed a bright,
 >shadow-casting fireball and one person in the groups said that
 >she heard a swishing sound, no one else, including me, heard it.

According to Keay, this can be a function of the transducer
mechanism near the witness. Metal framed eyeglasses, e.g., can
act as a transducer. Somebody wearing them might hear the
sounds, whereas somebody right next to them might not.

There are also obviously differences in people's hearing ability,
particularly to higher sounds. Younger people are more likely to hear them
than older people, e.g.

Similar sounds, BTW, are also associated with auroras. Some
people hear them; some don't. Sometimes earthquakes are heard
before the ground waves actually arrive (a phenomenon I myself
have experienced in the S.F. Bay area). Keay terms the general
phenomenon "electrophonics."

 >LaPaz operated with the scientific knowledge of his day. The
 >so-called "Green Fireballs" are a perfect example. See Richard
 >Haines' book, Observing UFOs, for a discussion of how intensely
 >bright light sources are quickly seen as green. As the objects
 >dim, it's appearance can then return to red.

I haven't seen Haine's book, so I can't comment at this point on what he has
written or whether you have accurately represented it.

I will say that I have a degree in Optometry and have studied a
lot of visual science and neurophysiology. I know of no
mechanism which will make an intensely bright white light source
appear to be green, particularly a very saturated, lime-green
color that was associated with the so-called green fireballs.

An intensely green light _will_ create a faint red afterimage
after the green light source is removed. And an intensely red
light will similarly create a green afterimage.

But a bright white light will create a black or grey afterimage.
If you doubt this, try popping a camera flash in your eyes. You
don't see it as a bright green, nor do you see a red afterimage.
The red and green color systems are co-equal and act in
opposition to one another.

LaPaz was well-aware of colored afterimages. If you read the
transcript of his 1949 Los Alamos talk, he even proposes this as
a possible explanation for the red color seen at the tail end of
the some of the green fireball reports.

_But_, he also flatly stated that in his 30 years in the field, he
had never seen or heard of fireballs with the characteristics of
the green fireballs that suddenly appeared over northern New
Mexico at the end of 1948. He himself had been a witness to one
of these. It wasn't just the saturated green color that puzzled
him. They had a number of other anomalous characteristics as
well (which you conveniently fail to mention, but which LaPaz
made quite a point of). This led him to believe that the green
fireballs had to be artificial in orgin.

[Ed Ruppelt's book ("The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects")
went even further than LaPaz. According to Ruppelt, when he
spoke with scientists and technicians at Los Alamos (many of
whom had personally witnessed the green fireballs), the strong
consensus of opinion was that the green fireballs were probably
probes sent into Earth's atmosphere by alien spaceships.]

 >Some fireballs, and
 >reentering space debris, do contain minerals which can be seen
 >as green, but this intense color is often due to chemical
 >saturation of the eye's color perceiving mechanism.

Again, this sounds highly dubious to me based on my own
knowledge of the subject. Bright white light saturates _all_ of
the eye's color perceiving mechanisms. One color mechanism isn't
selectively singled out, not that I know of anyway.

Furthermore, it is the chemical photo-saturation that creates
the negative _afterimage_, not the positive original image. If,
e.g., you did see a bright red fireball, the chemical saturation
could cause a faint green afterimage after the fireball faded
out. You have things completely backwards.

 >During thousands of hours of observing the night sky since 1956,
 >and many of them making meteor counts, I have seen four
 >intensely bright fireballs which cast shadows. Two of these were
 >a very bright, beutiful green, but bright as a welder's arc.

So why weren't the other two green? According to your
assertions, _any_ very bright white light should be seen as
green. The fact of the matter is, very, very few bright
fireballs are ever reported as appearing as a saturated green.
LaPaz back in 1949 couldn't think of a single example in all the
meteor literature or personal experience.

If I wanted to rub it in, I could also quote Drake. Witness
reports of color are completely unreliable or are more fact than
fiction after 5 days, so why should you be the exception?

<snip>

 >>Furthermore, "…in the old meteor literature, with almost every
 >>fireball recorded, something like 14 per cent of the
 >>eyewitnesses report the simultaneous crackling sound, which
 >>should be physically impossible. How does the sound get there
 >>as fast as light?"

 >>I wouldn't know. It's a controversial topic.

The quote is from Drake's article, not me. Drake is setting up
his argument that this widely reported phenomenon must have a
"psychological" explanation.

 >>Now what do we have here? We have an anomalous phenomenon
 >>reported with high consistency from numerous people from all
 >>over the world and over long periods of time. (Sound familiar?)

<snip>

 >What is it that makes Drake's proposed explanation "assinine"?

How about no supporting experimental evidence in the scientific
perceptual literature? How about the fact, mentioned by Drake
himself, that witnesses didn't even have to see the fireball to
hear the sounds? That should have killed the theory right there.
How about the fact that nobody ever reports such sounds in
ordinary life? Does anybody, e.g., report them when a flashbulb
goes off in their face?

 >Internal noise in the system was, in fact, a leading speculative
 >explanation of meteor noises in those days, wasn't it, Greg?

The name is David, but oh well. (I could take some cheap shot
about the reliability or radical misperceptions of the
pelicanist camp, but I refrain.)

You are quite right that the "psychological explanation" was the
leading _speculative_ explanation for meteor noises back then
among astonomers. Too bad the astronomers didn't discuss it with
the perceptual psychologists, who would have quickly told them
it was a bunch of bunk. Or better yet, some simple lab
experiments would have proven beyond a doubt that the
"explanation" was complete garbage.

But like true pelicanists, the "psychological explanation" folks
couldn't be bothered to do a simple scientific experiment to
test the theory.

 >Of course, all of this is leading to your favorite subject: ETH.
 >Because knowledge has advanced in one particular field, you
 >believe that it must also have advanced in your favorite field
 >of interest.

This is another complete misreading of what I said. Sizzling
meteor sounds were a classic example of an anomalous phenomenon
reported consistently by the common folk for hundreds of years,
just like UFO's are an anomalous phenomenon consistently
reported by the common folk for hundreds of years.

In both cases, the scientific community has generally sneered at
the reports. Without bothering to even test the proposition, the
meteor sounds were flippantly dismissed by most astronomers and
physicists as a "psychological phenomenon." (See Keay's Web page
for a history.) Similarly, psychological and psychosocial
explanation for UFO reports are a leading means of debunking
these reports in the pelicanist community, as you well know.

Now it turns out that the anomalous meteor sounds probably _can_
be explained physically. There is no need to resort to true
voodoo science and ridiculous "psychological explanations"
anymore. In fact, the consistent witness reports held clues to
the solution. E.g., the sounds were instantaneous with
sightings, indicating the signal had to be propagated
electromagnetically. The trick was determining what spectrum of
EM waves was responsible, how fireballs could generate them, and
how these EM waves could then be transduced into the peculiar
sounds people reported.

There is an obvious lesson here, but it seems you don't want to
pay attention to it.

 >Well, just because every circus has a clown, it doesn't mean
 >that every clown deserves to be in a circus.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young

Clear thinking,

David Rudiak









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                   UFO Sighting OZ File 000996 Nov 08 2000

From: Diane Harrison - Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:58:03 +1100
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:22:09 -0500
Subject: UFO Sighting OZ File 000996 Nov 08 2000


UFO Sighting OZ File 000996 08.11.2000

Followup Diane Harrison and team.
1800 Callin Code: 000996  08/11/2000 QLD

Date: 08/11/2000
Day: Wednesday
Time Reported: 8:47pm
Location: Lowood, QLD
Reporter: Peter
Report given to nearest State Rep: Diane Harrison
Tel: 07 5

Report: By Diane Harrison

Shape: Rectangular and box shaped
Size: The Biggest Hovercraft in the UK the Car Carrier
Objects: 1
Colour: Dark Metallic but nothing shinny
Sound: None
Speed: Fast and slow
Duration: 10 minutes or longer?
Direction: North
Witnesses: 5...3 still have to be interviewed
Weather: Clear but some very high cloud cover.
Moon: Yes

Peter and his wife and children were traveling home along the
Warrego HWY at aprox 8.05pm then turned right onto the Brisbane
Valley HWY . When five minutes later traveling north bound and
coming over a rise in the road they noticed what looked like a
very bright white light just above a yellow street light at
approximately 500 meters away.

Peter said: My wife Linda was driving the children were in the
back seat I was in the front passenger seat. Peter said: I told
Linda to slow down because the light was now over the whole
road. At first we thought my god a bloody plane is going to land
on the road.

I told Linda to pull over to the side of the road incase this
thing was going to land on the road. I could see 2 other cars
parked on the opposite side of the road facing south. And other
2 cars pulled up behind us. We saw 2 men standing out of their
car looking up at this.. what I can only describe as a space
craft there was no mistaking it for anything else.

We Live on the flight path of Amberley Airforce base and
I know what come's and goes from there and this was
nothing like I had ever seen before in all the 8 years of
living in the area.

Peter Said: I hung almost all of my body out of the passenger
window trying to get a the better look and I have to be honest I
was scared to death at what I was looking at. I thought if I
looked at it through the passenger side window if it did
anything at least I was in the car and my wife could put her
foot down and try and get away from it.

The craft was rectangular and box shaped with what looked like
another rectangular compartment on top of it. The top part had
what looked like round lights or portholes gold- orange and blue
in colour. The only way to really compare the size of it for me
it looked as big as the Hovercraft in the UK that carries cars
and stuff across the English channel with a cabin on top of it.
This thing had no propellers no sound and when we went under it,
it had red lights at each corner of its underbelly.

It was dark metallic in colour. It had a big spot light beam
coming from the top of it. This light was stronger than any
search light or truck spot light I have ever seen. Linda said my
god Peter its a spaceship" what do we do".

I told Linda don't stop the engine, Linda was getting really
scared and started shouting "we have to go". Linda started to
shout louder when suddenly the craft moved to the left in a
split second and just hovered again off to the side of the road
above the trees over an open paddock.

A car came from behind us just as we went to pull out. It had
all its spot light's on high beam it was a four wheel drive. I
guess the diver thought as we did it was a plane coming into
land on the road. Linda and I got really scared for the kids and
Linda started shouting again "lets go". So we took off down the
road and turned left heading cross country to Lowood to get
home. Linda was driving and I was watching the craft out the
back window while Linda drove as fast has she could on the
winding road.

The road we were traveling on climbs up hill so it was easier to
see the craft. I was keeping an eye on it in case it decided to
come after us. Then all of a sudden this spot light beam hit me
right in the face lighting up the whole of the car. By now Linda
was hysterical and I was shit scared thinking this thing is
going to come after us.

Comment: Diane
This case is under investigation as we feel Peter and Linda
are sincere and have nothing to gain from making this up.

A.U.F.O.R.N contacted the Local newspaper the Queensland Times
asking for the other witnesses to come forward to verify the
sighting. That same day of running the story in the newspaper
16th 11 2000 we received calls on our UFO Hotline from 3 other
independent witnesses that saw what Peter and Linda saw that
night. Another witness said he has the craft on video he said
"it's not really clear but its good and you can see the beam of
light shoot out and down to the ground".

The witnesses in the parked car's are yet to contact us.

Amberley Airforce Base was contacted but had
nothing to report.

We will keep you informed of the outcome.
This case sounds like its going to be a good one.

Investigators are

AUFORN QLD Director Jan Stone
National Director's Robert Frola, Diane Harrison

--

Regards Diane Harrison

National Director of The Australian UFO Research Network
Australian Skywatch Director

~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
THE AUSTRALIAN UFO RESEARCH NETWORK
(A Non-Profit Organization)

E-Mail: tkbnetw@powerup.com.au
E-mail: ufologist@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

ADMINISTRATION:

PO Box 805
Springwood Qld 4127
Australia
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Australian UFO Research Network Hotline Number
         1800 77 22 88 Freecall
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Disclaimer: A.UFO.R.N List Owners are not responsible
for the content or misuse of this list.
However, personal insults, flaming will not be tolerated.
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 18

                      Jeff Rense Weekly E-News 11-18-00

From: Rense E-News <e-news@the-i.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:47:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:26:52 -0500
Subject: Jeff Rense Weekly E-News  11-18-00


----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Jeff Rense Weekly E-News
----------------------------------------------------------------

                          The Week Ahead
                      11-19-00 thru 11-25-00

             Guests, Announcements, Week's Top Stories
                          From rense.com
                 Jeff Rense E-News is distributed
                 exclusively by Free Subscription.

                   --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * READER�S CORNER *

"Every improvement in the human condition has come from someone
pushing against the tide and speaking out, no matter what the
consequences. That person is within all of us. Rebellion and the
desire for positive change is at the heart of the human spirit."
- David Icke

From: Mrs. Santa Claws

Listen to the noise so you may hear the silence!
                               - Phil Neathway


From: Bill Weber

We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent
on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for
our safety to its security and peace; preserved from
annihilation only by the care, the work and the love we give our
fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate; half
miserable; half confident, half despairing; half slave of the
ancient enemies of man, half free in a liberation of resources
undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can safely travel
with such vast contradictions.             ~ Adlai Stevenson


Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone, for
the heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth
thoroughly known. We have only to follow the thread of the hero
path, and where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall
find a god.  And where we had thought to slay another, we shall
slay ourselves.  Where we had thought to travel outward, we will
come to the center of our own existence. And where we had
thought to be alone, we will be one with the world. - Joe
Campbell


Observation IS interpretation...and anyone who doesn't think so
is a goofball!             - Me


From: Robert M. Morris [bigr@cswnet.com]

Its not as long as it has been............
                              - Robert Morris


From: Russ Emrich

If the public continues to ask the wrong questions of their
politicians, the answers will not bring them any closer to the
truth.                     - Russ Emrich

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are
involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are
right."                    - Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed � and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H.L. Mencken


From: Mike Douglass

Love is grand; divorce is a hundred grand.

I am in shape. Round is a shape.

Time may be a great healer, but it's also a lousy beautician.

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built
the ark.  Professionals built the Titanic.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.

Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should
both be changed regularly and for the same reason.

There is always death and taxes; however, death doesn't get
worse every year.

It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to
them.

In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.

I always wanted to be a procrastinator, never got around to it.

I plan on living forever. So far, so good.

A day without sunshine is like night.

I have kleptomania, but when it gets bad, I take something for
it.

I am not a perfectionist. My parents were, though.

You're getting old when you get the same sensation from a
rocking chair that you once got from a roller coaster.

One of life's mysteries is how a two-pound box of candy can make
a woman gain five pounds.

It's frustrating when you know all the answers, but nobody
bothers to ask you the questions.

You don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old
because you stopped laughing.


From: Steve Henwood [SHENWOOD@worldnet.att.net]

Dear Quote People,

Approximately six months to a year ago there was an outstanding
quote in one of Jeff Renses news letters which I never wrote
down and now I really need it, and need to know who said it.  It
was something like, "Evil may prevail when men of good will fail
to act and do nothing."  Can you give me the exact wording and
who said it?  Also do you have an archive of past quotes that we
can access?  Your quotes are great; keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
Steve Henwood

EDITOR�S NOTE:  Does anybody have that handy to send to Steve?
If so, please do.  Thanks.

                      ------------------
         Got a favorite quote?  Feel free to send it:
            mailto:e-news@the-i.net?Subject=quote

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

            Need a great CHRISTMAS gift for someone?

                          Give a book.

                 http://www.hiddenmysteries.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                      * TOP STORIES *

           Just a few of last week's most intriguing!
                       http://rense.com

* Dutch Discover Seventh Mad Cow/BSE Case
* 'Millions Died For Britain Only For Blair To Surrender It'
* UK Doctors Revolt - Demand Halt To Surgery Over 'Dirty'
       Instruments
* Gore - More Desperate, More Ugly
* Warning - 809 Area Code Trick Can Be Extremely Costly
* America - From World Policeman To Keystone Cop
* America's Electile Dysfunction
* The Disney Bloodline - The Skill Of Lying, The Art Of Deceit
* Russia Edging Towards Truth On Kursk Disaster
* 13 Myths About The Results Of The 2000 Election
* Mad Cow Panic Spreading Throughout Europe
* AIDS Catastrophe Threatens Russia
* LaRouche: Electoral College Should Dump Bush And Gore
* UFOs And US Air Safety - A Serious And Neglected Issue
* Russian Army Units Jeopardized by UFO?
* Population Control Agenda
* George Harrison - 'I Truly Believed I Was Dying'
* Race To Control Human Life Via Genetic Patents Exploding
* EXCLUSIVE Photos Of USS Cole
* Skin Regeneration Breakthrough - 'Replicative Immortality'
* 300 Kenyan Boys Invade High School To Rape Co-Eds
* Pending Colorado Gun Law Brings Out The Buyers
* 'Mile Long' UFO Passes 150' Over Oklahoma Farm House
* Asteroid Makes Close Pass Of Earth - Was The Moon Brought Here?
* Why The 'Palestinians' Have No Right To A State
* Water Fluoride Tests Kill 80% Rats Before Study Finished!
* Scientists To Recreate Flu Virus That Killed 40 Million People

       Read these stories and more at http://www.rense.com
                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                       Haven't read it yet?

Rulers of Evil - an incredible expose of who's *really in control.

        http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index107.html
            (Sorry � gave the wrong url last week!)

                 --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                   * THIS WEEK'S GUESTS *
                     11-19-00 thru 11-24-00

                  Monday-Friday 7-10pm Pacific
                   Saturday 9pm - 3am Pacific
                    Sunday 8pm-11pm Pacific

            (Please note Jeff's Guest schedule can
           change due to late breaking stories, etc).


SUN  11-19
    From England-Nick Redfern/Jonathon Downes: UK UFO Report

MON  11-20
    Geri Guidetti:  Our Endangered Food Supply
    Andy Stahl:  Saving Our Forests

TUE  11-21
    Dr. Ernest Martin: The True Location Of The Temple

WED  11-22
    Dr. Lorraine Day, MD:  How To Stay Healthy

THU  11-23
    Barbara McBeath/Brendan Cook: EVP Ghost Voice Recordings

FRI  11-24
    Brad Steiger:  A Paranormal Evening

    Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives: http://rense.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

            CAVERNS, CAULDRONS & CONCEALED CREATURES
                       By Wm. Michael Mott

The first book of its kind examining the striking similarities
between folklore, religious, mythic, and historical accounts of
cryptid and reptilian figures.  Profusely illustrated.
See side menu on:  http://www.hiddenmysteries.com

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

                  * PROGRAM INFORMATION *

Program Show Times
         Live Coast-To-Coast-now broadcast nationally
         over the Talk Radio Network a total of over
         200 hours a month.
      Monday-Friday
         7-10 pm  Live
         10-1 am  Immediate Rebroadcast
          1-3 am  First 2 hours of prior night's show
      Saturday
         9p-3 am  Best Of Rense - 2 shows
      Sunday
         8-11 pm  Live
Call in Line:
         800 TRN 4123
Sightings Artwork/Digital Illustration & Webdesign
         http://www.anc.net/~neff/
Program Audio Tapes
         888 456-4340
Live Real Audio Broadcasts & Archives
         http://www.sightings.com
Advertising-Over 3 MILLION visitors to sightings.com each month
         Cost effective exposure for YOUR product or service
         http://www.sightings.com/adv.htm
Sightings.com info/email center
         http://www.sightings.com/1.mail/infocenter.html
Free Greeting Cards featuring the artwork of James Neff:
         http://www.immunotex.com/rense/cards/cards.html

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--

Share with your friends!
    Please feel free to forward this issue of the Jeff Rense
    Weekly E-News 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.egroups.com
-------------------------

To subscribe:  Visit: http://www.immunotex.com
Or 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 TGS 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 *Jeff's Desk* segment.

                  --<>--   --<<<+>>>--  --<>--














   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46 - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:47:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:37:00 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46 - Lemire


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:57:27 -0600

 >>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:24:32 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 46

 >>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

 >><Masinaigan@aol.com>
 >>==========================

 >>  UFO ROUNDUP
 >>Volume 5, Number 46
 >>November 16, 2000
 >>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

 >Listfolk,

<snip>


 >I hope I am not the only list member to be appalled and offended
 >by such expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry. Trainor's unsavory
 >hallucinations have no place on this list or in the discourse of
 >decent people. His strange charges are based on no evidence at
 >all - as they must be, since no supporting evidence exists.
 >This stuff is vile and disgusting, and Trainor should be ashamed
 >of himself.

 >Errol, where are your editing skills when we really need them?

 >Jerry Clark


Jerome,

Editing or _'restricting'_?  Sounds like a freedom of speech
issue that shouldn't even be brought up on this list. If you
don't like it don't read it!

Todd Lemire









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:43:00 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >Responding to Bruce Maccabee:

 >>Hi Bruce,

 >>You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
 >>me do the same, if you will.

 >>Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
 >>independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
 >>the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
 >>Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
 >>past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
 >>their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

 >>Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
 >>manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
 >>UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
 >>show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
 >>their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
 >>with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
 >>reality?

 >Jim,

 >Where are these alleged witnesses? Two television documentaries
 >have interviewed one or two residents who allegedly saw
 >something at the time of the Mexico City sighting, but there has
 >been no investigative follow up that I'm aware of, by either
 >Mexican Ufologists or anyone else of note.

Steve,

Jaime Maussan is the guy to contact as to how many witnesses he
knows of, and if any are available for questioning (in Spanish).
I believe that Michael Hesemann and Lee & Brit Elders also have
interviewed witnesses to the case.

 >IMO, A craft as large
 >as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
 >section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
 >public comment than we've seen.

It might be that the craft did not allow itself to be visible
except to selected persons or from selected regions. You
probably can recall quite a few cases where certain people saw a
UFO and others nearby did not. An additional explanation might
be that most of the witnesses were afraid to come forward and
describe their sighting, or didn't know whom to contact.

 >Perhaps the aliens (or whatever) are truly able to manipulate
 >every means that we have to detect and record their existence.
 >Perhaps this is why they are so skillful at keeping themselves
 >hidden from view. But the circumstances outlined in the research
 >that has been done in this case would seem to indicate that this
 >was a "not so elaborate" hoax. We will all have to search our
 >own beliefs to define whether this has been explained "beyond a
 >reasonable doubt", and if Wallace is using this video in a
 >segment with Shermer, I would suspect that it is being used as
 >an example of a hoax in the field of Ufology.

I suspect the same.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                      Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:49:32 -0500
Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?


Hello, one and all!

After the last go around ala Trent and enduring the wrath of the
Trentites and forever being banished to the desolate wastelands
of Pelicanation, I feel that something is, indeed, amiss in the
world of ufology and the likes.

The ironies are a-plenty...

For instance, after pointing out the obvious fact that
"impressions" about people can be incorrect, I was branded as a
skeptic and, worse, a debunker. Why? Because I happen to ask
some of the same questions as they might. The irony, of course,
is that I am neither. And the fact that I gave the "impression"
of being one only proves my point: Impressions can be incorrect.

When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding
character assassination seem to overtake the technical
discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or
even hard-line debunkers have ever dreamed of. The "believers"
need to see Trent as stupid to the point of having to
contemplate every breath. For the photos to be faked, an
incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
liar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
laughed in his life.

And when the technical discussions regarding any UFO case gets
hot and heavy, it would seem that those without technical
expertise seem to feel left out and respond with proclamations
about "lack of proof" as if that were a significant contribution
to the conversation or that they, themselves, had an ounce of
"proof" to their collective names.

Get real.

No one in this game has any "proof". If we did, this discussion
list wouldn't even exist. So, stating the obvious isn't the same
as contributing to the discussion at hand. The best we can do is
use a little common sense and make our own conclusions. Oh,
that's right! I forgot about the taboo subject of "common sense"
and how the very mention of it is enough to send hard-liners
into a state of panic!

You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.
You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
accordingly.

Of course, just try suggesting that UFOs are really planes or
that SETI isn't a waste of time or that some abductions are not
valid.

There is a difference, people, between a debunker and a skeptic.
There is also a difference between a believer and a zealot.
Somewhere in the middle of these four horsemen is the very
non-apocalyptic view of an average joe that finds UFOs
interesting, likes to ask hard questions and doesn't always
believe everything tossed up for a spike from either side of the
net.

Argumentative? Maybe. But hardly heresy. Ufology needs to grow
up and stop being afraid of its own shadow.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                          Science Advisor Briefing

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 00:47:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:51:27 -0500
Subject: Science Advisor Briefing


Sometime we will have a new president. When that time comes (no,
I'm not holding my breath) it may be time for another Science
Advisor Briefing.

There was such a briefing at the beginning of the Clinton
administration. Here is the story... and the briefing.

brumac.8k.com

click on 'Science Advisor Briefing'









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:10:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:09:16 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez

 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:46:21 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
 >>>>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

 >>>>>Maybe the reason why SETI hasn't been a roaring and immediate
 >>>>>success is because technologically advanced societies may be
 >>>>>as far away from using "radio" for interstellar communication as
 >>>>>we are from using smoke signals or hog calling between mountains.

 ><snip>

 >>>>I don't expect anything to turn up from radio SETI. That said, I
 >>>>hope I'm wrong! It's interesting to me that many people curious
 >>>>about the possibility of UFOs representing some sort of ETI are
 >>>>usually SETI supporters--but never the other way around.

 >>>Quantum entanglement is indeed amazing. Forcing a particle to
 >>>take some quantum state (momentum, polarization whatever) has
 >>>been shown to have an instantaneous (faster than light or FTL)
 >>>effect on a "quantum entangled", i.e. paired particle!

 >><snip)

 >>>We would never notice unless we, or our space probes, were out
 >>>in space, in line with the transmission, and knew which
 >>>gosh-darned wavelength to monitor.

 >>>'Tain't easy Magee! Its not impossible either.

 >>Several years ago a fellow cornered reporter Dan Rather outside
 >>of his apartment building here in New York and beat the Hell out
 >>of Rather. Everytime he'd punch Rather he'd ask him over and
 >>over, "What's the frequency Dan?"

 >>May have been a frustrated SETI engineer! <LOL>

 >>You're correct about trying to find 'another' mode of
 >>communication to try to monitor though. 'Assuming' that we are
 >>not the only intelligent or technological species in our own
 >>Galaxy isn't very far fetched. If this is so, and we're not
 >>picking up any communications at all then we -must be- looking
 >>in the wrong place. (or the wrong way.)

 >>"Quantum entangled particles" eh? Interesting stuff Larry. I
 >>wonder how many other more viable means of communication are
 >>being ignored or overlooked in favor of radio waves.

 >>BTW, does anybody know what the verdict was on the "WOW" signal?
 >>Has anything further ever come out of that?

 >Hi John!

 >I found a good link with lots of technical information on the
 >WOW signal. Click on this SETI league page:

 >http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

Hi Larry,

WOW! What a great site! < pun intended ;) >Thanx for the lead.

 >Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
 >watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
 >rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

At 15db above the background noise level, localized, and non
repeating, it all kind of knocks a 'natural source' as a
candidate for the signal right out of the box. Some kid on
Tralfamador must have bumped into the 'on' switch and then
quickly turned it 'off' again before the adults returned!  <LOL>

 >By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

Larry, a couple of questions that you may or may not be able to
answer for me if I may. In my reading over there at the website
I don't recall seeing any 'distance to source' estimates. I
would imagine they'd use the Doppler shift of the signal for
such measurements/estimates. (I don't know much about radio
astronomy so forgive me if my questions sound naive.)

1. Can Doppler shifts be measured from something that appears as
briefly as the WOW radio signal?

2. How 'reliable/accurate' are the results obtained from
measuring distance to source via a radio signal in this manner?

 >Since an unmodulated signal carries no information other than
 >the carrier frequency and the stellar coordinates of its source,
 >there was no "message" to puzzle over.

Like many others, I thought the signal had 'content' of some
kind. Although what they did get -was- very significant in spite
of its lack of content. The 'carrier' for content was there! You
need a -transmitter- to create a 'WOW' signal. (And seven Polish
guys to turn it on! <LOL>)

 >I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
 >assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
 >re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
 >my readings.

Again, I'd be interested in distance estimates. I read a lot of
what was posted and didn't encounter anything for distance to
source. Without those measurements that signal could have
originated anywhere from here to Kuk-a-monga 7!  ;)

 >I wish the SETI people every success in their efforts. If they
 >ever do succeed in finding an undeniably alien signal, it will
 >at once up the odds that the Earth itself may have been visited
 >at some time in the past.

Yeah, especially if the 'signal' they detect turns out to be
originating from well within our own solar system!  <LOL>

Thanks Larry. Great website, lots of interesting information re:
the WOW. I highly recommend that folks give it a good peruse.
Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Regards,

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 19

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:48:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:16:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Velez


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:07:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:04:28 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:36:16 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:05:35 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>He reported, "The first fact we learned was that a witness's
 >>>memory of such exotic events fades very quickly. After one day,
 >>>about half the reports are clearly erroneous; after two days,
 >>>about three quarters are clearly erroneous; after four days,
 >>>only ten percent are good; after five days, people report more
 >>>imagination than truth."

 ><snip>

Hi Dave, Bob, All,

Just jumping in for a brief moment to comment on this one
specific remark that keeps coming up regarding the reliability
of memory.

Anyone who has a "UFO sighting" or "event" (if I may use the
terms without having to debate them,) is experiencing an event
that has a profound effect on the individual both
psychologically and emotionally. Events like that have a way of
deeply imprinting themselves on the psyche. To the point where
they will _inconveniently_ replay themselves over and over in
the witnesses head as they inwardly struggle to understand and
make some sense out of what they saw or experienced. I use the
term 'inconveniently' because these 'flashback replays' have a
nasty habit of surfacing at home or at work while a person may
be trying to remain focused on the immediate details of daily
living. In other words, these sightings/encounters have a
tendency to be 'disruptive' for many folks. It is because of
this 'replay' aspect of such (traumatic if you will) experiences
that I think kind of negates the statement above.

Sure, over time distortions/exaggerations or other things
(depending on the individual) can come into play. But events
with the kind of weight and impact that a UFO sighting or
encounter can have are -hard to forget- if anything. Which is
the exact opposite of what is being stated above.

I remember every painful detail of how I shattered a bone in my
right hand twelve years ago. The events that took place the day
my son was hit by a car. The day my brother died. I remember
every precious moment of my daughters wedding day. I'm sure that
both of you have similar -clear- and -undistorted- recollections
of certain -major- events in your life. Are you really meaning
to imply that "most" of those recollections now consist of
mostly "imagination?"

I recall my UFO and a couple of contact experiences in precisely
the same way and with the same lucidity as those others I have
already mentioned. The day you see a UFO up close, it changes
everything that comes after it forever. (Or at least it has so
far for me!) Yet, because it -is- a UFO or "alien" related
recollection it "has to be" somehow less accurate than the other
recollections of major life experiences that I (or any witness)
may have.

C'mon guys. Psychology is a great pseudoscience and all that but
do really believe everything you read in a White Paper?
Sometimes we need to compare what is being proposed against our
own life experience, our own psychology. To apply our own common
sense and native intelligence when assigning weight or validity
to proclamations such as the one presented above.

Hey If you are one of those people who are so out of touch with
themselves that they doubt the validity of what their own senses
present to them, then good luck! Until I have really hard
evidence to the contrary, I will continue to trust my memories
of certain major events that I have lived through over the
"theories" put out by academic psychologists. (Few of which ever
deal with an actual 'case' or human being in their studies!)

Thank you for allowing me to express this opinion in this
thread. I'm just a little sick and tired of people proclaiming
that "memory" is completely unreliable because it suits their
arguements against the validity of UFO reports.

When you make statements like, 'Oh, what they remember is mostly
imagination five days after the fact' you demean the witnesses
testimony and attempt to dismiss their reports as invalid by
default.

That's pure BS gentlemen.

Respectfully submitted,

John Velez, UFO witness and contactee

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                        Joseph Trainor & UFO Roundup

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:10:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:10:54 -0500
Subject: Joseph Trainor & UFO Roundup

I don't know him personally, but I don't believe Joseph Trainor
is an intentionally malicious man. He's put in thousands of
hours, since 1996, publishing UFO Roundup as a free digital
newsletter.

The weekly schedule that Joe and others have voluntarily set
themselves can be a thankless, unrewarding grind. There's always
a looming deadline. Expenses are seldom, if ever, covered.
Inevitably, there are family members or friends who simply don't
understand. There's a "Why would anyone do that for free?"
pressure to make the 'work' pay.

Perhaps adding more, not necessarily UFO-related, information
might help justify a discrete appeal for donations and appease
the fiscally non-understanding? Perhaps the inclusion of some
topical, non-mainstream news might encourage a few to offer
some financial help? Perhaps.

While Joe's inclusion in the current issue of UFO Roundup,
Volume 5 Number 46,

see: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/nov/m16-016.shtml

of offensive items is an unfortunate lapse in judgement, perhaps
we should try and cut him some slack.

Doubtlessly, Joe is as mortified by reaction to the current
issue of 'Roundup', as I am. I'm not proud of my further
distribution of the offending items without first reading
_all_ of Joe's E-Mail newsletter.

For my part, I apologise for not reading everything that passes
across my screen on its way to you.

In future, when forwarding E-Mail newsletters to UFO UpDates
readers, I will remove non-UFO related content.

As far as this List is concerned this matter is now closed
and I won't be posting any further discussion on it.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:14:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello, one and all!

 >After the last go around ala Trent and enduring the wrath of the
 >Trentites and forever being banished to the desolate wastelands
 >of Pelicanation, I feel that something is, indeed, amiss in the
 >world of ufology and the likes.

 >The ironies are a-plenty...

 >For instance, after pointing out the obvious fact that
 >"impressions" about people can be incorrect, I was branded as a
 >skeptic and, worse, a debunker. Why? Because I happen to ask
 >some of the same questions as they might. The irony, of course,
 >is that I am neither. And the fact that I gave the "impression"
 >of being one only proves my point: Impressions can be incorrect.

 >When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
 >ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding
 >character assassination seem to overtake the technical
 >discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
 >irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
 >is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or
 >even hard-line debunkers have ever dreamed of. The "believers"
 >need to see Trent as stupid to the point of having to
 >contemplate every breath. For the photos to be faked, an
 >incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
 >being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
 >liar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
 >grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
 >had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
 >laughed in his life.

 >And when the technical discussions regarding any UFO case gets
 >hot and heavy, it would seem that those without technical
 >expertise seem to feel left out and respond with proclamations
 >about "lack of proof" as if that were a significant contribution
 >to the conversation or that they, themselves, had an ounce of
 >"proof" to their collective names.

 >Get real.

 >No one in this game has any "proof". If we did, this discussion
 >list wouldn't even exist. So, stating the obvious isn't the same
 >as contributing to the discussion at hand. The best we can do is
 >use a little common sense and make our own conclusions. Oh,
 >that's right! I forgot about the taboo subject of "common sense"
 >and how the very mention of it is enough to send hard-liners
 >into a state of panic!

 >You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.
 >You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
 >tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >accordingly.

 >Of course, just try suggesting that UFOs are really planes or
 >that SETI isn't a waste of time or that some abductions are not
 >valid.

 >There is a difference, people, between a debunker and a skeptic.
 >There is also a difference between a believer and a zealot.
 >Somewhere in the middle of these four horsemen is the very
 >non-apocalyptic view of an average joe that finds UFOs
 >interesting, likes to ask hard questions and doesn't always
 >believe everything tossed up for a spike from either side of the
 >net.

 >Argumentative? Maybe. But hardly heresy. Ufology needs to grow
 >up and stop being afraid of its own shadow.


Roger,

On the other hand, it also doesn't help when skeptics rehash
classic cases that have always been unexplained and will
continue to be unexplained, and bring up mundane, conventional
explanations when there is none.

You are no longer a skeptic if you've begun to do the job of a
debunker. Unlike a skeptic, who simply says: "It can't be; I
don't believe it", a debunker goes on to label the bonafide
sighting with some stupid, mundane, conventional explanation for
an event that, for all intent and purpose, has no mundane,
logical explanation. Take it from a guy who has had enough
practice after witnessing for himself, 17 separate sightings of
UFOs since 1974.

Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
us who have, do...

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
MUFON Provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada & UFO
Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:09:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:18:14 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Myers


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

Speaking of Lee and Brit Elders - if the tape is so genuine and
there were so many witnesses then why hasn't Genesis III
produced any video tapes on this event and why haven't they
followed up on it? The last update by Genesis III was in March
of 1998:

http://www.genesis-3.com/mexico97/mexico97.htm

The only witnesses I ever recall hearing about were 1) an
elderly woman claimed she was exposed to a purple mist the craft
emitted 2) a 12 year old girl claimed she saw the craft and
that's all I ever recall hearing. Of course, being north of the
border doesn't help. It's hard investigating something that
happened in Mexico when you live in Oregon. Say, is there anyone
out there with satellite TV who watches any of the Mexico news
programs or shows that cover UFOs down there?

I talked to a guy I worked with a few years ago who was from
Mexico City. He said that Jaime Maussan was viewed as a crackpot
there and that a lot of people there didn't buy into UFOs. As
for Jaime Maussan, I met and spoke with him at length about 4
years ago and he seemed rather genuine and sincere to me.

The entire problem with this case is that none of us are down in
Mexico City and aren't able to investigate this case first hand
without an agenda. All we're getting here is second and third
hand info through the filter and from some sources that have
something at stake in this. These big UFO cases get out, you
hear a bit or two about them, and then nothing or pieces creep
out here and there over the next couple of years. Investigations
may take time, but now Chris Wallace is going to use this Mexico
City piece and no one has any idea how it will be used or if he
has all the facts pertaining to the case.

The only other analysis of this tape I have seen aside from BM's
is that of the two special effects artists on that awful, third
rate NBC/Whitley Strieber television production 'Confirmation'.
I have to say that the FX people made a convincing case. The
small piece they produced with a cap and someone's thumb was as
impressive if not more so than the Mexico City piece. If the
film had a chance of being real at all, I'm confident that
Strieber would have jumped up and defended it.

If you watch the Special Edition Trilogy of the Star Wars
movies, in the beginning they have segments on the making of the
films and show one of Lucas' FX guys explaining how in one scene
from a battle that takes place in the snow you can see the
object that a fighter is flying towards bleed through the
cockpit frame. I remember seeing something similar in the Mexico
City video as the object moves behind the buildings.

Unless they come up with something (say solid witnesses, the
anonymous shooter of the video, conclusive analysis from
multiple labs) then the film will be widely accepted as a
hoax... which, in my opinion, it appears to be at this point.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy  - "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it yet again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                         Re: ET Evidence - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:17:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:28:58 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Friedman


 >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:04:00 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:02:59 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Hello Nick and Mac:

 >>Please note the facility with which the "alien" finesses this
 >>most unwelcome question from Betty.

 >>He could have easily said " Well, your Sun is over here, see?
 >>(pointing to one star) while we come from here (pointing to
 >>another) while this other star is the one you call Arangutangus
 >>or whatever.

 >>No. Of course not! Its Betty's fault for not being an astronomer
 >>you see... and once again the mystery being provides _no_ useful
 >>information whatsoever.

 >>I don't know how seriously to take this encounter, but that one
 >>aspect fits neatly into a well worn mold. I'm surprised they
 >>showed her any sort of map at all, which raises certain doubts
 >>in my mind.


 >Regarding Star Maps and locations: If you click on

 >http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_III/Doreensmap.html

 >there is an example of the ETs giving an abductee (at least) a
 >way home. There is also an interesting quote at the top of the
 >page as well, which clearly shows that an ET was trying to
 >explain where he came from.

 >Sorry John Velez: I'm giving another URL to my web site. That is
 >only because I couldn't cut and paste the entire article into
 >the UFO UpDates List.

 >On the other side of the coin: People interested in the star map
 >discussion may want to review Martin Cannon's opinion about
 >Betty's Star Map experience.

 >From Cannon's _The Controllers_: "The Hill case provided a
 >particularly controversial piece of evidence: The celebrated
 >_star map_ recalled by Betty Hill under hypnosis....Allegedly,
 >the map points to Zeta Reticuli as the aliens' home system and
 >pictures Zeta Reticuli as a single star, a view consistent with
 >scientific opinion of the 1960s. Yet, in later years, scientists
 >discovered that Zeta Reticuli is binary....

 >"The celebrated star map ought to be recognized for what it was:
 >a prop, a seemingly confirmatory circumstantial detail meant to
 >convince her - and perhaps us - of the reality of her
 >abduction."

 >Thanks -

 >K. Wilson

It is true that Alan Hendry claimed in a FATE magazine article
that a French astronomer had discovered that one of the 2 stars
was a binary. He had not checked with the astronomer.

This was a claim based upon an article to be published.

It never was, because subsequent work clearly established that
the star was definitely not a binary. It was the result of a
problem with the speckle interferometry technique being used to
try to resolve stars.

The problem, believe it or not, was known as "Mickey's Ears".

Cannon is in error. The work still stands.

It is interesting that everyone who has attacked Ms. Fish's work
has misrepresented what she did including Carl Sagan.

Terry Dickinson's "Update on the Zeta Reticuli Incident" deals
with many of these false attacks.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

               Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young

From: Bob Young < YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 12:43:08 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:39:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:07:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:04:28 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:36:16 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Ball Lightning: The Public Deceived

<snip>

 >>A big part of his success was that he searched for fallen
 >>meteorites in the desert southwest and in places like Kansas.

 >A big part of his success was accurately determining the
 >trajectory and point of probable impact through careful
 >questioning of the witnesses. Knowing exactly where to look
 >helps a lot.

 >Dealing with the wide open spaces of the Southwest and Kansas in
 >some ways might have made LaPaz's job more difficult. One would
 >expect fewer landmarks to aid in trajectory reconstruction.

Dear Clear Thinkers, Dave, anybody:

OK, Dave, whatever you say. Another fine example of anything you
can think of to prop up your argument.

 >>Anybody who has tried to find a fall in the rugged, wooded often
 >>snow-covered mountains of West Virginia or Pennsylvania will
 >>never have the same sort of luck.

 >Yes, but Drake's point wasn't about the difficulty in finding
 >meteorites because of terrain. He was complaining that the
 >witness reports weren't reliable.

But you claimed LaPaz was more successful because of his unique
expertise and the value of the testimonies of _his_ eyewitness,
however that may have occurred. I pointed out that finding a
meteor crater in the New Mexican desert is a lot easier that
finding same in the forested mountains of West Virginia.

 >>Most "normal" fireballs are not accompanied by "sizzling"
 >>sounds, but what is even more important, only a small fraction
 >>of the _witnesses_ of bright fireballs report these sort of
 >>sounds.

 >14% of the witnesses I don't consider to be a "small fraction."
 >It's a very significant number.

OK, Dave, whatever you say.

 >Furthermore, I don't understand the point of you emphasizing the
 >word "_witnesses_" It appears you are trying to make a case
 >again that this is a "psychological phenomenon" and not a real
 >physical one.

No, only that most witnesses are human like the rest of us.
_Most_, but of course not those of Lincoln LaPaz.

 >Colin Keay proposed the now widely accepted theory explaining
 >the anomalous meteor sounds back in 1980. His Web site is at:

 >http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddcsk/

 >and points out that these sounds have since been recorded in the
 >field. Lab experiments are also capable of reproducing the
 >effect.

 >Keay also explains that not all fireballs seem capable of
 >generating these sounds.

Probably only 14%, huh?

 >One's with shallow trajectories do;
 >those with steep trajectories do not.

That's pretty interesting. Friday night I sat on a mountain with
four others observing the Leonid meteor shower, including many
Earth grazers, when the radiant was near the horizon. None of us
reported hearing sounds. I wonder why? Do you think it might be
a "psychological phenomenon"?

 >>I have been with a group which witnessed a bright,
 >>shadow-casting fireball and one person in the groups said that
 >>she heard a swishing sound, no one else, including me, heard it.

 >According to Keay, this can be a function of the transducer
 >mechanism near the witness. Metal framed eyeglasses, e.g., can
 >act as a transducer. Somebody wearing them might hear the
 >sounds, whereas somebody right next to them might not.

Huh. Three of us wore glasses, two did not. Probably some other
unknown process, huh? I have some tooth fillings, but they
weren't "transducers" either. Oh, well. I guess it's just a
puzzle.

Oh, I forgot, there were only five of us. Let's see, that means
that 14% would put meteor sounds within the error bar. Oh, my.
Another proof of flying saucers hidden in the lack of data.

 >There are also obviously differences in people's hearing
 >ability, particularly to higher sounds. Younger people are more
 >likely to hear them than older people, e.g.

One kid was 17, two were in their thirties, one in his 40's, and
I'm 56.

 >Similar sounds, BTW, are also associated with auroras.

Didn't see any of these, either.

 >>LaPaz operated with the scientific knowledge of his day. The
 >>so-called "Green Fireballs" are a perfect example. See Richard
 >>Haines' book, Observing UFOs, for a discussion of how intensely
 >>bright light sources are quickly seen as green. As the objects
 >>dim, it's appearance can then return to red.

 >I haven't seen Haine's book, so I can't comment at this point
 >on what he has written or whether you have accurately
 >represented it.

 >I will say that I have a degree in Optometry and have studied a
 >lot of visual science and neurophysiology. I know of no
 >mechanism which will make an intensely bright white light source
 >appear to be green, particularly a very saturated, lime-green
 >color that was associated with the so-called green fireballs.

 >An intensely green light _will_ create a faint red afterimage
 >after the green light source is removed. And an intensely red
 >light will similarly create a green afterimage.

How about while the light source is still visible?

 >>During thousands of hours of observing the night sky since 1956,
 >>and many of them making meteor counts, I have seen four
 >>intensely bright fireballs which cast shadows. Two of these were
 >>a very bright, beautiful green, but bright as a welder's arc.

 >So why weren't the other two green?

How the hell should I know?

 >According to your assertions, _any_ very bright white light
 >should be seen as green.

I never made such an assertion. I wrote about Haines discussing,
"intensely bright light sources".

 >The fact of the matter is, very, very few bright fireballs are ever
 >reported as appearing as a saturated green.

Hm, maybe I saw two flying saucers? Please forward this post to
Royce Myers, he'll be pleased and relieved.

 >LaPaz back in 1949 couldn't think of a single example in all the
 >meteor literature or personal experience.

What's the point, here?

 >If I wanted to rub it in, I could also quote Drake. Witness
 >reports of color are completely unreliable or are more fact than
 >fiction after 5 days, so why should you be the exception?

I'm sure that I'm not. But LaPaz and his unique witnesses would,
of course, be the exceptions.

And, of course, you have again extended Drake's claim beyond its
original form until it is ridiculous, but just what is needed to
support your position. The point was that as time goes on, the
reliability decreases. After one day, one half are _without
error_, not "completely unreliable" as you inaccurately stated.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:41:13 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Responding to Bruce Maccabee:

 >>>Hi Bruce,

 >>>You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
 >>>me do the same, if you will.

 >>>Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
 >>>independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
 >>>the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
 >>>Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
 >>>past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
 >>>their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

 >>>Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
 >>>manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
 >>>UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
 >>>show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
 >>>their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
 >>>with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
 >>>reality?

 >>Jim,

 >>Where are these alleged witnesses? Two television documentaries
 >>have interviewed one or two residents who allegedly saw
 >>something at the time of the Mexico City sighting, but there has
 >>been no investigative follow up that I'm aware of, by either
 >>Mexican Ufologists or anyone else of note.

 >Steve,

 >Jaime Maussan is the guy to contact as to how many witnesses he
 >knows of, and if any are available for questioning (in Spanish).
 >I believe that Michael Hesemann and Lee & Brit Elders also have
 >interviewed witnesses to the case.

 >>IMO, A craft as large
 >>as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
 >>section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
 >>public comment than we've seen.

 >It might be that the craft did not allow itself to be visible
 >except to selected persons or from selected regions. You
 >probably can recall quite a few cases where certain people saw a
 >UFO and others nearby did not. An additional explanation might
 >be that most of the witnesses were afraid to come forward and
 >describe their sighting, or didn't know whom to contact.

 >>Perhaps the aliens (or whatever) are truly able to manipulate
 >>every means that we have to detect and record their existence.
 >>Perhaps this is why they are so skillful at keeping themselves
 >>hidden from view. But the circumstances outlined in the research
 >>that has been done in this case would seem to indicate that this
 >>was a "not so elaborate" hoax. We will all have to search our
 >>own beliefs to define whether this has been explained "beyond a
 >>reasonable doubt", and if Wallace is using this video in a
 >>segment with Shermer, I would suspect that it is being used as
 >>an example of a hoax in the field of Ufology.

 >I suspect the same.


Hi Jim, All,

Just a personal observation and an aside.

Jaime Maussan had supplied a videotape which contained
interviews with two of the witnesses which I translated from
Spanish to English for a weel known researcher which shall
remain nameless here.

I submitted a post to UpDates with a brief synopsis of those
interviews and my impressions that the witnesses were credible
and 'seemed' to be sincere and telling about what they saw. One
of them was a young girl who was positioned behind the building
directly under the UFO. Her description was clear and detailed.
A second witness, (who was also in close proximity to the
building/event in question) was a restaurant owner who
corroborated the testimony given by the girl.

And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
girl.

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                          Re: ET Evidence - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:45:00 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Sparks


 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:10:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

<snip>

 >>Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
 >>watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
 >>rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >>point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >>background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

<snip>

 >>By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >>"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >>satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >>would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >>like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >>or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >>from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >>geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

John & Larry & List,

I can't find enough info to justify the conclusions that the WOW
signal could not have come from a satellite, perhaps in a
geostationary orbit, etc. From a geostationary orbit the signal
would appear in a fixed location relative to the antenna and
would have no ballistic trajectory or a detectable Doppler shift
(if you don't know what the original frequency was you can't
possibly know if it has been Doppler shifted due to motion, all
you can possibly determine is a time-rate of change of a Doppler
shift, i.e., due to radial acceleration).

 >Larry, a couple of questions that you may or may not be able to
 >answer for me if I may. In my reading over there at the website
 >I don't recall seeing any 'distance to source' estimates. I
 >would imagine they'd use the Doppler shift of the signal for
 >such measurements/estimates. (I don't know much about radio
 >astronomy so forgive me if my questions sound naive.)

You cannot determine a distance without another antenna
detecting the same signal at a different location to provide a
triangulation (including interferometry) but that would require
the two antennas be linked to a synchronized atomic clock.

 >1. Can Doppler shifts be measured from something that appears as
 >briefly as the WOW radio signal?

The duration doesn't matter with normal Doppler measurements but
what does matter is knowing the original frequency or wavelength
-- which obviously we don't. With Doppler radars _we_ send out
the signal so we know the exact frequency we sent and when an
echo returns we can measure the Doppler shift in
frequency/wavelength relative to what was sent. That tells us
the radial velocity (speed only in the direction to/from the
antenna not up/down or right/left).

 >2. How 'reliable/accurate' are the results obtained from
 >measuring distance to source via a radio signal in this manner?

See above. There is no distance measurement without another
antenna.

<snip>

 >>I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
 >>assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
 >>re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
 >>my readings.

<snip>

If the signal came from a geostationary satellite oftentimes they are placed
in "figure-8" orbits that drift in position over a large distance daily and
only return to the same spot once a day (and even then there are precessional
effects, etc., so it might not be the exact same spot). Again I cannot find
enough info to settle these points.

Brad







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 16:37:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:46:32 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

 >Steve,

 >Jaime Maussan is the guy to contact as to how many witnesses he
 >knows of, and if any are available for questioning (in Spanish).
 >I believe that Michael Hesemann and Lee & Brit Elders also have
 >interviewed witnesses to the case.

If these witnesses exists, then it's up to Jaime to bring them
(or at least their stories) forward in a way that can be checked
to lend credence to their veracity. I don't want to get into a
stone throwing contest, but if I recall correctly Brit Elders
was trying to sell the Mexico City video to several television
programs and the copyright issues involved actually kept it from
being broadcast for several months. Of course, those of us on
the Internet saw the clip long before it was actually broadcast
in the U.S.

 >>IMO, A craft as large
 >>as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
 >>section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
 >>public comment than we've seen.

 >It might be that the craft did not allow itself to be visible
 >except to selected persons or from selected regions. You
 >probably can recall quite a few cases where certain people saw a
 >UFO and others nearby did not. An additional explanation might
 >be that most of the witnesses were afraid to come forward and
 >describe their sighting, or didn't know whom to contact.

Perhaps. But there is little to suggest any veracity for the
Mexico City video and there are more productive areas that
deserve our attention in this genre. If good witnesses, or
additional evidence becomes available, bring it forward to the
discussion. Until then, however, IMHO this video will stand as
an example of how easy it has become to sidetrack research and
siphon off resources.

Don't get me wrong, as this type of evidence needs to be
examined carefully. But this impacts the credibility of the
entire genre in many ways.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                         Hillsdale Information Added

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:37:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:48:39 -0500
Subject: Hillsdale Information Added


Those interested,

I've added a "4" part report, provided to me by Ray Varner,
concerning the Hillsdale sighting case, which includes Dr. J.
Allen Hynek's Press release of March 25, 1966, the soil test,
which was already available from CUFON, a Photostat copy of a
letter which was written to William Van Horn by Dr. Hynek, and
more. I've incorporated it into what I have already collected on
the Hillsdale case and the entire addition can be viewed at
Michigan UFO CENTRAL at:

http://members.home.net/tlemire/1960.html#sheriffs

In the near future I will be adding the text of numerous
newspaper clippings from local newspapers concerning this
sighting. The thing I found most interesting is that the
'validity' of the swamp gas explanation is pushed to the limit
by Van Horn, who is most adamant about the fact that what he
witnessed WASN'T swamp gas.


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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 16:08:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:50:40 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:20:19 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:37:07 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Source: Yahoo! Biz

 >>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001117/ny_abcnews.html

 >>Friday November 17, 5:03 pm Eastern Time

 >>Press Release

 >>ABCNEWS.com's Chris Wallace's Internet Expose: UFO2000 Presents
 >>Controversial New Information About The Existence Of UFOs

<snip>

 >This is journalistic hype.

 >The Mexico City video bit the dust in the spring of 1998 when
 >Jeff Sainio and I discovered, after _many_ hours of
 >investigation (which initially looked GOOD), that the hand
 >vibration smear affected the buildings in the distance but _not_
 >the UFO image. This was particularly obvious in a couple of
 >frames were there was very noticeable vertical smear of the
 >building images and no smear of the UFO image.

 >No doubt ABC will present this as if the skeptics "discovered" the
 >fake. Perhaps ABC will present it as if ABC discovered the fake.
 >Just remember, it was ufolgists hard at work that discovered the
 >fake.
 >
 >You heard it first here, folks!
 >
 >(see Sainio in the October 1998 MUFON Journal)


Hello Bruce!

Yes! It will be very interesting to see how the telling
smear-effect discovery will be credited.

When is this particular segment going to be televised? If its in
the evening I will probably miss it.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:31:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:53:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Maccabee


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello, one and all!

 >After the last go around ala Trent and enduring the wrath of the
 >Trentites and forever being banished to the desolate wastelands
 >of Pelicanation, I feel that something is, indeed, amiss in the
 >world of ufology and the likes.

 >The ironies are a-plenty...

 >For instance, after pointing out the obvious fact that
 >"impressions" about people can be incorrect, I was branded as a
 >skeptic and, worse, a debunker. Why? Because I happen to ask
 >some of the same questions as they might. The irony, of course,
 >is that I am neither. And the fact that I gave the "impression"
 >of being one only proves my point: Impressions can be incorrect.

 >When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
 >ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding
 >character assassination seem to overtake the technical
 >discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
 >irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
 >is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or
 >even hard-line debunkers have ever dreamed of. The "believers"
 >need to see Trent as stupid to the point of having to
 >contemplate every breath. For the photos to be faked, an
 >incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
 >being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
l>iar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
 >grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
 >had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
 >laughed in his life.

As I began reading this my first intent was not to respond. But
then I read the above uimplied judgement of Trent's character.
Is it better to be a smart hoaxer or a "stupid" honest person.
Apparently Roger thinks it is less degrading to be dishonest if
intelligent.

However, there are other people who think differently... and I
believe the Trents were of this category... perhaps not rocket
scientists, but honest in their dealings with everyone about
everything.

The writing in the above paragraph is a "bit" hyped, calling
Trent the "stupid patron saint of ufology." Whatsamatta,Roger?
Got a hair across you know where, to use phraseology like that?
And the last sentence about there not being proof that Trent
"never laughed in his life" is silly, makes no sense. Just
because Trent very _probably_did_ laugh, at least once, in his
life does not mean that he would have this "laugh" at everyone
else's expense (create a hoax and then laugh all the way to the
grave.... since he didn't laugh all the way to the bank). And
then there is the "forgotten" witness, Evelyn. I bet she laughed
at least once in her life, too, but not about the UFO sighting.

<snip>

 >No one in this game has any "proof". If we did, this discussion
 >list wouldn't even exist. So, stating the obvious isn't the same
 >as contributing to the discussion at hand. The best we can do is
 >use a little common sense and make our own conclusions. Oh,
 >that's right! I forgot about the taboo subject of "common sense"
 >and how the very mention of it is enough to send hard-liners
i>nto a state of panic!

Yeah, no proof... depending upon what you mean by proof. Suppose
there were several neighbors who ostensibly confirmed the
sighting. This could be offered as "proof." Until the skeptics
say, well (a) they were trying to jump on the bandwagon, (b)
they misidentified some object and thought it was what the
Trents claimed to have seen, (c) they were in collusion with the
Trents, assuming that they would get a piece of the "action"
when the payoff ($$$$) came. And there goes the "proof."

 >You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.

Sure, But what if "common sense" says that ET actually wants to
be noticed in a "small" way... not enough to be "absolute proof"
but enough to stir up the masses. Then ET would definitely not
disguise itself as a helicopter or pelican.

 >You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >rat's ass chance of understanding.

Huh? How about audio. Yeah, I know. You're saying ET would use
radio waves... which we would have to convert to some form of
communication we could understand (visible - pictures or written
language, or audible sound). But you started by saying "if they
wanted to talk to us" they would do so and so.

So who says they want to talk to us, like the whole human race,
as opposed to (a) no communication at all with anyone or (b)
occasional low level communication with a few humans?

This wouldn't requite "RF". And if they were so great and wanted
us to understand they would adapt to our relative deficient
capabilies. Maybe.

 >Know what else common sense
 >tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >accordingly.

Maybe they do.

 >Of course, just try suggesting that UFOs are really planes or
 >that SETI isn't a waste of time or that some abductions are not
 >valid.

 >There is a difference, people, between a debunker and a skeptic.
 >There is also a difference between a believer and a zealot.
 >Somewhere in the middle of these four horsemen is the very
 >non-apocalyptic view of an average joe that finds UFOs
i>nteresting, likes to ask hard questions and doesn't always
 >believe everything tossed up for a spike from either side of the
 >net.

 >Argumentative? Maybe. But hardly heresy. Ufology needs to grow
 >up and stop being afraid of its own shadow.

I suppose common sense is the last resort of the person who
really desn't know what is going on.

Based on that definition I suppose we should all start using
more common sense.

And, by the way, my "common sense" tells me that the Trents were
not hoaxers.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

             Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:07:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:55:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania - Hatch


 >From: Gilles Milot <aqu@videotron.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:29:43 -0500

 >>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:58:21 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:28:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:05:38 -0800
 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

 >>>>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania

<snip>

 >>I'm still surprised [ mylar balloons were ] not suggested
 >>earlier with regard to gliding entities in Pennsylvania.

 >Hi everybody,

 >We had a case back in October 1998 in Grand-Mre Qu. around
 >midnight where the witness saw two entities searching something
 >in the ground at her sister's backward where was located their
 >garden. One of the entities was on its knees seeming very busy
 >working on the ground and the other one was stand up looking at
 >its companion. One particular detail the witness told us about
 >the entities was that they seemed to be floating over the ground
 >and this became particularity evident when they left walking in
 >the direction of a very thick fog which was illuminated with a
 >dark orange color. This case was reported in the Journal de
 >Montral on his edition of saturday Aug 21,1999.

 >The late publication of the case was due to the time we needed
 >to investigate the case. We had to return to the site in the
 >spring when the snow was completely melted. We then discovered,
 >at the location, five holes two inches diameter by eight inches
 >deep in which the soil was completely dry, like brown sand.
 >Just few inches outside the holes, the soil was very rich and
 >dark as it should be in a garden.

 >I'd been interviewed at that time by Errol for his radio show
 >Strange Days... Indeed, about the case.


Hello Giles:

I have the Grand-Mere PQ sighting catalogued as taking place on
24 OCT 1998 at 2030 hrs ( 8:30 PM local time ), taken from a
Filer's Files e-news letter.

It is indeed interesting, especially the subsequent traces
found. Floating craft or figures do not disqualify a sighting by
any means, but balloons are always a possibility when all that
is seen are floating objects which behave much like, well, like
balloons.

That is clearly not the case in the Grand-Mere events.

By the way, there was an earlier sighting in the same town on 10
AUG 1956 around 1330 hrs. In this sighting, two observers easily
saw a "saucer" at perhaps 1000 meters altitude. This object
stopped for some 20 seconds, then shot North at some high speed
.. very unlike any balloon. This last case was included in the
Bluebook records. I got it from Loren Gross': UFOs a History,
the 3rd of 5 booklets for 1956, page 23.

The Montreal Journal article is probably better for the
1998 event, but not easily accessible in California.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:27:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:57:43 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:10:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:57:10 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:46:21 -0800
 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:31 -0800 (PST)
 >>>>>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:08:45 -0500
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Balaskas

<snip>

 >>Hi John!

 >>I found a good link with lots of technical information on the
 >>WOW signal. Click on this SETI league page:

 >>http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

Good questions all.
Please see notes inserted below.. -LH

 >Hi Larry,

 >WOW! What a great site! < pun intended ;) >Thanx for the lead.

 >>Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
 >>watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
 >>rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >>point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >>background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

 >At 15db above the background noise level, localized, and non
 >repeating, it all kind of knocks a 'natural source' as a
 >candidate for the signal right out of the box. Some kid on
 >Tralfamador must have bumped into the 'on' switch and then
 >quickly turned it 'off' again before the adults returned! <LOL>

First off, I'm no scientist, just an ex-engineering student who
follows these matters as closely as I can.

To be technical, high decibel levels over background noise do
not guarantee an artificial source. That's how pulsars and
quasars were discovered. At first, some scientists thought those
might be artificial. It was their regularity and repeatability
that gave them away as rapidly rotating neutron stars etc. That,
plus the absence of any modulation or information content. Still
interesting, just no good indication of an ET signal.

 >>By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >>"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >>satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >>would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >>like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >>or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >>from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >>geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

 >Larry, a couple of questions that you may or may not be able to
 >answer for me if I may. In my reading over there at the website
 >I don't recall seeing any 'distance to source' estimates. I
 >would imagine they'd use the Doppler shift of the signal for
 >such measurements/estimates. (I don't know much about radio
 >astronomy so forgive me if my questions sound naive.)

Again, I'm in over my head as well.

Doppler shifts are best used when the source has some known
frequency, like the particular spikes in the frequency spectrum
of hydrogen or other common element.

Since this is known with high precision, doppler shift will
indicate if the source is moving toward us, away from us, or
nearly stationary with respect to the solar system.

The SETI people know what WOW frequency they received (I sure
don't!) but nobody knows the originating source frequency. Thus,
no comparison seems possible, which would rule out doppler
effects studies.

Since the signal came in briefly, and only once, there would be
little if any chance to look for doppler shift.

 >1. Can Doppler shifts be measured from something that appears as
 >briefly as the WOW radio signal?

I don't think so. Please see above. -LH

 >2. How 'reliable/accurate' are the results obtained from
 >measuring distance to source via a radio signal in this manner?

Doppler effects (again I could be wrong) are used to measure
relative motions between two bodies, and not the distances. Only
the change in distances over time (relative speeds), and again
only if the source frequency is known. Any radio astronomers out
there?

 >>Since an unmodulated signal carries no information other than
 >>the carrier frequency and the stellar coordinates of its source,
 >>there was no "message" to puzzle over.

 >Like many others, I thought the signal had 'content' of some
 >kind. Although what they did get -was- very significant in spite
 >of its lack of content. The 'carrier' for content was there! You
 >need a -transmitter- to create a 'WOW' signal. (And seven Polish
 >guys to turn it on! <LOL>)

Pulsars and quasars need no technicians, but they are
repeatable. As a one-time event, the WOW signal is quite
interesting, whether some natural effect or not.

 >>I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
 >>assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
 >>re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
 >>my readings.

 >Again, I'd be interested in distance estimates. I read a lot of
 >what was posted and didn't encounter anything for distance to
 >source. Without those measurements that signal could have
 >originated anywhere from here to Kuk-a-monga 7! ;)

Yes! ( or rather no. ) No distance estimates that I
could find.

 >>I wish the SETI people every success in their efforts. If they
 >>ever do succeed in finding an undeniably alien signal, it will
 >>at once up the odds that the Earth itself may have been visited
 >>at some time in the past.

 >Yeah, especially if the 'signal' they detect turns out to be
 >originating from well within our own solar system! <LOL>

The duration, seconds at most, would not indicate or
exclude a planetary source as I recall. I had best
read the good article more carefully myself. The
SETI people did manage to exclude Earthly or satellite
sources, interesting in itself.

IF planetary, i.e. within this solar system, I would like to see
how _that_ gets explained. Alas, all we have is a source that is
stationary with respect to the stars, one which never came back.
If there was a planet out in that particular direction at that
particular date and time, I haven't heard of it.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

                         Experiencer's Point of View

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:12:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:07:46 -0500
Subject: Experiencer's Point of View


Hello, all EBK, List folk etc,etc.

Well after much thought, cogitation, and even prayer, I have
decided to make a statement note the following:

1. I saw something in the summer of my 14th year, that cannot
be:

a. Pelicans,swamp gas, weather balloons, low flying U-2's or
atomic powered bombers.

b. Figments of a collective imagination, (five people) my
hunter/cowboy father, my very practical and calvinistic
mother, my cousin Judy, a school teacher, and her friend Vivian
who was just there, didn't know her well enough. Point is; We
_all_ saw it!

2. Well, now just what _did_ I see? I was always interested in
the sky, and very capable of telling Mizar from Mira and that
night, that Vivian was built like a burlap bag full o'Bobcats
-just your typical 14 year-old! So, now, what was it?

A UFO? well that's what it looked like dammit! Why? And everyone
agreed on what it looked like:

a. When first sighted, by my father, it seemed to stop, then
emit all sorts of bright colors, red, green, blue, yellow. Note
to Pelicanists: this was _not_ twinkling, it was at least three
times as bright as Venus and slightly diffuse. Then it moved.

b. It was a metallic disc with panel lines. That's what it was,
plus four headlights, as best I can describe them. Pelicanist
note; these were not your average GE, Bosch or Lucas lamps -
these were of searchlight quality. Note also, this was 1965 BST
(before Star Trek) so I can't say that I was "influenced" by
trek.

3. Where did it come from? IMO, three possibly four, areas could
be.

a. The ETH theory yes, the Trafalmadorian scout ship.

b. One of ours. by that I mean the names of thecrew are Chuck
and Ridley, (or even Ivan and Yuri) as opposed to Zot and Mog.

c. The nasty Demonic theory, i.e. the bad guys - as in Satanic
influence you know, the Guy down there. (Given my own beliefs in
God, the universe, and everything, this is a real possibility -
the Greys in particular - seem to not have anyone's best
interest at heart, and are the apparent cause of confusion,
heartache and chaos.) and as there is a Spiritual element - hard
to prove, as in the Abuction theory, it is subjective - unless
you are the subject - it can't happen.

d.The "Angelic " or "Good Guy" also "New Age" aspect. Still
could be deceptive, also may not have our best interest at
heart. Major money maker for those willing to give dUAL
iNSTRUCTION in the proper use of a hot tub. I believe in; "By
their works you shall know them."

4. Conclusion: What I think and who cares. I am not a
researcher, expert, or anything else, I saw this thing, and none
can say I didn't.

Yes,I think there is a need for Skeptics, I am one too, when it
comes to either the prosaic or even the miraculous that seems
little too ah, neat.

One reason I stayed out of the Trent debate was that Rodger's
research may have had a point. But so does Bruce. I will leave
it at that.

However, the question remains: What was it that I and others saw
some 35 years ago. That isn't supposed to exsist.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 20

               'About UFOs' November 19, 2000 - Vol. 2, No. 46

From: Steve Wilson Senior <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 03:17:25 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:11:06 -0500
Subject: 'About UFOs' November 19, 2000 - Vol. 2, No. 46


From: ufos.guide@ABOUT.COM

About UFOs November 19, 2000 - Vol. 2, No. 46


~ "Echoes"
~ "In The News"
~ "Links of the Week"
~ "Readers' Sightings"

------------------ Hot Picks ------------------

"Echoes"

Is there an alien probe in orbit around the earth, watching our
development and waiting for the right moment to make contact?

http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/weekly/aa112000a.htm

"In The News"
..The Chase UFO Crash
..In hot pursuit of 'Bubba', the Phoenix, Arizona UFO
..Metallic Sphere UFOs Spotted in Argentina
..Awesome Evidence of Advanced Alien Intelligence
..ABCnews.com Presents Controversial New Information About The
   Existence Of UFOs
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blnews.htm

"Links of the Week"
..Alien Writing
..Angel Hair and UFOs
..UFOs and Aviation Safety
..Is There a Connection Between UFOs and Ghosts?
..1965 UFO Invasion of Southern Oklahoma
..Huge Collection of UFO Photos and Text Files
..Sedona Visions
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/bllinks.htm

"Reader's Sightings"
Your sightings! Now 19 pages! New sightings added 11/00!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blreadersnew.htm

"Who Wants to Be a UFO Expert?"
Find out how much of an expert you are by taking this UFO
trivia test based on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/millionaire/blwhowants.htm

The chatroom is always open.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mpchat.htm

Keep up with scheduled chats and UFO events around the country.
Check my events calendar weekly:
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/gi/pages/mevents.htm

*SEND ME YOUR SIGHTING!* *SEND ME YOUR UFO PHOTO!*
For inclusion on the "Reader's Sightings" page.
Be sure to include the date and location of
the sighting. Send it to: ufos.guide@about.com

"U.S. UFO Sightings"
A database of UFO sighting reports.
Now a clickable image map.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blsight2.htm

"UFO Encyclopedia"
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blguidea.htm

----------------------------------------------
UFO Timeline: UFO events of the 20th Century!
Updated!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/bltime.htm

"UFO Poll"
Give your opinion!
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/library/bldata/blpolls.htm

Hundreds of UFO links.
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mlibrary.htm

------------- Talk about It With Others ---------------

The UFOs/Aliens Chatroom:
The chatroom is always open! If you want to be a chat host,
e-mail me.

Exploding with activity! Give your opinion!
The UFOs/Aliens Forum:
http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/mpboards.htm

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=450.1
Scientists claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier:
the speed of light.

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=447.1
These space travelers are not aliens. They are our descendants,
who in the future have succeeded in developing time travel, and
have come back to the past on visits.

http://www.delphi.com/ab-ufos/messages?lgnF=y&msg=323.71
Actually my father's old station wagon had a hood ornament that
looked exactly like this "spacecraft".

-----------------Elsewhere on About.com-----------------

If you like my site, you should also check out these related About.com
Sites: http://archaeology.about.com; http://aviation.about.com;
http://conspiracies.about.com; http://newage.about.com;
http://paranormal.about.com; http://physics.about.com;
http://scifimovies.about.com; http://space.about.com;
http://kidsastronomy.about.com; http://urbanlegends.about.com and
http://xfiles.about.com


Until next week,

Loy Lawhon
UFOs
http://ufos.about.com
ufos.guide@about.com

About.com

------------ Clickable Links for AOL Users -------------
(E-mail me if these don't work!)
UFOs/Aliens Home

Who Wants to be a UFO Expert?

"Echoes"

Reader's Sightings

In The News

New Links

Hundreds of Links

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About UFOs...

Polls Page

U.S. UFO Sightings

Previous Features by Topic

UFO Timeline

UFOs/Aliens Forum

UFOs/Aliens Chatroom

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










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:54:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:18:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:14:44 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Michel wrote:

 >On the other hand, it also doesn't help when skeptics rehash
 >classic cases that have always been unexplained and will
 >continue to be unexplained, and bring up mundane, conventional
 >explanations when there is none.

 >You are no longer a skeptic if you've begun to do the job of a
 >debunker. Unlike a skeptic, who simply says: "It can't be; I
 >don't believe it", a debunker goes on to label the bonafide
 >sighting with some stupid, mundane, conventional explanation for
 >an event that, for all intent and purpose, has no mundane,
 >logical explanation. Take it from a guy who has had enough
 >practice after witnessing for himself, 17 separate sightings of
 >UFOs since 1974.

 >Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

 >Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >us who have, do...

So let me make sure that I understand what you are saying:

Only those that believe, at face value, all unsolved UFO claims
or have seen a UFO for themselves have the right to question the
existence of UFOs? If so, then what's the point of this
discussion list and why are you a participant?

I've never heard anything so silly...

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             [PQ] UFO Over Illinois 11-30-00, Discovery Channel

From: Dream Masters Studios, LLC <dmsllc@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:00:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:24:26 -0500
Subject: [PQ] UFO Over Illinois 11-30-00, Discovery Channel


As a courtesy to Dream Masters Studios colleague, Dr. Bruce
Cornet, we are forwarding news of a premier program he is
involved in.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Cornet
To: EdAberdeen@aol.com
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:46 AM
Subject: Rescheduled: UFO Over Illinois Premiers on 30 November,
Discovery channel

Dear All,

Please mark your calendar

UFO Over Illinois A one-hour documentary

Premiers

Thursday, November 30, 2000 9Pm & 1 Am Eastern

Saturday, December 2, 2000 5 Pm Eastern

On The Discovery Channel Check your local listings for channel
number and to verify time in your area

Michael Brockhoff Producer

Includes an interview with Dr. Bruce Cornet, plus some clips
from his videos.

Joseph L. Palermo, Executive Producer

jlp@its-dms.com Dream Masters Studios,
LLC. www.its-dms.com
Voice Mail: 423-2827
(Outside of St. Louis call at .10 cents a minute by dialing 10
plus 10-297-1-314-423-2827)
Remember StreamSearch.Com www.ss.com
"The Remote Control of the Web!" To see the available Dream
Masters Studios on-line programs, click below!
http://www.ss.com/Results.asp?txtSearch=%22Dream+Masters+Studios
%22&LiveEvents=0&FilterIndex=0










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                           Re: ET Evidence - Velez

From: John Velez<jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:25:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:27:19 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Velez


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:10:13 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 ><snip>

 >>>Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
 >>>watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
 >>>rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >>>point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >>>background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

 ><snip>

 >>>By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >>>"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >>>satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >>>would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >>>like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >>>or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >>>from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >>>geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

 >John & Larry & List,

 >I can't find enough info to justify the conclusions that the WOW
 >signal could not have come from a satellite, perhaps in a
 >geostationary orbit, etc. From a geostationary orbit the signal
 >would appear in a fixed location relative to the antenna and
 >would have no ballistic trajectory or a detectable Doppler shift
 >(if you don't know what the original frequency was you can't
 >possibly know if it has been Doppler shifted due to motion, all
 >you can possibly determine is a time-rate of change of a Doppler
 >shift, i.e., due to radial acceleration).

 >>Larry, a couple of questions that you may or may not be able to
 >>answer for me if I may. In my reading over there at the website
 >>I don't recall seeing any 'distance to source' estimates. I
 >>would imagine they'd use the Doppler shift of the signal for
 >>such measurements/estimates. (I don't know much about radio
 >>astronomy so forgive me if my questions sound naive.)

 >You cannot determine a distance without another antenna
 >detecting the same signal at a different location to provide a
 >triangulation (including interferometry) but that would require
 >the two antennas be linked to a synchronized atomic clock.

 >>1. Can Doppler shifts be measured from something that appears as
 >>briefly as the WOW radio signal?

 >The duration doesn't matter with normal Doppler measurements but
 >what does matter is knowing the original frequency or wavelength
 >-- which obviously we don't. With Doppler radars _we_ send out
 >the signal so we know the exact frequency we sent and when an
 >echo returns we can measure the Doppler shift in
 >frequency/wavelength relative to what was sent. That tells us
 >the radial velocity (speed only in the direction to/from the
 >antenna not up/down or right/left).

 >>2. How 'reliable/accurate' are the results obtained from
 >>measuring distance to source via a radio signal in this manner?

 >See above. There is no distance measurement without another
 >antenna.

 ><snip>

 >>>I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
 >>>assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
 >>>re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
 >>>my readings.

 ><snip>

 >If the signal came from a geostationary satellite oftentimes they are placed
 >in "figure-8" orbits that drift in position over a large distance daily and
 >only return to the same spot once a day (and even then there are precessional
 >effects, etc., so it might not be the exact same spot). Again I cannot find
 >enough info to settle these points.

 >Brad

Hiya Brad, All,

Thank you for that informative response. I am already familiar
with the measurement of Doppler shifts with objects that are
detected using using optical telescopes (spectral shift) but
completely ignorant of how it is accomplished for radio signals.
Thanx for the lesson!

So, apparently SETI _can't_ have any idea as to the actual
distance to the source, only the direction. Although precession
would explain why the signal has not been picked up in the same
spot twice, (assuming that your satellite theory is correct) I
would imagine that SETI has 'filters' (or some kind of
systematic elimination process) for 'known' man made satellites
and other 'known' space junk that could may possibly have
accounted for the random signal. At least I hope they do!

If 'triangulation'  or 'known frequency' is a prerequisite to
the determination of distance, then the WOW isn't as big a 'wow'
as it's cracked up to be. It 'could have' been coming from well
within the solar system for all they know. In spite of it all,
the WOW is still an intriguing anomaly.

Regards,

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:00:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:31:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Michael wrote:

 >On the other hand, it also doesn't help when skeptics rehash
 >classic cases that have always been unexplained and will
 >continue to be unexplained, and bring up mundane, conventional
 >explanations when there is none.

Whoah there boy, 'classic cases that have always been
unexplained and will continue to be unexplained'?

This is just the sort of 'believer' nonsense which makes them a
laughing stock. How on earth can you state that something 'will
continue to be explained'? How do you *know* that? Why would you
even believe something will never be explained. Where's your
curiosity, your dedication to research? Many 'classic' cases -
certainly in the UK- have been unexplained for years, and then
resolved. Which makes a mockery of: 'classic cases that have
always been unexplained and will continue to be unexplained'?

If this sort of thinking is an example of 'believer' ufology
then it's still in the dark ages. At least Jerry puts up some
form of spirited, if misguided, defence to his statements.

 >You are no longer a skeptic if you've begun to do the job of a
 >debunker. Unlike a skeptic, who simply says: "It can't be; I
 >don't believe it",

What a weird interpretation of what Michel believes sceptics
think. It's more like 'I'll not come to a conclusion until this
case is resolved'.

 >Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

Laugh? I nearly did, but I was too busy typeing... but Michel -
and we've been through it all before - what about the 'true
unknowns' which _were_ resolved? Were they _really_ 'true
unknowns' or just IFOs masquerading as 'true unknowns'? There
cannot be such a thing as a 'true unknown' simply because time
passes and things change. Just 'unknown, as of this moment in
time'.

 >Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >us who have, do...

Sounds like blind faith to me. But whatever keeps you warm at
night eh?

Happy Trails

Andy
bingo card at the ready









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:01:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:33:18 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:10:13 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:04:49 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 ><snip>

 >>>Apparently, many channels (smallish frequency bands) were being
 >>>watched simultaneously by some stationary dish antenna. As the
 >>>rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >>>point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >>>background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

 ><snip>

 >>>By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >>>"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >>>satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >>>would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >>>like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >>>or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >>>from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >>>geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.
 >>John & Larry & List,

 >I can't find enough info to justify the conclusions that the WOW
 >signal could not have come from a satellite, perhaps in a
 >geostationary orbit, etc. From a geostationary orbit the signal
 >would appear in a fixed location relative to the antenna and
 >would have no ballistic trajectory or a detectable Doppler shift
 >(if you don't know what the original frequency was you can't
 >possibly know if it has been Doppler shifted due to motion, all
 >you can possibly determine is a time-rate of change of a Doppler
 >shift, i.e., due to radial acceleration).

 >>Larry, a couple of questions that you may or may not be able to
 >>answer for me if I may. In my reading over there at the website
 >>I don't recall seeing any 'distance to source' estimates. I
 >>would imagine they'd use the Doppler shift of the signal for
 >>such measurements/estimates. (I don't know much about radio
 >>astronomy so forgive me if my questions sound naive.)

 >You cannot determine a distance without another antenna
 >detecting the same signal at a different location to provide a
 >triangulation (including interferometry) but that would require
 >the two antennas be linked to a synchronized atomic clock.

 >>1. Can Doppler shifts be measured from something that appears as
 >>briefly as the WOW radio signal?

 >The duration doesn't matter with normal Doppler measurements but
 >what does matter is knowing the original frequency or wavelength
 >-- which obviously we don't. With Doppler radars _we_ send out
 >the signal so we know the exact frequency we sent and when an
 >echo returns we can measure the Doppler shift in
 >frequency/wavelength relative to what was sent. That tells us
 >the radial velocity (speed only in the direction to/from the
 >antenna not up/down or right/left).

 >>2. How 'reliable/accurate' are the results obtained from
 >>measuring distance to source via a radio signal in this manner?

 >See above. There is no distance measurement without another
 >antenna.

 ><snip>

 >>>I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand, but you can be
 >>>assured that the same portion of the stellar sphere was
 >>>re-examined a number of times, without success as I recall from
 >>>my readings.

 ><snip>

 >If the signal came from a geostationary satellite oftentimes they are placed
 >in "figure-8" orbits that drift in position over a large distance daily and
 >only return to the same spot once a day (and even then there are precessional
 >effects, etc., so it might not be the exact same spot). Again I cannot find
 >enough info to settle these points.

 >Brad


Hello Brad:

A major misunderstanding here, please re-read the original posts
(or the above).

The source was determined to be fixed with respect to the stars,
_not_ the Earth as in geostationary or anything like that!

That means one point in space, with no relation to the Earth's
rotation. This is made clear in the SETI link I provided
earlier.



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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:28:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:36:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:31:49 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:53:26 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Maccabee

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
 >>ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding
 >>character assassination seem to overtake the technical
 >>discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
 >>irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
 >>is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or
 >>even hard-line debunkers have ever dreamed of. The "believers"
 >>need to see Trent as stupid to the point of having to
 >>contemplate every breath. For the photos to be faked, an
 >>incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
 >>being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
 >l>iar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
 >>grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
 >>had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
 >>laughed in his life.

Bruce replies:

 >As I began reading this my first intent was not to respond. But
 >then I read the above uimplied judgement of Trent's character.
 >Is it better to be a smart hoaxer or a "stupid" honest person.
 >Apparently Roger thinks it is less degrading to be dishonest if
 >intelligent.

Never said any such thing, Bruce. Honest people have fun and
pull people's legs all the time. However, true to form, you
continue to imply that Trent would have to be smart to pull off
a hoax that would fool you. More importantly, you continue to
polarize Trent's character and intellengence, depending on
whether the pictures are real or not. If they are real, then he
is stupid and honest. If they are not, then he is smart and
dishonest. There is no need for this. I know this hurts, but
Trent could be really, really stupid and still have fooled you
with a simple technique.

Continuing, Bruce wrote:

 >The writing in the above paragraph is a "bit" hyped, calling
 >Trent the "stupid patron saint of ufology."

Maybe. But I notice that you take no issue with my account that
believers need to see Trent as stupid to the point of
contemplating every breath. Of course, why would you? You are on
record as believing that the Trent's were stupid. Again, I guess
we have a different view of what constitutes a violation of
character to support a position.

 >Whatsamatta,Roger?
 >Got a hair across you know where, to use phraseology like that?

I don't know, Bruce. This seems to have riled you more than me.
I didn't think someone would get to base remarks within the
first response of this thread. But then again, you do have a
vested interest in the whole Trent saga, don't you? If the
"mirror" theory pans out, then all your years of research are
jeopardized.

 >And the last sentence about there not being proof that Trent
 >"never laughed in his life" is silly, makes no sense. Just
 >because Trent very _probably_did_ laugh, at least once, in his
 >life does not mean that he would have this "laugh" at everyone
 >else's expense (create a hoax and then laugh all the way to the
 >grave.... since he didn't laugh all the way to the bank). And
 >then there is the "forgotten" witness, Evelyn. I bet she laughed
 >at least once in her life, too, but not about the UFO sighting.

The after-the-fact observation that Trent did not benefit
greatly from the pictures is a red herring. That's the same
argument used about other hoaxers that weren't financially
successful or, even, about UFOlogists that don't make a lot of
money from publishing a book on UFO's. For your statement to
mean anything would require all parties to have knowledge of the
future. To say that they did not do it for the potential reward
presupposes advance knowledge that they would not benefit from
their actions. Who knows if Trent was disappointed in the way
things turned out? Then, again, maybe he wasn't smart enough to
capitalize on what he created the way others might have. History
is full of people coming up with unique discoveries who didn't
have the savvy to take full advantage of their position.

To point out that someone would not have done something because
they ultimately did not make a lot of money is like saying that
no one would have bet on a particular horse because that
specific horse lost the race in question. There is ALWAYS
someone that bets on the loser and later wishes they had been a
winner just like there will ALWAYS be a person that writes a
book on UFOs and wishes they had made more money. Lackluster
results do not validate your position on intent.

But then again, maybe Trent could see the future. Certainly, you
believe that his friends and neighbors could read his mind and
know what his intent was. So why would Trent be any different?

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >>if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >>flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >>would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.

Bruce replied:

 >Sure, But what if "common sense" says that ET actually wants to
 >be noticed in a "small" way... not enough to be "absolute proof"
 >but enough to stir up the masses. Then ET would definitely not
 >disguise itself as a helicopter or pelican.

You're right, Bruce. My common sense tells me that, if stirring
up the masses was the intent, then a disguise as a respected UFO
researcher would be the best masquerade of all!

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >>talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >>advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >>rat's ass chance of understanding.

Bruce replied:

 >Huh? How about audio. Yeah, I know. You're saying ET would use
 >radio waves... which we would have to convert to some form of
 >communication we could understand (visible - pictures or written
 >language, or audible sound). But you started by saying "if they
 >wanted to talk to us" they would do so and so.

Huh? The context was about SETI and what form of mass
communication ET might most logically use. If they wanna come
talk to me one on one, I got no problem. My common sense says
they can figure that out, too.

Finally, Bruce writes:

 >I suppose common sense is the last resort of the person who
 >really desn't know what is going on.

 >Based on that definition I suppose we should all start using
 >more common sense.

 >And, by the way, my "common sense" tells me that the Trents were
 >not hoaxers.

I'm not surprised, Bruce, if you put common sense so far down
the list of tools at your disposal during research. By the way,
what color IS your blood. ;}

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:38:20 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Deardorff


 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500

 >>>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Responding to Bruce Maccabee:

 >>>>Hi Bruce,

 >>>>You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
 >>>>me do the same, if you will.

 >>>>Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
 >>>>independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
 >>>>the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
 >>>>Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
 >>>>past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
 >>>>their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

 >>>>Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
 >>>>manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
 >>>>UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
 >>>>show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
 >>>>their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
 >>>>with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
 >>>>reality?

 >>>Jim,

 >>>Where are these alleged witnesses? Two television documentaries
 >>>have interviewed one or two residents who allegedly saw
 >>>something at the time of the Mexico City sighting, but there has
 >>>been no investigative follow up that I'm aware of, by either
 >>>Mexican Ufologists or anyone else of note.

 >>Steve,

 >>Jaime Maussan is the guy to contact as to how many witnesses he
 >>knows of, and if any are available for questioning (in Spanish).
 >>I believe that Michael Hesemann and Lee & Brit Elders also have
 >>interviewed witnesses to the case.

 >>>IMO, A craft as large
 >>>as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
 >>>section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
 >>>public comment than we've seen.

 >>It might be that the craft did not allow itself to be visible
 >>except to selected persons or from selected regions. You
 >>probably can recall quite a few cases where certain people saw a
 >>UFO and others nearby did not. An additional explanation might
 >>be that most of the witnesses were afraid to come forward and
 >>describe their sighting, or didn't know whom to contact.

 >>>Perhaps the aliens (or whatever) are truly able to manipulate
 >>>every means that we have to detect and record their existence.
 >>>Perhaps this is why they are so skillful at keeping themselves
 >>>hidden from view. But the circumstances outlined in the research
 >>>that has been done in this case would seem to indicate that this
 >>>was a "not so elaborate" hoax.

 >>>We will all have to search our
 >>>own beliefs to define whether this has been explained "beyond a
 >>>reasonable doubt", and if Wallace is using this video in a
 >>>segment with Shermer, I would suspect that it is being used as
 >>>an example of a hoax in the field of Ufology.

 >>I suspect the same.

 >Hi Jim, All,

 >Just a personal observation and an aside.

 >Jaime Maussan had supplied a videotape which contained
 >interviews with two of the witnesses which I translated from
 >Spanish to English for a weel known researcher which shall
 >remain nameless here.

 >I submitted a post to UpDates with a brief synopsis of those
 >interviews and my impressions that the witnesses were credible
 >and 'seemed' to be sincere and telling about what they saw. One
 >of them was a young girl who was positioned behind the building
 >directly under the UFO. Her description was clear and detailed.
 >A second witness, (who was also in close proximity to the
 >building/event in question) was a restaurant owner who
 >corroborated the testimony given by the girl.

Hi John,

I do recall the general contents of that, but failed to file it
anywhere that I can find it. Thanks for mentioning it.

 >And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

What Bruce was referring to, in Jeff Saino's analyis, were the
higher frequency jitters of the video scenes associated with the
camera being hand held, not the low-frequency tracking motions.

 >Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >girl.

Rightly so. It's often been pointed out on this list that photos
alone can't prove a UFO to be "genuine," but require witness'
testimony in addition. Similarly, when you have both, it isn't
enough to declare the case a hoax on the basis of photos or
videos if sincere witnesses who could not have perpetrated any
such hoax have spoken out on the reality of the event. The
reason for such a rule, of course, is that the UFO pilots can
maneuver their craft in such a manner as to fool photo or video
analyzers who don't take into account that the UFO guys are more
advanced and smarter than they are, and seem to possess a
definite strategy in their interactions with us. In this Mexican
City case, I've postulated that the UFO operators were able to
maneuver their craft in synchronism to the video-camera jitters
and perhaps to induce controlled jitters in the holder of the
camera as well. Of course, this would require the UFO to be able
to undergo very frequent, large accelerations...

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend

From: Larry Klaes <lklaes@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:08:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:16:12 -0500
Subject: [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend


Best of Cosmos

Twenty years ago, PBS presented Carl Sagan's landmark television
series COSMOS. Seen by more than 600 million viewers in 60
countries, the Peabody and Emmy award-winning series is one of
the most popular science television programs ever produced.

This special showcases the greatest moments of the COSMOS series
and draws from scores of new images, scientific updates and a
new digital version of the compelling soundtrack featuring the
music of Vangelis.

Best of Cosmos

Highlights from the Carl Sagan series 'Cosmos' are interspersed
with scientific updates and recent astronomical discoveries.

http://www.carlsagan.com/


The listing for dates and times of the broadcast is courtesy
Kent Gibson <kentgibson@carlsagan.com>:

Best of Cosmos (local times)

Baltimore/MPTV
Boston/WGBH                  11/26 @ 8 pm (GBH2)
Chicago/WTTW                 11/26 @ 5:30 pm
Cleveland/WVIZ               Not scheduled
Dallas/KERA                  12/5 @ 7 pm
Denver/KRMA                  Not scheduled
Detroit/WTVS                 Not scheduled
Houston/KUHT                 12/6 @ 8:30 pm
Huntington Beach, LA/KOCE    12/1 @ 9 pm
Los Angeles/KCET             12/11 @ 8 pm
Indianapolis/WFYI            Not scheduled
Miami/WPBT                   12/10 @ 2 am
Minneapolis/St. Paul/KTCA    12/5 @ 7:30 pm
New York/WNET
New York/WLIW                12/9 @ 10:30 am
Orlando/WMFE                 12/12 @ 8 pm
Philadelphia/WHYY            11/26 @ 9:45pm, 12/5 @ 8 pm
Phoenix/KAET                 12/3 @ 3:30 pm
Pittsburgh/WQED              Not scheduled
Portland/KOPB                11/28 @ 8 pm
San Francisco/KQED           Not scheduled (January)
San Jose/KTEH                12/7 @ 8pm, 12/16 @ 2pm
San Mateo/KCSM
Sacramento/KVIE              12/5 @ 8 pm
Seattle/KCTS                 Not scheduled
St. Louis/                   Not scheduled
Tampa/WEDU                   Not scheduled
Washington/WETA


--
Kent Gibson
kentgibson@carlsagan.com

President, Cosmos Studios, Inc.

11440 Ventura Blvd, Suite 200
Studio City CA 91604-3154
818-752-5202 FAX 818-752-5205

------

THE LUNASCAN PROJECT (TLP): An Earth-Based Telescopic Imaging
(EBTI) program using live and recorded CCD technology to
document and record Lunar Transient Phenomena (LTPs).

The Lunascan Project HomePage
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/lshomepage.html

The Project's Mission Statement :
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/miss.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:33:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:31:58 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:41:13 -0500
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

Previously, John wrote:

 >And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

 >Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >girl.

Hello, John!

What? Bruce and company admit that witness perceptions can be
wrong? A person could die of old age waiting for that to happen.
Of course its being ignored...

Regarding the smear issue: If the UFO were jumping up and down
at the same rate as the camera, then you'd be correct. However,
it appears to be very steady and does not change its vertical
relationship with the buildings. Sorry, but I have to agree with
Bruce on this one. It's a darned good fake, but a fake none the
less. (unless you subscribe to Deardorff's mental hokey-pokey
stuff)

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                     TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.20.00

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:06:26 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:48:55 -0500
Subject: TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.20.00


TMP NEWS
The E-News Service of The Millennium Project

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

November 20, 2000

_____________________________


TMP News is the e-news service of The Millennium Project,
providing a Weekly Briefing summary of the latest news and
reports relating to the most phenomenal, enigmatic and
controversial issues of our time in science, technology and
global change and their present and future implications as we
enter the 21st century and a new millennium, as well as other
periodic information and updates on TMP- related projects and
events. TMP News is available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING
11.20.00


* NASA Movie Shows Spacecraft's Near-Asteroid Swoop
* UMR Research Could Pave Way for Discovery of Life on Mars
* The Cydonian Imperative: The "City Mound"
* Introducing the Mars Online Gazette
* Scientists Downplay 'Space Object'
* Comdex: iRobot is Real-Life R2-D2
* Comdex Wrap-Up: Net Appliances, Wireless and Widgets
* Amid Rising Waters, Island Nations Plead Case at Climate Conference



NASA MOVIE SHOWS SPACECRAFT'S NEAR-ASTEROID SWOOP

A robot ship's daring plunge toward an asteroid is documented in
a series of images released this week by NASA, providing the
closest look yet at the planetoid's ridged and warped terrain...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/space/11/15/eros.flyby/index.html


UMR RESEARCH COULD PAVE WAY FOR DISCOVERY OF LIFE ON MARS

In the wake of last month's announcement that scientists have
found what they believe to be a living microbe that pre-dates
Tyrannosaurus rex, Dr. Melanie Mormile is keeping one eye on
salt crystals that contain ancient earth-bound bacteria and
another on Mars. Mormile, an assistant professor of biological
sciences at the University of Missouri-Rolla and an expert on
microscopic organisms, thinks living bacteria might be trapped
in the sulphate and chloride salts of Mars...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/umr.html


THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE: THE "CITY MOUND"

Kurt Jonach, proprietor of The Electric Warrior, has assembled
the first scaled rendition of the "City Mound," an elliptical
formation located below the "City Pyramid." This formation is
striking, with several ridges extending from its central peak...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/citymound.html


INTRODUCING THE MARS ONLINE GAZETTE

The Electric Warrior and the Cydonian Imperative announce the
the Mars Online Gazette, a joint effort to provide informative
online content about Mars Cydonia, and other scientific
anomalies...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/marsgazette.html


SCIENTISTS DOWNPLAY 'SPACE OBJECT'

Scientists who announced last week that a mysterious space
object had a 1-in-500 chance of striking the Earth in 30 years
have retracted their prediction, saying it poses little threat.
The object, which is either a small asteroid or piece of space
junk, has virtually no chance of hitting the planet in 2030.
However, scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena
said there's a 1-in-1,000 chance it could hit Earth in 2071...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/spaceobject.html


COMDEX: IROBOT IS REAL-LIFE R2-D2

iRobot, the closest thing yet to a personal R2-D2, is roving
Comdex 2000. Looking like a sportier version of NASA's Mars
Rover, the first wireless, Web-connected robot sees, hears and
speaks for you...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/15/comdex.irobot/index.html


COMDEX WRAP-UP: NET APPLIANCES, WIRELESS AND WIDGETS

 From cameras to cars and from cell phones to printers, the
definition of "Internet appliance" has been expanded at Comdex
this week to go way beyond simplified PCs that let you check
e-mail and shop for groceries. Using a range of emerging
wireless technologies, Internet connections are being extended
to a vast array of gadgets that also include handheld computers,
set-top boxes and gaming consoles...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/17/comdex.net.apps.idg/index.html


AMID RISING WATERS, ISLAND NATIONS PLEAD CASE AT CLIMATE
CONFERENCE

 From Cape Verde to Tonga to Tuvalu, the omens are in their own
watery backyards: towering tidal waves. Vanishing atolls.
Crumbling reefs. Dozens of the tiny nations are pressing their
case this month at a pivotal U.N. conference on climate
change...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/17/climate.conference.ap/index.html


____________________________


To subscribe to TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe from TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You can also subscribe, unsubscribe, custom modify your
subscription or browse the online archive of past issues on the
TMP News eGroups web site:

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews

See the TMP web site for complete listings of news
stories, reports and related information and links:

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

For further information, submissions or inquiries, forward
all correspondence to:

THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC   V6J 1J4
Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

_____________________________


� The Millennium Project, 2000











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

               Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:44:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:51:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Cashman


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.
 >You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
 >tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >accordingly.

The problem, Roger, is this. You are making assumptions not
justified by the data.

If the UFO data represents a real phenomenon, it seems to be
telling us, among other things...

1) UFO and whatever they represent don't really care about
talking to us any more than we care about talking to
grasshoppers.

2) UFO don't care too much about being noticed, they just
don't want to be caught.

So your propositions are rather strange in that they are not
driven by the data but by your assumption of how things should
be; and indeed, those assumptions seem to be directly
contradicted by the data. Thus, to complain about this is simply
circular reasoning ("the data is wrong because the data doesn't
look like it should if it were caused by something acting the
way I think it should").

Such assumptions were what led to the development of epicycles
rather than a heliocentric system. They were what led to the
denial of the existence of meteorites. They were what led to the
frequent attempts by humans to create aircraft that fly the way
birds do.

In other words, they are not only not relevant, but they also
get in the way of actually examining the data and drawing
conclusions from it.

When dealing with an unknown phenomenon, deduction is not a safe
method of reasoning - induction (reasoning from specific data to
generalities) is at least safer. Why? Because until you have a
large volume of inductively valid conclusions, any theory that
can be imposed by deductive reasoning is science-fiction at best
and fantasy at worse.

Please see:

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm

for more on the differences between these types of reasoning.

Now, mind you, I oppose deductive reasoning on both sides of the
belief fence. The data has just not been subjected to enough
induction to generate worthy higher level hypotheses of origin
and intent, or to claim the invalidity of all UFO reports on the
basis of the invalidity of a sample.

So, far, for all the noise generated, few classifications of UFO
reports have been created. Those systems are needed in order to
pursue patterns in the data. Those patterns may be of use to OEH
(Objective Existence Hypothesis) or to MHH (Misperception /
Hallucination / Hoax Hypothesis) adherents. But the problem is
that very little work has been done on either side. The ETH
proponents argue the validity of individual cases and the MHH
proponents argue the invalidity of individual cases. At least
the ETH proponents are willing to use some criterion for
accepting or rejecting a report. The MHH adherents seem only
willing to reject reports, no matter how fantastic the required
explanation may be in denying the observational powers of the
witness, of instruments, of physics, or of perceptual psychology
as we know it. Nevertheless, I contend that without a ferment of
work in classification we are not going to get anywhere in
induction, and without induction we are not going to get
anywhere near any useful deduction. And that includes MHH.

Common sense is not a good guide to science. Common sense does
very well at looking back at known phenomena, and does very
poorly with phenomena outside a narrow range of size, time, and
distance. For instance, relativity, which is one of the most
highly verified theories in human history, violates common
sense. Rulers get shorter and longer. Gravity is a 4D dent in 3D
space. Clocks run at different rates when they fly at different
speeds or are in different gravity fields/. Who would have
though it, using common sense?

So let's leave common sense out of deciding how UFOs should
behave and leave it in place when on the ground dealing with
witnesses. Once the witnesses pass every common sense test,
then, for crying out loud, move on and work with the data they
provide. Get something done beside squabbling.

Don't believe in UFOs? Show how patterns in UFO reports can be
reliably compared with patterns in provably non-real phenomena
using impeccable and accepted statistical methods. Believe in
UFOs? Show what patterns exist in UFO reports and how they are
different from those present in provably non-real phenomena.
Doubt the validity of perception of elevation and angular size?
Take some subjects out into a field and test them on known
objects unpredictably presented, and make sure those objects
have an unpredictable appearance.

Just try it.

Have a look at:

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/methodology/doingscienceonufos.htm

for some ideas on the real work that is waiting to be done.

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

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                          Filer's Files #46 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:48:05 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:04:07 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #46 -- 2000


Filer's Files #46 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
November 20, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

LEONID METEOR ACTIVITY thus far has been disappointing. Clouds
may have ruined sightings of the expected shooting stars in many
parts of the world. The annual Leonid's light show is caused by
the passing of Comet Tempel-Tuttle, a huge ball of ice and dust.
Most the activity was expected in the vicinity of the moon, but
some spectacular shooting stars were photographed over Maryland.
They are caused when the Earth passes through the dusty debris
that follows the comet's orbit. Also a balloon launched with
photograhic equipment was brought down early when it strayed
into airways. The number of UFO sightings is steady with reports
over New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Ohio,
Oklahoma, and California. More evidence points to life arriving
on Earth from space. More discussion on our Moon's history of
strange activity.

NEW YORK FLYING TRIANGLES

FREEPORT, LONG ISLAND -- Ruth writes, "Since December 1994, I
have had fairly frequent sightings of flying triangular craft
near several inland waterways on the South Shore." The most
recent sightings were on November 3, 6, 7, and 8th, 2000. I am
not sure of the exact size, since they are always seen at night
or very early morning before sunrise. Ruth says, "Lighting on
these crafts consists of two very bright white strobes, one on
each side, which flash simultaneously, and one red light on the
underside, in the center, which flashes alternately." There is
never any sound! My oldest daughter and I both have witnessed
these craft.

They "glide" very slowly over the houses across the street, just
above rooftops, and then turn and continue on out over the
Atlantic Ocean. I have also seen them fly behind my house,
either just above the rooftops, or over the canal directly
behind my house. An ex-neighbor also saw the craft hovering over
the canal in her backyard at 9:30 PM in February 1995. I have
seen them within a one-mile radius of my house, many times.
We've had several sightings looking west of a group of seven to
eight craft flying one by one, at 2 to 4 minute intervals,
heading due south, then eventually turning slightly to the
right, going out over the ocean. This always happens between
5:30 to 6:00 AM at low altitudes. I am located in a flight path
for planes from Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports and these are
different. These craft fly much slower and much lower than the
commercial planes. The flying triangles never make any sound,
and are able to maneuver and perform," just a short distance
away from my house." Thanks to Betty LaRosa: RLaRosa331 and
Ruth.

Editor's Note: We encourage readers who live in Connecticut, New
York and New Jersey to be on the lookout for these craft. It
appears they navigate moving south along the Meadowbrook Parkway
only ten miles from Kennedy Airport.

NEW JERSEY DISK

CRESSKILL -- On November 2, 2000, my father and I witnessed a
very large, disc shaped object hovering over, or near the town
of Cresskill near the Hudson Valley at 7:50 PM. The object was
too large to be man made, and moved over the northern valley,
from east to west, doing less then 40 mph. I would have to say
by my line of site, the disc shaped object had to be roughly
1000 feet over the tree line. It was very brilliant and had a
blinking white light at the top. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com.

PENNSYLVANIA LIGHTS OVER VALLEY

READING -- Alexander J. Broskey reports, "I was driving home on
October 30, 2000, out in the French Creek State Park area where
I live and tonight as I neared my house an object materialized
out of nowhere." It was a bright UFO with swirling green,
yellow, blue, and red lights. I slowed down and stopped on the
road to watch it for about two minutes. I was not surprised
because I have seen different kinds of UFOs out here before.
This one flew to my left about 50 yards and then flew out of
sight. I drove home and later went up to my room on the 2nd
floor. I was looking out the window over looking the valley and
a flying object appeared again. I woke my Dad up and we both
watched it fly across the sky very slowly. We saw a smaller red
UFO fly from one side of my vision to the other and then stop
turn around and fly in the other direction out of my site. Both
of us observed a multicolored larger size UFO moving over the
valley. As I'm writing this the big multicolored one is back.
I'm a little paranoid because I know what these guys do to
people. I'm watching it fly across the sky right now. I just got
tired of seeing these UFOs and not saying anything. This is
real!". Thanks to Alex Broskey's violetfire1@lycos.com.

Editor's Note: I talked to Alex on the phone and he has seen
these craft on a fairly regular basis over the valley.

PENNSYLVANIA FLYING TRIANGLE

PHILADELPHIA - Peter Davenport reported on the Jeff Rense show
this and sighting below occurred only thirty minutes apart.
Amateur astronomer and former Marine, Michael was observing the
sky on November 13, 2000, though his 900 mm Refractor Telescope
from his home in Upper Darby. He uses the scope nightly and had
observed Venus, Jupiter, the Pleiades, and the Moon. He was
looking east at the Moon's Terminator at 8:15 PM. This is the
area between the dark and light parts of the Moon where good
viewing is often present.

Suddenly most of his telescope was filled with a huge massive
black flying object that moved from the bottom to the top of
Moon. It crossed the surface moon and looked strangely
biological. Michael felt the object was most probably within our
atmosphere and flying over New Jersey. Right afterwards a
military jet appeared probably an F-16 that may have been
attempting an intercept using its after burners. Later he
noticed the object moving in and out of the clouds. This object
was very massive and appeared to be flying over New Jersey. He
drew a picture of the object that was a large triangle appeared
to have protrusions similar to arms and legs. The object looked
similar to a skydiver jumping out of an aircraft with his arms
against his side. The head had two points. He estimated the
object was flying at 25,000 miles per hour. He would not have
seen it without his telescope. He called several radar stations,
but had no confirmation of the sighting.

Editors Note: The 177th Fighter Wing (ANG) at Atlantic City
International Airport flies F-16 aircraft and is located about
35 miles from the sighting.

GEORGIA UFO SIGHTING

ATLANTA - Peter reports that Carl stopped his car on the side of
road on November 13, 2000, and watched a hovering object at 7:45
PM. The flying object looked similar to the top of a light house
from the side. Two vehicles passed by his parked car as he
watched for some fifteen minutes, but they didn't stop. He
thought the flying object was quarter to half a mile away. It
was very large and three dimensional and seemed to be made of
clear glass. It slowly dimmed and disappeared. Carl said, "It
was something he never saw before and he was amazed by it." The
next morning he returned to the area to see if any towers or
other possible explanations were visible. He visited an open
field where strangely all leaves had been cleared and there were
numerous animal tracks of all types. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com and Jeff Rense
www.sightings.com

KANSAS EXPLODING LIGHT

MINNEAPOLIS -- MUFON Headquarters reports that Paul Tally saw an
object almost directly above him on November 14, 2000. The
object was first observed traveling from east by southeast to
the west by northwest at 12:50 AM. It was extremely bright in a
clear sky with a full moon. The object moved rapidly about half
way across the sky and exploded over north central Kansas. The
color of the explosion was similar to ball lightning. Thanks to
Marilyn, and Paul Tally: briarville_y@yahoo.com and
MUFONHq@aol.com..

OHIO HALLOWEEN SIGHTING INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

CYGNET October 31, 2000, Tim a teacher and his friend were
traveling on Route I-75 and saw a meteor like object moved
across the sky coming towards them from the East. It was ahead
of them and came to a sudden stop above the highway. This is
fairly open farmland and the object appeared as a shooting star.
They stopped their car and got a good look at the hovering
object. It was red, green, blue, yellow and magenta. There was
no sort of rhythm or pattern they could discern. It was about a
quarter of the full moon in size. He felt it was less than a
mile away.

Denise says the object appeared to come out of the trees no more
than a hundred yards ahead of her as she drove towards I-75. It
was headed across her path of vision at a hundred yards. It
moved at a slow speed above I-75 and seemed to hover over the
centerline of the highway. There were no lights.

It appeared roughly egg shaped with a glowing energy coming out
the rear. Later both men developed a pain in their abdominal
region right below the rib cage. The abdomen was inflamed and
red. Thanks to Peter B. Davenport, Director National UFO
Reporting Center http:// www.UFOcenter.com

OKLAHOMA SIGHTING AGAIN!

ELK CITY - Jim Hickman reports, "I had a phone report come
regarding an Oct 19, 2000, sighting in a rural area west of the
town of Elk City near the intersection of Highways 34 and 66,
that a unknown object described as having red, white, blue
lights flew over a family's farmhouse. It was reported that the
object appeared from the southwest at a very low altitude,
hovered overhead for about ten minutes, then made a 180 degree
turn on it's axis and flew away to the north. This was witnessed
by one adult and three children that were outside at the time.
One of the children actually got a flashlight and attempted
contact with the object. There is no report that the object
replied.

The object was described as being dark gray or black, it was too
low to distinguish its shape. Its altitude was only 150 feet,
and it was described as being over a mile long. The witness
stated she was able to judge the distance/size by measuring it
against a new race track that had been built nearby. She
described the object as being larger than the race track. It was
also described as making no noise. It was also reported that
sightings occurred on several other nights, but this was the
closest encounter so far. I have been given permission to meet
with the witness's and I will update this report when I get more
detailed information. Thanks to Jim Hickman The Hickman Report
http://www.thehickmanreport.com.

CALIFORNIA SAUCER HOVERS OVER SAN FRANCISCO BAY

SAN FRANCISCO -- On Friday, November 10, 2000, at 6:04 PM,
Shelah J. was at her apartment in San Rafael, California, across
the bay from San Francisco, when she spied something odd outside
the window. "At first the object seemed like it was not moving
and was standing stationary," Shelah reported. "Its light, or
the brightness of the vehicle, was brighter than the surrounding
planes." "It moved very slowly and flew low over the mountains
and then just seemed to move (west) over the water towards the
city of San Francisco. After watching for what seemed like ten
minutes. I ran downstairs to get the binoculars. Through the
binoculars, the object looked incredible."

"At first the object seemed to be elongated and looked like a
cigar shape. But after watching for a longer period of time, it
seemed more like a saucer shape and glowed brightly. It was the
same color as a fire ember. It was bright orange and its glow
seemed to radiate much energy from inside." "The vehicle was
massive in size. I cannot estimate how large but very, very
large and easy to see through such binoculars."  Shelah said,
"It seemed as if two planes were circling around or near it, and
later a third plane also monitored it." "My roommates came home
at about 6:45 p.m. and I told them what I saw. I thought the
object was gone because it had gone out of sight earlier. But
then Michael, my roommate, looked from his bedroom (window) and
saw a gleaming object adjacent to planes' lights and asked me if
that was it? We took the binoculars out and a small telescope
and indeed it was the same. This was when I saw the third plane
tracking the vehicle." "Even though the vehicle was further away
than when I originally saw it, it gleamed with a very bright
fiery orange glow.  Michael said, 'I've never seen anything like
it.' He was also able to make out some red and white lights on
the side of it and the light that circled around it." Thanks to
UFO Roundup Vol.5, #46 11/16/00 Editor: Joseph Trainor

CALIFORNIA LIGHTS

San Pablo -- B. R. Thomas who lives on East Bay Hill with a
panoramic view overlooking San Francisco Bay saw many white
objects on Sunday afternoon November 19, 2000. She at first
noticed a thick contrail in the sky and to the right of she
noticed many small objects in the eastern sky away from the bay
behind their home at 3:07 PM. The white objects appeared
stationary and looked how a Constellation such as the Big Dipper
would look at night. She did not see an aircraft making the
contrail, but there were other aircraft in the afternoon sky not
making any contrails. The white objects were similar to spots
before your eyes, but she noticed clouds passing in front of
white and round objects. These lights or objects were in a
definite pattern. She saw the objects for two or three minutes
and determined they were not moving. She thought, they may have
had some connection to the thick and unusual
chemtrail/contrail?. At first, she thought the objects might be
balloons, but since they were not moving, stayed in formation
and seemed to have their own light source. Last weekend, she
also noticed an aircraft making a similar thick contrails, but
she had not noticed any objects at that time. She watches
aircraft regularly from their deck and had noticed unusually
thick contrails the last two weekends from one or two aircraft.
The clouds were moving past but she could still see these twenty
or so white objects that were not moving. Thanks to B. R.
Thomas.

RUSSIA: FLYING SAUCER JEOPARDIZES ARMY NEAR CHECHNYA

MAJACHKAL --, An alleged UFO has jeopardized and eluded Russian
troops near Daguestan, a Republic bordering Chechnya on November
14, 2000. Alarms went off at 01:00 AM local time (22:00 hours
GMT yesterday). An hour later, confusion was extreme in the
garrisons on the ridges separating Dagestan from Chechnya and
the war which has raged in the area north of the Caucasus for
over a year and a half. At 02:00 AM most lucid reports began to
arrive from the Magaramkent region on the Caspian Sea regarding
the "unidentified flying object," which had caused Russian
forces to sound battle stations. Soldiers provided a detailed
description of the device they witnessed for a long time as it
flew slowly eastward toward the sea. Some garrisons noted the
object was flying at low altitude of only a 100 meters and had
three fluorescent lights above with two meter spaces between
them, according to the Russian Ministry of the Interior in
Dagestan. Several civilian witnesses agreed on the description
and light arrangement of the mysterious phenomenon, while
hesitating to ascribe its origin to a secret weapon of the
Russian army or a new weapon in the hands of the Islamic
separatists.

Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Dagestan were
cautious and stated their unwillingness to state if the object
in question was a UFO. Jet fighters were scrambled too late to
catch the UFO. The pursuit has renewed mistrust regarding the
traditional secrecy shown by Russian authorities. Acting quickly
to forestall any possible reprimands, the most mistrusting
military officers indicated that it could be a NATO spy plane
interested in Russian maneuvers in the Caucasus and the Caspian,
which are rich in gas and oil. Dagestan Muslim leaders claimed
the strange heavenly event was a portent which bore a message
from Allah himself. Even a mufti or spiritual legislator from
Dagestan showed no compunction in stating that without any doubt
it was "a jinn, an angel or other heavenly being, since God's
masterpiece is filled with them. "Thanks to the translation by
Scott Corrales -- Institute of Hispanic Ufology and Gloria
Coluchi.

Editor's Note: The Russian Air Force has now denied the above
report stating, "Gen Bolkhovitin's assertions, with reference to
a Central Air Defence Control post, that a Russian space vehicle
flew over Dagestan are not true to fact," spokesman Aleksandr
Drobyshevskiy told Interfax. 161903 Nov 00

THE MOON AND MORE

David Saxton suggests that you expand your thinking for a
moment. The presence of Jupiter makes life on earth possible
because it acts as a "meteor sink". Without the massive
gravitational pull of Jupiter to attract the uncountable numbers
of periodic and rogue meteorites which pass this way, life on
Earth would be impossible. The intervals between catastrophic
impacts would be such that no life could develop before being
exterminated by an impacting space rock. It gets better,
Remember that all is based on fractal patterns which unfold
endlessly. Someone has put everything in place deliberately.
Thanks to David Saxton dsaxton@nontoxic.org

MOON WATCH

Marcus Allen from the NEXUS MAGAZINE UK Office writes, "Your
Files are a welcome addition to our understanding of this
fascinating phenomenon." That you picked up activity on the Moon
comes as no real surprise. The Lunar Orbiter photos of the
Vitelo crater taken in 1967 shows two large objects leaving
tracks on the Lunar surface as they move up out of a crater has
always intrigued me. In your recent posting #45 you mention the
work and ideas of Jan Lamprecht about the Moon. This is an area
I have also devoted considerable time and effort to try to
understand. You may be aware that the idea that the Moon could
well be of considerably stranger origin than is generally
accepted was published in two books by Don Wilson, 'Our
Mysterious Spaceship Moon' 1975 Dell NY and its sequel 'Secrets
of our Spaceship Moon' 1979 Dell NY. Both by Sphere in the UK.

These books expand on the thesis of two Russian scientists,
Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences. Because the three main theories of the Moon's origin
did not answer very many of the questions, in fact it was easier
to prove that the Moon should not be where it is than that it
should be they proposed the idea that the Moon could well be of
artificial' construction and deliberately placed in orbit around
Earth. As to 'who' and 'why' they were, as scientists not
prepared to speculate without evidence to back up their ideas.
There are many anomalies which can be observed about the Moon
which on any reasonable examination cannot be fully explained:
There are many thousands of craters on the Moon ranging in size
from a few inches to hundreds of miles in diameter. Yet all the
large craters seem to have flat floors and small walls.
Copernicus is 60 miles in diameter and 3 miles high. The laws of
physics indicate that an object, such as a meteorite traveling
at very high speed will leave a crater about 8 times as wide as
it is deep. It will not have a flat floor either. Meteor crater
in Arizona is a good example of an impact crater.

Most of the larger craters could better be described as 'ringed
plains.' The floors of many of the larger craters are the same
level as the surrounding surface, with no ejector blanket of
material thrown from the crater. How are these craters made? The
surface of the Moon is covered with craters on both sides
numbering many tens of thousands, yet the Earth has at most
about 200 impact sites discovered to date. Any object wandering
through space looking for a planet to hit and finding the
Earth/Moon system would naturally be drawn to the Earth due to
its higher gravity rather than the Moon, which is shielded by
Earth anyway for half the time. So why does the Moon show such
damage and the Earth hardly any?

Geological weathering does not answer it. The fossil record
indicates that for the first 4 billion years very few advanced
life forms existed on Earth. Then around 550 million years ago
there was suddenly a huge variation of creatures existing
showing far more advanced features than had been in evidence
before. This is called the Cambrian Explosion in geological
time. Could this be the time when the Moon went into orbit
around Earth? And why does the Moon keep one side, the far side,
turned permanently away from Earth's gaze? Could this be in
order that ET can come and go unobserved. It just seems so
logical (as Spock would say) Perhaps that is what Clementine was
really sent to find out back in 1994. Has anyone ever seen the
pictures it must have taken with its cameras of the Apollo LMs
still on The Lunar surface? Thanks to Marcus Allen.

NEXUS MAGAZINE UK Office e-mail: nexus@ukoffice.u-net.com
I always considered Ingo to be the worlds' most experienced RV
exponent.

AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE RELATIVE TO MOON ARTICLE

However, I had a most bizarre experience this morning after
reading your article on the theory that the moon may have been
placed into orbit around the Earth in order to stabilize and
allow for life to be sustained. This is actually not the first
time I've heard this as Alex Collier a contactee claimed the
moon was in fact placed here by ET's . many millions of years
ago. So, I went to bed thinking about this theory again.. and
how it seemed to add up that we may indeed be an experiment by
highly advanced ET's, who set up an environment for their
product to develop. I'm not particularly religious but I awoke
this morning with what sounded like a minister preaching on the
radio, but my radio was off. He said that I would find the
answer to my question in Psalms 8. I followed his directions and
found the Bible verse.  King David states in verse 3 that: "When
I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and
the stars, which YOU have set in place, what is man that you are
mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made
him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with
glory and honor" Psalm 8.3. Pretty interesting, I thought since
it answers the question and indicates that the ET's are of a
higher order, as we are lower than the heavenly beings, but we
are also crowned with glory and honor. I would bet that the
higher spiritually evolved ET's work in cooperation with God,
the Creator. I thought you might find this interesting. Thanks
to Jimmie.

Editor's Note: There are many statements in the Bible that can
be interpreted that we have been visited on a regular basis.

LIFE FROM SPACE MAY NOW BE PROVEN

Data from instruments flown on airplanes during last year's
Leonid meteor shower show that the seeds of life, long suspected
to exist in comet dust, could have survived a fiery passage from
space to Earth's ancient atmosphere. A range of findings,
reported by an international team of NASA-led scientists,
provide support for Panspermia, which holds that life on Earth
did not spring up spontaneously out of some primordial soup, but
was instead seeded from space  Findings to date indicate that
the chemical precursors to life -- found in comet dust -- may
well have survived a plunge into early Earth's atmosphere," said
astronomer Peter Jenniskens of the Ames Research Center and the
SETI Institute.

The studies were published in a November 14 special edition of
the Netherlands Journal Earth, Moon and Planets. "Sowing the
seeds" The idea that the seeds of life, or life itself,
constantly fall from space is the central idea of Panspermia.
Not only did life on Earth begin this way, the concept holds,
but the genetic pool is constantly modified, even today. Other
researchers have shown that meteors both small and large do not
heat up as much as previously thought, allowing the possibility
that dormant life could arrive on an incoming space rock or,
just possibly, embedded in the dust grain of a comet. Jenniskens
and others said all this work at least supports the notion that
life's recipe -- in the form of organic molecules -- can survive
the trip into the atmosphere. Chandra Wickramasinghe, a leading
proponent of Panspermia, cheered the newest work. "I think the
results reported by NASA are clear proof that bacterial
particles could survive, hence vindicating Panspermia,"
Wickramasinghe said. He and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle have,
since the 1970s, argued that organic particles of bacterial
sizes survive entry through the atmosphere. "However, there is
still a tendency to interpret results like this as merely
showing that organics, rather than life, are being added to the
Earth, but the trend is surely moving towards panspermia,"
Wickramasinghe told SPACE.com.

MARS LIFE CAME TO EARTH 13,000 YEARS AGO

Only 13,000 years ago a meteorite from Mars plunged through the
Earth's atmosphere and crashed into Antarctica. The Journal
Science indicates that a meteorite the size of hard ball had
living organisms that survived the trip. The rock stayed cool
enough to sustain life. Benjamin Weiss, a graduate student at
the California Institute of Technology states, "What's exciting
about this study is that it shows the Martian meteorite made it
from the surface of Mars to the surface of Earth without ever
getting hot enough to destroy bacteria, or even plant seeds or
fungi." Thousands of tons of rock have traveled from Mars to
Earth carrying living organisms. The study indicates life may
have existed on Mars in the relatively recent past and life
forms on Earth may have begun on Mars. Tiny bacteria could have
ridden on board meteorites blasted off the surface of Mars and
traveled here. Its been proven the heat generated coming into
our atmosphere was not great enough to kill the bacteria. The
findings also suggest that life could still exist on Mars.

Editors Note: The area of Cydonia where the Face on Mars exists
could have been an area not unlike the Pyramid area at Cairo.
Not only is there the Mars Face, but a series of pyramids, a
fortress, an ancient city and what appears to be an ancient road
or canal running through the area. Certainly natural forces
could have made the face, but not the total complex.

http://www.corpex.com/users/archmage/fsr/fsrhome.htm

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has noticed
that when NASA is picking up UFOs they have tendency to first
zoom in to observe the UFO better and then they cut the feed to
the outside world. Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the
shuttle broadcasts from space. He is now an expert on NASA
missions and even those onboard the shuttle are unlikely to see
what Jeff does. He has gained his experience from watching
numerous shuttle missions and using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals
and real UFOs. Using his experience you can also learn the
difference. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle from
space. I feel confident we could go into a court of law and
convince any jury that there are UFOs moving at high speed
around the Earth. Send $25 to: Jeff Challender 2768 Mendel Way -
Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate agents
or sales representatives are part timers and inexperienced.
Others are experts with an excellent experience and
capabilities. When you are selling or buying your home, you need
to make sure you have the best real estate agent working for you
before you make any important financial decisions on one your
biggest investments! Remember, the majority of people do not
know the right questions to ask, and what pit falls can cause
major problems. Picking the right real estate agent can be a
wonderful experience, and picking the wrong one can be a big
mistake that can waste your time and cost you thousands! Find
out, " What you need to understand before hiring any real estate
agent!" These are the questions that many agents do not want you
to ask. Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for
your needs. To get a free copy of this report, just call (609)
654-0020 or e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com. We can also help you
with your own or corporate Worldwide Relocation to Australia,
Benelux, Canada, Cayman Islands, England, France, Guam, Hong
Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern Ireland,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the US.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com. Mention I
recommended you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted
2000 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved. Readers may post
items from the files on their Web Sites provided that they
credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date
of issue that the item appeared. Caution: Most of these are
initial reports and require further investigation. These reports
and comments are not necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint.
Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name. Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:05:07 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:39:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania -


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gliding Entity Reported In Pennsylvania
 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:02:24 -0500

<snip>

 >Larry, Nick and List,

 >I find it amazing that this Thurso resident claims to have had
 >an encounter with a UFO and possible ocupant just three days
 >before my own sighting of a 40-foot craft hovering near the
 >former CFS Falconbridge Radar Base.

 >Had I inquired sooner about any other UFO activity at the time
 >of my sighting, I probably would have found out about this one,
 >too.

 >From what I've read in the articles, I think this man really saw
 >something, and the debunkers and skeptics are passing the
 >encounter off as a bunch of balloons. Remember, two of the
 >witnesses were police officers!

Hi Michel.

This may be the first time a balloon explanation was used to
explain a UFO/entity incident in Canada.

It is sad that, except possibly in a court of law, the
testimonies of the witness and the two police officers were so
completely dismissed by sceptics who favoured the balloon
explanation. This seems to be the case whenever the evidence
points to an obvious conclusion which is just too incredible for
them to even consider.

If balloons were the answer, do you also find it a bit strange
that 'LeDroit' would keep updating such a unnewsworthy story of
a simple case of misidentification over four days straight?

Any chance, Michel, of interviewing this Thurso resident again
and checking to see if the police officers filed official
reports? You may recall that when Harry Tokarz, a CUFORN
investigator, re-interviewed Robert Sufferin who had his own
UFO/entity experience north of Toronto in 1975 he learned that
Sufferin was silenced from talking further about his encounter
after a visit by Canadian and U.S. officers in uniform. I would
not at all be surprised if you learn something similar with this
1990 incident too.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:46:27 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Maccabee


 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >I submitted a post to UpDates with a brief synopsis of those
 >interviews and my impressions that the witnesses were credible
 >and 'seemed' to be sincere and telling about what they saw. One
 >of them was a young girl who was positioned behind the building
 >directly under the UFO. Her description was clear and detailed.
 >A second witness, (who was also in close proximity to the
 >building/event in question) was a restaurant owner who
 >corroborated the testimony given by the girl.

I am aware of the witness interviews. It could be that there was
a sighting AND that the tape was a hoax!! (Believe it or not).
Note that no one came forward until the tape was shown on TV and
that was a month or so after the event as recorded on th
videotape.

 >And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >amateur and simply guessing at about this point.


You are quite correct if the camera tracked the UFO over a "few
seconds." And, in fact the camera did pan with the UFO,
following it quite closely and overall there was not much
smear.... but that was because the shutter was faster than
normal. Jeff Sainio and I independently concluded that' the
shutter time was like 1/200 sec rather than the more normal 1/60
(the time of a single field or 'half' a frame of the video). The
faster shutter reduced the image smear. I believe (I could be
wrong) that most cameras, when you turn them on, set a 'default'
shutter speed of 1/60 sec. Then you have to manually change the
shutter speed if you want it faster (shorter shutter time). That
would mean that in the "heat of th moment" the witness thought
to increase the shutter time before beginning the video. I know
that on may camera it takes a little time to set the faster
shutter.

Point: the faster shutter would be more likely to reduce image
blur of the distant _real_ buildings thus making the edges of
the building _more_like_ the unblurred edges of the UFO image...
if a hoax!

The "discovery" of suspicious blur was made first on a
statistical basis: overall the blur of the edges of th UFO was
less than that of the buildings. But then we discovered a couple
of frames where the camera moved too fast for the fast shutter.
Little wind socks on the buildings were so blurred as to be
almost invisible. Yet the UFO image was not changed. Now, if
this happened over a few seconds we might argue fast panning of
the camera... But it did not.

These are individual frames, _separated_ by several seconds...
That is, the faster motion of the camera occurred primarily
during one frame time (1/30 sec) and then the camera reverted to
its more normal rate of motion without much blur of the
building.

More specifically, there was a rapid downward motion of the
horizontal roof edge, a motion that smeared the edge of the roof
of the building next to the UFO. (The downward motion of the
building means the camera suddenly tilted upward.)

That motion lasted only 1/30 sec. During that time the camera
motion angle translated to some number of feet... 10 feet?
(don't recall exactly) at the distance of the building. Since
the UFO image didn't smear that would mean that, if the UFO were
a real object "out there," it moved UPWARD (along with the
camera upward rotation) by that number of feet in 1./30 sec.
After the smear frame, however the UFO mage was in the same
position relative to the building as before. Thus, if a real;
object, it must have moved downward by thatnumber of feet
immediately (1/30 sec) after moving upward, In other words, a
jump up and down lasting no more than 1/15 sec, and timed
perfectly with the camera motion (the camera tilted up and then
down in the same time period due to hand vibration).

There were two frames with smear of the building images that was
large enough to be easily seen. as I said before, these frames
were separated by some seconds. Hence the 'jump' occurred twice,
perfectly timed to match the accidental (I presume) camera
vibrations. If it was a real object 'out there'.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

             (CSETI) The Disclosure Project - Update And Status

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:56:56 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:33:12 -0500
Subject: (CSETI) The Disclosure Project - Update And Status


From: webmaster@cseti.org (Tony Craddock)


THE DISCLOSURE PROJECT - UPDATE AND STATUS

In the past 4 or 5 months, CSETI has been able to identify,
contact and film nearly 90 military, intelligence and government
witnesses to UFO events and projects. Many of these interviews
and accompanying evidence are definitive and will be able to
establish the reality of the UFO/ET subject as well as the
nature and purpose of the secrecy surrounding it.

We will be completing these interviews in the next 30 days.
Anyone who is aware of a potential witness or who has important
other evidence should contact CSETI Director Steven M. Greer MD
as soon as possible for inclusion in the project. Government
witnesses only may call Dr. Greer at 540 456 8302.

As you know, we had hoped to effect this disclosure prior to
President Clinton leaving office on January 20, 2001. However,
strategically and logistically this is not feasible. In light of
the nonstop media coverage of the presidential election
uncertainty, the likelihood of having any effective coverage of
a disclosure on the UFO/ET issue is quite unlikely. Indeed,
other major stories in the world are getting little to no
coverage and special reports are focusing exclusively on the
election controversy.

For this reason, I have decided to postpone the disclosure
events until after the next president (whoever that may be)
takes office and the media frenzy has been reduced. It is
unlikely, therefore, that this could be accomplished before late
February to March 2001. Since there is likely to be considerable
controversy lasting well after the inauguration, it would be
prudent to avoid competing with this matter altogether.

In the interim, we will be creating an Executive Briefing
Summary of government witness testimony and other evidence for
briefing the new Congress and the new Administration, as soon as
that is known.

A National Press Club disclosure event including this evidence
and select government witnesses will be planned for sometime
after the inauguration, hopefully early next year.

Individuals who can contribute funds to help us conclude this
historic project may do so by sending them to CSETI , PO Box
265, Crozet VA 22932.

I would like to thank everyone for their help and support in
this effort to let the world know the truth about this important
subject.

Wishing you the best of all worlds,

Steven M. Greer MD
CSETI Director
Albemarle County, Virginia
November 17, 2000

See http://www.cseti.org/position/greer/disclosureupdate01.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                           Re: ET Evidence - Lowe

From: Adam Lowe <nicap@freechariot.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:48:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:36:43 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Lowe


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:17:08 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:04:00 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

<snip>.

 >It is true that Alan Hendry claimed in a FATE magazine article
 >that a French astronomer had discovered that one of the 2 stars
 >was a binary. He had not checked with the astronomer.

 >This was a claim based upon an article to be published.

 >It never was, because subsequent work clearly established that
 >the star was definitely not a binary. It was the result of a
 >problem with the speckle interferometry technique being used to
 >try to resolve stars.

 >The problem, believe it or not, was known as "Mickey's Ears".

 >Cannon is in error. The work still stands.

 >It is interesting that everyone who has attacked Ms. Fish's work
 >has misrepresented what she did including Carl Sagan.

 >Terry Dickinson's "Update on the Zeta Reticuli Incident" deals
 >with many of these false attacks.


Hi Errol, List.

The NICAP site has the Astronomy 1974 article The Zeta Reticuli
Incident article by Terence Dickinson at:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zeta.htm

Adam










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:58:00 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Mortellaro



 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Experiencer's Point of View
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:12:23 -0800

 >Hello, all EBK, List folk etc,etc.
 >
 >Well after much thought, cogitation, and even prayer, I have
 >decided to make a statement note the following:
 >
 >1. I saw something in the summer of my 14th year, that cannot
 >be:

<snip>

 >However, the question remains: What was it that I and others saw
 >some 35 years ago. That isn't supposed to exsist.

 >GT McCoy

Dear GT,

Congratulations old boy. And welcome to the club. It's a
wonderful club you know. Just full of people like you & me...
regular folks. While there are a few crazoids, a few disembodied
nutcases, by and large we're just ordinary, upstanding citizens
of this planet made special by either an accident in timing or
something done to us purposely for reasons unkown.

When it happens, as you and so many others know, your world
changes. Your paradigm, if you had one at all, is now highly
suspect. God, the Universe and Everything - all asunder. It's a
pisser ain't?

Anyway, congratulations on coming to the List with your
respected sighting. Respected because of the logic, reason,
comportment and general forthright attitude you always put
forth. And thanks too. What made you do it now is none of my
beeswax, but after reading your posts for several years, you've
earned my respect. Off List, I already told you that. Even
Gesundt bows low. And thanks also for the preview.

However, get ready. Folks is gonna tell you what you saw. How
you saw it and why. And it won't be anything like a UFO. Never
is. They'll never read anything you posted previously the same
way again. Not only will you not have changed, but will be
perceived differently.

Now having read your post, allow me the honor of telling you
what you really saw. A flock of pelicans flying through glowing
swamp gas following the planet Venus. And you probably had eaten
ergot-laden rye bread after accidentally consuming them funny
mushrooms. Sad how much this stuff can confuse a man... boy...
whatever.

God bless,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

              Re: [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend

From: Steven <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:26:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:43:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Larry Klaes <lklaes@bbn.com>
 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:08:02 -0500
 >Subject: [lunascan] Best of Cosmos Starts This Weekend

 >Best of Cosmos

 >Twenty years ago, PBS presented Carl Sagan's landmark television
 >series COSMOS. Seen by more than 600 million viewers in 60
 >countries, the Peabody and Emmy award-winning series is one of
 >the most popular science television programs ever produced.

<snip>

I think it is also worth noting that COSMOS is being re-released
on both VHS and DVD. While Sagen's views regarding UFOs has been
decided skeptical, I think that the COSMOS series was a
tremendous production that brought the knowledge of the Universe
into many peoples lives.

It will be interesting to see how well it holds up after twenty
years of new discoveries.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:54:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:45:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:44:33 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:51:05 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Cashman

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >>if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >>flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >>would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.
 >>You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >>talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >>advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >>rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
 >>tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >>know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >>accordingly.

Mark replied:

 >The problem, Roger, is this. You are making assumptions not
 >justified by the data.

 >If the UFO data represents a real phenomenon, it seems to be
 >telling us, among other things...

 >1) UFO and whatever they represent don't really care about
 >talking to us any more than we care about talking to
 >grasshoppers.

 >2) UFO don't care too much about being noticed, they just
 >don't want to be caught.

 >So your propositions are rather strange in that they are not
 >driven by the data but by your assumption of how things should
 >be; and indeed, those assumptions seem to be directly
 >contradicted by the data. Thus, to complain about this is simply
 >circular reasoning ("the data is wrong because the data doesn't
 >look like it should if it were caused by something acting the
 >way I think it should").

Hi, Mark!

I respect your opinion. However, I believe that you missed my
point. If UFOs are _already_ masquerading as aircraft, then the
"known data" doesn't apply. Therefore, every UFO case that
turned out to be only an airplane may have, in fact, been ET
craft! That might leave other, unexplained UFO cases in the
lurch, I'm afraid. I'm not saying that is the case, only that
common sense says if ET life doesn't want to be seen or, as you
say, caught, then the science of camouflage would be a walk in
the park compared to interstellar travel.

Regarding my position on RF, what you say may be true. However,
it doesn't make what I pointed out less true. I said that IF
extraterrestrial life wanted to talk to us then RF would be the
most direct route and not something so complicated that we
couldn't figure it out. I take no position on whether or not ET
life WANTS to talk to us. Are you saying that SETI is a waste of
time because ET doesn't want to talk to us? How do we know that
the government hasn't already communicated with ET life via RF?
Is it your opinion that the general public would be privy to
that info?

I understand your point, however, the "known data" is
represented only by what amateurs have collected or by what the
government has allowed us to see. Is it your opinion that we,
the public, now have access to ALL the data generated by the
government regarding the subject of UFOs? If not, then I
respectfully suggest that your point about "known data" has no
point, I'm afraid.

My point is that we are all just guessing and a point could be
made for just about any position. When the discussions seem to
reach some kind of corner, common sense seems to be overtaken by
personal bias or a vested interest. Those that believe in UFOs
at face value won't listen to common sense any more than
debunkers will. Those of us in the middle that persist in asking
hard questions are simply seen as trouble makers by both sides
for our refusal to take a stand one way or the other about the
subject of UFOs in general.

If someone questions a cherished UFO case, they are immediately
labeled as a skeptic or a debunker about ALL UFOs. On the other
hand, if the same person suggests that some ET craft could be
real, then he or she is labeled as a UFO believer or a zealot. I
have no problem with the terms, themselves. They are direct and
to the point when applied accurately. To be fair, I have used
the terms, myself, on occasion but only as it relates to a
specific UFO case; not the belief or denial of all UFOs in
general. And this is the problem. The two opposing sides want
participants to fall in rank and file for identification
purposes. Refusal to do so means that a blanket identification
will be made anyway, even if it is wrong. This only leads to
confrontations and more confusion. Worse, it leads to conflicts
about character which have no place in a logical discussion.

Common sense tells me this is no way to discuss UFOs.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:31:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:47:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Salvaille


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:44:33 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hello Mark, Roger and List,

 >If the UFO data represents a real phenomenon, it seems to be
 >telling us, among other things...

 >1) UFO and whatever they represent don't really care about
 >talking to us any more than we care about talking to
 >grasshoppers.

 >2) UFO don't care too much about being noticed, they just
 >don't want to be caught.

I understand you wrote those two hastily. _Avoidance_ is one of
the prime characteristics of the UFO phenomenon. It shows clear
intent.

Considering the observed technology, nothing should prevent
'them' from hovering over Time Square for about half an hour in
broad day light. "They" do seem to care about the grasshoppers.

Regards,

Serge Salvaille









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 21

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>I submitted a post to UpDates with a brief synopsis of those
 >>interviews and my impressions that the witnesses were credible
 >>and 'seemed' to be sincere and telling about what they saw. One
 >>of them was a young girl who was positioned behind the building
 >>directly under the UFO. Her description was clear and detailed.
 >>A second witness, (who was also in close proximity to the
 >>building/event in question) was a restaurant owner who
 >>corroborated the testimony given by the girl.

Bruce responded:

 >I am aware of the witness interviews. It could be that there was
 >a sighting AND that the tape was a hoax!! (Believe it or not).
 >Note that no one came forward until the tape was shown on TV and
 >that was a month or so after the event as recorded on the
 >videotape.

Sounds like they 'came forward' once they saw the TV program.
You should bear in mind that when somebody has a UFO sighting
(especially if it's a whopper of a sighting) the tendency would
be to talk to -only- one or two very close or trusted
individuals. The fear of being thought crazy or of being
ostracized by social acquaintences for 'telling such tales'
pretty much precludes that the witnesses would have been running
around reporting to police or associates. I'm not surprised that
they didn't report until the program aired. If anything, this
detail lends an air of 'truth' to the story (fits in with the
way people really behave) rather than one of deception.

Bruce goes on to say:

 >>And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >>testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >>explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >>smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >>motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >>explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >>surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >>amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

 >You are quite correct if the camera tracked the UFO over a "few
 >seconds." And, in fact the camera did pan with the UFO,
 >following it quite closely and overall there was not much
 >smear.... but that was because the shutter was faster than
 >normal. Jeff Sainio and I independently concluded that' the
 >shutter time was like 1/200 sec rather than the more normal 1/60
 >(the time of a single field or 'half' a frame of the video). The
 >faster shutter reduced the image smear. I believe (I could be
 >wrong) that most cameras, when you turn them on, set a 'default'
 >shutter speed of 1/60 sec. Then you have to manually change the
 >shutter speed if you want it faster (shorter shutter time). That
 >would mean that in the "heat of th moment" the witness thought
 >to increase the shutter time before beginning the video. I know
 >that on may camera it takes a little time to set the faster
 >shutter.

 >Point: the faster shutter would be more likely to reduce image
 >blur of the distant _real_ buildings thus making the edges of
 >the building _more_like_ the unblurred edges of the UFO image...
 >if a hoax!

 >The "discovery" of suspicious blur was made first on a
 >statistical basis: overall the blur of the edges of th UFO was
 >less than that of the buildings. But then we discovered a couple
 >of frames where the camera moved too fast for the fast shutter.
 >Little wind socks on the buildings were so blurred as to be
 >almost invisible. Yet the UFO image was not changed. Now, if
 >this happened over a few seconds we might argue fast panning of
 >the camera... But it did not.

Bruce I have to bow to your experience and expertise in these
matters because what I know about video analysis you can fit
into a thimble. I would like to make the following comments
nonetheless.

1. I don't see how both Jeff and yourself are able to 'write
off' the whole videoclip as a hoax based on just one or two
frames of video. If there was something uniformly suspicious
about the images from start to finish that's a horse of a
different color. As a journeyman printer of more than 16 years I
know that in print media all kinds of 'clues' are left behind
when an image has been doctored or tampered with. Bad 'traps',
doubled pixels around the edges of images, differences in
resolution or color etc. will be found surrounding the 'dropped
in' image. I'm sure it's harder to spot such shenanigans on a
motion videotape. My point is, that if it was an out and out
hoax you'd think that the visual evidence for it would concern
more than just a couple of single frames from a videoclip
consisting of hundreds or thousands of frames.

2. Mechanical aberrations in the camera could account for the
one or two 'inconsistent' frames that Jeff and yourself
discovered. I am an amateur astronomer and I've tried my hand at
astrophotography several times over the years. You need a rock
solid and properly alligned mounting -and- an accurate clock
drive mechanism so that the telescope can properly/smoothly
track the sky object during the long exposure. Some clock drives
can be had for under a $100 while others cost thousands. Why the
dramatic difference in price? Quality of construction and parts.
The less well machined gears and parts of the cheaper drives
will introduce all kinds of innaccuracies and distortions into
the final photographic product.

Maybe the photographer used a cheap (poorly manufactured)
videocamera. Crappy gear trains etc. Such a mechanical
shortcoming 'could' account for the 'couple of frames' of video
that you guys found. I would imagine that any mechanical cause
for the distortions would repeat as the gear train cycles around
again. Did either Jeff or yourself ever consider mechanically
introduced distortions as an explanation for the two frames or
so that are in question?

 >These are individual frames, _separated_ by several seconds...
 >That is, the faster motion of the camera occurred primarily
 >during one frame time (1/30 sec) and then the camera reverted to
 >its more normal rate of motion without much blur of the
 >building.

Again, sounds like something that 'could be' mechanically
introduced by the equipment itself. But like I said, I'm not the
expert, you are. It just seems to me that basing a verdict of
"Hoax" on just a couple of frames out of hundreds is a bit too
easy/convenient. Akin to calling the race without -all- the
votes being counted in Florida! <LOL>

It just seems to me as a layman that one or two inconsistent
frames would not be enough to justify a call of "complete hoax"
for a video that could possibly be the best visual evidence for
a UFO craft ever recorded.

Again, I humbly bow to your much greater knowledge and
experience concerning these matters. But I'm still not quite
satisfied that what you and Jeff have found and presented to the
public in terms of justification of the hoax oppinion is
-conclusive- enough to justify dismissing the tape as a complete
hoax.

One or two 'inconsistent frames' does not a hoaxed video make!

Warm regards, appreciate your response,

John Velez ;)
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                  Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:08:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:49:26 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Goldstein


 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:06:58 -0500

 >>>>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:29:51 -0800
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>>Responding to Bruce Maccabee:

 >>>>>Hi Bruce,

 >>>>>You're sort of repeating yourself here, from past posts, so let
 >>>>>me do the same, if you will.

 >>>>>Neither you nor Saino have included the strength of the
 >>>>>independent eye-witness accounts in your analyses, which support
 >>>>>the reality of this video and sighting. You instead ignore them.
 >>>>>Is that at all scientific, when coupled with the knowledge, from
 >>>>>past UFO cases, that the UFO aliens can easily fool us by using
 >>>>>their advanced psycho-physical technology? It obviously is not.

 >>>>>Could these aliens be sooo skillful as to have remotely
 >>>>>manipulated the hand-held TV camera and/or maneuvered their own
 >>>>>UFO craft in such a manner that the vibrational jitter would not
 >>>>>show up on their craft? Why not, if we have other examples of
 >>>>>their having pulled off similar pranks, and of playing games
 >>>>>with scientists in general to expose their restricted views of
 >>>>>reality?

 >>>>Where are these alleged witnesses? Two television documentaries
 >>>>have interviewed one or two residents who allegedly saw
 >>>>something at the time of the Mexico City sighting, but there has
 >>>>been no investigative follow up that I'm aware of, by either
 >>>>Mexican Ufologists or anyone else of note.

 >>>Steve,

 >>>Jaime Maussan is the guy to contact as to how many witnesses he
 >>>knows of, and if any are available for questioning (in Spanish).
 >>>I believe that Michael Hesemann and Lee & Brit Elders also have
 >>>interviewed witnesses to the case.

 >>>>IMO, A craft as large
 >>>>as this one was, flying slowly and low over a heavily populated
 >>>>section of the Mexico City, would have generated much more
 >>>>public comment than we've seen.

 >>>It might be that the craft did not allow itself to be visible
 >>>except to selected persons or from selected regions. You
 >>>probably can recall quite a few cases where certain people saw a
 >>>UFO and others nearby did not. An additional explanation might
 >>>be that most of the witnesses were afraid to come forward and
 >>>describe their sighting, or didn't know whom to contact.

 >>>>Perhaps the aliens (or whatever) are truly able to manipulate
 >>>>every means that we have to detect and record their existence.
 >>>>Perhaps this is why they are so skillful at keeping themselves
 >>>>hidden from view. But the circumstances outlined in the research
 >>>>that has been done in this case would seem to indicate that this
 >>>>was a "not so elaborate" hoax.

 >>>>We will all have to search our
 >>>>own beliefs to define whether this has been explained "beyond a
 >>>>reasonable doubt", and if Wallace is using this video in a
 >>>>segment with Shermer, I would suspect that it is being used as
 >>>>an example of a hoax in the field of Ufology.

 >>>I suspect the same.

 >>Hi Jim, All,

 >>Just a personal observation and an aside.

 >>Jaime Maussan had supplied a videotape which contained
 >>interviews with two of the witnesses which I translated from
 >>Spanish to English for a weel known researcher which shall
 >>remain nameless here.

 >>I submitted a post to UpDates with a brief synopsis of those
 >>interviews and my impressions that the witnesses were credible
 >>and 'seemed' to be sincere and telling about what they saw. One
 >>of them was a young girl who was positioned behind the building
 >>directly under the UFO. Her description was clear and detailed.
 >>A second witness, (who was also in close proximity to the
 >>building/event in question) was a restaurant owner who
 >>corroborated the testimony given by the girl.

 >Hi John,

 >I do recall the general contents of that, but failed to file it
 >anywhere that I can find it. Thanks for mentioning it.

 >>And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >>testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >>explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >>smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >>motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >>explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >>surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >>amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

 >What Bruce was referring to, in Jeff Saino's analyis, were the
 >higher frequency jitters of the video scenes associated with the
 >camera being hand held, not the low-frequency tracking motions.

 >>Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >>simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >>girl.

 >Rightly so. It's often been pointed out on this list that photos
 >alone can't prove a UFO to be "genuine," but require witness'
 >testimony in addition. Similarly, when you have both, it isn't
 >enough to declare the case a hoax on the basis of photos or
 >videos if sincere witnesses who could not have perpetrated any
 >such hoax have spoken out on the reality of the event. The
 >reason for such a rule, of course, is that the UFO pilots can
 >maneuver their craft in such a manner as to fool photo or video
 >analyzers who don't take into account that the UFO guys are more
 >advanced and smarter than they are, and seem to possess a
 >definite strategy in their interactions with us. In this Mexican
 >City case, I've postulated that the UFO operators were able to
 >maneuver their craft in synchronism to the video-camera jitters
 >and perhaps to induce controlled jitters in the holder of the
 >camera as well. Of course, this would require the UFO to be able
 >to undergo very frequent, large accelerations...


Hello Jim and UpDates,

I must confess that I have not personally investigated this
video and I have only followed it for years on UFO UpDates, etc.

To me, your idea seems possible, but why would the UFO pilots go
to the trouble to make camera jitter?

Let's put the video and the two witnesses aside for a moment.
Without them I still have a nagging question.

The last time I looked at photos or video of that location I saw
numerous other large apartment buildings, office buildings, and
many other structures.

The alleged sighting was during normal daytime hours. I
personally doubt whether the pilot of the alleged craft
selectively only revealed its presence to a naive little girl,
etc. Why would they choose her if they did not have any
interaction with her?

My guess is that a large number of people would have witnessed
this object.

In my opinion that possibility is more plausible than the above
ideas of limited observation by a select few or by manipulating
camera jitter.

Now I have a good excuse for my next video I take only using my
shaky, nature provided "unsteadycam".

The nagging questions I have are:

Who has checked police logs, press, and any other sources
witnesses to a UFO might have contacted? What did they show?

Did the two witnesses contact Jaime Mausson on their own
volition?

Or was the area of the video canvassed to locate possible
witnesses?

Did any investigators ask any leading questions?

If a large number of people did not report a UFO, why?

Once again, camera jitter and selective revelation to two does
not sound that kosher.

I feel the same way when I read a report of 1 or 2 people seeing
a large UFO over New York City. I am not talking about abductee
or contactee reports but just witnessess to a plainly visible
object in a metropolitan area.

What is the quality of the investigation?

I may be wrong but at least I don't mix my meat and dairy <g>.
(A Jackie Mason type of kosher joke).

Shalom,

Josh











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:51:53 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Kaeser


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

 >Sounds like they 'came forward' once they saw the TV program.
 >You should bear in mind that when somebody has a UFO sighting
 >(especially if it's a whopper of a sighting) the tendency would
 >be to talk to -only- one or two very close or trusted
 >individuals. The fear of being thought crazy or of being
 >ostracized by social acquaintences for 'telling such tales'
 >pretty much precludes that the witnesses would have been running
 >around reporting to police or associates. I'm not surprised that
 >they didn't report until the program aired. If anything, this
 >detail lends an air of 'truth' to the story (fits in with the
 >way people really behave) rather than one of deception.

I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but if such a
craft were witnesses over the skies of Washington there would be
more than a few people calling the local authorities. This
wasn't a "light in the sky" but a large craft that was moving
fairly slowly over a section of Mexico City (which is far larger
than the Nation's Capital).

IMO, the fear "of being ostracized by social acquaintences for
'telling such tales'" seems to be much more likely on our side
of the border. Given the differences in our cultures, we need to
have a sociologist in this discussion.

I would speculate that the sighting of a large unknown craft
(South of the Border) would cause many to seek help and advice
from religious leaders as to what it meant.

But these witnesses should have the opportunity to tell their
story and it should be investigated fully.

I wouldn't want to pre-judge those who were interviewed, but
unless one wants to buy into the concept that those on the craft
were merely toying with us and only allowing certain people to
see the craft, the fact that so few witnesses have been found is
IMO significant.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                          Secrecy News -- 11/20/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:41:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:56:27 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/20/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 20, 2000

**OPENNESS AND THE CIA
**DOCUMENT DIPLOMACY
**JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS, EARLY SECRECY CRITIC, DIES


OPENNESS AND THE CIA

In a new paper on "Openness and the CIA," historian Warren F.
Kimball attempts to engage intelligence officials in a
discussion of first principles concerning intelligence and
declassification policy.

"Secrecy should not be a habit, but a matter of principle,
practicality, and plain old common sense," Kimball suggests.

The paper was published earlier this year in the classified
edition of CIA's in-house journal Studies in Intelligence.  It
is available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/kimball.html

Meanwhile, the CIA has succeeded in forcing the State
Department's Historical Advisory Committee to withhold
publication of the Committee's meeting minutes, in a seeming
violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The minutes of the Committee's quarterly meetings have until now
served as an invaluable window on the latest debates over
declassification of historical documentation.  In fact, they
have been so valuable that the CIA has regularly protested their
publication, especially after they became available on the world
wide web:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/index.html

Disappointingly, the Committee has finally yielded to the CIA
and has withheld the minutes of its July 2000 meeting.  An
eviscerated "summary" version of the meeting minutes which
complies with the CIA's dictates is said to be in preparation.


DOCUMENT DIPLOMACY

Government documents do not only record the conduct of foreign
relations.  Increasingly, declassified documents are becoming
the stuff of diplomacy itself.

In his visit to Vietnam last week, President Clinton delivered
some 350,000 pages of U.S. government documents to Vietnamese
President Luong.

"This is now the second installment of documents that were
provided to the Vietnamese, just as they have provided us with
hundreds of thousands of documents," said national security
adviser Samuel R. Berger on Friday.

The document exchange is intended to facilitate the location and
identification of remains of missing soldiers from the Vietnam
War era.  See excerpts from the Berger press briefing here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh111700.html

Also on Friday, the State Department announced that in response
to requests from Argentina and Spain, Secretary Albright "has
instructed relevant Department personnel to identify for
declassification and release State Department documents related
to human rights violations committed in Argentina during the
1976-to-1983 military dictatorship."

See the State Department press statement here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/dos111700.html


JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS, EARLY SECRECY CRITIC, DIES

James Russell Wiggins, an editor at the Washington Post from
1947 to 1968 who died yesterday at age 96, was an early and
insightful critic of the cold war secrecy system.

His 1956 book "Freedom or Secrecy" closed with the following
passage:

"A government that generally asserts the right to say which of
its acts may be divulged and which must be concealed exercises a
power that tends to tyranny whatever its outward form.  It has
the power to enforce acceptance of its policies by exaggerating
their merits and distorting their disadvantages.  It has the
means of concealing its crimes and derelictions and exaggerating
its virtues and its triumphs.  It possesses a device for
accomplishing that greatest of all corruptions -- the corruption
of the mind of the public itself.  A people, so corrupted, is a
people no longer free, whatever the form and structure of its
governmental agencies.  It is in this sense that we are
confronted with a choice between secrecy and freedom."

J. Russell Wiggins' obituary in the Washington Post may be found
here:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/articles/wigginsobit20.htm


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message:
subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                          Secrecy News -- 11/21/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:22:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:53:55 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/21/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 21, 2000

**      SECRECY IN THE SERVICE OF DISARMAMENT
**      HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF FAS?
**      NEW CRS REPORTS ONLINE
**      LARS-ERIK NELSON, 59



SECRECY IN THE SERVICE OF DISARMAMENT

Contemporary democracy is not conducive to meaningful policy
change, writes George Perkovich in a startling commentary in the
current issue of Foreign Affairs.  In particular, he says, the
prospects for successful nuclear disarmament will be much
greater if this policy goal is pursued outside of normal
political channels.

"It is no accident that the vast majority of states that decided
to abandon nuclear weapons programs in recent decades --
Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Africa, South
Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine -- did so outside of established
democratic processes.  Nor was it happenstance that the
far-reaching U.S.-Soviet nuclear reductions between 1987 and
1992 were made possible by the one-party leadership of Mikhail
Gorbachev and by President George H.W. Bush's bold, secretive
1991 initiative to take U.S. nuclear bombers off alert and
remove tactical nuclear weapons from service."

"The 1991 Bush initiative, which was not vetted by the
interagency process or exposed first to public debate, is a good
model for how the necessary changes will begin," Mr. Perkovich
writes provocatively.

Of course, "Authoritarian government is not the answer.  Rather,
farsighted changes in nuclear policies will depend on determined
experts' pushing the president to do the necessary executive
work and painstaking diplomacy.... The onus is now on security
and nuclear-policy experts to make the next U.S. administration
jettison counterproductive Cold War nuclear doctrine."

This view seems to be rooted in despair over the vacuousness and
viciousness of conventional political discourse.  But the idea
that the fractious "community" of security policy experts can
provide the missing element of leadership seems questionable, to
say the least.

George Perkovich is director of the Secure World Program at the
W. Alton Jones Foundation, which funds the Federation of
American Scientists.  His article is not available on line, but
information about Foreign Affairs, which is published by the
Council on Foreign Relations, may be found here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/


HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF FAS?

Members of the recent Commission on the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) noted the loss of the secrecy that once surrounded
the NRO and lamented that today NRO programs are even "analyzed
and discussed on the Internet."

"Have you ever heard of the Federation of American Scientists?
That is what the commission is upset about," said an official
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in an interview last
week with the newsletter Inside the Air Force.  He was evidently
referring to information about NRO programs developed by John
Pike and posted on the FAS web site here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/nro/index.html

The official went on to state, however, that the concern over
public disclosure of NRO information is "overblown," according
to Inside the Air Force:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/iaf111700.html

Meanwhile, the conservative magazine Insight took time off from
its regularly scheduled warnings about Communist Chinese perfidy
to criticize the website of the U.S. Department of Defense for
supposedly downplaying the threat to the United States.

"The DefenseLINK website posts 'special reports' on American
Indian Heritage, Hispanic Heritage and National Domestic
Violence months," as well as "information on tacos, diapers and
sexual harassment," writes J. Michael Waller in Insight ("The
Embarrassing Pentagon Website," Dec. 11, 2000).  But "an Insight
search could find no special reports that cogently and
comprehensively explain current and potential military threats
to the U.S. homeland."

"To get a look through the Internet at foreign military threats
and why the United States needs a strong defense, one is better
served, ironically, by such left-wing outfits as the Center for
Defense Information and the Federation of American Scientists
than the main Website of the Pentagon itself."  See:

http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200012115.shtml


NEW CRS REPORTS ONLINE

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress
does not want its taxpayer-funded reports to be made available
online -- which is almost a sufficient reason to place them
online.  An additional reason is that they are often interesting
and useful pieces of work that are not otherwise readily
available.

Two new CRS reports of note have just been added to the FAS web
site (in PDF format).

"Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR): The
U-2 Aircraft and Global Hawk UAV Programs," by Richard A. Best,
Jr., et al,  November 6, 2000:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30727.pdf

"Russian Fighter Aircraft Industrial Base: Parallels with the
United States?" by Christopher Bolkcom, et al, November 8, 2000:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30730.pdf


LARS-ERIK NELSON, 59

Secrecy News is sad to note the death of Lars-Erik Nelson, who
passed away at age 59 yesterday.  A columnist for the New York
Daily News, he was known as an independent thinker and a
graceful and compelling writer.

Among other things, he distinguished himself as an early critic
of the Cox Committee on Chinese espionage.  His July 15, 1999
article in the New York Review of Books crystallized a
dissenting view of the matter that would ultimately be
vindicated.

He wrote about secrecy policy most recently on November 1, in an
article ("Congress' Secrecy Bill Lowers Iron Curtain")
criticizing the now-vetoed congressional initiative to
criminalize disclosures of all classified information.  See:

http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-86679.asp

******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message:
        subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:
        unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                    Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:01:59 -0500
Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:06:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:26:13 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >Hi John,

 >I do recall the general contents of that, but failed to file it
 >anywhere that I can find it. Thanks for mentioning it.

 >>And yes, in spite of the analysis by Bruce and Jeff eye witness
 >>testimony is being completely ignored in favor of the 'smear'
 >>explanation. (This buisness of the building edges showing motion
 >>smears while the UFO did not.) If the camera was tracking the
 >>motion of the UFO dead on for even a few seconds, it would
 >>explain why the edges of the craft are clear while the
 >>surroundings show the motion blurs/smears. But then I'm just an
 >>amateur and simply guessing at about this point.

 >What Bruce was referring to, in Jeff Saino's analyis, were the
 >higher frequency jitters of the video scenes associated with the
 >camera being hand held, not the low-frequency tracking motions.

 >>Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >>simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >>girl.

 >Rightly so. It's often been pointed out on this list that photos
 >alone can't prove a UFO to be "genuine," but require witness'
 >testimony in addition. Similarly, when you have both, it isn't
 >enough to declare the case a hoax on the basis of photos or
 >videos if sincere witnesses who could not have perpetrated any
 >such hoax have spoken out on the reality of the event. The
 >reason for such a rule, of course, is that the UFO pilots can
 >maneuver their craft in such a manner as to fool photo or video
 >analyzers who don't take into account that the UFO guys are more
 >advanced and smarter than they are, and seem to possess a
 >definite strategy in their interactions with us. In this Mexican
 >City case, I've postulated that the UFO operators were able to
 >maneuver their craft in synchronism to the video-camera jitters
 >and perhaps to induce controlled jitters in the holder of the
 >camera as well. Of course, this would require the UFO to be able
 >to undergo very frequent, large accelerations...

 >Jim Deardorff

Hi Jim,

Jim, the Good Lord knows that we've been friends both on and off
the list for quite awhile. You're one of my favorite UpDates
people. But, with all due affection and respect, you are really
pulling the old taffy wad a bit thin here! To the breaking
point.

Yes, we can speculate that it is possible for technologically
advanced (and maybe even telepathic) ET's to anticipate our
every thought and action. But to say that, (assuming it was a
real ET craft) the pilot or navigational computer on that thing
would mess with just one or two frames of a videotape that was
running, (and do it in 'real time') is really stretching what is
already (and only) 'speculation.'

Why would they bother?

1. If they wanted to be seen then why screw up the evidence?
Seems counterproductive.

2. If they didn't want to be detected why not mess up the whole
recording? Why screw around with just _two_ frames?

3. If they messed with the tape in order to discred it it why
did they drive their Mack truck through the lobby in the first
place?

Like trying to hide an elephant in a phone booth. Aside from the
fact that it is nothing more than fun or freewheeling
speculation, it just doesn't make any sense that they would do
that Jim. On any level. That I can think of anyway.

I'm always open. If anybody can put forward a convincing
arguement for the 'how' and the 'why' parts of what you suggest,
then I'm all ears. I'm on your side man. I know that these
'things' are real. I want answers every bit as badly (if not
moreso) than the next guy. But... I want solid and reliable
answers. Answers that can be verified. What you propose is way
beyond anything that can ever be proven or verified in any form.
Worth considering, but not worthy of being given enough weight
to have any real bearing on the explanation of that videotape.
Alien meddling shouldn't even come into the picture.

Once that piece of video is in hand, 'alien intentions' have
little to do with the question under consideration. We have a
piece of video. It is either the real thing or it isn't.

Just my two bits.

Warm regards,

tu amigo siempre,

John Velez  ;)




******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                   Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:49:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:05:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Experiencer's Point of View - Velez


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Experiencer's Point of View
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:12:23 -0800

 >Hello, all EBK, List folk etc,etc.

 >Well after much thought, cogitation, and even prayer, I have
 >decided to make a statement note the following:

 >1. I saw something in the summer of my 14th year, that cannot
 >be:

 ><snip>

 >However, the question remains: What was it that I and others saw
 >some 35 years ago. That isn't supposed to exsist.

 >GT McCoy

Hi GT, hi All,

GT it took a lot of guts to post that report. I have always had
respect for you, and your demonstration of courage only deepened
it. I think you might find it comforting to know that many
'skeptics' got involved in ufology because of their own
unexplained sightings. Some of them slave away at denial as if
it was a worthwhile avocation.

Others are more honest and sincere in their queries and are
always clearly more intellectually honest and openminded. You
only have to contend with the barbs that are thrown by the ones
who have already made up their minds. You should 'welcome' the
others.

A 'healthy skeptic' asks all the hard questions and as many of
the 'right' ones as he/she can. They are people who are seeking
reliable answers. The others can be lumped together with their
counterparts on the other end of the spectrum as the
'extremeists' that they are.

I'll be happy to stand out here in the middle of the road if it
means I get to keep company with guys like you who have the
cohones to speak up.

You're a good man GT.

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                  UFO Sightings OZ Files 001002 11.11.2000

From: Diane Harrison Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:35:22 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:08:22 -0500
Subject: UFO Sightings OZ Files 001002 11.11.2000


UFO Sightings OZ Files 001002 11.11.2000

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Follow up Emma AUFORN QLD
1800 Callin Code: 001002 11.11.2000 QLD

Date: 11.11.2000
Day: Saturday
Time Reported: 8.30 p.m.
Location: Woody Point Queensland
Reportee: Brian
Witness: Wife
Tel: 3284
Report given to nearest: Emma

Report

Brian and his wife Moira observed a very bright light out near
the bay.The light was stationary, white in colour but about four
times the size and brightness of the southern cross. There was
no apparent sound and the light was observed for about 15
seconds.

Regards

Emma Derdak
AUFORN QLD assistant Director

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Follow up Emma AUFORN QLD
1800 Callin Code: 001003 11.11.2000 Qld

Date: 11.11.2000
Day: Saturday
Time 9.30 p.m.
Location: Palm Beach Queensland
Reportee: Kirsty
Witness: Boyfriend & 2 other people
Sound: None
Report given to nearest rep: Emma Derdak
Tel: 07 55

Report

Kirsty and her boyfriend Brad observed a group of very bright
lights in a stationary formation in the sky.

The lights very a very bright white and about three times the
size of Jupiter. The lights flashed red and blue alternately.

Three of the lights were in the formation of a perfect triangle
with a further two lights directly east of them. The light on
the top of the triangle was the brightest of them all (main
craft?).

Kirsty and two neighbours observed the lights were there for
approximately 1 1/2 hours.

I asked Kirsty to keep a eye out over the following nights, and
if she saw anything could she endeavour to capture it on video
or film. Kirsty had never believed in UFO's but I think she's
changed her mind, as she has seen satellites but this was
something totally different!.

Regards

Emma Derdak
AUFORN QLD assistant Director

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Follow up Diane Harrison AUFORN QLD
1800 Callin Code: 001004 12.11.2000

Date: 12.11.2000
Day: Sunday
Time Reported: 7:53am
Location: QLD
Reportee: Greg
Report given to nearest Diane
Tel: 07 3

Wants to show a photo of a UFO taken back around 1988 at
Bundaberg Qld

Report:

Greg came around last night to show us his photo and I have to
say his made the one in the Sunday Mail look boring, it was a
very impressive picture. If you have read the Exposure magazine
Vol 7 no1 it looks like the Soloman Island UFO photo a cone
shaped object.

Greg informed me he never saw the object in the sky it was only
after he had the picture developed that it appeared.

We have asked Greg to find the negative so we are able to
discount it being a flaw on the negative. So until he can
produce the negative this picture will remain a mystery.

Keep you informed

Regards Diane Harrison
National Director AUFORN
Australian Skywatch Director

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Follow up Doug Moffett AUFORN NSW State Director
1800 Callin Code: 001019 16.11.2000 WA

Date: 01.10.2000
Day: Sunday
Time Seen: Midnight
Location: 250km East/Sou/East of Perth
Reportee: John C
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 08

Report:

John is a keen amateur astronomer and he and a friend were
camping approx 250km East/Sou/East of Perth near Shackleton when
he spotted a 45 degree triangular formation of star like objects
all with the intensity and brightness of Sirius. The three star
like objects were perfectly still and about 15 degrees above the
horizon before just fading out over a period of one or two
minutes. As an amateur astronomer he knew there were no stars in
that area of the sky. John continued to watch for a further 45
minutes on the cloudless night but they did not re-appear.

Regards

Doug Moffett
AUFORN NSW State Director

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Follow up Doug Moffett AUFORN NSW State Director

1800 Callin Code: 001017 16.11.2000 NSW

Date: 16.11.2000
Day: Thursday
Time Seen: 9.41am
Location: Northern Beaches
Reportee: Judy
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 02 99

Report:

Judy took some video footage of a burnt edge round circle at El
Arish (Tully area) about 10 yrs ago. Judy has moved house
several times since then and is not sure she will be able to
locate the video. If she does she will contact me and I will
arrange pick up. I have also asked Judy to try and contact the
person still living at the farm where they found the circle to
see if any traces of its presence remain.

Regards

Doug Moffett
AUFORN NSW State Director

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Our UFO Hotline has been very busy the
past month and we have lots of interesting
things to investigate.

I will keep you all informed


--

Regards Diane Harrison

National Director of The Australian UFO Research Network
Australian Skywatch Director

~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
THE AUSTRALIAN UFO RESEARCH NETWORK
(A Non-Profit Organization)

E-Mail: tkbnetw@powerup.com.au
E-mail: ufologist@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

ADMINISTRATION:

PO Box 805
Springwood Qld 4127
Australia
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Australian UFO Research Network Hotline Number
         1800 77 22 88 Freecall
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Disclaimer: A.UFO.R.N List Owners are not responsible
for the content or misuse of this list.
However, personal insults, flaming will not be tolerated.
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

             Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:33:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:15:15 -0500
Subject: Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

I wrote:

 >>Point: the faster shutter would be more likely to reduce image
 >>blur of the distant _real_ buildings thus making the edges of
 >>the building _more_like_ the unblurred edges of the UFO image...
 >>if a hoax!

 >>The "discovery" of suspicious blur was made first on a
 >>statistical basis: overall the blur of the edges of th UFO was
 >>less than that of the buildings. But then we discovered a couple
 >>of frames where the camera moved too fast for the fast shutter.
 >>Little wind socks on the buildings were so blurred as to be
 >>almost invisible. Yet the UFO image was not changed. Now, if
 >>this happened over a few seconds we might argue fast panning of
 >>the camera... But it did not.

John wrote:

 >Bruce I have to bow to your experience and expertise in these
 >matters because what I know about video analysis you can fit
 >into a thimble. I would like to make the following comments
 >nonetheless.

 >1. I don't see how both Jeff and yourself are able to 'write
 >off' the whole videoclip as a hoax based on just one or two
 >frames of video. If there was something uniformly suspicious
 >about the images from start to finish that's a horse of a
 >different color. As a journeyman printer of more than 16 years I
 >know that in print media all kinds of 'clues' are left behind
 >when an image has been doctored or tampered with. Bad 'traps',
 >doubled pixels around the edges of images, differences in
 >resolution or color etc. will be found surrounding the 'dropped
 >in' image. I'm sure it's harder to spot such shenanigans on a
 >motion videotape. My point is, that if it was an out and out
 >hoax you'd think that the visual evidence for it would concern
 >more than just a couple of single frames from a videoclip
 >consisting of hundreds or thousands of frames.>

Well, in fact the discovery was made by Jeff based on a
statistical analysis of image smear using the whole video.

I should have been more clear above. As a result of analyzing
image smear using an automated computer program Jeff developed,
he found that the _whole_ video showed this effect of the UFO
image being blurred less than the buildings. However, because of
the fast shutter this effect was generally not easy to see with
the naked eye. So let me say again, the analysis of _every_
frame formed the statistical basis of Jeff's discovery. He
informed me of that fact (after HOURS of analysis by both of
us!)

For the expert: Jeff's program measured the image edge gradient
for the UFO and for the builring in each frame of the video. The
edge gradient is large when the image is well focused and
stationary (does not move during the frame time.) The edge
gradient shrinks with defocus and with image blur due to motion.
He discovered that the relative egde gradient of the UFO was
about constant whereas the relative edge gradient of the
building changed with the image motion from frame to frame. (The
image motion from frame to frame is a measure of the rate of
rotation of the camera abou some axis... said motion being
caused by hand vibration or mechanical vibration... and said
motion being the cause of the image smear.)

And then while viewing the video in preparation for Streibers
'Confirmation' TV show, I spotted the two frames in which the
difference in smear levels is obvious to the naked eye. I showed
these frames to the Confirmation production team. But they did
not refer to them in their presentation.

You can see the two smeared frames and comparison with unsmeared
frames at www.temporaldoorway.com/
ufo/analysis/mexicanvideo/index.htm.


 >2. Mechanical aberrations in the camera could account for the
 >one or two 'inconsistent' frames that Jeff and yourself
 >discovered. I am an amateur astronomer and I've tried my hand at
 >astrophotography several times over the years. You need a rock
 >solid and properly alligned mounting -and- an accurate clock
 >drive mechanism so that the telescope can properly/smoothly
 >track the sky object during the long exposure. Some clock drives
 >can be had for under a $100 while others cost thousands. Why the
 >dramatic difference in price? Quality of construction and parts.
 >The less well machined gears and parts of the cheaper drives
 >will introduce all kinds of innaccuracies and distortions into
 >the final photographic product.

Yes, but you are talking about the image smear due to vibration
(hand or mechanical) of _every_ image (star) in the field. In
this case each object in the field has its image smeared by the
same amount.

In the Mexico City video of 1997 we are talking about
'differential' image smear... the UFO image being smeared less
than the building smear. In fact, it may be that the UFO image
was hardly smeared at all even though the building image was
smeared noticeably.

 >>These are individual frames, _separated_ by several seconds...
 >>That is, the faster motion of the camera occurred primarily
 >>during one frame time (1/30 sec) and then the camera reverted to
 >>its more normal rate of motion without much blur of the
 >>building.

 >Again, sounds like something that 'could be' mechanically
 >introduced by the equipment itself. But like I said, I'm not the
 >expert, you are. It just seems to me that basing a verdict of
 >"Hoax" on just a couple of frames out of hundreds is a bit too
 >easy/convenient. Akin to calling the race without -all- the
 >votes being counted in Florida! <LOL>

_Something_ causes the camera to rotate upward noticeably in
1/30 of a second causing the building edge to move down and the
smear to be obvious. What it was is not as important as the fact
that the UFO image was not smeared even though the building edge
was smeared.

 >It just seems to me as a layman that one or two inconsistent
 >frames would not be enough to justify a call of "complete hoax"
 >for a video that could possibly be the best visual evidence for
 >a UFO craft ever recorded.

As I said above..... based on the WHOLE video.

 >Again, I humbly bow to your much greater knowledge and
 >experience concerning these matters. But I'm still not quite
 >satisfied that what you and Jeff have found and presented to the
 >public in terms of justification of the hoax oppinion is
 >-conclusive- enough to justify dismissing the tape as a complete
 >hoax.

 >One or two 'inconsistent frames' does not a hoaxed video make!

Ok. I'll accept your humble bow.....









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:34:12 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:20:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello, one and all!

 >After the last go around ala Trent and enduring the wrath of the
 >Trentites and forever being banished to the desolate wastelands
 >of Pelicanation, I feel that something is, indeed, amiss in the
 >world of ufology and the likes.

Your perception is wrong about being banished. As to something
being "amiss in the world of ufology" I agree.

 >The ironies are a-plenty...

 >For instance, after pointing out the obvious fact that
 >"impressions" about people can be incorrect, I was branded as a

As I recall you were essentially advancing the theory that other
then a cold, hard, piece of physical evidence, or photo,
everything else (such as witness testimony) is to be considered
impressions, or bias and should be treated as such.

When people experience a profound event in their life whether
that is a UFO sighting or otherwise they do remember. For
example many people clearly remember the day they got married
and even recall when the ceremony took place, when and where the
lunchon was, the reception and alot of the people at the
reception. Many clearly remember what they were doing and what
they did following when the news came over that John Hinckley Jr
had attempted to kill Reagan; likewise with the space shuttle
blowing up.

 >skeptic and, worse, a debunker. Why? Because I happen to ask
 >some of the same questions as they might. The irony, of course,
 >is that I am neither. And the fact that I gave the "impression"
 >of being one only proves my point: Impressions can be
incorrect.

Let me see. If I told you that my "impression" was that you
held witness testimony to the highest regard and thought the
Trent photo graphs were real, and that the Trent's were credible
witness's you would know for a fact that my impression
was incorrect.

 >When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
 >ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding

I would point out that to skeptics, the logical explaination for
every sighting is weather balloon, venus, meteor, rocket debris
and so on. To the gulliable believer the logical explaination
for every sighting is an ET space ship. Logical explaination is
almost as abused as common sense.

 >character assassination seem to overtake the technical
 >discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
 >irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
 >is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or

Obviously you didn't realize that it was skeptics and debunkers
who orginated those degrades to Trents character years ago.

 >even hard-line debunkers have ever dreamed of. The "believers"
 >need to see Trent as stupid to the point of having to

The skeptics and debunkers over the years have painted Trent in
the light as being an cunning hoaxer who was trying to pull one
over on everybody. As I recall the modernized version of those
theorys was that Trent was some happy go lucky guy, who enjoyed
a laugh, and wanted to pull one over on people. This notion
allows folks to steer around the hardened skeptical/debunker
position of evil/cunning hoaxer, yet permits them a fall back
position of "its a hoax."

 >contemplate every breath. For the photos to be faked, an
 >incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
 >being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
 >liar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
 >grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
 >had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
 >laughed in his life.

Nor have the skeptics provided a "lick of proof" that Trent in
fact hoaxed the picture, nor have the skeptics provided a lick
of proof that Trent was a practial joker, or lied, or any of the
sort.

In fact the people that knew Trent claim otherwise. Naturally to
some, witness testimony doesn't mean anything, so we are back to
the cold hard evidence notion.

If _any_ so called neighbor of Trent's would have mentioned that
Trent was a practial joker, these same skeptics would have
pounced on that witness's testimony, and been advancing the
notion that we should believe everything that person has to say.

 >And when the technical discussions regarding any UFO case gets
 >hot and heavy, it would seem that those without technical
 >expertise seem to feel left out and respond with proclamations
 >about "lack of proof" as if that were a significant contribution
 >to the conversation or that they, themselves, had an ounce of
 >"proof" to their collective names.

Thus far the so called skeptics and
debunkers have not contributed an ounce of proof themselves.


 >Get real.

 >No one in this game has any "proof". If we did, this discussion

It depends on what _you_ define as proof. If proof for you is
actually touching and feeling an alien space craft, then yes of
course, few, if any have proof.

Please tell us what _your_ (not anybody else's) standard of
proof is.

 >list wouldn't even exist. So, stating the obvious isn't the same
 >as contributing to the discussion at hand. The best we can do is

Apparently you don't understand the obvious. Even if we had so
called "proof" the discussion would continue to go on and on.
Please don't let my remark cause you not to tell us what your
standards of proof are.

You see even _if_ an alien space ship landed at the super bowl
at half time the discussion would break upon the following
lines;

One batch of vocal skeptics would claim is was some kind of mass
dellusion, and or secret military craft because common sense
tells you that aliens don't exist, so therefore they can't
exist. They would also say that since they couldn't physically
touch and feel the space ship, walk inside, interact with the
crew, it was proof of nothing.

Main stream religious leaders (not all) would tell people that
it was some kind of demonic lying sign or wonder designed to
dissuade people from believing in God and or Jesus Christ, i.e.
Satan did it.

The gulliable believers would instantly proclaim that this event
was proof that all 14,000 Blue book sightings and every light in
the sky was in fact an alien space ship visiting earth.

Other people would say that this is proof we are being visited,
but we need to examine the evidence further and on an individual
basis to see which cases in the past 50 or so years were in fact
visitations.

Yet other people would say, Huh... I was drinking a beer, then
went to take a leak and grab a hot dog... did I miss something?
When someone tells them what happened, the next question that
would be asked may be "Is the 2nd half going to start on time.."

Yet others would say "Gee, thats interesting that we got visited
from another planet, but I have got to get back to work tomorrow
and earn a living so I can pay bills....."

Yet others would say this is interesting for the moment, but
how much money did our government spend over the years
on ET research, when they could have been funding food stamps,
and various other social programs.

 >use a little common sense and make our own conclusions. Oh,
 >that's right! I forgot about the taboo subject of "common sense"
 >and how the very mention of it is enough to send hard-liners
 >into a state of panic!

Glad you mentioned "common sense." To a room full of debunkers,
common sense would tell them that any and _all_ UFO sightings
are misindentification of natural phenomena, hoax, stars,
weather balloon and so on. Probably something along the lines of
'Common sense tells us that the logical explaination is
pelicans..'

To a room full of gulliable believers common sense would tell
them that every landing light is in fact an ET space ship.

To a room full of Democrats, common sense tells them that the
Republicans are trying to steal the election.

To a room full of Republicans, common sense tells them that the
Democrats are trying to steall the election.

Common sense tells some that everybody likes Rock and Roll, but
the truth is people like all sorts of music from classical to
country and Rock.

Ah the pitfalls of "common sense."

 >You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.

Thats what the gulliable believers claim. In years previous they
have maintained that every aircraft landing light is in fact an
ET space ship that is or has camaflaged itself to look like a
airplane. Common sense tells me its a bogus theory to begin
with. :)

 >You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super

An interesting theory. But instead of RF, why not just downlink
into the major NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/Fox network feeds during some
profound event in human history, announce that they are real and
here are pictures from outer space.

Of course we know the answer to that. No matter what format
any sort of communication may come in, the skeptics and
debunkers would instantly proclaim that it was some kind of
hoax, fraud, mistake and so on.

 >advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
 >tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >accordingly.

As I recall the theory that ET life can read our minds comes
from people who have allegedly been in close contact with ET
life. The question that then needs to be asked is are those
witnesses knowledgeable enough about hypnotic regression to
impart that to the alleged ET life. Say just before the first
human/ET hand shake, does the human say "Ah, wait, I want to
dump all the knowledge in my mind to yours...." Not likely.

 >Of course, just try suggesting that UFOs are really planes or
 >that SETI isn't a waste of time or that some abductions are not
 >valid.

I agree with you on that one. Trying to tell the gulliable
believers that a light in the sky is fact an airliner on final
approach will be scorned as much as a UFO investigator telling a
room full of skeptics that the Trent photos are likely real. As
to SETI, like some scientific under takings will be considered a
waste of time, until they get an actual true, correct signal.
Naturally the skeptics will instantly claim that it is earth or
satellite bound, or some by product of a star explosion or
something like that.


 >There is a difference, people, between a debunker and a skeptic.

Debunkers will tell you they are 'only a skeptic...' Skeptics
will tell you that they are _not_ a debunker, they are just
looking at the so called scientific evidence and applying
scientific principles, etc etc.

 >There is also a difference between a believer and a zealot.
 >Somewhere in the middle of these four horsemen is the very
 >non-apocalyptic view of an average joe that finds UFOs
 >interesting, likes to ask hard questions and doesn't always
 >believe everything tossed up for a spike from either side of the
 >net.

I agree.

 >Argumentative? Maybe. But hardly heresy. Ufology needs to grow
 >up and stop being afraid of its own shadow.

Over the years, I would observe that skeptics and debunkers are
the ones afraid of the UFO shadow.

Cheers,

Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                          X-PPAC Update - 11/22/00

From: Steven G. Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:59:24 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:21:59 -0500
Subject: X-PPAC Update - 11/22/00


Update - 11/22/00

David Jacobs at the National Archives

On Thursday, December 14, Dr. David Jacobs will speak at the
National Archives, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC on
his new Book, 'UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of
Knowledge'. There is no admission charge. Reservations are
advised. Call 202-208-7345.

Dr. Jacobs is a Temple University history professor and the
author of 'Secret Life' and 'The Threat'.

It is of some importance that Dr. Jacobs is speaking on this
subject matter nine blocks from the White House. For that reason
a SRO attendance would make a strong statement. Please pass the
reservation number on to your friends and associates in the
Washington, DC area.

Secrecy Reform Symposium in Washington

A full day symposium, 'Government Secrecy in a New
Administration and a New Century', will be conducted on Tuesday,
December 5, in the Ronald Reagan Building International Trade
Center Amphitheater, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

There is no charge, but pre-registration is required, and a
registration form is available at the James Madison Project
website:

www.jamesmadisonproject.org/conferencesmainpage.html

Speakers: John D. Podesta, Evan Thomas, Nancy Bernkopf, John R.
Tunheim, R. James Woolsey, Steven Aftergood, Kenneth E.
deGraffenreid, Bill Gertz, Anna Nelson, Elizabeth Rindskopf
Parker and Mark S. Zaid.

This is not light entertainment and is for the serious
researcher/activist. For such it is a rare opportunity to
confront a major component critical to the resolution of the
UFO/ET cover-up.

Town Hall Meeting Update

At this time the video of the Santa Clara Town Hall Meeting held
on October 13, 2000 is being reviewed for editing and placement
on the internet. The extraordinary election still underway has
delayed some of the post event followup, which will come later
this year.

The concept was well received and reviewed. As X-PPAC receives
new contributions, more of these town halls will be held in
other parts of the country.

www.x-ppac.org/TownHall.html

Coast to Coast AM

Stephen Bassett, Executive Director of X-PPAC, and Richard
Dolan, author of 'UFOs and the National Security State', will
appear on the Wednesday, November 22 Coast to Coast AM with Mike
Siegel from 10 pm to 2 pm PST.

www.coasttocoastam.com

CSETI Delays Disclosure Event

The CSETI Disclosure Project which involves compiling
comprehensive witness testimonies on video has moved its public
schedule from January to early March. This is a major project
with significant implications. The move is designed to
accommodate extraordinary political developments and the demands
of the project. www.cseti.org

Correspondence

Presently X-PPAC and PRG are receiving about 3000 emails per
month (not including spam). This coupled with mail has created a
serious backlog of correspondence. Please pardon delays in
responding to your queries and requests. It will soon improve.

X-PPAC Fund Raisers

A plan to conduct fund raisers for X-PPAC on both coasts early
next year is on the drawing board. More later.

Paradigm Clock Debate Forum

The bulletin board software at the Paradigm Clock Forum was down
and posts were not being forwarded. That has been corrected.
Sorry for any inconvenience.

www.paradigmclock.com/timechangedebate.html

Lobbying Intensity

When Congress reconvenes and the new president takes office next
year, the most intense lobbying effort to date will begin. This
is going to include direct engagement of members. That would be
an excellent time for any constituents to make their feelings
known to their House and Senate members regarding the UFO/ET
cover-up.

Alien Zoo and UFO Magazine

Columns on the politics of UFOs/Disclosure are being written for
the Alien Zoo website and "UFO Magazine."

www.alienzoo.com
www.ufomag.com
_______________________________________________

Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
  URL: www.x-ppac.org
  E-mail: exppac@aol.com
  Phone: 301-564-1820
  Fax: 301-564-4066
  4938 Hampden Lane, #161
  Bethesda, Maryland 20814

*****************************************************************
Spread the word about X-PPAC & the politics of disclosure.
  Contribute online at: www.x-ppac.org
or mail to: 4938 Hampden Lane,161 Bethesda, MD 20814

*****************************************************************
  "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
  if you are willing to give away the credit."

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







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 22

                  Horizons Webcast Cancelled For This Week

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:56:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:20:49 -0500
Subject: Horizons Webcast Cancelled For This Week


Horizons Radio and Webcast

Press Release

The regularly scheduled webcast for Wednesday and Friday has
been cancelled for this week only. This is due to technical
difficulties. Our faithful server gave its all for us, but try
though it did, it could not keep up with the enormous amount of
traffic to our webpage. As of Tuesday night, it has passed to
the great cyber-graveyard in the sky.

Our techno-geek wizard is working now to get our new server
configured and online. This massive monster of modern technology
should be able to handle the extreme volume of our regular
traffic, plus many times more, without even breaking a sweat :)

The new machine, unofficially dubbed "Bubba", will allow better
service to our webpage visitors, and speed up the downloads on
the archives of our shows. However, until Bubba gets online,
archives will not be available for download. You can still read
the webpage, vote in the poll, and post to the message board.

We hope to have Bubba up and running by Sunday night's live show
from KOMA 1520 AM out of Oklahoma City. The fun begins at
midnight CST!

Thank you all for your continued support of Horizons.


Lan Lamphere, Host
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder, writer/researcher/general flunkie
Scotty Roberts, General Manager


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
ICQ #7524076
IRC Undernet #Horizons
www.oklahomasky.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:19:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:33:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:33:18 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I wrote:

 >>>Point: the faster shutter would be more likely to reduce image
 >>>blur of the distant _real_ buildings thus making the edges of
 >>>the building _more_like_ the unblurred edges of the UFO image...
 >>>if a hoax!

 >>>The "discovery" of suspicious blur was made first on a
 >>>statistical basis: overall the blur of the edges of th UFO was
 >>>less than that of the buildings. But then we discovered a couple
 >>>of frames where the camera moved too fast for the fast shutter.
 >>>Little wind socks on the buildings were so blurred as to be
 >>>almost invisible. Yet the UFO image was not changed. Now, if
 >>>this happened over a few seconds we might argue fast panning of
 >>>the camera... But it did not.

 >John wrote:

 >>Bruce I have to bow to your experience and expertise in these
 >>matters because what I know about video analysis you can fit
 >>into a thimble. I would like to make the following comments
 >>nonetheless.

 >>1. I don't see how both Jeff and yourself are able to 'write
 >>off' the whole videoclip as a hoax based on just one or two
 >>frames of video. If there was something uniformly suspicious
 >>about the images from start to finish that's a horse of a
 >>different color. As a journeyman printer of more than 16 years I
 >>know that in print media all kinds of 'clues' are left behind
 >>when an image has been doctored or tampered with. Bad 'traps',
 >>doubled pixels around the edges of images, differences in
 >>resolution or color etc. will be found surrounding the 'dropped
 >>in' image. I'm sure it's harder to spot such shenanigans on a
 >>motion videotape. My point is, that if it was an out and out
 >>hoax you'd think that the visual evidence for it would concern
 >>more than just a couple of single frames from a videoclip
 >>consisting of hundreds or thousands of frames.>

 >Well, in fact the discovery was made by Jeff based on a
 >statistical analysis of image smear using the whole video.

 >I should have been more clear above. As a result of analyzing
 >image smear using an automated computer program Jeff developed,
 >he found that the _whole_ video showed this effect of the UFO
 >image being blurred less than the buildings. However, because of
 >the fast shutter this effect was generally not easy to see with
 >the naked eye. So let me say again, the analysis of _every_
 >frame formed the statistical basis of Jeff's discovery. He
 >informed me of that fact (after HOURS of analysis by both of
 >us!)

 >For the expert: Jeff's program measured the image edge gradient
 >for the UFO and for the builring in each frame of the video. The
 >edge gradient is large when the image is well focused and
 >stationary (does not move during the frame time.) The edge
 >gradient shrinks with defocus and with image blur due to motion.
 >He discovered that the relative egde gradient of the UFO was
 >about constant whereas the relative edge gradient of the
 >building changed with the image motion from frame to frame. (The
 >image motion from frame to frame is a measure of the rate of
 >rotation of the camera abou some axis... said motion being
 >caused by hand vibration or mechanical vibration... and said
 >motion being the cause of the image smear.)

Hi Bruce,

Just hang in there a bit longer with me while I try to
understand exactly what you're talking about here. (If I'm not
completely clear on it I'm sure some other readers aren't
either.) I'll set this up so that you have a simple yes or no
set of responses to address. I thank you in advance for the time
you're taking to do it.

Yes, no?

Jeff has written a piece of software that can measure the
gradient at the edge of selected portions within the video
frames. All (measured) edges (whether in motion or stationary)
_should_ display the same amount of gradient change from frame
to frame. e.g. if building edge gradient changes, UFO edge
gradient should change equally regardless of the fact that one
internal element is stationary while the other is in motion. All
internal elements should display the exact same amount of "image
smear" in any selected frame. (?)

Is this effect (edge smear) a uniform quantity from video to
video or does it need to be recalibrated each time a new
videotape is submitted?

What is the degree of accuracy (tolerances) of this edge smear
detection method? In other words, is the accuracy of the
measurement more like a homeplate umpire with a large strike
zone, or one with a tight window for error? I would imagine that
a certain amount of 'averaging' is being performed by Jeff's
software. That's why I'm asking. The margin for error of the
method used is an important detail for people to know. Weight
can be assigned to the finding according to the level of
accuracy.

 >>2. Mechanical aberrations in the camera could account for the
 >>one or two 'inconsistent' frames that Jeff and yourself
 >>discovered. I am an amateur astronomer and I've tried my hand at
 >>astrophotography several times over the years. You need a rock
 >>solid and properly alligned mounting -and- an accurate clock
 >>drive mechanism so that the telescope can properly/smoothly
 >>track the sky object during the long exposure. Some clock drives
 >>can be had for under a $100 while others cost thousands. Why the
 >>dramatic difference in price? Quality of construction and parts.
 >>The less well machined gears and parts of the cheaper drives
 >>will introduce all kinds of innaccuracies and distortions into
 >>the final photographic product.

 >Yes, but you are talking about the image smear due to vibration
 >(hand or mechanical) of _every_ image (star) in the field. In
 >this case each object in the field has its image smeared by the
 >same amount.

 >In the Mexico City video of 1997 we are talking about
 >'differential' image smear... the UFO image being smeared less
 >than the building smear. In fact, it may be that the UFO image
 >was hardly smeared at all even though the building image was
 >smeared noticeably.

What do you mean by, "may be" Bruce? Was it, or wasn't it? And
does this mean that the "UFO" was an externally created artifact
that was introduced into the video using 'software' or some
other artificial method?

Has it been determined 'how' the hoax was accomplished?

If the "UFO" was an "on scene" device of somekind that the
hoaxers used, is it possible to determine if the camera's
distance from the buildings is the same or different from the
distance to the object/UFO?

If the distance to the buildings and the object are the same,
then that was one big "prop" and must have taken a whole crew of
people to manipulate.

If it was a 'drop-in' then wouldn't there be other evidence of
it other than just inconsistencies in edge smear?

 >Ok. I'll accept your humble bow.....

Ok Bruce, now, NOW! ;)

Really, thanx for taking the time to walk me through this. I
just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying
correctly.  I'm sure it's helping to clarify it for others as
well.  :)

Regards,

John Velez,  Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:36:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>What Bruce was referring to, in Jeff Saino's analyis, were the
 >>higher frequency jitters of the video scenes associated with the
 >>camera being hand held, not the low-frequency tracking motions.

 >>>Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >>>simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >>>girl.

 >>Rightly so. It's often been pointed out on this list that photos
 >>alone can't prove a UFO to be "genuine," but require witness'
 >>testimony in addition. Similarly, when you have both, it isn't
 >>enough to declare the case a hoax on the basis of photos or
 >>videos if sincere witnesses who could not have perpetrated any
 >>such hoax have spoken out on the reality of the event. The
 >>reason for such a rule, of course, is that the UFO pilots can
 >>maneuver their craft in such a manner as to fool photo or video
 >>analyzers who don't take into account that the UFO guys are more
 >>advanced and smarter than they are, and seem to possess a
 >>definite strategy in their interactions with us. In this Mexican
 >>City case, I've postulated that the UFO operators were able to
 >>maneuver their craft in synchronism to the video-camera jitters
 >>and perhaps to induce controlled jitters in the holder of the
 >>camera as well. Of course, this would require the UFO to be able
 >>to undergo very frequent, large accelerations...

 >>Jim Deardorff

 >Hi Jim,

 >Jim, the Good Lord knows that we've been friends both on and off
 >the list for quite awhile. You're one of my favorite UpDates
 >people. But, with all due affection and respect, you are really
 >pulling the old taffy wad a bit thin here! To the breaking
 >point.

 >Yes, we can speculate that it is possible for technologically
 >advanced (and maybe even telepathic) ET's to anticipate our
 >every thought and action. But to say that, (assuming it was a
 >real ET craft) the pilot or navigational computer on that thing
 >would mess with just one or two frames of a videotape that was
 >running, (and do it in 'real time') is really stretching what is
 >already (and only) 'speculation.'

Hi John,

Like Bruce explained, the statistical analysis of all the frames
tended to show this feature.

 >Why would they bother?

 >1. If they wanted to be seen then why screw up the evidence?
 >Seems counterproductive.

 >2. If they didn't want to be detected why not mess up the whole
 >recording? Why screw around with just _two_ frames?

 >3. If they messed with the tape in order to discred it it why
 >did they drive their Mack truck through the lobby in the first
 >place?

Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

With abductions, similar examples abound to show that the aliens
involved appear to have more than one motivation. To the
abductees, after they recall their experiences, they get across
information on some of their (techno?)-psychic abilities that
UFO sightings alone can scarcely do, such as telepathic
communication, floating through walls, causing video-recorders
set up to record them not to work at the right time, etc. Yet
they leave plenty of clues behind so that the abductee, and
later investigators, can learn it was real, such as not blocking
out all memories, allowing most memories to come out during
hypno-regression, replacing victms with e.g. pajamas on
backwards, and/or with special scars, leaving ground traces
behind, etc. The very same strategy seems to be at work here as
with UFO sightings, though at the expense of the abductee. The
psychologist/scientist who looks into this then can dismiss it
as being too bizarre and unsubstantiated, if he wishes, and
thereby retain his/her sanity. Those of us who know better can
learn from it and try to convince negative skeptics. If they can
be convinced through us, which is a long, slow process, then
their world-view outlook won't be so badly shattered as if the
aliens were to have overtly entered our world in 1950, say, and
stayed around overtly (which would have caused the military to
shoot at them, etc., which in itself would have been undesirable
from all angles).

Crop-circle formations and even cattle mutilations exhibit the
same sort of things. Evidence that's conclusive to open-minded
investigators but spurious to many others.

So I explain your 1), 2) and 3) above as being ill-posed in
their either/or implications, which omit the consideration that
the aliens have a strategy that involves more than just one goal
at a time.

 >Like trying to hide an elephant in a phone booth. Aside from the
 >fact that it is nothing more than fun or freewheeling
 >speculation, it just doesn't make any sense that they would do
 >that Jim. On any level. That I can think of anyway.

If this response doesn't make sense, John, why doesn't it? To
the scientist who assumes that all aliens would have no concern
for, and would behave unethically with respect to society as a
whole, and throw it into sudden chaos, I can see it wouldn't
make sense. And to the scientist who assumes that ETs don't
exist or wouldn't be smarter than we, or wouldn't possess any
strategy of dealing with us, or couldn't get from there to here,
it may not make sense. But we needn't make such unfounded
assumptions. Aren't we a lot farther along in our understanding
than that after 53 years?

So I see the Mexico City video as expressing more of this alien
strategy, while exhibiting even a bit more of their advanced
capabilities, which can keep scientists guessing or jumping to
wrong conclusions if they wish, than we're used to. With this
strategy in mind, one doesn't have to dismiss witnesses' reports
for no good reason.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:34:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:44:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:34:12 EST
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:20:47 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>After the last go around ala Trent and enduring the wrath of the
 >>Trentites and forever being banished to the desolate wastelands
 >>of Pelicanation, I feel that something is, indeed, amiss in the
 >>world of ufology and the likes.

Robert replied:

 >Your perception is wrong about being banished. As to something
 >being "amiss in the world of ufology" I agree.

I'm glad that we agree on something. However, how could my
perception be wrong if perceptions are to be considered accurate
and unquestionable? Obviously, you are pointing out that MY
perception is incorrect. Therefore perceptions can be incorrect,
even by your own standard!

Continuing, Robert wrote:

 >As I recall you were essentially advancing the theory that other
 >then a cold, hard, piece of physical evidence, or photo,
 >everything else (such as witness testimony) is to be considered
 >impressions, or bias and should be treated as such.

Of course!

Without validation, testimony is NOT proof. Evidence, perhaps;
but not proof. Do YOU consider testimony to be valid before
validation? If someone made a public statement that you were
dishonest, would you like everyone to accept that statement as
valid without the person making the claim to provide proof? Now,
if that same person claimed that you SEEMED dishonest, then
clearly they are giving their impression of you based on their
own personal bias, whatever that may be. Likewise, if they said
that you SEEMED honest, the same would hold true. Since they
can't read your mind, the best they can do is give a second hand
impression of you.

Merely making the statement isn't the same as validation. If it
were, then I could simply say that my impression of the Trent
photos is that they are fake. Just as I have to toe the line and
provide proof to validate my impressions, so does everyone else.
That goes for anyone that knew Trent, as well. And let's not
forget, the best that anyone can do is comment on what they have
witnessed. They can't say that Trent was incapable of doing
something that they never saw him attempt. To do so would be
only a guess.

Moving on, Robert wrote:

 >When people experience a profound event in their life whether
 >that is a UFO sighting or otherwise they do remember. For
 >example many people clearly remember the day they got married
 >and even recall when the ceremony took place, when and where the
 >lunchon was, the reception and alot of the people at the
 >reception. Many clearly remember what they were doing and what
 >they did following when the news came over that John Hinckley Jr
 >had attempted to kill Reagan; likewise with the space shuttle
 >blowing up.

I respectfully suggest that is a myth, Robert.

I present the following that was sent to me by an alert reader:

[Begin quote]

      "Dr. Loftus, one of the world's leading researchers on
      memory, has shown just the opposite. She had people write,
      in their own handwriting, what they were doing when they
      heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated. They
      all agreed that they could never forget this.

      Several years later, she had them rewrite what they
      remembered that they were doing when they heard that
      Kennedy had been assassinated. Then they checked this
      against the several years old memories. They were different
      in many cases. The people agreed that they must have
      written the original memories since they were in their
      handwriting. In fact, many of them stated that, if they
      hadn't been in their own handwriting, they wouldn't have
      believed this at all since the old memories and the new
      memories were so different.

      There were no apparent lies in this group, just people
      "re-inventing" their memories as happens each time we
      remember an event."

[End quote]

Further info on the subject of memory is as follows:

[Begin quote]

      "It is not known how to distinguish, with complete
      accuracy, memories based on true events from those derived
      from other sources... Memories also can be significantly
      influenced by a trusted person (e.g., therapists, parent
      involved in a custody dispute) . It has also been shown
      that repeated questioning may lead individuals to report
      memories of events that never occurred."

      (American Psychiatric Association, News Release, Dec. 12,
      1993. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C.)

[End quote]

And, finally, we have the following:

[Begin quote]

      "A growing body of research indicates that memory is
      fallible and vulnerable to suggestion; and that
      suggestibility and confabulation increase with the length
      of time between the events and later attempts to recall it.
      ...

      The evidence suggests that all the techniques outlined
      above can create entirely new and false memories, not only
      experimentally but also in clinical practice. "

      (The Royal College of Psychiatrists 17 Belgrave Square,
      London Press Release - 1st April 1998)

[End quote]

Continuing, Robert wrote:

 >Let me see. If I told you that my "impression" was that you
 >held witness testimony to the highest regard and thought the
 >Trent photo graphs were real, and that the Trent's were credible
 >witness's you would know for a fact that my impression
 >was incorrect.

Uh, yeah. What's your point?

After all, you've already pointed out that my earlier perception
was incorrect. I have _never_ said that _all_ impressions are to
be discounted. What I have said, in plain English, is that
impressions are not the same thing as proof. I think it is
obvious that people's impressions can be incorrect. Are you
saying that ALL impressions are correct until proven otherwise?
If not, then we are really saying the same thing in a different
way. Impressions _can_ be correct but need to be validated.

Further, I had written:

 >>When a possible, logical explanation is offered for any of
 >>ufology's most cherished cases, the accusations regarding
 >>character assassination seem to overtake the technical
 >>discussion almost every time. In the case of McMinnville the
 >>irony is that the long standing "believers" view of Paul Trent
 >>is far more degrading to his character than anything myself or

Robert replied:

 >Obviously you didn't realize that it was skeptics and debunkers
 >who orginated those degrades to Trents character years ago.

Which degrades, Robert? The ones that paint Trent as stupid?
Those are the ones that I am talking about.

Robert writes:

 >The skeptics and debunkers over the years have painted Trent in
 >the light as being an cunning hoaxer who was trying to pull one
 >over on everybody. As I recall the modernized version of those
 >theorys was that Trent was some happy go lucky guy, who enjoyed
 >a laugh, and wanted to pull one over on people. This notion
 >allows folks to steer around the hardened skeptical/debunker
 >position of evil/cunning hoaxer, yet permits them a fall back
 >position of "its a hoax."

Again, please be specific with your claims.

The only people I've seen paint Trent as a cunning hoaxer or a
diabolical liar are believers in the Trent photos when
confronted with evidence that the photos could have been hoaxed.
It is ironic that non-believers in the Trent photos give Trent
more slack than his supposed supporters. None the less, claims
of character assassination bubble to the surface everytime it is
suggested that the photos could be fake. Again, there is no
reason for this unless the believer has a vested interest in the
photos being real.

And this is the real difference, here. People like myself,
sitting happily on the fence of indifference, have no vested
interest and can ask any kind of question that might get to the
core of the matter. Actually, I am not being totally truthful,
here. I am not really _that_ indifferent. The truth is that I
would_really_ like the photos that Trent took to be the real
deal. Nothing would make me happier. But my life will not change
dramatically if the existence of all UFOs has been disproved.
Can the same be said about the hardline "believers" or
researchers? My impression is "no". But, then again, there we go
with impressions. Heaven forbid that impressions or perceptions
could be wrong...

I wrote:

 >>For the photos to be faked, an
 >>incredible transformation is required. Therefore, he goes from
 >>being the quiet, stupid patron saint of ufology to a "diabolical
 >>liar" in a heartbeat. Dumb. The world is made up of shades of
 >>grey. It isn't black and white; good or bad. Trent could have
 >>had a little fun and there's not a lick of "proof" that he never
 >>laughed in his life.

Robert replied:

 >Nor have the skeptics provided a "lick of proof" that Trent in
 >fact hoaxed the picture, nor have the skeptics provided a lick
 >of proof that Trent was a practial joker, or lied, or any of the
 >sort.

 >In fact the people that knew Trent claim otherwise. Naturally to
 >some, witness testimony doesn't mean anything, so we are back to
 >the cold hard evidence notion.

 >If _any_ so called neighbor of Trent's would have mentioned that
 >Trent was a practial joker, these same skeptics would have
 >pounced on that witness's testimony, and been advancing the
 >notion that we should believe everything that person has to say.

 >>And when the technical discussions regarding any UFO case gets
 >>hot and heavy, it would seem that those without technical
 >>expertise seem to feel left out and respond with proclamations
 >>about "lack of proof" as if that were a significant contribution
 >>to the conversation or that they, themselves, had an ounce of
 >>"proof" to their collective names.

 >Thus far the so called skeptics and
 >debunkers have not contributed an ounce of proof themselves.

Yawn.

As I said, no one has any proof, nor have I ever claimed to have
any, Robert. As I pointed out, stating the obvious is not the
same thing as contributing to the discussion at hand.

But while we're on the topic of proof, do you (or anyone else)
have any proof that the neighbors claims are true about Trent?
If so, then which claims have been proven? The ones that say he
couldn't fake a photo. The ones that claim he would never do
something like this? The ones that say he is honest to the point
of never pulling a prank? You state the obvious about lack of
proof, then seem to ignore the fact that it applies to
_everyone_, including you. Please prove me wrong, because, as I
said, I would really like the Trent photos to be real.

Of course, there is the possibility that you don't believe the
claims of Trent's neighbors, yourself, and are just debating for
the fun of it. At this point, I don't know which "impression" to
believe. Should I choose one without some validation, here?

Robert writes:

 >Please tell us what _your_ (not anybody else's) standard of
 >proof is.

 > >>list wouldn't even exist. So, stating the obvious
isn't the same >>as contributing to the discussion at hand. The
best we can do is > >Apparently you don't understand the
obvious. Even if we had so >called "proof" the discussion would
continue to go on and on. >Please don't let my remark cause you
not to tell us what your >standards of proof are.

I agree that the debate will go on and on. But you have to
admit, not using a little common sense only lengthens the debate
artificially.

What is _my_ standard of proof? Well, I guess that would depend
on the case. In the case of Trent, I feel that seeing a common
object like a truck mirror that looks like the mystery object in
the photos would be enough for me. Of course, I suppose it is
possible that there could be ET craft that just _happens_ to
look like a terrestrial object. But then again, if it can look
like a truck mirror, then why not have it look like an airplane
or a helicopter or a jet? That would be far less noticeable.

This is where "common sense" kicks in (for some, anyway) and
says, "Wait a minute..." I mean, what are the odds that an ET
craft would look like a truck mirror, you know? And if we accept
that, then I suppose the ETs on Billy Meirs page just HAPPEN to
look like the girls from Dean Martin's TV show (or where ever)
or that the Adamski craft just HAPPENS to look like the
electrical do-dad that came to light recently. I mean, there has
to be an end to coincidences, don't you think? Otherwise, any
photo of a piepan is fair game (even cherry flavor ;).

<respectful snip of usual Super Bowl landing analogy>

I wrote:

 >>Of course, just try suggesting that UFOs are really planes or
 >>that SETI isn't a waste of time or that some abductions are not
 >>valid.

Robert relies:

 >I agree with you on that one. Trying to tell the gulliable
 >believers that a light in the sky is fact an airliner on final
 >approach will be scorned as much as a UFO investigator telling a
 >room full of skeptics that the Trent photos are likely real.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that the light
in the sky was an airliner instead of ET craft. I was actually
pointing out that it could be an ET craft that LOOKED like an
airliner. Makes as much sense to me as an ET craft that looks
like a truck mirror.

Finally, I wrote:

 >>There is also a difference between a believer and a zealot.
 >>Somewhere in the middle of these four horsemen is the very
 >>non-apocalyptic view of an average joe that finds UFOs
 >>interesting, likes to ask hard questions and doesn't always
 >>believe everything tossed up for a spike from either side of the
 >>net.

Robert wrote:

 >I agree.

Careful. We can't start a trend, here.

I ended with:

 >>Argumentative? Maybe. But hardly heresy. Ufology needs to grow
 >>up and stop being afraid of its own shadow.

Robert closed with:

 >Over the years, I would observe that skeptics and debunkers are
 >the ones afraid of the UFO shadow.

Ahhhh. Another "impression", Robert?

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:35:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:46:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:12:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Previously, John wrote:

 >But I'm still not quite
 >satisfied that what you and Jeff have found and presented to the
 >public in terms of justification of the hoax oppinion is
 >-conclusive- enough to justify dismissing the tape as a complete
 >hoax.

 >One or two 'inconsistent frames' does not a hoaxed video make!

Hi, John!

Let's say that you had a series of photos of a UFO taken by one
cameraman. Now, in a majority of the photos, the images look
dead-on real. Then, in one of the photos, there is an obvious
string supporting the UFO. Obviously, one could take the
approach that:

A) The aliens made the photo look that way to mess with us

B) All the photos without the string are real.

C) The string isn't really a string but an anomaly of the
photographic process

D) All the photos are fake.

Now, considering that video is made of thousands of "photos"
strung together electronically, the analogy is clear. If just
one has the tell-tale flaw, then the rest are suspect. Further,
if one defies the laws of optics, then the rest are more than
suspect; they are not to be trusted at all. Considering the way
video is created, I would say that one or two 'inconsistent
frames' does, indeed, make for a hoaxed video. There is no
logical or technical explanation for how those frames would be
different other than that the person doing the compositing
messed up and skipped them.

Unless, of course, the aliens "made the video camera mess
up"....

Hoo-boy.

Roger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

               Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:18:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:49:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Ledger


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:44:33 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Mark and Roger-Re your respective items below:

This is slightly off the mark [no pun Mark] however last evening
I watched an episode of American Science Frontiers about
neuroplasticity. These experiments showed how witnessed events
could be influeneced by other data introduced while reviewing
these events. In this case Alan Alda was subjected to a little
live scenario involving a couple having a picnic beside a river.
Alda was asked to notice how many times each of the two people
stood upright from their positions on a blanket on the
riverbank. Rightly Alda reasoned that there was more to this
experiment than what he was asked to observe.

Actually he was later shown photographs taken of the scenario
and asked if the objects in the pictures were actually there at
the time he watched it. He agreed with one photograph that
showed the female drinking bottled water that in reality had not
been part of the scenario and also an unbrella that had not been
in the scenario.

Likely these would have been reasonable items to be expected at
a picnic.

I can't get into the whole show here, mostly because I've
forgotten most of it already however it explored many areas that
we have been seeing here about the failure of human memory. It
explores how memories are stored and how they can be influenced
by other later but related events such as emotions and and
auditory imputs.

There is a likelyhood of that program being repeated tonight at
a later time on the PBS channels. I watched it late in any event
off satellite last night.

Being an old duffer myself, I've been more sympathetic lately to
those who decry witness memories of certain events. The program
did not however get into traumatic memory which are more likely
to be deeply embedded than common everyday events. JFK's
assassination is one example. An upclose encounter with a UFO
might be another. I'm sure that there are war veterans [tens of
thousands] who would argue that there are detailed memeories
that they have hat are accurate right down to little details and
some they wish they could forget.

best,

Don Ledger

 >>You want to know what "common sense" tells me? It tells me that,
 >>if an ET wanted to _really_ keep from being noticed as he/she/it
 >>flies about in the skies above us, then the craft of choice
 >>would look exactly like an airplane or a jet or a helicopter.
 >>You know what else common sense tells me? If ET life wanted to
 >>talk to us, they would do it in RF and _not_ in some super
 >>advanced mode of communication that they know we wouldn't have a
 >>rat's ass chance of understanding. Know what else common sense
 >>tells me? That if ET life can read our minds, then they already
 >>know that we use hypnotic regression all the time and would plan
 >>accordingly.

 >The problem, Roger, is this. You are making assumptions not
 >justified by the data.

 >If the UFO data represents a real phenomenon, it seems to be
 >telling us, among other things...
 >
 >1) UFO and whatever they represent don't really care about
 >talking to us any more than we care about talking to
 >grasshoppers.

 >2) UFO don't care too much about being noticed, they just
 >don't want to be caught.

 >So your propositions are rather strange in that they are not
 >driven by the data but by your assumption of how things should
 >be; and indeed, those assumptions seem to be directly
 >contradicted by the data. Thus, to complain about this is simply
 >circular reasoning ("the data is wrong because the data doesn't
 >look like it should if it were caused by something acting the
 >way I think it should").

 >Such assumptions were what led to the development of epicycles
 >rather than a heliocentric system. They were what led to the
 >denial of the existence of meteorites. They were what led to the
 >frequent attempts by humans to create aircraft that fly the way
 >birds do.

 >In other words, they are not only not relevant, but they also
 >get in the way of actually examining the data and drawing
 >conclusions from it.

 >When dealing with an unknown phenomenon, deduction is not a safe
 >method of reasoning - induction (reasoning from specific data to
 >generalities) is at least safer. Why? Because until you have a
 >large volume of inductively valid conclusions, any theory that
 >can be imposed by deductive reasoning is science-fiction at best
 >and fantasy at worse.

 >Please see:

 >http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm

 >for more on the differences between these types of reasoning.

 >Now, mind you, I oppose deductive reasoning on both sides of the
 >belief fence. The data has just not been subjected to enough
 >induction to generate worthy higher level hypotheses of origin
 >and intent, or to claim the invalidity of all UFO reports on the
 >basis of the invalidity of a sample.

 >So, far, for all the noise generated, few classifications of UFO
 >reports have been created. Those systems are needed in order to
 >pursue patterns in the data. Those patterns may be of use to OEH
 >(Objective Existence Hypothesis) or to MHH (Misperception /
 >Hallucination / Hoax Hypothesis) adherents. But the problem is
 >that very little work has been done on either side. The ETH
 >proponents argue the validity of individual cases and the MHH
 >proponents argue the invalidity of individual cases. At least
 >the ETH proponents are willing to use some criterion for
 >accepting or rejecting a report. The MHH adherents seem only
 >willing to reject reports, no matter how fantastic the required
 >explanation may be in denying the observational powers of the
 >witness, of instruments, of physics, or of perceptual psychology
 >as we know it. Nevertheless, I contend that without a ferment of
 >work in classification we are not going to get anywhere in
 >induction, and without induction we are not going to get
 >anywhere near any useful deduction. And that includes MHH.

 >Common sense is not a good guide to science. Common sense does
 >very well at looking back at known phenomena, and does very
 >poorly with phenomena outside a narrow range of size, time, and
 >distance. For instance, relativity, which is one of the most
 >highly verified theories in human history, violates common
 >sense. Rulers get shorter and longer. Gravity is a 4D dent in 3D
 >space. Clocks run at different rates when they fly at different
 >speeds or are in different gravity fields/. Who would have
 >though it, using common sense?

 >So let's leave common sense out of deciding how UFOs should
 >behave and leave it in place when on the ground dealing with
 >witnesses. Once the witnesses pass every common sense test,
 >then, for crying out loud, move on and work with the data they
 >provide. Get something done beside squabbling.

 >Don't believe in UFOs? Show how patterns in UFO reports can be
 >reliably compared with patterns in provably non-real phenomena
 >using impeccable and accepted statistical methods. Believe in
 >UFOs? Show what patterns exist in UFO reports and how they are
 >different from those present in provably non-real phenomena.
 >Doubt the validity of perception of elevation and angular size?
 >Take some subjects out into a field and test them on known
 >objects unpredictably presented, and make sure those objects
 >have an unpredictable appearance.

 >Just try it.

 >Have a look at:

 >http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/methodology/doingscienceonufos.htm

 >for some ideas on the real work that is waiting to be done.

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

 >UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
 >http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
 >------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:41:22 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:08:49 -0500
Subject: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


Source: Reuters.com

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=science&Repository=SCIE
NCE_REP&RepositoryStoryID=%2Fnews%2FIDS%2FScience%2FSCIENCE-IBM-UFO-DC
_TXT.XML

Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

Last updated: 22 Nov 2000 15:05 GMT (Reuters)


NEW YORK (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N
said on Wednesday it sold the U.S. Air Force a supercomputer to
help it to identify unidentified flying objects.

The Air Force's Space Surveillance Team, based in Maui, Hawaii,
will use the supercomputer to hunt outer space for old
satellites, foreign spacecraft, and other UFOs that may be
hurtling toward Earth, IBM said.

The IBM system will be used to detect and identify some 9000
objects currently flying around in Earth's orbit. The computer
can process 480 billion calculations per second -- making it
about 40 times faster than the IBM "Deep Blue" supercomputer
that defeated chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.

That processing capability will be used to improve blurry
telescopic images of space objects, allowing Defense Department
military officials to identify the object.

The new supercomputer was part of a $10 million system upgrade,
IBM said.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

             'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your Mind'

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:54:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:16:10 -0500
Subject: 'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your Mind'


There's still a couple of showings left.

I highly recommend viewing this program, particularly for what
it has to say about the malleability of our memories.

The other stunning revelation is that it's becoming more and
more accepted that our neurophysiology is *not* fixed at birth,
as was previously believed; i.e. the actual, physical structures
of the brains can change based on the human's experience and so
forth -- but it's the bit about memories that made me make this
post.

Obviously, I would find this research applicable in the area of
contactee/abductee research, as well as encounters that don't
involve contact with other beings but where a long period of
time may have lapsed.

(BTW, the program makes no mention of UFOs, ETs, etc.)

It was also interesting just how easily a false memory was
created in Alan Alda. This is something I claim to experience
myself, that I apparently seem to have memories of things that I
find out later didn't happen (no, I don't think I'm an
"experiencer" ... "absent-minded" or "dork" is more like it).

Furthermore, some researchers are finding that under *some* very
limited conditions (although this research is still in its
infancy) they can tell -- they can actually see on their
monitors -- when a person is "experiencing" or "replaying" a
true memory versus a false memory. Again, no mention of
"contactees", but they do mention the obvious implications for
futuristic "lie detectors" and so forth.

Anyway, have a good holiday people.
(non-U.S. people have a good weekend as well!)

Don't forget "Best of Cosmos" on Sunday ...

.....

Changing Your Mind
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1101/

Investigate a spectrum of fascinating topics in the sciences and
beyond with host Alan Alda, a genuine science buff whose
participation in the program goes far beyond that of most
documentary hosts. In the first episode of this popular series'
11th season, Alda meets two young women whose brains have
remodeled themselves -- one temporarily in response to a week of
being blindfolded, the other permanently after a devastating
brain injury before birth. They are dramatic examples of
"neuroplasticity" -- today's hot topic in brain research. Alda
also joins researchers who have overthrown the conventional
wisdom that adults can't grow new brain cells. Also new this
month: SuperPeople (11/28), about folks who are pushing
themselves to the limits of human performance.

Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your Mind
Tuesday, 11/21 at 8pm on Ch. 2
Thursday, 11/23 at 8pm on Ch. 44
Friday,  11/24 at 9pm on Ch. 44

.....

Next month looks to be another really good episode:

December 19
Life's Really Big Questions
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:20:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 ><snip>

 >>Sounds like they 'came forward' once they saw the TV program.
 >>You should bear in mind that when somebody has a UFO sighting
 >>(especially if it's a whopper of a sighting) the tendency would
 >>be to talk to _only_ one or two very close or trusted
 >>individuals. The fear of being thought crazy or of being
 >>ostracized by social acquaintences for 'telling such tales'
 >>pretty much precludes that the witnesses would have been running
 >>around reporting to police or associates. I'm not surprised that
 >>they didn't report until the program aired. If anything, this
 >>detail lends an air of 'truth' to the story (fits in with the
 >>way people really behave) rather than one of deception.

 >I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but if such a
 >craft were witnesses over the skies of Washington there would be
 >more than a few people calling the local authorities. This
 >wasn't a "light in the sky" but a large craft that was moving
 >fairly slowly over a section of Mexico City (which is far larger
 >than the Nation's Capital).

Hiya Steve,

See my response to Josh Goldstein (in this same thread) about
'big city' sightings and people reporting. ;)

 >IMO, the fear "of being ostracized by social acquaintences for
 >'telling such tales'" seems to be much more likely on our side
 >of the border. Given the differences in our cultures, we need to
 >have a sociologist in this discussion.

Oye! No me pongas bravo! (Don't piss me off! <LOL>) I _AM_ a
Latino! Puerto Rican to be precise. You'd need a microscope to
see the difference between our 'Latino' island culture and that
of the Mexicans. Two ends of the same stick. Or as we say in
Spanish,

"La misma mierda con palito differente."  ;)

If anything, Latino's, who are very 'social' and 'family'
oriented, would be _less_ likely to openly discuss a matter that
they know would be looked upon with skepticism or disdain. They
just wouldn't tend to bring up anything that they think might
"alienate" their beloved family members. Or how they are thought
of within the family.

The family members would most likely be concerned for the sanity
and well being of their loved one. And being an "Old Fashioned
Values" bunch, they _would_ think the person is crazy. The
person would then become a topic of discussion where ever two or
more tongue wagging family members would assemble. In short, it
would be like defecating on the dinner table during a family
reunion. Like that.

_That_ is how a Latino family might react.  :)

 >I would speculate that the sighting of a large unknown craft
 >(South of the Border) would cause many to seek help and advice
 >from religious leaders as to what it meant.

We're not all "good Catholics" Steve. I'm not "Catholic" at all.
Neither is anybody else in my -large- family. The last thing a
"Velez" would think to do is to go running to a Priest to
confess!  <LOL>That all or even many Latino's are Catholics who
run to priests at the first sign of crisis, is just an old wives
tale/stereotype.

 >But these witnesses should have the opportunity to tell their
 >story and it should be investigated fully.

I agree 100%. The problem is, nobody is "doing it."

 >I wouldn't want to pre-judge those who were interviewed, but
 >unless one wants to buy into the concept that those on the craft
 >were merely toying with us and only allowing certain people to
 >see the craft, the fact that so few witnesses have been found is
 >IMO significant.

It is Steve. I'm just not so sure that 'most folks' would run to
report such a sighting to anyone. For all the reasons mentioned
above. Ergo, few witnesses actually turn up to report.

If you knew _nothing_ at all about UFOs or ufology, would you
voluntarily and by yourself walk into a police station and
report that you saw a UFO/flying saucer over your head?

Think about doing it as a 'real world event' and not just an
intellectual exercise.

"Reporting" is not as easy to do as you'd first think eh? When
you think about it in this way, you get to see what you
_actually_ have to put down on the line if you were to have to
do it.  It's just a damned hard thing to do period. Why do you
think I showered GT with accolades for having the rocks to share
his sighting report?  You know me. I don't give away 'candy'
that easily or that often. Reporting takes very real courage and
a ton of agonizing and forethought. People think it's a joke.
It's not. Public reporting of such a thing is one of the hardest
things a person can do.  ;)

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:37:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:34:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:08:10 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >Hello Jim and UpDates,

 >I must confess that I have not personally investigated this
 >video and I have only followed it for years on UFO UpDates, etc.

Hiya Josh,

You really should take more than a cursory look at it, and yes
I'm bothered by the same questions that you are.

 >The nagging questions I have are:

 >Who has checked police logs, press, and any other sources
 >witnesses to a UFO might have contacted? What did they show?

 >Did the two witnesses contact Jaime Mausson on their own
 >volition?

 >Or was the area of the video canvassed to locate possible
 >witnesses?

 >Did any investigators ask any leading questions?

 >If a large number of people did not report a UFO, why?

 >Once again, camera jitter and selective revelation to two does
 >not sound that kosher.

 >I feel the same way when I read a report of 1 or 2 people seeing
 >a large UFO over New York City. I am not talking about abductee
 >or contactee reports but just witnessess to a plainly visible
 >object in a metropolitan area.

 >My guess is that a large number of people would have witnessed
 >this object.

Yeah you'd think so. But the real deal is that few people ever
look up in crowded urban environments so that cuts the number of
potential witnesses way down right there. Also if was a cloudy,
overcast day (as it appears to have been) there wouldn't have
been many folks out perambulating around anyway.

I've got a good one just for you Josh. It'll help to illustrate
a point about 'big city' sightings.

During the last major power failure in New York City,  (1977 ?)
My landlord's 17 Y.O. daughter and myself had a sighting. We
were all, (my wife, myself, my landlord, his wife, and two of
his daughters) sitting around on our front porch ruminating
about how long it was going to take to get power restored. From
our street corner in Bay Ridge Brooklyn we could see the top
half of the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and a good portion of
the downtown skyline. I decided to take a walk down to the
corner to see if power had been restored in Manhattan. It was
still daylight but approaching evening so I figured I might spot
a few 'lights' on, on or in some of the buildings. My landlord's
daughter (Regina) asked if she could accompany me and I said
sure. Off we went.

When we got to the corner Regina let out a yelp and said, "What
the Hell is that?" Suspended over the Twin Towers was a
looooong, all white, cigarette shaped 'thing' that had to be a
quarter mile long. My jaw dropped and my eyes bugged out. When I
turned to say something to Regina she was gone! She was running
back up towards the house to either get everybody down to the
corner or just to blurt out a report. I have no idea which.

I looked back at this 'thing' which was just hovering/suspended
over the Towers when a really bright flash came out of it and it
just disappeared. Right before my eyes it was gone. Poof. One
second it's there, gonzo the next. I stood there dumbfounded
half expecting the thing to reappear. It didn't.

We buzzed and buzzed about it for a couple of hours and then it
was over. Later that night I'm laying in bed with a transistor
radio to my ear and I'm listening for news reports or
'something' about that thing and the big flash, and how it had
just disappeared and all. Nothing, absolutely nothing on any
newscasts that whole night.

At about 3 or 3:30 AM I'm now listening to a call in talk show
when a woman caller asks, " Did anybody else see that long white
cylinder over the buildings downtown?" I sat up in bed.

"Did anyone see the flash?" she asked.

I spent the next two hours trying to get through to that radio
station to confirm the lady's 'sighting' of that long white
thing, whatever it was.

Just four years ago I saw a photo on the web that had appeared
in either Life or Time Magazine (not sure which) that was taken
on the day of the blackout of the Manhattan skyline taken from
the Brooklyn/Queens side of the East River close to the
Manhattan Bridge. It showed the long white thing over downtown
Manhattan and was asking the question about what the 'thing'
might be. If I can find it again I'll post the URL so interested
folks can check it out.

The point is, something _that_ big, over New York City, in broad
daylight, and only myself, my landlord's daughter Regina, and
that lady from Manhattan saw the thing? I don't think so. What I
think it shows is that; most folks who have a 'major league
freaky' sighting like that will have a strong tendency to keep
their mouths shut about it. I honestly believe that keeping your
mouth shut about such things is the norm. Not the exception.

That's why I'm not surprised about the number of witnesses re:
the Mexico City UFO.

For what it's worth.

Warm regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                          Re: ET Evidence - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:33:12 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:11:59 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Sparks


 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:01:30 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>>>antenna. As the
 >>>>rotation of the Earth swept the antenna past some particular
 >>>>point in the stellar sphere, a loud (15 decibels above
 >>>>background noise level) unmodulated radio signal came in.

 ><snip>

 >>>>By various means, the scientists determined that the source was
 >>>>"stationary with respect to the stars" which seems to exclude
 >>>>satellites, Earth based echoes and other mundane causes. These
 >>>>would either be stationary - rotating with the antenna, drifting
 >>>>like a signal bounced from the ionosphere, or in some ballistic
 >>>>or orbital trajectory like a satellite. The 'WOW' signal came
 >>>>from one particular point in the sky, as determined by the
 >>>>geometry and characteristics of the receiving antenna etc.

 >>>John & Larry & List,

 >>I can't find enough info to justify the conclusions that the WOW
 >>signal could not have come from a satellite, perhaps in a
 >>geostationary orbit, etc. From a geostationary orbit the signal
 >>would appear in a fixed location relative to the antenna and
 >>would have no ballistic trajectory or a detectable Doppler shift

<snip>

 >>>I don't have the stellar coordinates at hand

 ><snip>

 >Again I cannot find enough info to settle these points.

 >>Brad


 >Hello Brad:

 >A major misunderstanding here, please re-read the original posts
 >(or the above).

 >The source was determined to be fixed with respect to the stars,
 >_not_ the Earth as in geostationary or anything like that!

 >That means one point in space, with no relation to the Earth's
 >rotation. This is made clear in the SETI link I provided
 >earlier.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

Hi Larry,

I don't believe it without sufficient data to justify it, which
is what I originally said.

I could not find the alleged "stellar coordinates" and certainly
saw no mention of an upper limit on how stationary the signal
supposedly was with respect to the stars. It was detected for
only 10 seconds from what I gathered -- in that amount of time
geostationary coordinates would drift only about 1/9,000 of a
degree of right ascension with respect to sidereal coordinates
(about 0.0001 deg). There is no necessity that it would ever
repeat if it came from a classified satellite possibly using
certain bands for rare transmissions expected not to be
monitored by opposing intelligence agencies, such as one-time
only signal intended for an espionage agent on the ground.

Until these possibilities can be eliminated with real data, not
opinions however assertedly authoritative, I will remain
unconvinced.

Best wishes,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:09:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:15:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


List,

Unidentified space objects are being 'spun' as UFOs on a popular
alternative news Website - IBM Sells Air Force New Supercomputer
To Identify UFOs!

Here's what the IBM press release actually said. It's peppered
with high-tech jargon that only Silicon Valley and hard-core
Ufologists could truly love.

The supercomputer eye-in-the-sky imaging system ostensibly helps
track all that space debris out there. Read the lines, or
between 'em...

-eWarrior
(Kurt Jonach)

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ibm.com/news/2000/11/22.phtml
------------------------------------------------------------

SUPERCOMPUTER HELPS U.S. IDENTIFY OBJECTS IN SPACE

The Maui High Performance Computing Center is using a powerful
IBM SP supercomputer to identify objects in space, including
old satellites, foreign spacecraft and unidentified objects.

The new supercomputer assembles photos of objects tracked by
U.S. Air Force telescopes, helping to ensure the nation's
defense, as well as the safety of NASA space flights. It can
process 480 billion calculations per second and is 40 times
faster than the IBM "Deep Blue" supercomputer that defeated
chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.

The SP is the electronic brain that supports the system that
locates, tracks and images satellites using ground based
telescopes. The images are then digitally enhanced by the
supercomputer, using algorithms to improve images in only three
to five seconds.

The dramatic improvement in image quality produced by the IBM SP
allows the government to identify space objects. In addition,
close-up images of damaged spacecraft assist the government in
determining the extent of the damage.

The new supercomputer achieves a peak processing capability of
480 billion calculations a second by harnessing the computing
power of 320 IBM POWER3-II microprocessors, 224 gigabytes of
memory and 2.9 terabytes of IBM disk.

The microprocessors are based on IBM's copper technology.
Microprocessors built with copper provide superior performance
to those that contain traditional aluminum because copper is a
better electrical conductor than aluminum.

The center is at the University of New Mexico.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                 Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:00:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:16:52 -0500
Subject: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent


Source:  "Sun.Star Cebu Electronic Edition"

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/index.html

Stig

***

Pagasa debunks UFO sightings

By Minerva S. Zamora

CLARK FIELD -- Government scientists Tuesday debunked the recent
UFO sightings in nearby Mabalacat town and Angeles city saying
the mysterious lights seen by local residents last Friday
evening came from a land-based light source.

Elmor Escosia, head of the Philippine Atmospheric and
Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) UFO team, said
interviews gathered by his team indicated that the light came
from a halogen spotlight usually used by business or commercial
establishments to attract people.

Escosia, along with four other team members, went to Clark Field
and San Fernando town to investigate reports of mysterious
dancing lights seen by local residents at night.

He cited the team's discovery in Marilao, Bulacan last February
where strange lights hovering at night were sighted in
Novaliches, Quezon city and other parts of Bulacan.

Escosia said the mysterious lights emanated from a P250,000
halogen spotlight capable of beaming light at a 30-kilometer
radius.

Last Friday, residents from Angeles City and Mabalacat were
baffled when a strange light hovered above the skies from six to
11 p.m.

Incidentally, a weekend party-concert was being held along the
Balibago entertainment district during the time of the
sightings.

A halogen spotlight similar to Escosia's discovery in Bulacan
was also used during the concert held in front of Sax Jazz Bar
and Restaurant in Barangay Balibago.

In San Fernando, a similar halogen spotlight was also used at
the Mr. Golf Driving Range and Restaurant two weeks ago.

Escosia noted that people normally tend to exaggerate what they
see when they fail to identify the light source.

He also cited the alleged UFO sightings in Las Pinas and Cavite
which later turned out to be man-made hot air balloons used
every May 18 in celebration of Cavite's patron saint.

But Escosia said his team has yet to identify other unexplained
UFO sightings including the saucer-like aircraft which
reportedly landed in Valencia, Ormoc city in 1984.

Escosia also said his team is set to investigate another UFO
sighting in Negros Occidental. He said at least 10 persons
reportedly saw a ball of light hovering for about 10 minutes
last September 23.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                    US Air Force's Nuclear Flying Saucer

From: Roger Cook <sdpbs@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:51:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:28:34 -0500
Subject: US Air Force's Nuclear Flying Saucer


[Non-Subscriber Post]

Popular Mechanics has now posted this article to their website,
and it is available for public viewing. A real boon for those
who did not manage to find a copy of the magazine.

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/0011STSPAP.html


Roger Cook,

rdcook@mmsaucers.com

Webmaster:  Man-Made Flying Saucers Archives

http://www.mmsaucers.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 02:20:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:57:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:33:18 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >_Something_ causes the camera to rotate upward noticeably in
 >1/30 of a second causing the building edge to move down and the
 >smear to be obvious. What it was is not as important as the fact
 >that the UFO image was not smeared even though the building edge
 >was smeared.

<snip>


Hello Bruce:

To me at least, everything you have said about the entire video
smacks of a superimposed image,  i.e. a fake manufactured for
profit.

I have removed the video case from my main database, and placed
it into a list of discredited cases. I attach this list to one
of my files in case someone asks " Why don't you have the XYZ
affair in your database? "

That way its easy to look up, and I don't have to remember the
details of every canard that comes down the pike.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:59:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:41:22 -0000
 >From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

 >Source: Reuters.com

 >http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=science&Repository=SCIE
 >NCE_REP&RepositoryStoryID=%2Fnews%2FIDS%2FScience%2FSCIENCE-IBM-UFO-DC
 >_TXT.XML

 >Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

 >Last updated: 22 Nov 2000 15:05 GMT (Reuters)

<snip>

Dear Stephen MILES Lewis:

Its about time. Their old MacIntosh was probably getting cranky,
and gawd knows what dangerous junk is orbiting Earth as we type.

Literally anything that sorts wheat from chaff in this awful
field is welcome.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch



PS: I should add a small apology to anyone I earlier offended
with some anti-MacIntosh comments earlier!

Its a bit like Fords versus Chevys, (to be generous)  and a
matter of personal preferences.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:23:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:02:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video -

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500

<snip>

John-

I was not aware of your background, and did not mean to classify
... well, you know what I mean.

 >We're not all "good Catholics" Steve. I'm not "Catholic" at all.
 >Neither is anybody else in my -large- family. The last thing a
 >"Velez" would think to do is to go running to a Priest to
 >confess! <LOL>That all or even many Latino's are Catholics who
 >run to priests at the first sign of crisis, is just an old wives
 >tale/stereotype.

 >>But these witnesses should have the opportunity to tell their
 >>story and it should be investigated fully.

 >I agree 100%. The problem is, nobody is "doing it."

Your comment about the culture being more family oriented and
the core family group coming to the aid of its members to
protect them is, I believe, a remnant of the "Christian"
upbringing that most of those to come from Europe over the past
five Centuries have brought with them. FYI, I was raised as a
Unitarian, which is a far cry from being Catholic (and even
Christian). I don't mean to perpetuate stereotypes, but the
cultural lineage comes into play here, IMO. That being said, you
would probably have a better handle on their reaction to the
unknown than I.

 >>I wouldn't want to pre-judge those who were interviewed, but
 >>unless one wants to buy into the concept that those on the craft
 >>were merely toying with us and only allowing certain people to
 >>see the craft, the fact that so few witnesses have been found is
 >>IMO significant.

 >It is Steve. I'm just not so sure that 'most folks' would run to
 >report such a sighting to anyone. For all the reasons mentioned
 >above. Ergo, few witnesses actually turn up to report.

 >If you knew _nothing_ at all about UFOs or ufology, would you
 >voluntarily and by yourself walk into a police station and
 >report that you saw a UFO/flying saucer over your head?

 >Think about doing it as a 'real world event' and not just an
 >intellectual exercise.

 >"Reporting" is not as easy to do as you'd first think eh? When
 >you think about it in this way, you get to see what you
 >_actually_ have to put down on the line if you were to have to
 >do it. It's just a damned hard thing to do period. Why do you
 >think I showered GT with accolades for having the rocks to share
 >his sighting report? You know me. I don't give away 'candy'
 >that easily or that often. Reporting takes very real courage and
 >a ton of agonizing and forethought. People think it's a joke.
 >It's not. Public reporting of such a thing is one of the hardest
 >things a person can do. ;)

We've all been down these roads before.

There is an assumption here that the witnesses that were found
were not fully investigated, when in fact they may have been by
Mexican UFO researchers. Witnesses in Mexico are no different
than those in the US and I would suspect that all of the same
limitations would apply. Veracity, from my perspective, has to
be proven and cannot be assumed, when the goal is to prove
something of this scope.

As I said, this needs to be examined and that examination needs
to be published. What bothers me is that there are many people
in Washington DC that I could approach and ask about a major
sighting the day before and a percentage of them would probably
admit to having seen it as well (even though I was making the
story up on the spot). There is a percentage of the public that
simply wants special attention, and it would be easy for them to
be guided in their descriptions by an investigator who was
trying to prove a pre-existing theory. I regret that some of
this is probably going on in the abduction arena, which makes it
far more difficult to get to the bottom of that particular
mystery (IMO). I have found that by the time you dig through all
the sociological and psychological factors, most annecdotal
eyewitness testimony isn't worth all that much.

One factor in all of this that hasn't been mentioned is the fact
that the provenance for the video is somewhat flawed. I don't
believe that anyone actually located the individual who took the
video, but Bruce indicated that the location of the building
where it was shot was identified. In addition, I believe that he
was able to trace it to a certain floor of that building that
also (just by chance) has a video production firm on that side
of the building. Given the fact that the video appears to be a
very good hoax (given Jeff's analysis), it would seem that it
was shot at a location that also housed the equipment that could
do it.

All in all, I don't have particularly strong feelings about this
case, and that many would like to investigate this further is
not a bad thing. Unfortunately, ufology finds itself
continuously chasing its own tail, trying to re-examine every
facet of the genre over and over again as new researchers enter
the fray.

John, I hope that you and everyone else has a tremendous
Thanksgiving.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 23

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:25:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:08:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video -

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

 >>I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but if such a
 >>craft were witnesses over the skies of Washington there would be
 >>more than a few people calling the local authorities. This
 >>wasn't a "light in the sky" but a large craft that was moving
 >>fairly slowly over a section of Mexico City (which is far larger
 >>than the Nation's Capital).

 >Hiya Steve,

 >See my response to Josh Goldstein (in this same thread) about
 >'big city' sightings and people reporting. ;)

 >>IMO, the fear "of being ostracized by social acquaintences for
 >>'telling such tales'" seems to be much more likely on our side
 >>of the border. Given the differences in our cultures, we need to
 >>have a sociologist in this discussion.

 >Oye! No me pongas bravo! (Don't piss me off! <LOL>) I _AM_ a
 >Latino! Puerto Rican to be precise. You'd need a microscope to
 >see the difference between our 'Latino' island culture and that
 >of the Mexicans. Two ends of the same stick. Or as we say in
 >Spanish,

 >"La misma mierda con palito differente." ;)

Haah!

(And I'm no expert in languages!)

 >If anything, Latinos, who are very 'social' and 'family'
 >oriented, would be _less_ likely to openly discuss a matter that
 >they know would be looked upon with skepticism or disdain. They
 >just wouldn't tend to bring up anything that they think might
 >"alienate" their beloved family members. Or how they are thought
 >of within the family.

Ah John! Here I beg to differ, if only a little bit.

Of course the Latinos care about the opinions of their friends
and families.

Like it or not - and I had a German grandmother - I have come to
the conclusion that a German would rather commit suicide than
admit to a UFO sighting! If it were not for allied bombers
during the war, my UFO map of Germany would be virtually vacant.
Maps of France, Britain and Italy are jam packed with filtered
*U* sightings in comparison

The Frenchman, the Italian, the Hispanic or even a
Netherlandian, will eventually speak to someone, and say that
they saw something strange in the sky. But, not Germany. The few
reports that do come from Deutchland tend to originate from
blatant crackpots.

It could just be something ordinary, that is not the point. My
point is that certain cultures seem to be less inhibited about
describing their experiences; no matter how goofy; while others
are more afraid of the opinions of others.

Frankly, I admire and apppreciate the free, open discussion of
UFOs and other matters as shown by the less frightened cultures
on Earth, even if this includes some inevitable junk.

Our worst enema is secrecy. That corks up everything.

Please credit your sources!

Please see further notes below ..

 >The family members would most likely be concerned for the sanity
 >and well being of their loved one. And being an "Old Fashioned
 >Values" bunch, they _would_ think the person is crazy. The
 >person would then become a topic of discussion where ever two or
 >more tongue wagging family members would assemble. In short, it
 >would be like defecating on the dinner table during a family
 >reunion. Like that.

 >_That_ is how a Latino family might react. :)

 >>I would speculate that the sighting of a large unknown craft
 >>(South of the Border) would cause many to seek help and advice
 >>from religious leaders as to what it meant.

 >We're not all "good Catholics" Steve. I'm not "Catholic" at all.
 >Neither is anybody else in my -large- family. The last thing a
 >"Velez" would think to do is to go running to a Priest to
 >confess! <LOL>That all or even many Latino's are Catholics who
 >run to priests at the first sign of crisis, is just an old wives
 >tale/stereotype.

Un buen, feliz Dia de Pavos a Todos!

And apologies if I screwed that up as well!

Best dressings, regardless.


- Larry Hatch: BDDX, Ph.R, SSQK .. *


* GDDX (Gozador de Dos Equis)
   Ph.R (Doctorate in Rhubarb)
   SSQK (Still seeking the Queen's Knickers)


"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

.. to which I might add:

"Quiet! The Schnertzmeirers are listening!
  Right next door!" - Somebody's grandmother.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:09:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:34:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

<snip>

 >Its about time. Their old MacIntosh was probably getting cranky,
 >and gawd knows what dangerous junk is orbiting Earth as we type.

 >Literally anything that sorts wheat from chaff in this awful
 >field is welcome.


 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

Larry-

I seem to recall that the HUBBLE repair mission a few years back
replaced the main computer system with an updated model, based
on the Intel 486 chip.

The Pentium had been out for several years and the Pentium II
was already on the market, but the 486 processor had been fully
tested and certified for use in Space technology and the older
system was later installed.

Keep in mind that the processor that is still the most prominent
in the world is (I believe) still the faithful old 8086 (which
pre-dates the 80286 AT processor).  While not utilized in
computers any longer, it now helps to run all of our appliances
and other devices that have become "smart".








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

               Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:29:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:36:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent


 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:00:10 +0100
 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >Source:  "Sun.Star Cebu Electronic Edition"

 >http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/index.html

 >Stig

 >***

 >Pagasa debunks UFO sightings
 >By Minerva S. Zamora


 >CLARK FIELD -- Government scientists Tuesday debunked the recent
 >UFO sightings in nearby Mabalacat town and Angeles city saying
 >the mysterious lights seen by local residents last Friday
 >evening came from a land-based light source.

<snip>


Dear Stig:

The reporters (above) neatly avoided one of my favorite little
bugaboos. They failed to say that the useless night-lights were
in a " perfect triangle". For shame!

I defy anybody on this list to define a perfect triangle! Go
ahead jello-brains, tell me what is and is not a "perfect
triangle".

Better yet, provide an example of an imperfect triangle.

Ha ha ha ha!

Oh go eat yer turkey, and go back to sleep.



Best wishes regardless.

- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:47:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:39:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:41:22 -0000
 >>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <elfis@austin.rr.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

 >>Source: Reuters.com

 >>Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

 >>Last updated: 22 Nov 2000 15:05 GMT (Reuters)

 ><snip>

 >Dear Stephen MILES Lewis:

 >Its about time. Their old MacIntosh was probably getting cranky,
 >and gawd knows what dangerous junk is orbiting Earth as we type.

In a multiverse the size of ours that danger could take on a
near infinite amount of twists and curls requiring an imperative
for ever more informative resolution. Rocks and satellites do
with range and azimuth, but you want the best look you can get
at a UFO.

 >Literally anything that sorts wheat from chaff in this awful
 >field is welcome.

I won't look for any chaff sorting here. We'll never see what
that computer was designed to resolve. I'm skeptical of official
veracity, and appreciate the choking cloak of the generally
unjust secrecy. I think it pervades our whole society, is more
apparent than our cognitive dissonance while allow us to accept,
and is maintained by the aggregate manipulation we endure from a
corporate media. Pardon my defiant obstinacy.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

 >PS: I should add a small apology to anyone I earlier offended
 >with some anti-MacIntosh comments earlier!

Hey! They deserve whatever scorn they get! Kidding, but
seriously, they have been wonderful for keeping IBM right up on
its tippy-toes. I've used them both, and it seems that Apple
presumes too much in the operation of its operating system and
software. Everything is fine if you do it their way, but... IBM
doesn't presume so much, or in the same manner, I don't know...
I prefer the dos/win. It gives me more of the illusion that I
can go, do, and be!

 >>Its a bit like Fords versus Chevys, (to be generous) and a
 >matter of personal preferences.

Rhode Island to the rest of the solar system (short of the
asteroid belt) is still pretty generous, hoss, and personal
preferences have never been any proof of the quality of the
choice. <g>.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.com
          **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at a
skepti-feebroid 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: 'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:54:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:40:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:54:47 -0500
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: 'Scientific American Frontiers: Changing Your Mind'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >There's still a couple of showings left.

 >I highly recommend viewing this program, particularly for what
 >it has to say about the malleability of our memories.

<snip>

 >11th season, Alda meets two young women whose brains have
 >remodeled themselves -- one temporarily in response to a week of
 >being blindfolded, the other permanently after a devastating
 >brain injury before birth. They are dramatic examples of
 >"neuroplasticity" -- today's hot topic in brain research. Alda
 >also joins researchers who have overthrown the conventional
 >wisdom that adults can't grow new brain cells. Also new this
 >month: SuperPeople (11/28), about folks who are pushing
 >themselves to the limits of human performance.

Hi Ron,

What I would find much more interesting (because it is specific
to most abductees) is the durability of memory in some
situations. What are the mechanisms which prove this to be so?

One quite common report from perceived abductees and in my own
case, is memories which persist over a lifetime. These are
usually a recall of perceived events immediately after they
occur or are perceived to have occured. In my case, there are
persistent "snapshot" memories lasting fifty-five years after
they happened. Has anyone or will anyone investigate this aspect
of memory?

I guess my point is, it's easy to look at pelicans, swamp gas
and the planet Mongo (or Venus). But it's much more difficult to
take the more positive approach and attempt to define the
manner(s) in which a thing may be so, as opposed to taking all
the methane and planets to the table, along with memory
maleability and attempt to prove or imply how it may not be so.

Which applies to practically every UFO sighting & every claim of
UFO abduction.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:59:49 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:42:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:37:59 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >But the real deal is that few people ever look up in crowded
 >urban environments so that cuts the number of
 >potential witnesses way down right there. Also if was a cloudy,
 >overcast day (as it appears to have been) there wouldn't have
 >been many folks out perambulating around anyway.

To all,

Last year (Or the year before), I posted regarding, Maussan and
his new witnesses he claimed to have found. He was speaking at
the Project Awareness UFO Conference. It was either in Gulf
Breeze or Clearwater, Florida.

Basically, this is what he said (And the audiotapes are
available from the promoters if anybody doesn't believe me. But
I have a decent memory and this is what I remember.

Maussan said that almost one hundred witnesses had come forward
to say that they had seen the object in question. I knew this
was a big deal because one of the major complaints people had
was that there were so few witnesses to a huge daylight
sighting.

This was right before a special was to air on Fox regarding the
Mexico sighting. I asked Maussan or his producer (I forget
which) if they were going to get this information to the Fox
producers before they aired their show. I think he said yes.

Well, needless to say, we never heard anything about these new
witnesses. In my mind, Maussan lost all credibility on that day.


Joe Murgia
Editor, Open Mind News









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:15:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:46:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:54:02 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:14:44 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Michel wrote:

 >>On the other hand, it also doesn't help when skeptics rehash
 >>classic cases that have always been unexplained and will
 >>continue to be unexplained, and bring up mundane, conventional
 >>explanations when there is none.

 >>You are no longer a skeptic if you've begun to do the job of a
 >>debunker. Unlike a skeptic, who simply says: "It can't be; I
 >>don't believe it", a debunker goes on to label the bonafide
 >>sighting with some stupid, mundane, conventional explanation for
 >>an event that, for all intent and purpose, has no mundane,
 >>logical explanation. Take it from a guy who has had enough
 >>practice after witnessing for himself, 17 separate sightings of
 >>UFOs since 1974.

 >>Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >>(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >>really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >>been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

 >>Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >>us who have, do...

 >So let me make sure that I understand what you are saying:

 >Only those that believe, at face value, all unsolved UFO claims
 >or have seen a UFO for themselves have the right to question the
 >existence of UFOs? If so, then what's the point of this
 >discussion list and why are you a participant?

 >I've never heard anything so silly...

 >Roger

You misunderstood what I was saying...

Blunt you want, blunt you get...

First of all, UFOs are not a belief system. Either they are
real, or they're not. Second, they are far from being "at face
value" since they have been thoroughly investigated, if not at
the time they took place, then years later while being
re-examined by competent researchers with scientific means.

It seems to me that a great number of people are not aware of
these cases, specially those who couldn't care less about the
UFO commmunity, never mind being part of it. Folks who have not
witnessed something for themselves, or are not familiar with the
investigative work done by world-reknown UFO researchers...are
the very same people who cry out for proof, evidence,
whatever...for the reality of UFOs, Flying Saucers, Alien
Spacecraft...whatever you want to call them.

I don't have to ask for such proof because I've seen. But there
are a lot of Doubting Thomases out there. And if some UFO
researchers happen to be part of that group (perhaps because
they themselves don't have enough faith in their own facts)
despite the good investigative work they may have done on some
of these cases, then I feel sorry for them.

For the truth of this reality is as plain as the nose on their
faces. If they can't see it, then that's too damn bad.

As for those people who couldn't care less about UFOs and
related matters, they're not going to ask for any proof since
they don't care about the subject, anyway.

I know for a fact that if anyone tries to gather evidence in
order to convince other people, they will never succeed. And it
sure doesn't help if they themselves do not "believe", "face up
to" or "accept" this reality for themselves.


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
Perspective intact....








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:49:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:00:01 -0000

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500

 >>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:01:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Michael wrote:

 >>On the other hand, it also doesn't help when skeptics rehash
 >>classic cases that have always been unexplained and will
 >>continue to be unexplained, and bring up mundane, conventional
 >>explanations when there is none.

 >Whoah there boy, 'classic cases that have always been
 >unexplained and will continue to be unexplained'?

 >This is just the sort of 'believer' nonsense which makes them a
 >laughing stock. How on earth can you state that something 'will
 >continue to be explained'? How do you *know* that? Why would you
 >even believe something will never be explained. Where's your
 >curiosity, your dedication to research? Many 'classic' cases -
 >certainly in the UK- have been unexplained for years, and then
 >resolved. Which makes a mockery of: 'classic cases that have
 >always been unexplained and will continue to be unexplained'?

 >If this sort of thinking is an example of 'believer' ufology
 >then it's still in the dark ages. At least Jerry puts up some
 >form of spirited, if misguided, defence to his statements.

 >>You are no longer a skeptic if you've begun to do the job of a
 >>debunker. Unlike a skeptic, who simply says: "It can't be; I
 >>don't believe it",

 >What a weird interpretation of what Michel believes sceptics
 >think. It's more like 'I'll not come to a conclusion until this
 >case is resolved'.

 >>Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >>(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >>really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >>been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

 >Laugh? I nearly did, but I was too busy typeing... but Michel -
 >and we've been through it all before - what about the 'true
 >unknowns' which _were_ resolved? Were they _really_ 'true
 >unknowns' or just IFOs masquerading as 'true unknowns'? There
 >cannot be such a thing as a 'true unknown' simply because time
 >passes and things change. Just 'unknown, as of this moment in
 >time'.

 >>Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >>us who have, do...

 >Sounds like blind faith to me. But whatever keeps you warm at
 >night eh?

 >Happy Trails

 >Andy
 >bingo card at the ready


If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
imagination.

If I look out onto the street and see a 1969 Ford Mustang, I am
looking at a 1969 Ford Mustang, and not a 1976 Chevrolet Nova.
There are no two ways about it. You see something, clear and
distinct. It is what it is!

For example:

I look up in the sky and see a bright cigar-shaped object moving
along at very low altitude, and at a fast rate of speed.

Someone screams out: It's a cruise missile! Can't be because I'm not
anywhere near a military firing range.

Someone else says: Must be an airplane passing in front of the
sun.  Can't be because there was no sound. Low altitude,
remember?  Duh!

And so on...

Each time I saw something, I would go through my checklist...
satellite, weather balloon, sun dogs, flare, aircraft,
atmospheric condition, Planet, Star, etc, etc, etc.

Funny how eyewitnesses seemed to be looked upon as people who
couldn't recognize an anomaly in the sky from a hole in the
ground?

Those of us who have seen UFOs, Flying Saucers and/or their
Occupants, sometimes up close and personal, we know what we saw.

Those who haven't, don't... period. Lord knows I try to gather
some type of evidence or indication of there being something
real here; not so that I can convince myself of this reality.
But convince others of it. And it doesn't work!

We wouldn't be having these discussions day after day after day,
if a proper database of all thoroughly investigated cases had
been set up from the beginning. The bulk of the badly needed
information is still being withheld by governments around the
world.

But to the hard core skeptic, anything presented to them means
absolutely nothing at all. They'll never be convinced.

I doubt they' believe their own government if they were to come
forward and say so, because they lie all the time. Who'd believe
them?

Point made...
Over and out!


Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:55:56 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:14:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz


 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:25:40 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video -

 >>>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500

 >>>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 ><snip>

 >>>I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but if such a
 >>>craft were witnesses over the skies of Washington there would be
 >>>more than a few people calling the local authorities. This
 >>>wasn't a "light in the sky" but a large craft that was moving
 >>>fairly slowly over a section of Mexico City (which is far larger
 >>>than the Nation's Capital).

 >>Hiya Steve,

 >>See my response to Josh Goldstein (in this same thread) about
 >>'big city' sightings and people reporting. ;)

 >>>IMO, the fear "of being ostracized by social acquaintences for
 >>>'telling such tales'" seems to be much more likely on our side
 >>>of the border. Given the differences in our cultures, we need to
 >>>have a sociologist in this discussion.

 >>Oye! No me pongas bravo! (Don't piss me off! <LOL>) I _AM_ a
 >>Latino! Puerto Rican to be precise. You'd need a microscope to
 >>see the difference between our 'Latino' island culture and that
 >>of the Mexicans. Two ends of the same stick. Or as we say in
 >>Spanish,

 >>"La misma mierda con palito differente." ;)

 >Haah!

 >(And I'm no expert in languages!)

 >>If anything, Latinos, who are very 'social' and 'family'
 >>oriented, would be _less_ likely to openly discuss a matter that
 >>they know would be looked upon with skepticism or disdain. They
 >>just wouldn't tend to bring up anything that they think might
 >>"alienate" their beloved family members. Or how they are thought
 >>of within the family.

 >Ah John! Here I beg to differ, if only a little bit.

 >Of course the Latinos care about the opinions of their friends
 >and families.

 >Like it or not - and I had a German grandmother - I have come to
 >the conclusion that a German would rather commit suicide than
 >admit to a UFO sighting! If it were not for allied bombers
 >during the war, my UFO map of Germany would be virtually vacant.
 >Maps of France, Britain and Italy are jam packed with filtered
 >*U* sightings in comparison

 >The Frenchman, the Italian, the Hispanic or even a
 >Netherlandian, will eventually speak to someone, and say that
 >they saw something strange in the sky. But, not Germany. The few
 >reports that do come from Deutchland tend to originate from
 >blatant crackpots.

 >It could just be something ordinary, that is not the point. My
 >point is that certain cultures seem to be less inhibited about
 >describing their experiences; no matter how goofy; while others
 >are more afraid of the opinions of others.

 >Frankly, I admire and apppreciate the free, open discussion of
 >UFOs and other matters as shown by the less frightened cultures
 >on Earth, even if this includes some inevitable junk.

 >Our worst enema is secrecy. That corks up everything.

 >Please credit your sources!

 >Please see further notes below ..

 >>The family members would most likely be concerned for the sanity
 >>and well being of their loved one. And being an "Old Fashioned
 >>Values" bunch, they _would_ think the person is crazy. The
 >>person would then become a topic of discussion where ever two or
 >>more tongue wagging family members would assemble. In short, it
 >>would be like defecating on the dinner table during a family
 >>reunion. Like that.

 >>_That_ is how a Latino family might react. :)

 >>>I would speculate that the sighting of a large unknown craft
 >>>(South of the Border) would cause many to seek help and advice
 >>>from religious leaders as to what it meant.

 >>We're not all "good Catholics" Steve. I'm not "Catholic" at all.
 >>Neither is anybody else in my -large- family. The last thing a
 >>"Velez" would think to do is to go running to a Priest to
 >>confess! <LOL>That all or even many Latino's are Catholics who
 >>run to priests at the first sign of crisis, is just an old wives
 >>tale/stereotype.

 >Un buen, feliz Dia de Pavos a Todos!

 >And apologies if I screwed that up as well!

 >Best dressings, regardless.

 >- Larry Hatch: BDDX, Ph.R, SSQK .. *

 >* GDDX (Gozador de Dos Equis)
 >Ph.R (Doctorate in Rhubarb)
 >SSQK (Still seeking the Queen's Knickers)


 >"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

 >.. to which I might add:

 >"Quiet! The Schnertzmeirers are listening!
 > Right next door!" - Somebody's grandmother.


Dear Errol and List,

For some days ago until today, I've been reading all of your
comments on a subject that strongly touches us here in Mexico,
and that is the video called 'The Las Lomas Video'. The one
recorded in August 6th. It's been for me sometimes amusing, but
other concerning how too many opinions can be expressed without
any kind of field research, or without consulting who has been
there for weeks, in order to learn a little more on a subject,
that in Internet has certainly been very widely discussed, but
very badly investigated. The truth.

We have spent money, time, effort and reputation in looking
for all the elements to perform a real investigation - real
field research. And we succeeded.

Jaime Maussan started and myself and other colleagues here were
looking for eyewitnesses, traces, radar detection, official
reports from our authorities, specific plans for merchandising
and advertising using balloons, foreign companies based in
Mexico City employing foreigners, etc.

We were not only watching a video clip!

Not just making hypothesis, but trying to get all the possible
reality out of all the elements... And believe me, we did
succeed...

I have not seen too many investigators or journalist here asking
for details. Nobody asked us for permission to put this clip in
Internet - if it was O.K. with us.

What is important is get the public really informed, so we have
to thank to all those persons who allowed the public to watch
what happened here in our skies. But what is incredible is that,
after more than 3 years, there are people that still believe
that we became rich, or that we paid the eyewitnesses to say
what they said, or that we or somebody else fabricated this clip
just to havet some fun with us and all the real researchers that
came here to really investigate the facts...

As far as I can remember, there were only very few, like Giorgio
Bongiovanni, from Italy; Michael Hesemann, from Germany;
Jun-Ichi Yaoi, from Japan; Claire Kavanagh, from U.K., and maybe
others, like Univision and NBC journalists, whose names I cannot
remember... I know it very well, because the most of the
witnesses, at this point, are really tired of repeating the same
story everytime, as if they are not believed. They call us, in
order to know if this or that researcher or journalist is real
or somebody non-serious... Is a shame when people just talk
without knowing the facts as they really happened...

This story has more than a video on it. They are witnesses that
did not want to talk because of their positions regarding their
homes (placed in a zone where it was illegal to be placed one
time)... They were the recorders of this clip that were very
afraid af a chief that harrassed and shouted them as he did at
us...

There were people that suffered skin burns that we analysed and
even worse, "illnesses" that I saw until a fatal point after an
overexposition to the magnetic field of this ship... I have seen
too many things around this area, where not only this time, but
too many others, have seen UFOs surrounding... Hovering...
Planes crashing there, and magnetic anomalies easily detectable
are just a part of the puzzle where this Ovni de Las Lomas was
placed by the history...

Is very sad when a whole case is judged just for one of its
parts... Just one of its elements... Its as if somebody exists
only if there is a document that proves his or her existence...
And, shamefully, it happens very often in this world... Its as
if the existence of everyone of us does not count at all as a
fact, but just as a statistic...

Yes, I have to recognize that the work that Bruce and others
have performed analysing this video is more than remarkable. I
really thank them for doing this.

But, I remember when Jaime Maussan and I met Mr. Jeff Sainio the
first time in Denver, at the Renassaince Hotel. We interviewed
him (I have everything on video), and he offered very poor
arguments to discredit the clip. He never replied to our
questions regarding the eyewitnesses...

Is very easy just to say that the video was created on a
computer, but tell me, is it possible for a computer to burn the
skin of Mexican citizens? Or that we all are lunatics, seeing
UFOs, since 1991, in a wave that never ends and is very
consistent, created by computers? Detected by radar controllers,
and by pilots, some who come from your airlines from your
countries?

It is also very easy to formulate statements lacking of realness
and field research when oneself has never been in the site of
the facts, and very comfortably asking everything through your
computers...

I don't know where UFO research is falling down... I'm afraid to
be hard, but everytime I see things like this, I believe less in
some reserachers, and I'm certain that maybe behind it there are
some other interests...

I don't know, but, dear Errol and List, I beg that you can
continue keeping this List as the very remarkable forum it has
been until now, not allowing some people to say things that have
nothing to do with the spirit of the investigation.

(See above those disappointing words that somebody wrote in
Spanish.  Very cowardly and offensive to Spanish readers such as
myself - a Mexican investigator and journalist)

Please, let's continue giving each other real "pearls" of
knowledge and information on a subject that is very difficult
and controversial, but in the end one of the most important of
our times and lives.

My very best and deep regards to all of you.

Daniel Muoz

P.S. - Excuse my English...







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 02:45:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:18:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:37:59 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:08:10 +0100
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Hello Jim and UpDates,

 >>I must confess that I have not personally investigated this
 >>video and I have only followed it for years on UFO UpDates, etc.

 >Hiya Josh,

 >You really should take more than a cursory look at it, and yes
 >I'm bothered by the same questions that you are.

 >>The nagging questions I have are:

 >>Who has checked police logs, press, and any other sources
 >>witnesses to a UFO might have contacted? What did they show?

 >>Did the two witnesses contact Jaime Mausson on their own
 >>volition?

 >>Or was the area of the video canvassed to locate possible
 >>witnesses?

 >>Did any investigators ask any leading questions?

 >>If a large number of people did not report a UFO, why?

 >>Once again, camera jitter and selective revelation to two does
 >>not sound that kosher.

 >>I feel the same way when I read a report of 1 or 2 people seeing
 >>a large UFO over New York City. I am not talking about abductee
 >>or contactee reports but just witnessess to a plainly visible
 >>object in a metropolitan area.

 >>My guess is that a large number of people would have witnessed
 >>this object.

 >Yeah you'd think so. But the real deal is that few people ever
 >look up in crowded urban environments so that cuts the number of
 >potential witnesses way down right there. Also if was a cloudy,
 >overcast day (as it appears to have been) there wouldn't have
 >been many folks out perambulating around anyway.

 >I've got a good one just for you Josh. It'll help to illustrate
 >a point about 'big city' sightings.

 >During the last major power failure in New York City,  (1977 ?)
 >My landlord's 17 Y.O. daughter and myself had a sighting. We
 >were all, (my wife, myself, my landlord, his wife, and two of
 >his daughters) sitting around on our front porch ruminating
 >about how long it was going to take to get power restored. From
 >our street corner in Bay Ridge Brooklyn we could see the top
 >half of the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and a good portion of
 >the downtown skyline. I decided to take a walk down to the
 >corner to see if power had been restored in Manhattan. It was
 >still daylight but approaching evening so I figured I might spot
 >a few 'lights' on, on or in some of the buildings. My landlord's
 >daughter (Regina) asked if she could accompany me and I said
 >sure. Off we went.

 >When we got to the corner Regina let out a yelp and said, "What
 >the Hell is that?" Suspended over the Twin Towers was a
 >looooong, all white, cigarette shaped 'thing' that had to be a
 >quarter mile long. My jaw dropped and my eyes bugged out. When I
 >turned to say something to Regina she was gone! She was running
 >back up towards the house to either get everybody down to the
 >corner or just to blurt out a report. I have no idea which.

 >I looked back at this 'thing' which was just hovering/suspended
 >over the Towers when a really bright flash came out of it and it
 >just disappeared. Right before my eyes it was gone. Poof. One
 >second it's there, gonzo the next. I stood there dumbfounded
 >half expecting the thing to reappear. It didn't.

 >We buzzed and buzzed about it for a couple of hours and then it
 >was over. Later that night I'm laying in bed with a transistor
 >radio to my ear and I'm listening for news reports or
 >'something' about that thing and the big flash, and how it had
 >just disappeared and all. Nothing, absolutely nothing on any
 >newscasts that whole night.

 >At about 3 or 3:30 AM I'm now listening to a call in talk show
 >when a woman caller asks, " Did anybody else see that long white
 >cylinder over the buildings downtown?" I sat up in bed.

 >"Did anyone see the flash?" she asked.

 >I spent the next two hours trying to get through to that radio
 >station to confirm the lady's 'sighting' of that long white
 >thing, whatever it was.

 >Just four years ago I saw a photo on the web that had appeared
 >in either Life or Time Magazine (not sure which) that was taken
 >on the day of the blackout of the Manhattan skyline taken from
 >the Brooklyn/Queens side of the East River close to the
 >Manhattan Bridge. It showed the long white thing over downtown
 >Manhattan and was asking the question about what the 'thing'
 >might be. If I can find it again I'll post the URL so interested
 >folks can check it out.

 >The point is, something _that_ big, over New York City, in broad
 >daylight, and only myself, my landlord's daughter Regina, and
 >that lady from Manhattan saw the thing? I don't think so. What I
 >think it shows is that; most folks who have a 'major league
 >freaky' sighting like that will have a strong tendency to keep
 >their mouths shut about it. I honestly believe that keeping your
 >mouth shut about such things is the norm. Not the exception.

 >That's why I'm not surprised about the number of witnesses re:
 >the Mexico City UFO.

 >For what it's worth.


Hello John,

Thanks for your post regarding people looking up and your report
of your sighting. I remember in the past when you posted your
opinion of New Yorkers not looking up to the sky. I am not
doubting your report of your sighting, but afterwards did you
call the police, the press, the FAA, the MUFON state section
director, etc. to report it and also try to find out if others
saw it?

I still find it hard to accept that a large UFO would be in
broad daylight at low altitude in a metropolitan area and very
few people would report it to anyone. I wondered that about the
Linda Cortile case also even though it was at night. Look what
happened in Mexico with all the solar eclipse UFO videos and
testimonials. I think in a built up area in Mexico City lots of
people would be out on an overcast day. I think plenty of people
would see a full size UFO hovering next to an apartment
building. I'm not about to go down there and pursue my questions
I posed in my previous post. Anyone doing so would begin by
investigating those questions and many others.

John, if you did not fully check whether others had reported
your blackout sighting your impression that it was only seen by
a very few people is incorrect. I propose that we perform an
experiment.

Let's build an object to resemble that white cylinder, a balloon
perhaps, and stage a daytime simulation of that UFO over
Manhattan. We could place observers on the ground in that
location and have monitors checking all the places where people
would report a sighting. Then we will vary the sightings.

One week later we could create a power blackout to simulate the
original conditions. We could compare the reports to the
previous ones. Maybe New Yorkers need something more stimulating
to draw their attention skyward. What would you suggest?

Take care,

Josh











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:44:35 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:33:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:09:34 -0800


 >List,

 >Unidentified space objects are being 'spun' as UFOs on a popular
 >alternative news Website - IBM Sells Air Force New Supercomputer
 >To Identify UFOs!

 >Here's what the IBM press release actually said. It's peppered
 >with high-tech jargon that only Silicon Valley and hard-core
 >Ufologists could truly love.

 >The supercomputer eye-in-the-sky imaging system ostensibly helps
 >track all that space debris out there. Read the lines, or
 >between 'em...

 >-eWarrior
 >(Kurt Jonach)

Hey, wait a sec... if I remember correctly the one alternative
site I read, the headline was.....

"IBM Sells Air Force New Supercomputer To Identify UFOs"

Excuse me, but since when did "UFO" change it's meaning? It
still means "Unidentified" dun'nit?  And the altenative sight I
read it on supported the entire article including the press
release.

When I went to PhD school I lernt my marketing and advertising
reel good. It says, "Put it all in the headline." This way it
attracts attention to reading the entire thingy. Then you can
make up your own mind.

Good journalism as long as the scrip contains the truth.

Just my two cents.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:13:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:03:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:19:36 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video


 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:33:18 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

I wrote:

 >>I should have been more clear above. As a result of analyzing
 >>image smear using an automated computer program Jeff developed,
 >>he found that the _whole_ video showed this effect of the UFO
 >>image being blurred less than the buildings. However, because of
 >>the fast shutter this effect was generally not easy to see with
 >>the naked eye. So let me say again, the analysis of _every_
 >>frame formed the statistical basis of Jeff's discovery. He
 >>informed me of that fact (after HOURS of analysis by both of
 >>us!)

 >>For the expert: Jeff's program measured the image edge gradient
 >>for the UFO and for the builring in each frame of the video. The
 >>edge gradient is large when the image is well focused and
 >>stationary (does not move during the frame time.) The edge
 >>gradient shrinks with defocus and with image blur due to motion.
 >>He discovered that the relative egde gradient of the UFO was
 >>about constant whereas the relative edge gradient of the
 >>building changed with the image motion from frame to frame. (The
 >>image motion from frame to frame is a measure of the rate of
 >>rotation of the camera abou some axis... said motion being
 >>caused by hand vibration or mechanical vibration... and said
 >motion being the cause of the image smear.)

 >Hi Bruce,

 >Just hang in there a bit longer with me while I try to
 >understand exactly what you're talking about here. (If I'm not
 >completely clear on it I'm sure some other readers aren't
 >either.) I'll set this up so that you have a simple yes or no
 >set of responses to address. I thank you in advance for the time
 >you're taking to do it.>

 >Yes, no?

 >Jeff has written a piece of software that can measure the
 >gradient at the edge of selected portions within the video
 >frames. All (measured) edges (whether in motion or stationary)
 >_should_ display the same amount of gradient change from frame
 >to frame. e.g. if building edge gradient changes, UFO edge
 >gradient should change equally regardless of the fact that one
 >internal element is stationary while the other is in motion. All
 >internal elements should display the exact same amount of "image
 >smear" in any selected frame. (?)>

Jeff's report is in the October 1998 MUFON Journal.

All internal elements of the picture, to the extent that they
are real images of objects "out there" should have the same
amount of smear due to camera motion. If one object , e.g., UFO,
has its own motion relative to objects known to be stationary,
e.g., building,s then there could be added smear or decrease in
gradient, in th direction of the motion.

In this case, the horizontal edge gradient of the UFO was always
greater than that of the gradient of the horizontal edge of the
building. Horizontal edges (the UFO bottom, for example)
provided the best edge data.

 >Is this effect (edge smear) a uniform quantity from video to
 >video or does it need to be recalibrated each time a new
 >videotape is submitted?

THe image edge gradient depends upon the quality of the focus as
well as the presence or absence of motion of the image from
frame to frame. If there were no motion from frame to frame
there would, one presumes, be no motion during the time of a
single frame. (unless the object moves away from a starting
position and then returns to that position within 1/30 sec). If
we see images of the building and make the logical assumption
that the buildin isn't moving, but we find that th image shifts
position in the video scene from frame to frame we can assume
the motion is "apparent", resulting from camera mtion rather
than building motion. Thus the frame-to-frame shift of the image
of an object known to be stationary provides a measure of the
camera vibration (which is generlly a combination of rotation
and translation over small angles and distances).

_Every_ object in the field of view should have this same camera
vibration motion superimposed upon it. That means that every
object in the field should have its edges smeared a bit. The
edges which are smeared the most are those which are
perpendicular to the direction of motion. In the Mexico City
video we could easily see the up-down vibration as indicated by
the vertical shift in position of the _horizontal_ top edge of
the building. It was the top edge that was smeared most
noticeably.

So you have 4 possible phenomena which can make an edge not
ideally sharp:

1) digitization (grain size in photography) and electronic
    noise

2) focus blue

3) camera motion

4) object motion

To separate out object motion you have to "calibrate" the system
by measuring first the resulting edge gradients caused by 1,2,
and 3. This was done in the MC video by measuring the gradient
of the horizontal building edge from frame to frame. One could
easily see the gradient get large when the image did not move
from from frame to the next and one could see the gradient get
small when there was a lot of image motion. This provided a
relation between image mtion and gradient. The same relation did
NOT turn up in the horizontal edges (primarily the bottom edge
that provided the best data) of the UFO image.

 >What is the degree of accuracy (tolerances) of this edge smear
 >detection method? In other words, is the accuracy of the
 >measurement more like a homeplate umpire with a large strike
 >zone, or one with a tight window for error? I would imagine that
 >a certain amount of 'averaging' is being performed by Jeff's
 >software. That's why I'm asking. The margin for error of the
 >method used is an important detail for people to know. Weight
 >can be assigned to the finding according to the level of
 >accuracy.

There were many frames which, taken by themselves, would have
been inconclusive or provide weak evidence for "differential
smear" where this refers to the buiklding edge being smeared
more than the UFO image when there is some motion of the
building image from frame to frame. But there wer also numerous
frames in which there was sufficiently large image motion of the
building from frame to frame to provide an easily measureable
change in edge gradient.... but with no change in the edge
gracient of the UFO.

And then there were the two frames where the building edge smear
was so large as to be easily seen by the naked eye, whereas the
eye cannot see a comparable smear of the edges if the UFO. See
Mark Cashman's website for the comparison and further details of
the analysis.

<snip>

 >>In the Mexico City video of 1997 we are talking about
 >>'differential' image smear... the UFO image being smeared less
 >>than the building smear. In fact, it may be that the UFO image
 >>was hardly smeared at all even though the building image was
 >>smeared noticeably.

 >What do you mean by, "may be" Bruce? Was it, or wasn't it? And
 >does this mean that the "UFO" was an externally created artifact
 >that was introduced into the video using 'software' or some
 >other artificial method?

This gets down into the "noise" of the measurement. I could not
say that the gradient of the UFO image never changed because
electronic noise of the camera (#1 above) causes the value of
the gradient to change from frame to frame even in the absence
of all other changes. However, the lack of correlation between
the decrease in edge gradient of the building image when the
frame-to-frame motion was large and the decrease in gradient of
the UFO image when the motion was large was an eftect (i.e., the
lack of correlation) that was onsiderably above the noise level
of th measurement.

SO, when I say, "may be" I am saying that the UFO image may have
had _no_ change in the edge gradient inspite of overall image
motion, but I can't be certain that there was absolutely no
change because there is an irredicuble amount of "noise" por
uncertainty in the measurement of edge gradient.

Again I emphasize that the conclusion which Jeff arrived at was
based on effects that were considerably above the noise. It's
really quite simple in a sense: measure the frame to frame
motion of the building image. This magnitude of position shift
changes from frame to frame. One also sees the edge gradient of
the buuilding changing from frame to frame, with the larger
frame position shifts corresponding to the lower gradient
values. Now you apply the same test to the UFO image: look how
much it shifts from frame to frame and ask if there is a
correlation between the magnitude of the frame shift and the
amount of decrease in the edge gradient, Jeff's discovery was
that, whereas there _is_ a correlation with the building image,
there is NOT a correlation with the UFO image.

 >Has it been determined 'how' the hoax was accomplished?

Numerous computer whizzes demonstrated their capabilities to
produce similar videos. However, tat doesn't mean that we know
for certain how it was created.

 >If the "UFO" was an "on scene" device of somekind that the
 >hoaxers used, is it possible to determine if the camera's
 >distance from the buildings is the same or different from the
 >distance to the object/UFO?

Estimate is most likely it was a "video paste in" or insertion
of an object on a real video background scene.

 >If the distance to the buildings and the object are the same,
 >then that was one big "prop" and must have taken a whole crew of
 >people to manipulate.

 >If it was a 'drop-in' then wouldn't there be other evidence of
 >it other than just inconsistencies in edge smear?>

Not necessarily, depending upon how well it is done.

The bottom line is that the video has "fingerprints of a hoax."

If the videographer ever came forward we would have to grill him
severely and come up with some explanation for the lack of
correlation between scene motion and UFO image edge blur before
we could accept the video as real.

As a matter of interest, should point out that Jeff and I began
working on that video in November, 1997. By February we had
completed a large amoun of analysis which all seemed really good
and convincing. Then Jeff decided to make a motion stabilized
version of the video. This he did by creating a program that
removed the image shift of the building from frame to frame from
all other images in th frame, including the UFO. Thus all that
was left was the motion of the UFO image across the scene. IT
was while applying this program and perfecting it that Jeff
realized there was something wrong: the program had a difficulty
in finding the edge of the building in many frames... because
the edge was too smeared... but it had no trouble in finding the
edge of the UFO because the edge was not smeared... or at least
not smeared as much as the building edge. This was when he
realized that the UFO image edge smear was not correlated with
the hand vibration of the camera that smeared the building edge.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:57:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:18:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:28:16 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>>What Bruce was referring to, in Jeff Saino's analyis, were the
 >>>higher frequency jitters of the video scenes associated with the
 >>>camera being hand held, not the low-frequency tracking motions.

 >>>>Nonetheless, I think the witnesses seemed to be sincere and
 >>>>simply reporting what they had witnessed. Especially the little
 >>>>girl.

 >>>Rightly so. It's often been pointed out on this list that photos
 >>>alone can't prove a UFO to be "genuine," but require witness'
 >>>testimony in addition. Similarly, when you have both, it isn't
 >>>enough to declare the case a hoax on the basis of photos or
 >>>videos if sincere witnesses who could not have perpetrated any
 >>>such hoax have spoken out on the reality of the event. The
 >>>reason for such a rule, of course, is that the UFO pilots can
 >>>maneuver their craft in such a manner as to fool photo or video
 >>>analyzers who don't take into account that the UFO guys are more
 >>>advanced and smarter than they are, and seem to possess a
 >>>definite strategy in their interactions with us. In this Mexican
 >>>City case, I've postulated that the UFO operators were able to
 >>>maneuver their craft in synchronism to the video-camera jitters
 >>>and perhaps to induce controlled jitters in the holder of the
 >>>camera as well. Of course, this would require the UFO to be able
 >>>to undergo very frequent, large accelerations...

 >>>Jim Deardorff

 >>Hi Jim,

 >>Jim, the Good Lord knows that we've been friends both on and off
 >>the list for quite awhile. You're one of my favorite UpDates
 >>people. But, with all due affection and respect, you are really
 >>pulling the old taffy wad a bit thin here! To the breaking
 >>point.

 >>Yes, we can speculate that it is possible for technologically
 >>advanced (and maybe even telepathic) ET's to anticipate our
 >>every thought and action. But to say that, (assuming it was a
 >>real ET craft) the pilot or navigational computer on that thing
 >>would mess with just one or two frames of a videotape that was
 >>running, (and do it in 'real time') is really stretching what is
 >>already (and only) 'speculation.'

 >Hi John,

 >Like Bruce explained, the statistical analysis of all the frames
 >tended to show this feature.

 >>Why would they bother?

 >>1. If they wanted to be seen then why screw up the evidence?
 >>Seems counterproductive.

 >>2. If they didn't want to be detected why not mess up the whole
 >>recording? Why screw around with just _two_ frames?

 >>3. If they messed with the tape in order to discred it it why
 >>did they drive their Mack truck through the lobby in the first
 >>place?

 >Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.

<snip>

 >So I explain your 1), 2) and 3) above as being ill-posed in
 >their either/or implications, which omit the consideration that
 >the aliens have a strategy that involves more than just one goal
 >at a time.

Hi Jim,

You may be 100% correct for all I or anybody else knows. It
seems that all we can do is to try to 'surmize' (from what we
think we know) as to what the 'motives' behind the UFOs may be.
As someone who wants/ needs solid and reliable answers to basic
questions, I can ill afford to spend much time spinning my
wheels speculating and posing suppositions. From my perspective
my time is better spent looking for any and all -physical- or
-hard- evidence that may or may not be available.

Speculation _can be_ a useful tool when it is used to pose
plausible or probable explanations/scenarios when it is based
upon a set of known, albeit fragmented, facts. Or what we assume
to be "facts." Fragmented facts is mostly what we have in
ufology. I just don't think that pure speculation is of much use
when it is taken out of its natural element, (the realm of
theoretical ruminations/projections) and used as a 'yardstick'
in an actively debated case. (The Mexico City UFO video)

Sure Jim, the aliens could have gone and messed with a couple of
frames of a video as it was being recorded. But how in Heavens
name are we ever to verify such a thing? Even if we prove it to
be "real" how do we determine after the fact whether the
builders and pilots of the vehicle were alien or human? We
can't.

It _is_ possible to determine (if the person doing the looking
is experienced, lucky, and knowledgeable) if a piece if film or
video has been doctored in some fashion. That seems like a much
more do-able and reasonable goal than trying to figure out if
aliens used "telepathy" or some other technological means to
influence the edge smears on two different elements within any
given/single video frame.

Hey man, I can listen to you all night. I'm open to hear what
you have to offer in terms of providing a 'speculative'
explanation for what may be going on. I just don't think it
serves much purpose, or helps to 'advance the pawn' when it is
introduced into a nuts and bolts discussion over the
authenticity or integrity of an graven image on a piece of film
or videotape.

Once we determine whether the image is or isn't "real" we can
then move on to open and freewheeling speculation as to what it
means. Or the 'why' of it. That's all I meant Jim. I hope I
didn't couch my original response in terms that caused you to
misunderstood my meaning. Like I said, for all any of us know,
you may be hitting the nail squarely on the head. It's just that
right now, that kind of 'guessing' isn't helping us to prove
(one way or the other) whether that piece of video is real or
faked.

 >>Like trying to hide an elephant in a phone booth. Aside from the
 >>fact that it is nothing more than fun or freewheeling
 >>speculation, it just doesn't make any sense that they would do
 >>that Jim. On any level. That I can think of anyway.

 >If this response doesn't make sense, John, why doesn't it? To
 >the scientist who assumes that all aliens would have no concern
 >for, and would behave unethically with respect to society as a
 >whole, and throw it into sudden chaos, I can see it wouldn't
 >make sense. And to the scientist who assumes that ETs don't
 >exist or wouldn't be smarter than we, or wouldn't possess any
 >strategy of dealing with us, or couldn't get from there to here,
 >it may not make sense. But we needn't make such unfounded
 >assumptions. Aren't we a lot farther along in our understanding
 >than that after 53 years?

I honestly don't think that we know very much more than what we
"knew" 50 years ago. At least in terms of the "motives" of the
perps behind the UFO phenom. I have found that the deeper I
look, the mukier and more confusing it becomes. If we had made
some real progress and advances in our knowledge, (what we truly
know) that wouldn't be the case. The more one would look onto
the phenomenon the more one would know and understand. That just
isn't the case. Ask yourself or any of the other List members if
they don't feel as if they hopped onto the "merry-go-round
running wild" when they delved into ufology.

Jim, for whatever it's worth, I agree with you. "If" we are
being 'conditioned for open contact' much of what you say would
make sense and seem appropriate. But the question before us is,
is the Mexico City videoclip the real thing or a really good
fake. If it cannot be determined one way or the other and all
other prosaic avenues of investigation and explanation have been
explored and exhausted, _then_ maybe we can take a look at how
the aliens might have had something to do with the discrepencies
that Jeff and Bruce have found. We're just no where near
exhausting all those more 'ordinary' explanations yet. I'm still
trying to find out if it was "aliens" or a combination of
"Photoshop and Ray Dream Studio" that was responsible for what
we all saw on that tape.

 >So I see the Mexico City video as expressing more of this alien
 >strategy, while exhibiting even a bit more of their advanced
 >capabilities, which can keep scientists guessing or jumping to
 >wrong conclusions if they wish, than we're used to. With this
 >strategy in mind, one doesn't have to dismiss witnesses' reports
 >for no good reason.

If the video is "real" then your speculations as to what the
aliens are exhibiting (or not) take on greater weight and
importance. In terms of determining the veracity of the recorded
images it serves no constructive purpose. (at this point in time
in the discussion) Nor does it bring us any closer to making a
solid determination about the -reality- of the images on that
tape.

First we find out if it looks like the real deal, then we talk
about what the critters may be up to. It may turn out that the
real critters behind the "UFO" are a bunch of bored graphic
artists from that "computer graphics" company that was located
in the same building where it has been determined the video was
taken/ shot.

At the moment, between Jeff and Bruce's "statistically based/
calibrated edge smear measuring software" findings, and the fact
that a computer graphics outfit exists in the building where the
video was shot seems to tip the scales in favor of the tape
being a hoax. The only thing weighing in against it is the
witness testimony. As you know, we know very little about them
or the cameraperson that shot the video. It's the _only_ reason
(the witnesses) that I'm keeping this an open question in my own
mind.

Let's follow this one through to the finish before we decide one
way or the other. Then I'll _join you_ in speculating about what
the bugs may be up to.  Lord knows I've got a heap of my own
theories about that!  :)

Warm regards,

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:24:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:21:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:35:10 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Mexico City Video [was: More On ABC.com's UFO2000]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:05:24 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:12:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000 - Velez

 >>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:57 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Previously, John wrote:

 >>But I'm still not quite
 >>satisfied that what you and Jeff have found and presented to the
 >>public in terms of justification of the hoax oppinion is
 >>-conclusive- enough to justify dismissing the tape as a complete
 >>hoax.

 >>One or two 'inconsistent frames' does not a hoaxed video make!

 >Hi, John!

 >Let's say that you had a series of photos of a UFO taken by one
 >cameraman. Now, in a majority of the photos, the images look
 >dead-on real. Then, in one of the photos, there is an obvious
 >string supporting the UFO. Obviously, one could take the
 >approach that:

 >A) The aliens made the photo look that way to mess with us

 >B) All the photos without the string are real.

 >C) The string isn't really a string but an anomaly of the
 >photographic process

 >D) All the photos are fake.

 >Now, considering that video is made of thousands of "photos"
 >strung together electronically, the analogy is clear. If just
 >one has the tell-tale flaw, then the rest are suspect. Further,
 >if one defies the laws of optics, then the rest are more than
 >suspect; they are not to be trusted at all. Considering the way
 >video is created, I would say that one or two 'inconsistent
 >frames' does, indeed, make for a hoaxed video. There is no
 >logical or technical explanation for how those frames would be
 >different other than that the person doing the compositing
 >messed up and skipped them.

Hi Roger,

I agree with all of the above with just one "but." Bruce stated
that the software Jeff developed himself to measure 'edge smear'
(motion blur or whatever you want to name it) was based on
-statistical parameters.- In other words, 'averages.' I've asked
Bruce if he can tell us how reliable/accurate these types of
measurements are. If the margin for error is large then less
weight can be assigned to the finding. If it has a track record
for accuracy then it does kind of slam the old coffin lid on the
"tape debate."

Sorry, one more "but."

But then, you have the witness testimony to consider. In
conjunction with the tape analysis we really need more
information regarding the witnesses before we write the whole
thing off. It just seems fair and reasonable to me to approach
it 'wholistically' (taking -both- video and the witnesses into
consideration) rather than just making a cursory dismissal of
the witnesses based on a statistical discrepancy in the video
alone.

Just my own opinion. I only wish that I had more knowledge of
video analysis so that I could walk in Jeff and Bruce's
footprints and follow the same trail with their level of
understanding. As a layman I must admit that it is a bit of a
challenge to fully 'grok' everything that is being presented on
that side of the arguement. I "get it" - it just isn't all that
easy to follow for someone who is not as knowledgeable and
experienced as they are.

 >Unless, of course, the aliens "made the video camera mess
 >up"....
 >
 >Hoo-boy.

Well don't blow the possibility off until the last nail has
been driven into the coffin. Although I do agree with
you that the 'lid' has amost been slammed shut on this one.
Let's see if we can't get more on those witnesses. Is
anybody on the List friendly enough with Jaime Maussan
to get him to participate in this discussion? (Bruce?)

Just an observation. This case is very similar to the Phoenix
sighting of 1997 in that; the video was dismissed as "flares"
from a military exercise, while there are a -ton- of eyeball
witnesses that claim it was a "craft." There may not be as many
witnesses available in the Mexico City video case but the
parallels are there nonetheless.

It would go a long way towards answering many important
questions if we can quiz Mr. Maussan. And get the info directly
from someone "on the scene" as opposed to our own long distance
"armchair" speculations about the value or quality of the
witnesses and their testimony. Just seems like a reasonable way
to approach it.

Regards,

John Velez, Seeker of Truth  ;)

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:32:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:23:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:23:11 -0500

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video -

 >>>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000
 >>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:08:38 -0500

 ><snip>

 >John-

 >I was not aware of your background, and did not mean to classify
 >... well, you know what I mean.

 >>We're not all "good Catholics" Steve. I'm not "Catholic" at all.
 >>Neither is anybody else in my -large- family. The last thing a
 >>"Velez" would think to do is to go running to a Priest to
 >>confess! <LOL>That all or even many Latino's are Catholics who
 >>run to priests at the first sign of crisis, is just an old wives
 >>tale/stereotype.

 >>>But these witnesses should have the opportunity to tell their
 >>>story and it should be investigated fully.

 >>I agree 100%. The problem is, nobody is "doing it."

 >Your comment about the culture being more family oriented and
 >the core family group coming to the aid of its members to
 >protect them is, I believe, a remnant of the "Christian"
 >upbringing that most of those to come from Europe over the past
 >five Centuries have brought with them. FYI, I was raised as a
 >Unitarian, which is a far cry from being Catholic (and even
 >Christian). I don't mean to perpetuate stereotypes, but the
 >cultural lineage comes into play here, IMO. That being said, you
 >would probably have a better handle on their reaction to the
 >unknown than I.

 >>>I wouldn't want to pre-judge those who were interviewed, but
 >>>unless one wants to buy into the concept that those on the craft
 >>>were merely toying with us and only allowing certain people to
 >>>see the craft, the fact that so few witnesses have been found is
 >>>IMO significant.

 >>It is Steve. I'm just not so sure that 'most folks' would run to
 >>report such a sighting to anyone. For all the reasons mentioned
 >>above. Ergo, few witnesses actually turn up to report.

 >>If you knew _nothing_ at all about UFOs or ufology, would you
 >>voluntarily and by yourself walk into a police station and
 >>report that you saw a UFO/flying saucer over your head?

 >>Think about doing it as a 'real world event' and not just an
 >>intellectual exercise.

 >>"Reporting" is not as easy to do as you'd first think eh? When
 >>you think about it in this way, you get to see what you
 >>_actually_ have to put down on the line if you were to have to
 >>do it. It's just a damned hard thing to do period. Why do you
 >>think I showered GT with accolades for having the rocks to share
 >>his sighting report? You know me. I don't give away 'candy'
 >>that easily or that often. Reporting takes very real courage and
 >>a ton of agonizing and forethought. People think it's a joke.
 >>It's not. Public reporting of such a thing is one of the hardest
 >>things a person can do. ;)

 >We've all been down these roads before.

 >There is an assumption here that the witnesses that were found
 >were not fully investigated, when in fact they may have been by
 >Mexican UFO researchers. Witnesses in Mexico are no different
 >than those in the US and I would suspect that all of the same
 >limitations would apply. Veracity, from my perspective, has to
 >be proven and cannot be assumed, when the goal is to prove
 >something of this scope.

Hiya Steve,

We need to get Jaime Naussan in on this discussion! I suggested
in another post that maybe Bruce or someone else who has had
dealings with Maussan would invite him to participate in this
discussion. It would be nice to quiz the man who is "on the
scene" and who has spoken to the witnesses (and hopefully
investigated them) himself.

All we can do from here is "armchair speculate" the witness
question to death. Let's try to hustle up Maussan! I'm sure many
of us have a few pertinent questions to put to the man.

Regards,

Juan Velez De Rodriguez / My "formal" _in Spanish_ full name ;)

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                           Re: ET Evidence - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:32:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:27:09 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Evidence - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:33:12 EST
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:01:30 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Hi Larry,

 >I don't believe it without sufficient data to justify it, which
 >is what I originally said.

 >I could not find the alleged "stellar coordinates" and certainly
 >saw no mention of an upper limit on how stationary the signal
 >supposedly was with respect to the stars. It was detected for
 >only 10 seconds from what I gathered -- in that amount of time
 >geostationary coordinates would drift only about 1/9,000 of a
 >degree of right ascension with respect to sidereal coordinates
 >(about 0.0001 deg). There is no necessity that it would ever
 >repeat if it came from a classified satellite possibly using
 >certain bands for rare transmissions expected not to be
 >monitored by opposing intelligence agencies, such as one-time
 >only signal intended for an espionage agent on the ground.

 >Until these possibilities can be eliminated with real data, not
 >opinions however assertedly authoritative, I will remain
 >unconvinced.

 >Best wishes,

 >Brad


Hello Brad:

I'm no SETI expert by a long shot. I paraphrased their original
assertion that the source appeared fixed w/r to the stars.
Here's some of their original text:

      From the "Wow!" signal's temporal correspondence to the
      antenna pattern, we know that its source was moving with
      the background stars. From its Doppler shift signature (the
      local oscillator of the receiver was being chirped at a
      rate which corresponds to the Earth's motion with respect
      to the Galactic center of rest) we can eliminate
      terrestrial interference, aircraft or spacecraft from
      consideration.

      The antenna coordinates indicated that the signal was
      coming from no known nearby sun-like star, though at any
      time, in any direction, the antenna pattern encompasses on
      average about half a dozen distant stars. Most
      significantly, though over a hundred follow-on studies of
      the same region of the sky were performed, from several
      different radio observatories, the signal never repeated.

The original URL is:

http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

.. where I also read:

      Figure 2 shows just such a graph of the output of the Ohio
      State 50-channel receiver during the transit through the
      antenna pattern of the "Wow!" source. Time is plotted
      horizontally, amplitude vertically, and frequency in the
      depth axis. The time increments are twelve seconds per
      sample. Each of the channels is 10 kHz wide; thus, a half
      MHz surrounding the hydrogen line is depicted. Note that
      the signal rises almost 15 dB above the background noise,
      in a single channel, then falls back into the noise, its
      amplitude pattern exactly coinciding with the known
      beamwidth pattern of the dish (including its feed-induced
      skew, and coma sidelobes).

Here is the link for "Figure 2" online ..

http://www.setileague.org/articles/wowgraph.gif

.. and just for grins, here is the computer printout tape where
the technician wrote "WOW". The circled alfa-numerics "6EQUJ5"
are only technical designations, not some sort of message. The
actual signal was continuous wave (CW) i.e. unmodulated, unlike
most satellite transmissions which are sending some specific
information. This raises the possibility of a strange but
natural source. Arguing against _that_ is the non-repeatability
of course.

http://www.setileague.org/articles/wowsmall.gif

Not having any special expertise, I cannot effectively argue
against a mundane source, but only refer back to the people who
wrote this article.

I skipped over all the difficult math here. See the original
URL for that, its in some special font which would violate list
rules among other things.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                          LRV in Popular Mechanics

From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:04:13 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:28:19 -0500
Subject: LRV in Popular Mechanics


In connection with the article in PM about the Lenticular
Reentry Vehicle it is interesting, that a few month ago, a
weather satellite made a picture which shows a very similar
object as the escape capsule from this vehicle.

I cannot find the photo from the satellite at the moment. Maybe
someone can help? It was on:

http://sightings.com

The PM article about the LRV is now online:

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/0011STSPAP.html

--
    Holger Isenberg
    H.Isenberg@ping.de
    http://mars-news.de








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        WOW signal [was: ET Evidence]

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:52:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:33:47 -0500
Subject: WOW signal [was: ET Evidence]


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:33:12 EST
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:01:30 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Evidence

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:22:12 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Evidence
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I don't believe it without sufficient data to justify it, which
 >is what I originally said.

 >I could not find the alleged "stellar coordinates" and certainly
 >saw no mention of an upper limit on how stationary the signal
 >supposedly was with respect to the stars. It was detected for
 >only 10 seconds from what I gathered -- in that amount of time
 >geostationary coordinates would drift only about 1/9,000 of a
 >degree of right ascension with respect to sidereal coordinates
 >(about 0.0001 deg). There is no necessity that it would ever
 >repeat if it came from a classified satellite possibly using
 >certain bands for rare transmissions expected not to be
 >monitored by opposing intelligence agencies, such as one-time
 >only signal intended for an espionage agent on the ground.

 >Until these possibilities can be eliminated with real data, not
 >opinions however assertedly authoritative, I will remain
 >unconvinced.

 >Best wishes,

 >Brad


Hello again Brad:

A little more WOW-surfing turned up some more details.

 From this URL:

http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm#radec

I read (in part):

For the strongest Wow! data point, the epoch 1950 right
ascension shown on the computer printout was: 19h17m24s, while
the corresponding declination was: -27 degrees and 3 minutes of
arc (-27d03m).

This puts the source in the direction of the constellation
Sagittarius (note, however, that the constellation gives just
the general direction and provides negligible useful information
to an astronomer).

It turns out that prior to the occurrence of the Wow! signal, I
made a mistake in the computer programming in dealing with the
correction of the R. A. coordinate for the offset of the
positive horn. I added the correction rather than subtracting it
as I should have. I corrected this error when it was discovered,
which, unfortunately, was after the Wow! source was detected.

Later in this article, I will compute the corrected value for
R.A.

This was written by Dr. Jerry R. Ehman who gave his email
address!  Maybe he can answer questions on how a
stellar-stationary source was determined, and Earth-orbiting
sources were "ruled out".

<jehman@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>

As for the duration, Dr Ehman says:

How long was the signal present and was it "intermittent"? The
computer printout showed 6 significant data points (with
intensities ranging from 5 up to 30 sigmas). Each data point
represented 10 seconds of data acquisition plus about 2 seconds
of computer analysis. Thus, the signal lasted for about 6 * 12 =
72 seconds. The very curious thing about this signal was the
fact that we should have seen it twice within a period of about
5 minutes as our two beams sequentially scanned the source, but
we only saw one of the beam responses. Thus, if the signal came
in the negative horn (the first one to be able to see the
source), the signal could not have lasted more than about 2
minutes - 2.5 minutes or we would have seen it also in the
second (positive) horn. Similarly, if the signal came in the
positive horn .. the signal could also not have lasted more than
about 2 minutes - 2.5 minutes or we would have seen it also in
the first (negative) horn.

Thus, based on what I have just said, I would place [an upper]
limit of about 2.5 minutes on the duration of the Wow! signal.

This page is a long and somewhat difficult read.

For the corrected coordinates, Dr. Ehman finally wrote:

... Thus, when R. A. increases by 5m, the galactic latitude
decreases by 1.03d and the galactic longitude increases by
0.44d. Applying these rates linearly (OK for the small changes
in R.A.), the corrected and deduced R.A.s for the two horns
yield corrected galactic latitudes and longitudes as shown in
the table below.

Horn    R.A. Galactic   Galactic
             Longitude   Latitude

Positive  19h22m25s  -18.89d  11.65d
Negative  19h25m17   -19.48d  11.90d

[where RA (right ascension) is in hours:mins:secs and Long/Lat
is in decimal degrees. -LH ]

Dr. Ehman cautions against " making vast conclusions from
half-vast data."  adding:

Note that the words "ruled out", in scientific parlance, means
"to assign a very low probability..".

More to the point, Ehman considers several possibly mundane
sources:

Planets: The positions of all of the planets in our solar system
were looked up in an ephemeris .. None of them were close to the
Wow! source position. Of course, one would not expect a planet
to be generating a narrowband radio emission. ... none of the
planets were in the proper position in the sky.

Asteroids: Asteroids are essentially small planets. Hence, they
have negligible magnetic fields and hence negligible non-thermal
radiation. Since their masses and surface areas are so much
smaller than our planets, they generate much less thermal
radiation. However, the ephemeris was consulted for the
locations of some of the larger asteroids, but none were in the
vicinity.

[Asteroids tend to lie on or near the planetary plane, while
signal came from 11 or 12 degrees above that. -LH ]

Satellites: If a satellite from the U.S. or Soviet Union or
other country were broadcasting around 1420 MHz, the Big Ear
would have been easily able to detect it when it was in the
beam. The frequency band around 1420 MHz (a few MHz on either
side) was declared off limits for satellite transmission or
earth-based broadcasting over the entire world. Thus, no
satellite should have been sending out any transmission in this
protected band. If a satellite were violating this agreement, it
is quite possible for the signal to be narrowband. For example,
the AM radio stations in the frequency range of around 0.5 - 1.6
MHz (500 - 1600 kHz) transmit over a bandwidth of approximately
10 kHz, the same bandwidth as each of the 50 channels in our
receiver. [Note that the bandwidths of FM radio and television
are much wider than 10 kHz.] An investigation of the orbits of
all known satellites revealed that none were in our beam at the
time of the Wow! source.

  [ We should stress the word "known" of course. -LH ]

Aircraft: There are two major ways to rule out .. aircraft: (1)
no aircraft transmitters operate in the protected radio band
around 1420 MHz; and (2) aircraft move with respect to the
celestial background. The Wow! source intensity pattern received
matched almost perfectly the pattern expected from a
small-angular- diameter (point) radio source on the "celestial
sphere" (i.e., at such a large distance that there is no
perceptible motion relative to the background stars). An
aircraft, which would show a significant motion with respect to
the stars, would also cause the received pattern of intensities
to depart noticeably from that expected for a point source.

Spacecraft: A check was made for known spacecraft and none were
near the direction of Wow!. In addition, a spacecraft is not
supposed to be transmitting in the protected band.

 From Dr. Ehman's cautious wording, I take it he is no wild-eyed
visionary.  Rather, this is a discussion of a point source that
appears to have been stationary with respect to the stellar
sphere.

A good read of his original article is recommended for those
interested, again at the URL up top.

Further browsing may turn up some skeptical responses, which
must also be considered of course.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:35:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

<snip>

 >Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 > us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

Jim, John, List:

The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
evidence acceptable to science.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Roger R. Prokic <rprokic@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:26:24
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:36:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:09:52 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

 >I seem to recall that the HUBBLE repair mission a few years back
 >replaced the main computer system with an updated model, based
 >on the Intel 486 chip.

 >The Pentium had been out for several years and the Pentium II
 >was already on the market, but the 486 processor had been fully
 >tested and certified for use in Space technology and the older
 >system was later installed.

 >Keep in mind that the processor that is still the most prominent
 >in the world is (I believe) still the faithful old 8086 (which
 >pre-dates the 80286 AT processor).  While not utilized in
 >computers any longer, it now helps to run all of our appliances
 >and other devices that have become "smart".

Would you believe our new International Space Station runs on a
386 processor?

Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:56:40 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:37:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:55:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >This story has more than a video on it.

OK, but it seems to me that either the video is or is not
questionable. What is your position on that, and if you accept
the video as authentic, what is your answer to Bruce Maccabbee's
findings?

Have you considered the possibility that the video may have been
produced _after_ the sighting?

 >They are witnesses that did not want to talk because of their
 >positions regarding their homes (placed in a zone where it was
 >illegal to be placed one time)... They were the recorders of this
 >clip that were very afraid of a chief that harassed and shouted
 >them as he did at us...

 >There were people that suffered skin burns that we analyzed and
 >even worse, "illnesses" that I saw until a fatal point after an
 >overexposition to the magnetic field of this ship... I have seen
 >too many things around this area, where not only this time, but
 >too many others, have seen UFOs surrounding... Hovering...
 >Planes crashing there, and magnetic anomalies easily detectable
 >are just a part of the puzzle where this Ovni de Las Lomas was
 >placed by the history...

How many witnesses came forward _before_ the broadcast of the
video?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:19:23 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:41:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:15:57 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:46:21 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:54:02 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Michel wrote:

 >>>Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >>>(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >>>really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >>>been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

 >>>Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >>>us who have, do...

I replied:

 >>So let me make sure that I understand what you are saying:

 >>Only those that believe, at face value, all unsolved UFO claims
 >>or have seen a UFO for themselves have the right to question the
 >>existence of UFOs? If so, then what's the point of this
 >>discussion list and why are you a participant?

Michel now writes:

 >First of all, UFOs are not a belief system. Either they are
 >real, or they're not. Second, they are far from being "at face
 >value" since they have been thoroughly investigated, if not at
 >the time they took place, then years later while being
 >re-examined by competent researchers with scientific means.

<snip>

 >I know for a fact that if anyone tries to gather evidence in
 >order to convince other people, they will never succeed. And it
 >sure doesn't help if they themselves do not "believe", "face up
 >to" or "accept" this reality for themselves.


Hello, Michel!

I have never said that UFOs do not exist. What I have said is
that witness testimony needs to be validated and that ufology
should not be afraid to embrace this line of thought. It's all
well and fine that you accept all UFO sightings at face value,
whether they have been validated or not. However, you seem to be
contradicting yourself above when you say, "I know for a fact
that if anyone tries to gather evidence in order to convince
other people, they will never succeed."

I refer to a previous post:

 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 18:06:16 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: An MP's Story - Roswell, NM, July 3rd, 1947

 >Saying so does not constitute proof;
 >it's just somebody's opinion.

In which you wrote about UFO "proof", you claimed:

 >Proof is hard to come by, but it isn't impossible to come by.

Therefore, it seems that the bar is raised or lowered, depending
on your own personal bias about the subject or the degree to
which you face adversity in your position. So, which is it? Can
the existence of UFOs be proven or not? If it is your position
that they can not, then why?

Of all the people that write in to this List, you are in the
best position to photograph or document UFOs since, according to
you, you've had 17 separate sightings since 1974. That's a lot
of sightings, Michel. At this point I am not doubting your word.
However, it seems odd to me that you protest the "doubters" in
this world, but do not take full advantage of your good fortune
regarding the sheer number of sightings you seem to be blessed
with.

By the way, how many sightings have you had since, say, 1998?
Please be specific.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

               Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:43:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Roberts


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

Hi,

Michel wrote:

 >If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >imagination.

I wouldn't for a minute dispute the number of 'sightings' you
claim to have had Michel. But I would dispute 'none of them has
a conventional explanation'. Because you don't know that.
Furthermore the history of witness perception (many examples
given on this list) and of the seemingly inexorable trail from
'UFO' to 'IFO', indicates that your 'sightings' may well have a
conventional (if unusual) explanation.

You are offering an opinion based on an experience. The sceptics
are offering a whole history of UFO to IFO cases.

 >If I look out onto the street and see a 1969 Ford Mustang, I am
 >looking at a 1969 Ford Mustang, and not a 1976 Chevrolet Nova.
 >There are no two ways about it. You see something, clear and
 >distinct. It is what it is!

But what about the many people who claim to have seen a UFO and
their case is later resolved to an IFO? Or are you in some way
'special'?

 >Funny how eyewitnesses seemed to be looked upon as people who
 >couldn't recognize an anomaly in the sky from a hole in the
 >ground?

Not at all. But there are serious, documented, problems with
witness perception. To date no witness to a UFO has ever been
able to demonstrate they have seen something 'exotic' (fill in
your own choice of craft/spaceship, whatever).

 >Those of us who have seen UFOs, Flying Saucers and/or their
 >Occupants, sometimes up close and personal, we know what we saw.

Er, except for the ones who did but were then proved to have
been mistaken.

 >We wouldn't be having these discussions day after day after day,
 >if a proper database of all thoroughly investigated cases had
 >been set up from the beginning.

I rather think we would.

 >The bulk of the badly needed
 >information is still being withheld by governments around the
 >world.

I can't speak for the US government but I've delved, and am
deliving, long and deep into the history of UK government
'cover-ups' and I'm afraid it just isn't there (other than their
cover up of ignorance).

 >But to the hard core skeptic, anything presented to them means
 >absolutely nothing at all. They'll never be convinced.

Your opinion Michel. I'm happy to accept the most bizarre of
human experiences - had a few myself - but the source of those
experiences are in question. If you choose - and you obviously
do - to go with the blind faith approach, simply because you
have seen 'them', then that's fine. But you'll have to come up
with something a little better to convince any sceptical UFO
researcher.

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:18:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:45:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:55:56 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:14:58 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz

Previously, Mr. Munoz stated:

 >We have spent money, time, effort and reputation in looking
 >for all the elements to perform a real investigation - real
 >field research. And we succeeded.

<snip>

 >Not just making hypothesis, but trying to get all the possible
 >reality out of all the elements... And believe me, we did
 >succeed...

Okay. Okay. You succeeded, you succeeded! Where are the results?
All I see are proclamations that you did all this wonderful
research and that you "succeeded". However, despite all the
verbiage that I snipped, none of it revealed anything of
substance; only proclamation. Please publish the results of your
"research" on this list for all of us to see. Otherwise, what's
your point?

Moving on, Daniel wrote:

 >There were people that suffered skin burns that we analysed and
 >even worse, "illnesses" that I saw until a fatal point after an
 >overexposition to the magnetic field of this ship...

<snip>

 >Is very easy just to say that the video was created on a
 >computer, but tell me, is it possible for a computer to burn the
 >skin of Mexican citizens?

Uh, I'm not a physicist, but how easy is it to get burns from a
magnetic field? This sounds a little fishy. I would think that
any field strong enough to do that kind of damage to a person
(assuming it could) would be so pervasive as to inhibit the
entire video recording process for miles around!

Finally, Munoz writes:

 >It is also very easy to formulate statements lacking of realness
 >and field research when oneself has never been in the site of
 >the facts, and very comfortably asking everything through your
 >computers...

Kind of like what you are doing with this post, I'm afraid.

Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:19:07 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:55:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz


 >From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:59:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:37:59 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>But the real deal is that few people ever look up in crowded
 >>urban environments so that cuts the number of
 >>potential witnesses way down right there. Also if was a cloudy,
 >>overcast day (as it appears to have been) there wouldn't have
 >>been many folks out perambulating around anyway.

 >To all,

 >Last year (Or the year before), I posted regarding, Maussan and
 >his new witnesses he claimed to have found. He was speaking at
 >the Project Awareness UFO Conference. It was either in Gulf
 >Breeze or Clearwater, Florida.

 >Basically, this is what he said (And the audiotapes are
 >available from the promoters if anybody doesn't believe me. But
 >I have a decent memory and this is what I remember.

 >Maussan said that almost one hundred witnesses had come forward
 >to say that they had seen the object in question. I knew this
 >was a big deal because one of the major complaints people had
 >was that there were so few witnesses to a huge daylight
 >sighting.

 >This was right before a special was to air on Fox regarding the
 >Mexico sighting. I asked Maussan or his producer (I forget
 >which) if they were going to get this information to the Fox
 >producers before they aired their show. I think he said yes.

 >Well, needless to say, we never heard anything about these new
 >witnesses. In my mind, Maussan lost all credibility on that day.

 >Joe Murgia
 >Editor, Open Mind News


Dear Joe, Errol and List,

I just want to point that, in fact, Jaime said that because that
was the intention. Unfortunately the Fox producers we were
working with wanted, as they said, "just the most credible and
spectacular witnesses", like Casandra (who declined to be
interviewed, at least the first time, by them because she
was tired of these people). And they had a very hard schedule, so
they weren't able to spend weeks with us to interview all the
witnesses home by home. As we did, once.

If you have ever managed TV budgets and productions, you
certainly can understand Fox's behavior. In TV, time is
gold, my friends.

Now, I think that if Jaime lost his credibility, it does not
affect a case that remains as one of the most spectacular (and
controversial) of all time. A case that I would like to have
happened in the States, just to see how you could manage all
this information.

Best regards.

Daniel Muoz








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                           Re: WOW Signal - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:22:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:00:55 -0500
Subject: Re: WOW Signal - Hatch


Hello:

Regarding the assertion that the 1978 WOW signal was stationary
with the stellar sphere ( as opposed to some motion indicating
orbiting objects etc) I emailed Dr. H Paul Shuch Ph.D, executive
director of the SETI league with a list of questions.

I got a quick relatively brief response, I quote it exactly and
entirely below.

------ Original Message --------
Subj: Re: WOW signal stationary in stellar sphere?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:23:34 -0500
From: "Dr. H. Paul Shuch" <n6tx@setileague.org>
To: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
CC: rcf@setileague.org

At 06:01 AM 11/24/00 -0800, you wrote:

 >Can one safely infer that the source was indeed
 >stationary w/r to the stars? If so, does this
 >at least suggest the sources was at some great
 >distance, stellar rather than planetary distance?


Larry,

All those competing hypotheses [satellites, space junk, planets
-LH] were examined, and rejected.

Without going into the technical details (since time does not
permit specifically answering each of your sub-questions), the
answer to this one is an emphatic YES. Although the duration of
the signal was short (in fact, 37 seconds at the half-power
points), remember that the antenna was fixed, and this time
would ONLY exactly match drift scan from Earth's rotation if the
source were at stellar distances.

Further, Doppler shift from nearby sources (or reflection off of
nearby targets) would have smeared the signal between adjacent
receiver bins. Such was not the case.

Your specific questions are treated extensively in the
literature. Use our search feature to do a key-word search on
"Wow" on The SETI League website. That will turn up 56
references, many in online articles that are must reading for
someone wishing to study the Wow! event in its entirety.

--------------------------------
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, FBIS
Executive Director, The SETI League, Inc.
433 Liberty Street, PO Box 555
Little Ferry NJ 07643 USA
voice (201) 641-1770; fax (201) 641-1771
n6tx@setileague.org www.setileague.org
Project Argus station FN11LH

"We Know We're Not Alone!"







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:34:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:06:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:55:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
<snip>

 >Dear Errol and List,

 >For some days ago until today, I've been reading all of your
 >comments on a subject that strongly touches us here in Mexico,
 >and that is the video called 'The Las Lomas Video'.

Hi Daniel, hi All,

 >(See above those disappointing words that somebody wrote in
 >Spanish. Very cowardly and offensive to Spanish readers such as
 >myself - a Mexican investigator and journalist)

I'm going to chalk up those words/opinions to a "misread" of
what was being discussed. Language can be a problem for some of
our International members. I'd only like to suggest to Daniel
that he re-read the posting _and_ the one that preceeded it so
that he can familiarize himself with the comments and questions
that Steve had posted and with the 'context' of my responses.
I'm sure he'll see that it was a simple case of
misunderstanding.

Daniel, there was _nothing_ insulting or offensive in anything
that was said above. Once you get the gist of the conversation
I'm sure you'll change your mind.

*While I have your ear,....

Would it be possible for you to arrange for us to ask Jaime
Maussan some questions regarding the number of witnesses that he
interviewed and the details of the investigation that has been
conducted to date? It would go a long way towards helping people
on this side of the border to familiarize them selves about
important details connected to the sighting.

Regards, and I regret that you misread my words to the point
where you considered them insulting or offensive. Nothing of the
kind was intended or implied.

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 24

               Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:58:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:08:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent


 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:29:17 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:00:10 +0100
 >>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>Source:  "Sun.Star Cebu Electronic Edition"

 >>http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/index.html

 >>Stig

 >>***

 >>Pagasa debunks UFO sightings
 >>By Minerva S. Zamora

 >>CLARK FIELD -- Government scientists Tuesday debunked the recent
 >>UFO sightings in nearby Mabalacat town and Angeles city saying
 >>the mysterious lights seen by local residents last Friday
 >>evening came from a land-based light source.

 >><snip>

 >Dear Stig:

 >The reporters (above) neatly avoided one of my favorite little
 >bugaboos. They failed to say that the useless night-lights were
 >in a " perfect triangle". For shame!

 >I defy anybody on this list to define a perfect triangle! Go
 >ahead jello-brains, tell me what is and is not a "perfect
 >triangle".

 >Better yet, provide an example of an imperfect triangle.

 >Ha ha ha ha!

 >Oh go eat yer turkey, and go back to sleep.

 >Best wishes regardless.

 >- Larry Hatch

Hello listerions,

The original post that reported Phillipine scientists claimed
those sightings were made from halogen lights reminds me of an
incident this year in Germany. You may remember that several
months ago on this list, in Filer's files, or one of the others,
there was a report that a police officer and several other
people in the town of Mochengladbach saw what appeared to be a
UFO landing. It was investigated and was found to have been a
prank caused by teenagers with stolen construction site halogen
lights. They even fooled a member of the Polizei.

Tschus, Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 16:58:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:54:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:09:52 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

 ><snip>

 >>Its about time. Their old MacIntosh was probably getting cranky,
 >>and gawd knows what dangerous junk is orbiting Earth as we type.

 >>Literally anything that sorts wheat from chaff in this awful
 >>field is welcome.


 >I seem to recall that the HUBBLE repair mission a few years back
 >replaced the main computer system with an updated model, based
 >on the Intel 486 chip.

 >The Pentium had been out for several years and the Pentium II
 >was already on the market, but the 486 processor had been fully
 >tested and certified for use in Space technology and the older
 >system was later installed.

 >Keep in mind that the processor that is still the most prominent
 >in the world is (I believe) still the faithful old 8086 (which
 >pre-dates the 80286 AT processor). While not utilized in
 >computers any longer, it now helps to run all of our appliances
 >and other devices that have become "smart".


Hello Steve:

Yes, we rely on the tried and true, and not without good
reasons.

In my first job in electronics, at Signetics in Sunnyvale,CA I
was amazed to find a box on the wall with an old fashioned
vacuum tune inside! It must have been part of a defunct intercom
system. Siggy was bought out by Philips International, the
original plant is almost entirely idle for years.

Very recently, my boss plunked an old guitar amp on the bench
and asked if I could fix that. Lots of funky vacuum tubes again,
two honking 6L6 tubes for the output.

Fortunately, the problem was simple, a shorted diode in the main
bridge rectifier (60 cents! It should have cost a dime.) so now
I'm a genius for a week, and the good old amp sounds fine.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:25:30 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:57:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:19:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Dear Joe, Errol and List,

 >I just want to point that, in fact, Jaime said that because that
 >was the intention. Unfortunately the Fox producers we were
 >working with wanted, as they said, "just the most credible and
 >spectacular witnesses", like Casandra (who declined to be
 >interviewed, at least the first time, by them because she
 >was tired of these people). And they had a very hard schedule,
 >so they weren't able to spend weeks with us to interview all the
 >witnesses home by home. As we did, once.

Daniel,

I met you at the conference. I did not know that you were on
this List. Thanks for trying to add your input. Unlike all of
us, at least you were able to visit the site of the alleged
sighting. Am I right about that? Just checking.

Are there really one hundred witnesses? If there are, then the
fact that Fox didn't get to use them does not affect Jaime's
credibility. What bothered me is that I never heard another word
about those hundreds of wintesses. Not from Jaime and not from
anyone else that did work on the case. Did you or anybody else
interview these witnesses? If not, then it looks bad. I know
some of them were reluctant to speak but how many out of the
hundred do you have on tape?

 >Now, I think that if Jaime lost his credibility, it does not
 >affect a case that remains as one of the most spectacular (and
 >controversial) of all time. A case that I would like to have
 >happened in the States, just to see how you could manage all
 >this information.

I think most people just want to see the data that you were able
to collect. Is it viewable anywhere on the net?

In one of your earlier posts, you wrote:

 >is it possible for a computer to burn the skin of Mexican
 >citizens? Or that we all are lunatics, seeing UFOs, since
 >1991, in a wave that never ends and is very consistent,
 >created by computers? Detected by radar controllers,
 >and by pilots, some who come from your airlines from
 >your countries?>

Daniel, there are people out there that believe everything you
just wrote. I know a couple of them here in Tampa.

But as for people on this List.....

I don't think people are questioning all of the sightings that
have occured over the years in Mexico. I for one am very jealous
of all the activity that Mexicans get to experience. I'd be
happy with just one sighting!

But that's not the point. The point is this specific case. I was
able to see the interviews with many of the witnesses that you
were able to get on videotape. They seemed credible. But what do
I know? But Bruce and Jeff's analysis makes sense too. So who do
we believe?

As Bob said, maybe the sighting happened and then the
video was hoaxed? Maybe?

 >Best regards.
 >Daniel Muoz

<P.S. - Excuse my English.>

By the way, your English is fine. I appreciate you taking the
time to post your thoughts for us to read. I wish we had the
kind of media coverage that you get in Mexico. One day soon our
media will wake-up. Then again, maybe they won't.

Take care,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                    Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:55:53 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:06:35 -0500
Subject: Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Young


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:04:13 +0100 (CET)
 >From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: LRV in Popular Mechanics

 >In connection with the article in PM about the Lenticular
 >Reentry Vehicle it is interesting, that a few month ago, a
 >weather satellite made a picture which shows a very similar
 >object as the escape capsule from this vehicle.

 >I cannot find the photo from the satellite at the moment. Maybe
 >someone can help? It was on:

 >http://sightings.com

Holger, List:

Do you remember the giant "mothership" that George Filer wrote
about in Filer's Files #50 -- 1999?  It was on a satellite pix
taken on December 17, 1999, at 14:45Z on the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geosynchronous Orbiting
Environmental Satellite (GOES) in orbit.

It turned out to be in the same position and at the same time as
the Moon. If the image was shaped like the Mechanics
illustrative drawing, it could very likely have been a quarter
Moon.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                           Re: WOW Signal - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:10:11 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:07:57 -0500
Subject: Re: WOW Signal - Young


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:52:47 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: WOW signal [was: ET Evidence]

<snip>

 >More to the point, Ehman considers several possibly mundane
 >sources:

<snip>

 >Asteroids: Asteroids are essentially small planets. Hence, they
 >have negligible magnetic fields and hence negligible non-thermal
 >radiation. Since their masses and surface areas are so much
 >smaller than our planets, they generate much less thermal
 >radiation. However, the ephemeris was consulted for the
 >locations of some of the larger asteroids, but none were in the
 >vicinity.

 >[Asteroids tend to lie on or near the planetary plane, while
 >signal came from 11 or 12 degrees above that. -LH ]

Larry, Brad, List:

The average asteroid has an orbital inclination of 9.7 degrees
to the ecliptic and a few, such as Hidalgo, can have highly
inclined orbits similar to those of some periodic comets. So a
check of only larger asteroids may not rule out one of these
locations.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                Re: ebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:20:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:09:13 -0500
Subject: Re: ebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:15:57 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:46:21 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

<snip>

 >First of all, UFOs are not a belief system.

Dear Michel, Roger, List readers:

Opinion surveys have shown that close to 50% of adult Americans
believe that UFOs could be ET craft, but only 12% or so say that
they have seen one, themselves.

Tell that to the 38% or so who apparently believe in them even
though they have never seen one, themselves. This is a giant
pool of just waiting to experience the greatest thrill of their
lives.

I will grant Michel that UFOs may not be a believe system to
him.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:22:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:10:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >>such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >>reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >>to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >>don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >>and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >>to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >>anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >>these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >>technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >>ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 >>us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >>before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >>have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >>degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >>much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >>prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >>sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >>and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >>much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >>at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >>scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >>this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >>single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >>so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

 >Jim, John, List:

 >The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >evidence acceptable to science.


Hello Bob,

It's not acceptable as proof to science, but it remains a viable
possibility. Therefore, it's certainly unscientific to dismiss
it, especially when many other UFO reports point to the UFO
pilots being capable of doing such.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:26:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:12:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:57:19 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>So I explain your 1), 2) and 3) above as being ill-posed in
 >>their either/or implications, which omit the consideration that
 >>the aliens have a strategy that involves more than just one goal
 >>at a time.

 >Hi Jim,

 >You may be 100% correct for all I or anybody else knows. It
 >seems that all we can do is to try to 'surmize' (from what we
 >think we know) as to what the 'motives' behind the UFOs may be.
 >As someone who wants/ needs solid and reliable answers to basic
 >questions, I can ill afford to spend much time spinning my
 >wheels speculating and posing suppositions. ...

 >Sure Jim, the aliens could have gone and messed with a couple of
 >frames of a video as it was being recorded. But how in Heavens
 >name are we ever to verify such a thing?

Hi John,

It simply becomes the best hypothesis after all else has been
eliminated. We know it can't be a hoax because of the witnesses.
That 12-year-old girl, Cassandra, described the UFO without ever
having seen the video. As Maussan noted in MUFON J. of Aug. 1998
(p. 16), her father was a witness to her having excitedly told
her to come outside and see the UFO, but thought that she was
acting crazy, so he didn't go outside. Only after Maussan and
crew arrived in the area with video cameras did she learn there
was somone she could tell her sighting to who wouldn't say she
was crazy.

On the other hand, we know that the UFO guys are capable of
having maneuvered their craft such that Jeff Saino's analysis
would make it seem it could have been an electronic hoax.

It's also worth pointing out that a hoaxist would have to have
gone to a tremendous amount of clever work, making the faked UFO
image wobble as well as rotate while traversing, during those
1000 or so video frames. So any such hoaxing could not have been
any simple matter of emplacing and moving along a single fake
image, as during the wobble and apparent rotation the image
details change. No doubt all this is why no one has come up with
their version of how a hoaxed video having that appearance could
actualy be accomplished, after three years.

 >Even if we prove it to
 >be "real" how do we determine after the fact whether the
 >builders and pilots of the vehicle were alien or human? We
 >can't.

Unless some government possesses one or more UFO-like craft
whose occupants, as well as the craft, can withstand the
accelerations that accompany vertical movements of 10 feet and
back in a couple 30ths of a second, we can rule out the human
angle.

 >It _is_ possible to determine (if the person doing the looking
 >is experienced, lucky, and knowledgeable) if a piece if film or
 >video has been doctored in some fashion. That seems like a much
 >more do-able and reasonable goal than trying to figure out if
 >aliens used "telepathy" or some other technological means to
 >influence the edge smears on two different elements within any
 >given/single video frame.

Many more frames than two!

 >Hey man, I can listen to you all night. I'm open to hear what
 >you have to offer in terms of providing a 'speculative'
 >explanation for what may be going on.

Those who consider themselves ufologists surely must have
learned in the last 53 years that UFOs exist and can undergo
terrific accelerations. If not, then there's indeed no hope that
they could appreciate either this Mexican City video or the
witnesses who saw the object that appeared on the video tape.

Those who realize the reality of Ed Walters' series of sightings
and abduction can get a glimmer of how the Mexican City UFO
could have accomplished its feat of moving erratically
vertically and transversely in synchronism with the minor
jitters of the hand-held video camera. This is by considering
that "black dot" I keep mentioning, which jittered around on
Ed's window pane while the UFO was present a good half mile
away, making a thumping noise to attract his attention, and
which disappeared as the UFO vanished. (See _UFOs Are Real_, pp.
34-35). Its importance as an aid to understanding the Mexican
city case is that we can imagine that one or two small black
dots like that were remotely emplaced on the hand-held video
camera by the UFO pilot(s) during the time the UFO was around,
and instantly transmitted back to the UFO every component of
jittery acceleration and rotation that the camera underwent. And
the craft maneuvered accordingly, so as to minimize the effect
of hand-held jitter on its own image.

I'm not saying that's how they did it, mind you, as they might have any
number of better ways to accomplish the same. Yet, it seems that
scientifically inclined ufologists need to feel they can get a glimmer of
how such-and-such was accomplished, by aliens whose science & technology
could be 1000 centuries ahead of ours, before they can accept even the
possibility that it can be accomplished.

 >Once we determine whether the image is or isn't "real" we can
 >then move on to open and freewheeling speculation as to what it
 >means. Or the 'why' of it. That's all I meant Jim. I hope I
 >didn't couch my original response in terms that caused you to
 >misunderstood my meaning. ...

I understand, John, but with the alien capabilities being what
they are, we need to rely heavily upon the witness testimony and
credibility and sincerity rather than allowing hoax claims to go
unchallenged. The latter claim, to be most credible, requires
that there have been no honest witnesses plus requiring one or
more hoaxers to come forward, admit to it and show exactly how
they did it by recreating a new video just like it in front of
trusted witnesses. Ignoring alien intelligence, cleverness and
strategy is a loser. I'm glad you're not dismissing the
witnesses.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:14:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >Hi,

 >Michel wrote:

 >>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>imagination.

 >I wouldn't for a minute dispute the number of 'sightings' you
 >claim to have had Michel. But I would dispute 'none of them has
 >a conventional explanation'. Because you don't know that.
 >Furthermore the history of witness perception (many examples
 >given on this list) and of the seemingly inexorable trail from
 >'UFO' to 'IFO', indicates that your 'sightings' may well have a
 >conventional (if unusual) explanation.

 >You are offering an opinion based on an experience. The sceptics
 >are offering a whole history of UFO to IFO cases.

 >>If I look out onto the street and see a 1969 Ford Mustang, I am
 >>looking at a 1969 Ford Mustang, and not a 1976 Chevrolet Nova.
 >>There are no two ways about it. You see something, clear and
 >>distinct. It is what it is!

 >But what about the many people who claim to have seen a UFO and
 >their case is later resolved to an IFO? Or are you in some way
 >'special'?

 >>Funny how eyewitnesses seemed to be looked upon as people who
 >>couldn't recognize an anomaly in the sky from a hole in the
 >>ground?

 >Not at all. But there are serious, documented, problems with
 >witness perception. To date no witness to a UFO has ever been
 >able to demonstrate they have seen something 'exotic' (fill in
 >your own choice of craft/spaceship, whatever).

 >>Those of us who have seen UFOs, Flying Saucers and/or their
 >>Occupants, sometimes up close and personal, we know what we saw.

 >Er, except for the ones who did but were then proved to have
 >been mistaken.

 >>We wouldn't be having these discussions day after day after day,
 >>if a proper database of all thoroughly investigated cases had
 >>been set up from the beginning.

 >I rather think we would.

 >>The bulk of the badly needed
 >>information is still being withheld by governments around the
 >>world.

 >I can't speak for the US government but I've delved, and am
 >deliving, long and deep into the history of UK government
 >'cover-ups' and I'm afraid it just isn't there (other than their
 >cover up of ignorance).

 >>But to the hard core skeptic, anything presented to them means
 >>absolutely nothing at all. They'll never be convinced.

 >Your opinion Michel. I'm happy to accept the most bizarre of
 >human experiences - had a few myself - but the source of those
 >experiences are in question. If you choose - and you obviously
 >do - to go with the blind faith approach, simply because you
 >have seen 'them', then that's fine. But you'll have to come up
 >with something a little better to convince any sceptical UFO
 >researcher.


Hello Michel and Andy:

Michel: If each of your seventeen personal sightings defies
conventional explanation, then you at least are calling them
"trufos", a convenient term which means that mundane
explanations are effectively ruled out.

Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
"trufo".

What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
trufo.

One space-junk burnout was so spectacular that skeptical friends
telephoned to point it out. I guess I disappointed them by not
taking the bait.

I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
you saw seventeen (17) of them.

Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
even a quarter of that number?


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:27:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:23:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:19:23 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:15:57 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:46:21 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:54:02 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Michel wrote:

 >>>>Anyone who dares to challenge the classic cases of true unknowns
 >>>>(not those cases which eventually turned out to be IFOs) is not
 >>>>really familiar with the subject at all or the data that has
 >>>>been documented throughout the years by competent researchers.

 >>>>Those who have not seen will never know for sure, but those of
 >>>>us who have, do...

 >I replied:

 >>>So let me make sure that I understand what you are saying:

 >>>Only those that believe, at face value, all unsolved UFO claims
 >>>or have seen a UFO for themselves have the right to question the
 >>>existence of UFOs? If so, then what's the point of this
 >>>discussion list and why are you a participant?

 >Michel now writes:

 >>First of all, UFOs are not a belief system. Either they are
 >>real, or they're not. Second, they are far from being "at face
 >>value" since they have been thoroughly investigated, if not at
 >>the time they took place, then years later while being
 >>re-examined by competent researchers with scientific means.

 ><snip>

 >>I know for a fact that if anyone tries to gather evidence in
 >>order to convince other people, they will never succeed. And it
 >>sure doesn't help if they themselves do not "believe", "face up
 >>to" or "accept" this reality for themselves.

 >Hello, Michel!

 >I have never said that UFOs do not exist. What I have said is
 >that witness testimony needs to be validated and that ufology
 >should not be afraid to embrace this line of thought. It's all
 >well and fine that you accept all UFO sightings at face value,
 >whether they have been validated or not. However, you seem to be
 >contradicting yourself above when you say, "I know for a fact
 >that if anyone tries to gather evidence in order to convince
 >other people, they will never succeed."

 >I refer to a previous post:

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 18:06:16 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: An MP's Story - Roswell, NM, July 3rd, 1947

 >>Saying so does not constitute proof;
 >>it's just somebody's opinion.

 >In which you wrote about UFO "proof", you claimed:

 >>Proof is hard to come by, but it isn't impossible to come by.

 >Therefore, it seems that the bar is raised or lowered, depending
 >on your own personal bias about the subject or the degree to
 >which you face adversity in your position. So, which is it? Can
 >the existence of UFOs be proven or not? If it is your position
 >that they can not, then why?

 >Of all the people that write in to this List, you are in the
 >best position to photograph or document UFOs since, according to
 >you, you've had 17 separate sightings since 1974. That's a lot
 >of sightings, Michel. At this point I am not doubting your word.
 >However, it seems odd to me that you protest the "doubters" in
 >this world, but do not take full advantage of your good fortune
 >regarding the sheer number of sightings you seem to be blessed
 >with.

 >By the way, how many sightings have you had since, say, 1998?
 >Please be specific.


Dear Roger,

Since 1998, I've had 4 sightings.

And you're right...I made a mistake... got mixed up with the
words _proof_ and _evidence_... I should have said _evidence_.

Also, I do not accept _every_ UFO sighting at face value.
But I do accept all the classic cases, such as:

  1) Roswell Incident

  2) 1952 Washington, D.C. flyover, radar-visual case.

  3) McMinnville, Oregon UFO photos.

  4) 1954 landing cases in France, Brazil and elsewhere.

  5) 1957 Levelland landings and E.M. effects on vehicles.

  6) 1961 - Betty & Barney Hill case.

  7) 1965 - massive power outage directly connected to UFOs.
     Another in New Mexico a few weeks later.

  8) 1973 - Mansfield, Ohio...encounter between military
     helicopter and a UFO.

  9) 1975 flyover of 4 UFOs near Falconbridge radar base, here in
     Ontario.

10) 1975 - Travis Walton case.  I was lucky enough to talk to
     him on two occasions.

11) 1986 - Japan Airlines Flight encounter with large UFO.

I could go on and on and on.  The list is endless.

I have faith in these cases and those who have (and are still)
investigating them...

That's about the size of it...

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                  'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:54:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:57:28 -0500
Subject: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:58:26 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings - Hatch

 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:29:17 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:00:10 +0100
 >>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>>Source: "Sun.Star Cebu Electronic Edition"

 >>>http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/index.html


 >>>Pagasa debunks UFO sightings
 >>>By Minerva S. Zamora

 >>>CLARK FIELD -- Government scientists Tuesday debunked the recent
 >>>UFO sightings in nearby Mabalacat town and Angeles city saying
 >>>the mysterious lights seen by local residents last Friday
 >>>evening came from a land-based light source.

 >>><snip>

 >>Dear Stig:

 >>The reporters (above) neatly avoided one of my favorite little
 >>bugaboos. They failed to say that the useless night-lights were
 >>in a " perfect triangle". For shame!

<snip>

 >>Ha ha ha ha!

<snip>

 >Hello listerions,

 >The original post that reported Phillipine scientists claimed
 >those sightings were made from halogen lights reminds me of an
 >incident this year in Germany. You may remember that several
 >months ago on this list, in Filer's files, or one of the others,
 >there was a report that a police officer and several other
 >people in the town of Mochengladbach saw what appeared to be a
 >UFO landing. It was investigated and was found to have been a
 >prank caused by teenagers with stolen construction site halogen
 >lights. They even fooled a member of the Polizei.

 >Tschus, Josh

Hello Josh!

Hey! I know what lox is, but what's "Tschus?" Some kind of
"schmear" maybe?

Anyhow, I am now digging thru piles of back issues of
a couple of well known weekly UFO email newsletters.

(Oy! the pain...) I know its a tough job knocking out a weekly
report, and sometimes the better sightings just don't
materialize.

So what happens?

"Night lights in a perfect triangle."
"Religious miracles in Bozoland."
"Genuine Roquefort cheese at Safeway Supermarket! "
  (That one actually happened!)
"Man leaves work in Ireland after a dreadful 24-hour
  shift... sees nite lites... suffers missing time.."

Once again: will somebody tell me what an imperfect triangle is?
Curved sides maybe?

As for Roquefort cheese: Decades ago, my mom told me about some
terrible lengthy and rather bitter lawsuit in this country
(USA). Every dairy farm was making and selling "roquefort" out
of cows milk (gasp!) and entirely away from the proper region in
France.

The French won that battle, and we have "Bleu cheese" ever
since. Anyhow, I found some genuine Roquefort at Safeway and
popped for it. Oh, its great, especially on some San Francisco
bread .. but is it worth the price?

My little 100 gram package cost me $5.49 (US) which [click
click] comes out to $54.90 the kilo, just shy of $25 a pound!
Yes that's the same price as some lox, but a cheese doesn't have
to fight its way upstream just to date another clammy fish.

How about the French themselves? Do they pay these prices ..
around 430 French Francs the kilogram? I kinda doubt that.

Sorry for the off-topic rant. The cheese and bread go awfully
nice with a good beer, and the cheese is best in tiny slivers.
[unlike the beer. burp!]


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS: I'm having definite email trouble with my ISP.

Some of my posts have failed to get thru, and incoming messages
are coming in dead slow. The ISP blames it on holiday traffic.
More likely its their technicians stuck in traffic on their way
home for the holidays. -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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:49:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:01:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >Hi,

 >Michel wrote:

 >>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>imagination.

 >I wouldn't for a minute dispute the number of 'sightings' you
 >claim to have had Michel. But I would dispute 'none of them has
 >a conventional explanation'. Because you don't know that.
 >Furthermore the history of witness perception (many examples
 >given on this list) and of the seemingly inexorable trail from
 >'UFO' to 'IFO', indicates that your 'sightings' may well have a
 >conventional (if unusual) explanation.

 >You are offering an opinion based on an experience. The sceptics
 >are offering a whole history of UFO to IFO cases.

 >>If I look out onto the street and see a 1969 Ford Mustang, I am
 >>looking at a 1969 Ford Mustang, and not a 1976 Chevrolet Nova.
 >>There are no two ways about it. You see something, clear and
 >>distinct. It is what it is!

 >But what about the many people who claim to have seen a UFO and
 >their case is later resolved to an IFO? Or are you in some way
 >'special'?

 >>Funny how eyewitnesses seemed to be looked upon as people who
 >>couldn't recognize an anomaly in the sky from a hole in the
 >>ground?

 >Not at all. But there are serious, documented, problems with
 >witness perception. To date no witness to a UFO has ever been
 >able to demonstrate they have seen something 'exotic' (fill in
 >your own choice of craft/spaceship, whatever).

 >>Those of us who have seen UFOs, Flying Saucers and/or their
 >>Occupants, sometimes up close and personal, we know what we saw.

 >Er, except for the ones who did but were then proved to have
 >been mistaken.

 >>We wouldn't be having these discussions day after day after day,
 >>if a proper database of all thoroughly investigated cases had
 >>been set up from the beginning.

 >I rather think we would.

 >>The bulk of the badly needed
 >>information is still being withheld by governments around the
 >>world.

 >I can't speak for the US government but I've delved, and am
 >deliving, long and deep into the history of UK government
 >'cover-ups' and I'm afraid it just isn't there (other than their
 >cover up of ignorance).

 >>But to the hard core skeptic, anything presented to them means
 >>absolutely nothing at all. They'll never be convinced.

 >Your opinion Michel. I'm happy to accept the most bizarre of
 >human experiences - had a few myself - but the source of those
 >experiences are in question. If you choose - and you obviously
 >do - to go with the blind faith approach, simply because you
 >have seen 'them', then that's fine. But you'll have to come up
 >with something a little better to convince any sceptical UFO
 >researcher.


Dear Andy,

I reply by saying:

Yes, I do know that the things that I saw fall outside of any
conventional explanation that may be put forth.

I believe that it may be a lot simpler to ID a UFO from an IFO
than people would like to believe. We humans tend to complicate
things all the time.

Perhaps those witnesses who originally assumed they were looking
at a UFO did not take the time to assess the situation. I did.
My sightings did not last seconds; they lasted for minutes,
sometimes. Plenty of time to go through my checklist. Went from
_satellite_ to _ball lightning_...which I've seen, incidentally!
And they just don't match with anything.

Don't live near a military installation, so that's out. I don't
live near a rocket launching facility, so that's out. I could go
on.

Maybe the eyewitnesses you refer to have extremely poor
judgment. I learned very quickly after a few mistakes not to
_jump the gun_, as they say. I know the planets and the stars.
I know constellations. I know about sprites and jets, but they
occur above the atmosphere, so that's out, because what I've
seen was _in_ the atmosphere. Highest alttitude for my
sightings: 6000 feet in a cloud bank. I do my homework. I
guess some people don't. That's not my problem.

I still think that the number of genuine UFO reports far
outweighs the number of IFO reports by a long shot!

This city is a mining town, with a very high concentration of
mines. UFOs have been seen sucking power from electrical lines,
causing power outages. Can a plane do that? I think not.

Sorry!

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian
MUFON Provincial Section Director
Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                           Re: WOW Signal - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 03:47:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:14:35 -0500
Subject: Re: WOW Signal - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:22:06 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: WOW Signal

 >Hello:

 >Regarding the assertion that the 1978 WOW signal was stationary
 >with the stellar sphere ( as opposed to some motion indicating
 >orbiting objects etc) I emailed Dr. H Paul Shuch Ph.D, executive
 >director of the SETI league with a list of questions.

 >I got a quick relatively brief response, I quote it exactly and
 >entirely below.

Hiya Larry,

Nice job man! Answered some of my questions. I _love_ getting
info 'right from the horses mouth.' Thanx for your time and
effort Mr. Hatch.  ;)

 >"We Know We're Not Alone!"

I believe the last survey said, 51% of us!   :)

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:19:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:21:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Kaeser


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:19:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Now, I think that if Jaime lost his credibility, it does not
 >affect a case that remains as one of the most spectacular (and
 >controversial) of all time. A case that I would like to have
 >happened in the States, just to see how you could manage all
 >this information.


This won't become the "most spectacular (and controversial)
[case] of all time" for the majority until some of the
supporting evidence is documented, verified, and presented to
the public.

For a case of this magnitude, the investigation seems to have
far too simplistic and superficial given the evidence that has
been presented.

The video has a fatal flaw identified through examination by
researchers that many have confidence in.

While a few have remained 'on the fence' on this, many have
decided to move on when faced with the choice of 'logical
examination' or 'alleged supporting evidence'.

Steve








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:16:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:24:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:26:24
 >From: Roger R. Prokic <rprokic@pobox.com>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:09:52 -0500

 >>>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

 >>I seem to recall that the HUBBLE repair mission a few years back
 >>replaced the main computer system with an updated model, based
 >>on the Intel 486 chip.

 >>The Pentium had been out for several years and the Pentium II
 >>was already on the market, but the 486 processor had been fully
 >>tested and certified for use in Space technology and the older
 >>system was later installed.

 >>Keep in mind that the processor that is still the most prominent
 >>in the world is (I believe) still the faithful old 8086 (which
 >>pre-dates the 80286 AT processor). While not utilized in
 >>computers any longer, it now helps to run all of our appliances
 >>and other devices that have become "smart".

 >Would you believe our new International Space Station runs on a
 >386 processor?




Dear Roger:

Not only would I believe that the ISS runs on a 386,  but I have
a spare 386, complete with a 5.25-inch flexible drive, just in
case the ISS gets its floppies bent.

Somewhere in this or previous residences, there are or were the
humble cables which transferred years of work and info, good and
bad, from one old clunker to the the next.

Two dollars worth of wire. A six dollar microprocessor. I just
discovered a phony plastic cork in an otherwise honest looking
wine bottle. There is goodness and honesty in old things. This
being a two litre wine bottle, I am loathe to say much more and
apologize for any previous indiscretions, real or imaginary.

BTW my ISP is having email difficulties. I sent in four (4) test
messages, each serially numbered. Msg #2 came in first if that
says anything.

Please bear with me.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                     Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:35:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:29:04 -0500
Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?


Hi,

Recently on the list a lot has been spoken about misperception
in conjunction with UFO cases.

I would like to ask those researchers who are putting this
forward the following:

Are you telling us that the UFO footage being filmed by
Christopher Martin is Misperception?

Or is the footage too near the mark?

I am beginning to feel that the neglect of any research into the
footage filmed by Christopher Martin (For those who have not
seen this you can see a small capture of this at my web site:

www.thelosthaven.co.uk

click on the intruders link) from those prominent UK
investigators does show a remarkable aspect of selectiveness on
their part.

I would also offer that the footage does represent a huge whole
in the arguments of sceptics, who rant and rave about such
applied psychological answers in relation to the UFO enigma.
(The footage shows objects under intelligent control).

We require hard evidence of UFO reality, we are being given
this, by the remarkable film footage of Chris Martin. (The
footage stunned those who attended the Leeds UFO Mag Conference
in September).

We should debate this case, it has too much good footage for it
to be denied.

It could well be a UFO waiting to be an IFO but deadly silence
on this case from UK sceptics is making me wonder.

Roy..


www.thelosthaven.co.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:34:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 ><snip>

 >>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >>such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >>reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >>to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >>don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >>and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >>to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >>anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >>these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >>technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >>ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 >>us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >>before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >>have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >>degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >>much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >>prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >>sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >>and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >>much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >>at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >>scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >>this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >>single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >>so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

 >Jim, John, List:

 >The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >evidence acceptable to science.




Dear Bob:

Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
hand motions of some person taking the video!

That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
List.

It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
all?


- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <rakDebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?a@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:34:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:47:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:27:54 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:23:54 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:19:23 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>Of all the people that write in to this List, you are in the
 >>best position to photograph or document UFOs since, according to
 >>you, you've had 17 separate sightings since 1974. That's a lot
 >>of sightings, Michel. At this point I am not doubting your word.
 >>However, it seems odd to me that you protest the "doubters" in
 >>this world, but do not take full advantage of your good fortune
 >>regarding the sheer number of sightings you seem to be blessed
 >>with.

 >>By the way, how many sightings have you had since, say, 1998?
 >>Please be specific.

Michel replied:

 >Since 1998, I've had 4 sightings.

 >And you're right...I made a mistake... got mixed up with the
 >words _proof_ and _evidence_... I should have said _evidence_.


Hello, Michel.

At this point, I would question either regarding your sightings.

I refer to this previous post:

 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:53:36 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:08:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

At the end of which, you signed off with:

 >Michel M. Deschamps
 >MUFON provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,
 >UFO Researcher/Historian & UFO eyewitness to 14 separate sightings (1974 -
 >1998).

Now, a recent post:

 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:39:41 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:14:44 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

In which you maintain:

 >Take it from a guy who has had enough
 >practice after witnessing for himself, 17 separate sightings of
 >UFOs since 1974.

So, here's where it falls apart, Michel.

A) You claim a total of 17 separate sightings since 1974.

B) You claim 14 separate sightings during 1974-1998

C) You claim 4 separate sightings since 1998

Simple math says that 4 + 14 is a total of 18, not 17.

For someone that protests loudly when "eyewitness testimony" is
doubted, you should really make more of an effort to keep your
stories straight. It's obvious discrepancies like this that
prove my point: Testimony has to be validated.

Frankly, at this point, I am suspect of all your claims
regarding sightings.

Roger











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                          Russian UFO Info Sources

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:31:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:39:36 -0500
Subject: Russian UFO Info Sources


For those interested in Russian UFO cases, my advice is to contact
Messers. Subbotin or Gershteyn.

Need their addresses? Write to me at:

rurc@earthlink.net

I have primarily limited my UFO research to the period between
1917-1991(USSR); as well as other aspects of anomalous phenomena
in Ancient Russia, the Russian Empire, USSR, Russian Federation.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:06:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:42:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Jim, John, List:

 >>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>evidence acceptable to science.

 >Dear Bob:

 >Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

 >Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
 >theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
 >countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
 >trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
 >hand motions of some person taking the video!

 >That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
 >List.

 >It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

 >I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
 >all?


Larry,

I'd be interested in just where you draw the line between
reality and fiction, or between the possible and the impossible.

I take it you believe that some UFOs are 'genuine' and that they
can undergo tremendous accelerations without falling apart or
injuring their occupants? Or do you not accept even that much?

Do you accept that some UFOs can maneuver like a falling leaf?
That some can vanish abruptly from our sight?

Do you accept that some UFOs (along with their occupants) can
remotely disarm, or otherwise tamper with, nuclear weapons
within a nuclear missile site?

Do you accept the likely genuineness of reports that a UFO in
the distance remotely caused a camera to take a picture, or, in
other cases, caused the camera to fail to function (rather like
automobiles, etc.)?

Do you accept the reports that UFOs can instantaneously respond
to a witness's thoughts or to a movement of their flashlight
beam by abruptly moving much closer or similar maneuver?

Can you accept the reality of the flickering black dot that Ed
Walters observed on his window pane while he was getting ready
to photograph the UFO that had showed up in the distance? And
that his camera then took a picture of it before he pressed the
shutter button?

Would you, as a caveman, accept the possibility that men could
some day travel to the Moon, walk on its surface and return?

You see what I'm getting at. Please let us know where you stand.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 25

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:10:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:02:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:26:34 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:57:19 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>So I explain your 1), 2) and 3) above as being ill-posed in
 >>>their either/or implications, which omit the consideration that
 >>>the aliens have a strategy that involves more than just one goal
 >>>at a time.

 >>Hi Jim,

 >>You may be 100% correct for all I or anybody else knows. It
 >>seems that all we can do is to try to 'surmize' (from what we
 >>think we know) as to what the 'motives' behind the UFOs may be.
 >>As someone who wants/ needs solid and reliable answers to basic
 >>questions, I can ill afford to spend much time spinning my
 >>wheels speculating and posing suppositions. ...

 >>Sure Jim, the aliens could have gone and messed with a couple of
 >>frames of a video as it was being recorded. But how in Heavens
 >>name are we ever to verify such a thing?

Hi Jim, hi All,

 >Hi John,

 >It simply becomes the best hypothesis after all else has been
 >eliminated. We know it can't be a hoax because of the witnesses.

The "witnesses" are the only thing keeping this alive for me at
this moment. Daniel Munoz sounded upset that the witnesses and
the Mexican material (collected since 1991) was being ignored in
our dialog on the List.

EBK is lurking in the background to strike me dead if I'm about
to tell a lie, but for the longest time I have been a _major_
(on List) proponent of the Mexican UFO cases.

I used to fight hammer and tong with some heavy weight skeptics
(that used to patrol this List) over the value of all the
witness and video material that was coming from South of the
Border.

It isn't just Mexico either. Tom King in Arizona, myself here in
New York and several others in the US and Canada have been
videotaping those same objects for years.

We really need to talk to Maussan or whoever actually conducted
a formal investigation of this case. We need to hear what the
witnesses reported, if there were any discrepencies in their
accounts from one to the other, (do they _all_ report seeing the
same thing) and if any background checks were conducted on the
main witnesses. (Are they 'stand up' people whose word can be
trusted).

There's just a awful lot we still don't know, and I need more
info before I can catalog this one in my head one way or the
other.

 >I understand, John, but with the alien capabilities being what
 >they are, we need to rely heavily upon the witness testimony and
 >credibility and sincerity rather than allowing hoax claims to go
 >unchallenged.

I don't think we're allowing anything to go unchallenged. That's
why you are posting to this thread and why I got into that Q&A
with Bruce about the methods they used to make their
determination. (For which I thank Bruce for his patience and the
time he took to respond to all my many queries.)

I was carefully trained to question _everything_ Jim. I don't
come by any of my beliefs concerning UFOs or their occupants
lightly or easily. I'm ten times rougher on myself than I am on
anybody else when it comes to asking questions and peeking into
every nook and cranny.

 >I'm glad you're not dismissing the witnesses.

Like I said, after my talk with Bruce regarding the video, the
witnesses are the only real reason I still have my teeth sunk
into the neck meat of this case. We shouldn't let go until we
are satisfied that all the bases have been covered and that the
witness testimony has been accounted for.

Also, bear in mind that what Bruce and Jeff are saying is; that
based on their own analysis, the video may show the 'fingerprints'
of a hoax based on the findings of a piece of software that relies
on preset (by Jeff who developed the software) statistical
parameters. Nowhere have I heard Bruce, Jeff, or anybody else
declare the video a 'blatant' or a 'definite' hoax. They leave
room in their own diagnosis for error. I'm sure they are leaving
the back door open just a crack because they haven't brought
any _direct_ or _undisputable_ evidence of a hoax to the table.
They have not offered any hard proof that the video image was
in point of fact a 'drop-in' or how it was accomplished. What
Jeff and Bruce have offered is a single (though significant)
potential indicator that a hoax may have been perpetrated.

That's a long way from; "Ladies and Gents this video is a
concocted hoax. This the evidence for it, a,b,c,d, and here is
how it was accomplished e,f,g, etc. We haven't heard that
have we? Which means that the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet!

The video, (although wounded and bleeding on the floor) is still
alive, and we have yet to hear from any of the witnesses or the
Mexican investigators. There's a lot left to do before we can
even begin to think about "making up our minds" regarding this
video/case. It's way too important a document (either as proof
of a UFO or of a hoax) to let it go by too easily or without
picking the bones clean before we move on to feed on the next
thing.  ;)

Warm regards,

John


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                     Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:12:04 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:57:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Snip

 >>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >>such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >>reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >>to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >>don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >>and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >>to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >>anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >>these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >>technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >>ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 >>us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >>before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >>have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >>degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >>much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >>prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >>sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >>and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >>much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >>at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >>scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >>this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >>single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >>so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

<snip>

 >The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >evidence acceptable to science.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young


Dear Jim, Bob, Listers and Errol,

First, let me congratulate you, Jim, on an excellent monograph.
I wish the hell I wrote that, however my perspective is not
nearly as good and unbiased as yours. Intellectually it is, but
when back is forced up against wall, I cave.

Last, Mr. Bob, I maintain that science, presumably mainstream,
would consider almost anything in this venue to be
unfalsifiable, as a result of the fact that there is no hard
evidence, no formulae, with which to demonstrate the phenom
scientifically. And as everyone knows, scientists can't take a
joke. So, temporarily and in my opine, the hell with 'em.

That we are anthropocentric is a given. However our perspective
is evolving, unless no one is noticing what I am. We are
becoming more and more open in our world view. The time for a
major change in our paradigm is nigh. Sorry to use that word, as
it reminds me of a world I never liked anyway.

A greater spirituality, openness to new paradigms, New Age may
have greater value than those who malign it assignt.

And along with such an openness might very well be that one,
single equation science has been looking for since Einstein. And
in it, as Hawking implied, might even be a place for God. The
joker who wrote about God, the Universe and Everything, might
actually have been so dead right that it would surprise him when
it happens. Might even turn over in his halo.


Jim Mortellaro,
Friend of Jamis, but not that other guy ...








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

              Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:17:50 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:59:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:26:24
 >From: Roger R. Prokic <rprokic@pobox.com>
 >Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs
 >>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:09:52 -0500

 >>>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:27:12 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Air Force Buys Supercomputer to Identify UFOs - Hatch

 >>I seem to recall that the HUBBLE repair mission a few years back
 >>replaced the main computer system with an updated model, based
 >>on the Intel 486 chip.

 >>The Pentium had been out for several years and the Pentium II
 >>was already on the market, but the 486 processor had been fully
 >>tested and certified for use in Space technology and the older
 >>system was later installed.

 >>Keep in mind that the processor that is still the most prominent
 >>in the world is (I believe) still the faithful old 8086 (which
 >>pre-dates the 80286 AT processor). While not utilized in
 >>computers any longer, it now helps to run all of our appliances
 >>and other devices that have become "smart".

 >Would you believe our new International Space Station runs on a
 >386 processor?

 >Roger

It doesn't surprise me, Roge. Hell, back as late as the
seventies our space program employed vacuum tubes. Besides,
after all the success NASA has demonstrated with Metric vs.
English measurement, I believe they should reconsider the old
8080.

I had one until 1997. Worked great. It was the only computer I
ever had which never crashed. In a decade, it never crashed.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                    Re: Mexico City Video - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:40:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:01:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Sanchez-Ocejo


 >From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:25:30 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:19:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Murgia
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I don't think people are questioning all of the sightings that
 >have occured over the years in Mexico. I for one am very jealous
 >of all the activity that Mexicans get to experience. I'd be
 >happy with just one sighting!


Latin American press are more open than ours. Talk shows too.
Last week I saw a Mexican talk show, here in Miami, the guest
were Jaime Maussan, two police officers that witnesses a UFO
this january in the Mexican capital, the journalist who took the
photos, two airline pilots who had an encounter with a UFO; one
of the pilot described a collision and the bump left at his
airplane before it land!. Two airport controlers describing the
UFOs at their radars and the fear of their responsability in a
case of a collision. And, also, two skeptic.

I haven't see yet an american talk show like that. It will
change general people opinion in the US about the UFO
phenomenon. It will hurt manny interest (military). But, since
the program is in Mexico and in Spanish, WHO CARE...It took TWO
MONTH, for the january Mexico City sighteeng, to cross the
border.

People, in the US, has the tendency to put a doubt if an UFO
sighteen are not been study by a small well known american
investigators. There are very good, the same as not to good,
latin american investigators. Most of them work in touch with
american conterpart. The problem is; news and data comunication.

Daniel has a lot of data. I have seeing it!. The problem is, who
has the time and the expertice to translate to English, and
after that, did you still doubt it?


Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center  (Espaol)   http://ufomiami.nodos.com
Miami UFO Reporter (English)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
Depredador de Sangre(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
Hemo Predator (English)  http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espaol)   http://patagrande.homestead.com/index.html





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                Moscow's 'Museum of Parapsychology & Ufology'

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:02:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:05:12 -0500
Subject: Moscow's 'Museum of Parapsychology & Ufology'


Source: The Moscow Times,

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2000/11/24/106.html

Stig

***

Friday, Nov. 24, 2000. Page III

ESP, ET and Psychotherapy

By Leila Rejali

Finding the Museum of Parapsychology and ufology was about as
easy as spotting a UFO in the brilliant night skies above
Moscow.

And asking passers-by if they knew where the museum was elicited
only bemused smiles and shakes of the head - perhaps because
museum staff prefer to refer to it as "The Center of
Psychoanalysis and Relaxation Research, School of Success 777."

Extrasensory perception, telekinesis, levitation and the like
have never had this reporter levitating with excitement. But
aliens - now they�re a different thing altogether. For a start,
I actually saw no less than three of them on my way back from
the museum.

What can I say? Another person might not have noticed this minor
detail but I have trained myself as an alien detector for many
years now and I know an extraterrestrial when I see one.

The museum itself is a tiny little place with only two rooms
actually devoted to exhibits. One of them has photographs of
various people apparently engaged in moving objects through the
power of their minds, plus drawings of various extraterrestrials
and spaceship landings; the other houses computers equipped to
monitor the spiritual powers of visitors.

Museum director Andrei Lee (at right), who said he himself has
"certain psychic capabilities" and happens to be a doctor of
psychiatry, led me to a third room that is not officially part
of the exhibition - it contains a curious-looking wooden board
with nails protruding from it.

The room, it turns out, is where Larisa Weiss, who owns the
building that houses the museum and rents space to the museum,
conducts what she calls "psychotherapy sessions," which consist
of soothing speech, holding hands and a great deal of
relaxation.

"A group of Japanese people came to study with [Lee] to develop
their extrasensory skills," Weiss said. "I told them to lie down
on the bed of nails and, at first, they were too scared. But
then I just asked them what their dreams were and relaxed them
so much that, by the end, they were stretched out on the bed and
loving it."

More was revealed about the museum when I returned for a second
(unannounced) visit. For one thing, the "assistant" who answered
the door wouldn't let me in, informing me that Lee had
disappeared without a trace and that her boss, Weiss, had closed
the museum to all comers for spring cleaning - in late November?

In light of recent snows, of course, spring cleaning seemed to
me to be an unreasonable moment for such an undertaking, so I
persisted until Weiss herself emerged.

Several whispered consultations and covert gestures later, I was
whisked away to an office upstairs without having been allowed
to get a look inside the museum. Perhaps the aliens had finally
invaded it and torn everything down, incensed by the very
unflattering images of themselves hanging on the walls? Frankly,
I'd be the last person to blame them. Anyway, their antics
afforded me an extremely entertaining hour with Weiss, who
described her abilities thus: "People call me �psychic.�"

Weiss told me the story of her first brush with UFOs: In 1990,
she took a vacation to an area near Lake Baikal with her three
children. While there, her 6-year-old son spotted a "bright
orange object similar to a flying saucer."

The object hovered above the lake for about 15 minutes, long
enough for Weiss to whip out her camera and take 36 photographs
- which she later sold to daily Moskovsky Komsomolets.

Unfortunately, these photographs are not on display at the
museum. But Weiss isn't that interested in UFOs anyway.

"If UFOs want to fly around, let them fly," she said. "I think
there are more interesting things in life, like the power human
beings themselves have." But then again Weiss has more serious -
if equally wearisome - things on her mind these days.

"I have to help out the FSB.

"A boy has disappeared and they want me to find out where he is
by means of clairvoyance," she said. "I've been doing this for
20 years and frankly, I've had enough of it."

The Museum of Parapsychology and ufology (Muzei Parapsikhologii
i Ufologii) is located at 9/8 Bolshoi Gnezdnokovitsky Pereulok,
Bldg. 3, second floor. Metro Tverskaya. Tel. 470-8602. Open 4 to
8 p.m. Wednesdays and Fridays.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

             Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:16:01 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:07:17 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >><snip>

 >>>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>>Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >>>such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >>>reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >>>to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >>>don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >>>and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >>>to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >>>anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >>>these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >>>technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >>>ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 >>>us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >>>before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >>>have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >>>degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >>>much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >>>prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >>>sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >>>and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >>>much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >>>at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >>>scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >>>this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >>>single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >>>so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

 >>Jim, John, List:

 >>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>evidence acceptable to science.

 >Dear Bob:

 >Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

 >Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
 >theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
 >countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
 >trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
 >hand motions of some person taking the video!

 >That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
 >List.

 >It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

 >I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
 >all?

Dear Lawrence of Hatchdom and Listers, including the head
Lister,

I cannot speak for anyone else, in spite of the fact that I
often try. However, and regarding your queery, query, I've been
sitting here trying real hard not to comment.  For two reasons.

One, these comments are a bizarre conundrum.

Second, so is the conundrum itself, bizarre. The reason for
sitting here on my hands, is the attempt to figger our which is
bizarrer!??!

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:26:16 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:08:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:22:22 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>>Consider ordinary sightings.

<snip>

 >>>Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

 >>Jim, John, List:

 >>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>evidence acceptable to science.

 >Hello Bob,

 >It's not acceptable as proof to science, but it remains a viable
 >possibility. Therefore, it's certainly unscientific to dismiss
 >it, especially when many other UFO reports point to the UFO
 >pilots being capable of doing such.

Hi, Jim, List:

What I have a problem with, in a line of thought like this, is
that there is no way to tell the difference. It the ETs can
disguise themselves like planes (and let's face it, how hard
would it be to put a couple anti-collision beacons and a red and
green light on their saucers?) why are there UFO reports of
things that don't look like planes? This hypothesis allows its
proponents to claim that they have proof of UFOs as ET craft,
let's say, when _anything_ is seen in the sky. There is no way
to advance knowledge.

If one wants to propose this hypothesis, then how can it be
falsified? Well, I'm not sure I can think of a way, can you?

Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:11:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:34:44 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <rakDebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?a@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:27:54 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:23:54 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

<snip>

 >>Take it from a guy who has had enough
 >>practice after witnessing for himself, 17 separate sightings of
 >>UFOs since 1974.

 >So, here's where it falls apart, Michel.

 >A) You claim a total of 17 separate sightings since 1974.

 >B) You claim 14 separate sightings during 1974-1998

 >C) You claim 4 separate sightings since 1998

 >Simple math says that 4 + 14 is a total of 18, not 17.

 >For someone that protests loudly when "eyewitness testimony" is
 >doubted, you should really make more of an effort to keep your
 >stories straight. It's obvious discrepancies like this that
 >prove my point: Testimony has to be validated.

 >Frankly, at this point, I am suspect of all your claims
 >regarding sightings.

Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
before eventually disappearing.

I apologize...

Michel M. Deschamps










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:49:31 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:28:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:49:02 -0500

<snip>

 >I still think that the number of genuine UFO reports far
 >outweighs the number of IFO reports by a long shot!

Hi, Michel:

Are you saying that most UFO reports represent True UFOs? Do you
have a guess as to what the ratio of UFOs vs potential IFOs in a
large sample of UFO reports might be?

Can you offer some suggestions for sorting these out, do you
have a checklist of things which you think can definitely allow
us to ID True UFOs?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                              Campinas, Brazil?

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:11:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:29:39 -0500
Subject: Campinas, Brazil?


Does anyone know if the original report by Dr. Olavo Fontes
about the Campinas (Brazil) incident on December 14, 1954, is
available on the Internet?

If not, is there any possibility of getting a copy?

(A quick reminder of the case: three disc-shaped objects
over Campinas; one of them, "in trouble", emitted a thin stream
of silvery liquid; some samples were collected and analyzed).

Best regards,

Manuel Borraz








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:32:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:49:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:10:46 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

<snip>

 >I was carefully trained to question _everything_ Jim. I don't
 >come by any of my beliefs concerning UFOs or their occupants
 >lightly or easily. I'm ten times rougher on myself than I am on
 >anybody else when it comes to asking questions and peeking into
 >every nook and cranny.

 >>I'm glad you're not dismissing the witnesses.

 >Like I said, after my talk with Bruce regarding the video, the
 >witnesses are the only real reason I still have my teeth sunk
 >into the neck meat of this case. We shouldn't let go until we
 >are satisfied that all the bases have been covered and that the
 >witness testimony has been accounted for.>

 >Also, bear in mind that what Bruce and Jeff are saying is; that
 >based on their own analysis, the video may show the 'fingerprints'
 >of a hoax based on the findings of a piece of software that relies
 >on preset (by Jeff who developed the software) statistical
 >parameters. Nowhere have I heard Bruce, Jeff, or anybody else
 >declare the video a 'blatant' or a 'definite' hoax. They leave
 >room in their own diagnosis for error. I'm sure they are leaving
 >the back door open just a crack because they haven't brought
 >any _direct_ or _undisputable_ evidence of a hoax to the table.
 >They have not offered any hard proof that the video image was
 >in point of fact a 'drop-in' or how it was accomplished. What
 >Jeff and Bruce have offered is a single (though significant)
 >potential indicator that a hoax may have been perpetrated.>

 >That's a long way from; "Ladies and Gents this video is a
 >concocted hoax. This the evidence for it, a,b,c,d, and here is
 >how it was accomplished e,f,g, etc. We haven't heard that
 >have we? Which means that the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet!


Let's be clear about the technical analysis vs witness
testimony. Those of you who are very perceptive and
"recollective" may recall that in a mesage a few days back I
said that the witness testimony might be real and the video a
fake (or something like that).

It has been my impression that Jeff is quite confident of his
analysis and made an extra effort to point out that the computer
analysis was completely unbiased. He simply asked it to compare
the edge gradient of the build and of the UFO with the image
shift from frame to frame. If the shift was zero the gradient
would be some value. As the shift increases the gradient should
shrink in proportion. It did for the building, but not for the
UFO. At the largest image shifts the building image was totally
smeared andthe edge gradient was small but not the UFO. It
seemed "immune" to the magnitude of image shift. And then there
are the two frames where you don't need a computer to see the
handwriting on the wall. Hence the "fingerprints of a hoax."

Any person defending the video must come up with a good reason
that explains the _hard_ data!. Jim has made a proposal that the
real UFO out there moved up and down in 1/30 of a second or less
just enough to avoid image edge smear. Perhaps there is another
reason. Perhaps someone can show that Jeff's result is an
artifact of the analysis.

There was another test applied: beside image shift up-down and
left right there is also image rotation. For each change from
frame to frame the image can rotate slightly about some axis
that could lie within the scene or outside the scene. In the MC
video there was very litle rotation (much less than a degree) in
most cases. However as the UFO image passed over the first
building there was a strange event: a sudden, about 2 degree,
rotation of the scene. This was determined by looking at the
vertical and horizontal edges of the building from one frame to
the next. This rotation, probably a result of hand vibration,
occurred in a couple of frames, almost like a rotatory
oscillation. Guess what? You guessed it: the UFO image did not
participate in the rotation.

I should point out that another guy, a video "amateur" he called
himself (Ha!) contacted me. He wanted to send me a video he made
on the computer as a test to see if he could create something
like the MC video. Well, what he sent me 'floored' me. Jeff had
worked for weeks to create a stop-motion version (where the
buildings are constant from frame to frame and the only
remaining motion is (a) the buildings passing through the scene
and (b) the UFO mage itself undergoing its proper motion - as if
the camera had been _solidly_ on a tripod but panned slowly to
keep the UFO in the field of view..

Anyway, the video this guy sent was _better_ then Jeff's. It
showed the UFO motion relative to the buildings which were as
solid as a rock!). When I told him Jeff had found some frames
where this rotation occurred fr the buildings but not for the
UFO, this guy produced a second video which emphasized the
'rotatory bounce' of the UFO image relative to the buildings.
Not that this 'rotatory bounce' was due to the _camera_ and
hence should have shown up in the UFO motion as well as the
building motion from frame to frame. Instead, this guy's video
clearly showed that the UFO image did _not_ follow the motion of
the building image.

OK, so there are fingerprints of a hoax in the video.

What about the witnesses?

At the time Jeff and I were sweating over this video, frame by
frame and field by field (60 fields per second) and I was
writing an article for the MUFON journal outlining our results
(but before Jeff began the stabilized scene analysis that turned
up the 'fingerprints') I was in communuication with the Elders
who were in Mexico City with Maussan interviewing witnesses. I
was aware that, _if_ the witnesses were recalling - over a month
later - the exact dates of their sighting, (Aug 6) then there
was a reasonably good correlation between the sighting repots
and the UFO video. However, I was never able to establish 100%
correlation. Perhaps that could have happened with further work,
I don't know. It seemed to me that witness testimony alone
would have provided information for triangulation. Was that ever
done? I don't know.

If there is a case here it must first be solidly established by
witness testimony. Then we can start to study the video again...
and appeal for the videographer to finally come forward.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 26

              Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:55:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:52:41 -0500
Subject: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military


Forwarded from 'alt.paranet.ufo'.

Stig

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

Subject: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military Academies?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:51:25 GMT
From: Cliff Gieseke <cliffg@texas.net>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo

Has anyone run into any former Soviet military officers who
claim they were taught at their military academy that the earth
is being visited by extraterrestrials?

An army major from Kazakstan I met recently told me that this
had been included in his academy training in the former Soviet
Union. It was only briefly mentioned, he said, but it was, he
claims, part of their curriculum.

Cliff Gieseke









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:48:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >>Hi,

 >>Michel wrote:

 >>>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>>imagination.

<snip>

Hi Larry, Michel, All,

Larry writes:

 >Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >"trufo".

Luck of the draw Larry and no real reason to be skeptical of
Michels claim. I have that many 'sightings' in any given three
year period! I too have spent almost 30 years studying the sky-
both day and night time versions. I can tell the difference
between a balloon, a bird, an airplane etc. and even if I say so
myself, I am good at it. I know some few people that have fairly
regular sightings of objects which do not display any of the
characteristics of conventional 'sky objects.' I have been
recording them on film and video for years now. So have guys
like Tommy King from Arizona, that priest down in Mexico City
(sorry, don't recall his name at the moment) and several others.
It's not hard for me to believe Michel when he states that he
has had 17 sightings of objects that are best catagorized as
"UFOs."

The reason you give for being skeptical of the number of
Michel's sightings that may represent actual UFOs is that, you
haven't had the luck (or 'misfortune' depending on your point of
view) of having seen one of these 'things' for yourself.

I'm sure that's the same thing the Pope said to Galileo about
his 'sighting reports' of Jupiters' moons.  ;)

 >What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >trufo.

Take the time to get to know Michel. I think you'll find that he
is not an "incautious" observer. 'Some' of the folks that are
reporting these "regular" UFO sightings turn out to be trained
or experienced observers. We just have to take the time to ask
them what that 'experience' is before we dismiss their
observations as "incautious." I know I get pissed when I'm
dismissed out of hand by someone who knows nothing about me or
what my 'sky observing' experience might consist of.

 >I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >you saw seventeen (17) of them.

Maybe not Larry. But it's still -no reason- to dismiss the
claims of another that -they- have had repeated sightings.

 >Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >even a quarter of that number?

I have three to six a year Larry. If you're asking me, I think
Michel's odds are good that he'll have -another- sighting. He
'may be' doing something that you're not. Maybe it's not him!

Grab a brew, a hunk of bread, and a slice of that expensive
Frenchie bleu cheese and enjoy the pix I am attaching just for
you. I can just imagine how frustrated you must feel that after
so many years of looking, you haven't had much luck spotting a
UFO and here is this 'smarty pant's Michel reporting 17 of em!
<LOL> This is a little something to help 'scratch your itch.' ;)

Enjoy the pix Larry. I am including sighting description number
two for my friend Jim Deardorf. I have accumulated a heap of
video of these unidentified flying objects over the last 5
years. This is just a sampling of one of those many sightings.
I'm not sure how many there are by now, but I can tell you
that's its more than 17. If you are having trouble believing
Michel, I don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell with you.
<LOL>;)

Here are the details first: (The "List version" of my report)

Daytime.

This 'thing' (disc shaped, silver metallic object) was up
approx. 800 to 1200 ft. high in altitude. I guesstimate it must
have been some 20 to 30 ft. or so across in diameter. It
approached my location in a straight line from the Southwest. It
stopped overhead, hovered, and then slowly began to tumble end
over end while maintaining the same position in the sky. It
tumbled for a half-a-minute or so, then it stopped tumbling,
hovered for a few seconds, and then it took off in the same
direction it had come from! No wings, no engines, no sound.

How it _really_ went down: (For you Jim.)

I went out back to skywatch/look for UFOs. I had just stuck
my head out of my back door to check out the sky and seeing
conditions when I spotted the disc approaching. I hollered for
Margie (my wife) to bring me the videocam because I didn't want
to take my eyes off of it for a nanosecond.

I was mumbling out loud, "don't disappear yet, I want to get
you on video" when the disc stopped dead in its tracks. It
hovered there for a few seconds. Next; I felt Margie tap me
on the shoulder, I reached around and grabbed the camera,
fired it up, pushed all the right buttons, put it up to my eyes,
got the disc centered in the view and hit the record button.

The disc began to tumble.

It performed as I already described up above, and just as it was
pulling away, I saw the low battery icon in the finder of my
Sony.

End of recording. And after it flew off and faded from view so
was the sighting. It was like it came to be photographed and
then split. But that's all pure speculation on my part. ;)

Warm regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:28:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:50:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Stacy


From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :;>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

<snip>

 >Can you accept the reality of the flickering black dot that Ed
 >Walters observed on his window pane while he was getting ready
 >to photograph the UFO that had showed up in the distance? And
 >that his camera then took a picture of it before he pressed the
 >shutter button?

 >Would you, as a caveman, accept the possibility that men could
 >some day travel to the Moon, walk on its surface and return?

 >You see what I'm getting at. Please let us know where you stand.


Jim,

Here's where I stand -- with one simple question:

Is there anything the aliens _can't_ do, in your mind?

I think you see what I'm getting at, too.

Your whole line of argument is circular reasoning at its most
decidedly uncircumspect.

Offered evidence of an outright hoax or merely a demonstrated
deficiency of evidence (in whatever case), your retort is, and
always has been: that's the way the aliens intended and
engineered it, never mind that we don't yet have
incontrovertible evidence of alien visitation.

But have heart, ignorance, after all, amounting to UFO bliss.
And the latter you have in rational-mind-numbing superabundance.

Merry Christmas,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:05:07 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:52:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >Hello Michel and Andy:

 >Michel: If each of your seventeen personal sightings defies
 >conventional explanation, then you at least are calling them
 >"trufos", a convenient term which means that mundane
 >explanations are effectively ruled out.

 >Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >"trufo".

 >What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >trufo.

 >One space-junk burnout was so spectacular that skeptical friends
 >telephoned to point it out. I guess I disappointed them by not
 >taking the bait.

 >I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >you saw seventeen (17) of them.

 >Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >even a quarter of that number?


Personally I have seen over 15 Minuteman missile launches from a
distance at Vandenburg since the 70s.  I watch the so called
unclassified launch schedule and generally catch at least one or
two a year.

Had a friend tell me that because he had never seen one, he
thought it was absolutly ludicrous that anybody could "see"
(as opposed to watching any media coverage) the missile going off
because he had never seen one himself in all those years.

I guess the point being is that just because we haven't seen
with our own eyes, doesn't mean its not true, just means
we haven't seen it yet.

Cheers,

Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

              ABC Poll - Visitors? 25% of Americans Suspect So

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:21:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:30:56 -0500
Subject: ABC Poll - Visitors? 25% of Americans Suspect So


Source: Entertainment Wire.

This ABCNews.com survey was conducted by telephone Oct. 4-8,
2000, among a ranAdom national sample of 1,007 adults. The
results have a three-point error margin. Fieldwork by
ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa. Analysis
by Gary Langer. ABC News polls can be found at ABCNEWS.com on
the Internet at:

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/PollVault/PollVault.html

Stig

***

Alien Visitors? A Quarter of Americans Suspect So, According to
an ABCNEWS.com Poll

ABCNEWS.com Poll Conducted in Correlation with ABCNEWS.com's
Webcast, "Chris Wallace's Internet Expose: UFO2000"

**

"Greetings, Earthling. Take us to your leader."

Updated 5:32 PM ET November 20, 2000

NEW YORK (ENTERTAINMENT WIRE) -     Some 25% of Americans might
not be surprised by that salutation, that's how many suspect
that alien beings have paid a visit to this earthly realm.

Most of them don't know it, of course. Two-thirds of those who
think aliens have visited concede that it's just speculation on
their part. Just a third of them believe there's actual evidence
of alien stopovers, which could range from Ezekiel to Roswell,
N.M., by way of the Incas.

A larger group believes intelligent life exists in a physical
form on other planets: 47 percent think that's the case, while
about as many, 45 percent, do not believe.

There are some demographic differences: Men are a bit more apt
than women to believe intelligent alien life exists, 51 percent
to 43 percent. Younger adults are more credulous. But
less-educated adults are more dubious, as are Republicans. No
alien tax cut for them.

This poll was done in support of "Chris Wallace's Internet Expose"
special on UFOs on ABCNEWS.com. See

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/correspondents/wallace/internetexpose.


NET TABLE


Aliens have not visited 61

Aliens have visited     45

No opinion              16

Don't Exist             27

Exist, haven't visited  12


IF VISITED

Do you say that based on evidence you've seen or read, or is it
just your speculation?

Evidence    33

Speculation 66

No opinion   1


Do you believe in intelligent life on other planets?

..............................Yes.....No

All...........................47%.....45

Men...........................51......42

Women.........................43......47

Age 18-34.....................55......41

Age 35+.......................44......47

Democrats.....................53......38

Independents..................49......45

Republicans................. .38......55

High school or less......... .43......49

Some college or more..........51......41


Among those who think intelligent aliens exist, just under six
in 10 take the next step, which is to think they've physically
visited Earth. This computes to 27 percent of all adults, or
more than enough to keep Star Trek reruns on air well into the
next millennium.

Note: the language in this poll was crafted to exclude spiritual
alien life and telepathic alien visits.

As noted, 66 percent of those who think aliens have visited say
that's "just speculation" on their part, as opposed to an
opinion based on evidence they've seen or read. The number who
think there's actual evidence of alien visits translates to nine
percent of the adult population. For comparison, in a famous
question some years back, eight percent said Elvis might still
be alive. Perhaps - and perhaps he's only visiting.

METHODOLOGY - This ABCNews.com survey was conducted by telephone
Oct. 4-8, 2000, among a random national sample of 1,007 adults.
The results have a three-point error margin. Fieldwork by
ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa. Analysis
by Gary Langer. ABC News polls can be found at ABCNEWS.com on
the Internet at:

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/PollVault/PollVault.html

Here are the full results:


Do you think intelligent life exists in a physical form on other
planets, or not?

....................Yes.....No.....No opinion

10/8/00.............47......45.........8


(IF YES) Do you think intelligent beings from other planets have
or have not physically visited the Earth?

....................Have.....Have not....No opinion

10/8/00..............57.........34............9


NET TABLE :

Aliens haven't visited 61

Aliens have visited:    9

No opinion             18

Evidence..Speculation  12


Walt Disney Internet Group (NYSE:DIG) manages some of the
Internet's most popular Web sites, including ABC.com,
ABCNEWS.com, ABCSports.com, Disney.com, Disneystore.com,
DisneyTravel.com, ESPN.com, Family.com, GO.com, Movies.com, Mr.
Showbiz, NASCAR Online, NBA.com, NFL.com and Soccernet. The
Internet Group also includes The Walt Disney Company's direct
marketing business. Steve Bornstein is chairman of Walt Disney
Internet Group, which is headquartered in North Hollywood,
Calif., with operations in Sunnyvale, Calif.; Seattle; New York;
Bristol, Conn.; and London. For more information, visit our web
site at

http://www.dig.com

***

Copyright










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                          U.S. Navy & UFO Research

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:28:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:33:30 -0500
Subject: U.S. Navy & UFO Research


http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq29-1.htm

I think all researchers will find this site to be of interest. I
did, several years ago, and do strongly recommend it.

Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                  Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:38:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:37:23 -0500
Subject: Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report


Dear list:

Here is a kind response from Dr. Jerry R. Ehman Ph.D to some
questions I posed w/ref to the 1978 WOW SETI signal.



-------- Original Message --------
Subj: Feedback on Wow 20th Anniversary Report
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:58:47 -0500
From: J. Ehman <jehman@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>

Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net> wrote:

 >Dear Dr. Ehman:

 >In a recent email exchange here, the WOW signal
 >came up. The discussion hinges on the signal
 >coming from some source, stationary with respect
 >to the stars.

 >In your detailed article:

 >http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm#radec

 >.. you discuss several possibilities:  space-junk,
 >satellites  and so forth.

 >Some questions remain, and I may have missed
 >something here:

 >1) Was the signal of sufficient duration to
 >effectively "rule out" conventional sources?


   Larry, the duration of the signal (about 72 seconds) was the
   length of time that we would see a celestial source, given Big
   Ear's beamwidth and the speed of the rotation of the earth.
   I'm not sure what you mean by "conventional sources". An
   earth-based source (which we might call interference) could
   have either been much shorter than 72 seconds or else could
   have lasted much longer than 72 seconds, and, in either case,
   we would not have seen the pattern we did (the beam pattern)
   for such a terrestrial source.

 >2) Was WOW loud and long enough to make a
 >reflected Earth signal extremely unlikely?

   I'm not sure of the geometry of the reflected earth signal you
   are suggesting. I don't see how an earth-based signal could
   be reflected off a piece of space debris and still give us the
   pattern of the signal we saw.

 >3) How much confidence can one safely give to the
 >star-stationary theorem... perhaps in terms of
 >probabilities... regardless of the actual source?

   I give it a very high probability. I did calculations that
   showed the correlation coefficient between the "Wow!" signal
   pattern and the pattern we see with strong celestial sources
   to be over 0.992 (where 1.000 is perfect correlation). This
   correlation is so high that it is very hard to imagine
   anything other than a celestial source being responsible for
   our signal.

 >4) If the star-stationary assertion is deemed to
 >be true, does this imply a very distant source,
 >i.e. stellar vs planetary or orbital distances?


   Yes. No object in earth orbit stays fixed with respect to the
   celestial sphere. All satellites and space junk move with
   respect to the stars (even geosynchronous satellites move with
   respect to the stars). So the distance is well beyond the moon
   and probably beyond Mars.

 >Sorry for all the knotty questions!

No problem. I hope I've responded adequately to your questions.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch


(-: Jerry (Wow!) Ehman :-)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                           Re: WOW Signal - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:27:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:45:16 -0500
Subject: Re: WOW Signal - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:10:11 EST
 >Subject: Re: WOW Signal
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:52:47 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: WOW signal [was: ET Evidence]

 ><snip>

 >>More to the point, Ehman considers several possibly mundane
 >>sources:

 ><snip>

 >>Asteroids: Asteroids are essentially small planets. Hence, they
 >>have negligible magnetic fields and hence negligible non-thermal
 >>radiation. Since their masses and surface areas are so much
 >>smaller than our planets, they generate much less thermal
 >>radiation. However, the ephemeris was consulted for the
 >>locations of some of the larger asteroids, but none were in the
 >>vicinity.

 >>[Asteroids tend to lie on or near the planetary plane, while
 >>signal came from 11 or 12 degrees above that. -LH ]

 >Larry, Brad, List:

 >The average asteroid has an orbital inclination of 9.7 degrees
 >to the ecliptic and a few, such as Hidalgo, can have highly
 >inclined orbits similar to those of some periodic comets. So a
 >check of only larger asteroids may not rule out one of these
 >locations.


Hi Bob:

Point well taken, asteroids are not excluded anyway since they
only checked the larger ones, and not all of those from what I
read.

Question is, how would an asteroid transmit a carrier frequency
in the megahertz range, well above the background noise level?

A reflected signal would be far weaker I take it, and the object
would need to me metallic and not tumbling with ref. to our
vantage point.

I have a response from Dr. Ehman about these matters, he was the
original SETI scientist on the WOW event. I will post this
shortly.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                             WOW Signal Details

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:31:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:49:05 -0500
Subject: WOW Signal Details


Dear list:

Some technical details about the 1978 WOW signal recently
discussed may be in order.

This signal came in during a long-running (record setting
actually) study of stellar radio sources, in which some 20,000
presumably natural sources were discovered... about half of them
unknown at the time.

On 15AUG1978 at 23:16:01 hrs EDT (local Eastern Daylight time)
the notable "WOW" signal was received at the then huge Big Ear
radio telescope in Delaware, OH, USA.

 From this website:

http://www.bigear.org/

I read that the Big Ear Radio Telescope (now demolished) -- a
Kraus-type radio telescope... covered an area larger than 3
football fields.

The WOW signal registered on a printout from an IBM 1130
computer then used to analyze radio frequencies and strengths.

The narrow-band WOW signal came in at 1420.4556 MHz (+/- 0.005
MHz) with an amazing peak Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 30.76.
i.e., the signal was over 30 times louder than the ever-present
natural background noise.

This is right in the fabled "water hole" radio band often
suggested as a likely part of the radio spectrum for
interstellar signaling of the artificial kind.

(Big Ear was also renowned for the discovery of some of the most
distant objects in the universe.)

At the center of this huge parabolic reflector were two aluminum
cones used as receiver horns. A special circuit alternated
between them 79 cycles per second  (79 Hz) subtracting one
signal from the other to further reduce irrelevant noise.

Oddly, and very sadly, the WOW signal only came in on one of
these horns, and an oversight in the original software does not
permit the scientists to determine which one! (Subsequent
experiments and analysis proved fruitless.)

As a result, there are not one but two Right Ascensions (R.A.
analogous to stellar longitude East - West) but a single
Declination (North- South) coordinate.

The two feed horns, arbitrarily called "positive and negative"
were oriented East and West of one another, some 4.69 feet apart
(just under 143 cm).

As the Earth rotates, the "sweet spot" of this antenna would
sweep the entire sky once in a sidereal day, (which lasts 23
hours, 56 mins, 4.09 secs due to the Earth orbiting our Sun at
the same time.)

As the sweet spot swept past the WOW signal, for some 72 seconds
or so, it increased and decreased back down to background noise
level in the familiar bell shaped curve as one might expect.
This eliminates possible ground based transmitter interference
as a source.

Given the longitudinal (RA) ambiguity, but known declination
(N-S "tilt") and tons of gosh-awful math, scientists arrived at
two possible points in the sky:

For Right Ascension (RA)

POS horn hypothesis:  19hrs,25mins,31secs (+/- 10secs)
NEG horn hypothesis:  19hrs,28mins,22secs (+/- 10secs)
Declination (both)  26 degrs 57 mins (+/- 20 mins)
[ all figures corrected to epoch 2000 A.D. by Ehman ]

Consulting my dandy 75-cent star chart (Edmund Scientific 1966)
I find a spot in Sagittarius, very roughly between the star
Nunki and some structure designated M55.

If I recall correctly, there was nothing particularly
interesting in that direction other than the WOW signal itself.

I have sent a nice message from Dr. Jerry Ehman, the original
radio astronomer. It was he that circled some S/N indicators on
the original printout, and then impulsively wrote "WOW" to the
left of them... in the same red pen.

The circled figures were as follows:

"The signal-strength sequence "6EQUJ5" in channel 2 of
  the computer printout thus represents the following
  sequence of signal-to-noise ratios (S/N):

  6 --> (6 up to 7)
  E --> (14 up to 15)
  Q --> (26 up to 27)
  U --> (30 up to 31)
  J --> (19 up to 20)
  5 --> (5 up to 6).    .. "

This was hastily misinterpreted by some as a "message".

In fact, there was no message... just a steady carrier
frequency, unmodulated, as if some DJ forgot to play the music
and fell asleep instead.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


"Ah Bartleby, Ah humanity."

(Bartleby the Scrivener)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

               Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:37:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:56:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:54:22 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Perfect Triangles & Useless Night Lights

<snip>

 >>>Hello listerions,

 >>>The original post that reported Phillipine scientists claimed
 >>>those sightings were made from halogen lights reminds me of an
 >>>incident this year in Germany. You may remember that several
 >>>months ago on this list, in Filer's files, or one of the others,
 >>>there was a report that a police officer and several other
 >>>people in the town of Mochengladbach saw what appeared to be a
 >>>UFO landing. It was investigated and was found to have been a
 >>>prank caused by teenagers with stolen construction site halogen
 >>>lights. They even fooled a member of the Polizei.

 >>>Tschus, Josh

 >Hello Josh!

 >Hey! I know what lox is, but what's "Tschus?" Some kind of
 >"schmear" maybe?

<snip>


Hi listerions,

Before I respond to Larry's post I would like to preface it by
posting something UFO related to the list. Otherwise good ole
Errol won't like me taking up bandwith with my off-topic
response to Larry's off-topic. Of course I can think of a few
Listerions who take up a lot of bandwidth with off-topic
escapades.

Fellow Listerions - let's lay-off discussing and passing
judgement on the Mexico City sighting until an investigation is
posted. Otherwise we are just pissing in the wind. The video has
been thoroughly analyzed. In crude terms it is "put up or shut
up time". Is there an investigation with evidence to support the
statements of Daniel Munoz and Jaime Maussan? Tomorrow I"ll go
into my catacomb and dig into my musty MUFON Jpurnal stacks to
reaad their original article on the sightings. I remember years
ago when we extensively discussed it on this List. Perhaps I'll
go into the archives. But I am most concerned with these new
claims such as burns and 100 witnesses. I want to see evidence
or else I'm going outside and pissin' in the wind.

Mr. Munoz please post your case for your statements pronto.


Hi Larry old chum,

It is 3:00AM in Berlin and I just finished work - music.....
Gotta unwind and keep up with UpDates. At this hour I was forced
to wade through your off-topic post. You live in the part of
California I come from, so my first thought was that you smoked
some of that stuff they grow out there - the leading crop of the
state. But before this reply I read your next post. Aha! So
you drank two liters of wine and found yourself sitting there
strangely admiring the plastic cork - what a metaphor for these
times on earth - and fell into a melancholy haze, longing for
how things were made so much better in the past. That explains
it,

Larry. If you had not had the wine but smoked California's
finest your post would have been more to the point, as mine
often are <g>. I worried that maybe you had an overdose of
Safeway discount Roquefort.

As I sit here now I reminisce about some great old days in San
Francisco in the 1960s when my girlfriend and I would go into
the Safeway in the Marina and buy a bottle of wine, some
sourdough bread and cheese (usually Tillamook). Then we would
frolic along the waterfront. Ah, the blush of youth and cheap
wine.

No, tschus is not an edible. I placed it followed by a comma
before my name because it simply means bye. To get cozy (the
German equivalent of bye bye) you sweetly say "Tschusi".
Pronounced like tschoosea with the accent on the first syllable.
It was fun to discover words and phrases when I came here. I was
surprised the first time I exited a paid parking garage. The arm
lifted and I started to exit when I noticed a sign was lit up
over the exit wishing me a Gute fahrt! I thought that was good
health advice until I found out it really means good drive.

Keep 'em flying,

Josh











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:09:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:58:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:35:52 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

<snip>

 >Roy..

 >www.thelosthaven.co.uk


Hello Roy:

If you could, please give URL links as

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk

with the http part and all.

This is translated into a link we can click on directly; not
one we must tediously type in by hand, introducing possible
errors.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:59:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:00:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:06:55 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Jim, John, List:

 >>>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>>evidence acceptable to science.

 >>Dear Bob:

 >>Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

 >>Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
 >>theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
 >>countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
 >>trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
 >>hand motions of some person taking the video!

 >>That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
 >>List.

 >>It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

 >>I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
 >>all?

 >Larry,

 >I'd be interested in just where you draw the line between
 >reality and fiction, or between the possible and the impossible.

 >I take it you believe that some UFOs are 'genuine' and that they
 >can undergo tremendous accelerations without falling apart or
 >injuring their occupants? Or do you not accept even that much?

Yes, I can accept that based on numerous accounts.

 >Do you accept that some UFOs can maneuver like a falling leaf?
 >That some can vanish abruptly from our sight?

Yes again. The vanishing act could be some sort of sophisticated
camouflage, or something else entirely.

 >Do you accept that some UFOs (along with their occupants) can
 >remotely disarm, or otherwise tamper with, nuclear weapons
 >within a nuclear missile site?

Questionable, but not out of the question, if we hypothesize
highly advanced technology.

 >Do you accept the likely genuineness of reports that a UFO in
 >the distance remotely caused a camera to take a picture, or, in
 >other cases, caused the camera to fail to function (rather like
 >automobiles, etc.)?

There are many car cases yes. As regards camera effects, a
camera malfunction is far far more common than one which takes a
shot unassisted by the owner. I'd have to dig deep to find one (
other than Walters, see below .. )

 >Do you accept the reports that UFOs can instantaneously respond
 >to a witness's thoughts or to a movement of their flashlight
 >beam by abruptly moving much closer or similar maneuver?

Mind-reading is a bit of a stretch. I'm not ready to climb that
far out on a limb. There are reports of UFOs responding to
flashlights and other signals. Some of these seem reasonably
credible.

 >Can you accept the reality of the flickering black dot that Ed
 >Walters observed on his window pane while he was getting ready
 >to photograph the UFO that had showed up in the distance? And
 >that his camera then took a picture of it before he pressed the
 >shutter button?

Frankly, I have serious doubts about the entire Walters story,
that part included. How can you call that a "reality" when his
entire story is held in question by so many others?

 >Would you, as a caveman, accept the possibility that men could
 >some day travel to the Moon, walk on its surface and return?

As a caveman, I would probably scoff at the possibility; unable
to visualize the science and technology required.


 >You see what I'm getting at. Please let us know where you stand.
 >
 >Jim Deardorff


Simple: As I read it, you have the UFO so carefully zeroed in on
the (single) videocam, that it can instantaneously cancel out
hand-jiggle effects by its own proper motions.

Suppose there were several other video-cameras, lots of newsmen
and tourists in Mexico City probably carry them. Each will have
its own peculiar hand jiggle when shooting footage. The UFO
would require entirely separate sets of anti-jiggle maneuvers
for each camera!

What would be the purpose of all this? Just to make any video
"look" fake?

By far the simplest assumption is that the saucer image
was superimposed onto a genuine shot panning some tall
buildings.

Having the UFO dance in perfect synch with the hand motion of
one particular camera (the video presented for sale) is such a
stretch that I'm amazed anyone would ever suggest it.


Sorry.

- Larry Hatch

PS: I hear you have a website up. _If_ so, Would you like to
provide a URL we can click on? That might shed some light on
your opinions of this and similar matters.

-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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:09:26 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:03:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:34:44 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <rakDebunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?a@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>So, here's where it falls apart, Michel.

 >>A) You claim a total of 17 separate sightings since 1974.

 >>B) You claim 14 separate sightings during 1974-1998

 >>C) You claim 4 separate sightings since 1998

 >>Simple math says that 4 + 14 is a total of 18, not 17.

 >>For someone that protests loudly when "eyewitness testimony" is
 >>doubted, you should really make more of an effort to keep your
 >>stories straight. It's obvious discrepancies like this that
 >>prove my point: Testimony has to be validated.

 >>Frankly, at this point, I am suspect of all your claims
 >>regarding sightings.

Michel replies:

 >Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >before eventually disappearing.

 >I apologize...

Michel,

Apology accepted, for what ever it's worth. But, I don't think
you seem to understand the point, here. Are we to take you at
your word about these sightings? Have you had so many that
you've reached the point of _forgetting_ a sighting? Are you
that casual about it?

Most of us would give anything to have a single close encounter
in our entire life. You seem to have a sighting every 16 months,
on average! Not only that, but you maintain that these sightings
are the source of your convictions regarding the existence of ET
craft and the like. However, the previous description you give
of "a small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the
sky, which would flare up 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
before eventually disappearing" is hardly ground breaking, by
anyone's standards. The fact that you forgot about it certainly
points out how unaffected you were by the event.

I think you must see the problem that exists, here.

My position is that testimony is valuable once it has been
validated. Your position is that testimony should not have to be
validated to be valuable. However, you present a pretty poor
standard for what constitutes "valid testimony", don't you
think? After all, anyone that continually signs off with a self
inflated moniker like the following

 >Michel M. Deschamps
 >MUFON provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,
 >UFO Researcher/Historian & UFO eyewitness to 14 separate sightings (1974 -
 >1998).

had better put up a better front than you've presented. You can
apologize all you want for being "forgetful", but all you've
done is reinforce my point that memory can't always be trusted
when it comes to witness testimony.

Roger











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                    UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:05:43 -0500
Subject: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch


Hello again!

At the risk of beating the WOW event to death, I looked up UFO
sightings for the single month of August, 1978. Since the WOW
signal came in on the 15th of August, a period of +/- 15 days or
so seems like a nice short study.

I found 51 records in the *U* Database for AUG 1978, 20 in North
America, 18 in Western Europe, 5 in South America and the rest
scattered elsewhere.

In North America, 4 were in Massachusetts, 3 in Indiana, 2 in
Ohio, one in Nova Scotia and one each in various other
states/provinces.

Mapping these alone, there is an interesting scatter-band of
sightings from about 95 degrees west extending East to 70 dgrs
West, between longitudes 38 to 44 degrees North. This stretches
across the midwest from (roughly) the Missouri river between
northern MO state to New England.

The plains and rockies West of this thinly populated band are
quite empty until we get to a lone sighting in Northern
California.

Delaware, OH (the Big Ear antenna) is at the rough center of
the midwest scatter band.

One statistical feature of the *U* database breaks down
sightings by Right Ascension (i.e. which part of the stellar
sphere is directly over the meridian at the date/time/location
of UFO sightings).

Listings with imprecise/unknown dates/times are excluded of
necessity, so only 38 of the 51 listings were automatically
counted - no dimpled ballots!

Dividing the starry sky into 24 "hours" of Right Ascension (and
ignoring declination entirely) one might expect this breakdown
to divide out to one or two sightings per each hour of RA.

Oddly enough, there was a peak of seven (7) sightings with RA of
19 hours... (plus/minus 30 minutes RA). The WOW signal came
from that same slice of sky, 19hrs, 25 or 28 mins RA.

The local time of day breakdowns peaked out between 23:00 and
2359 hrs. The WOW signal came in at 23:16 hrs EDT in Ohio.

Nobody should draw statistical conclusions from this, the
numbers are far, far too small.

During the single month AUG 1978, the busiest days were AUG 5,
17, 27 and 28th. For 15AUG78, the day of the actual WOW signal,
there is only one UFO sighting listed, in La Paz, Bolivia.

A man was reportedly awakened by an odd buzzing sound. A silver
fuselage or cigar hovered motionless. It gave off a green glow.
The man thought he could make out porthole-like features on the
side. (Source: UFO Roundup, J.Trainor, Vol.2 #35)

Sightings trailed off after 1978, into a long trough
of relative inactivity through the 1980s.



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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                      Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:26:12 -0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:07:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Ticchetti


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Campinas, Brazil?
 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:11:16 +0100

 >Does anyone know if the original report by Dr. Olavo Fontes
 >about the Campinas (Brazil) incident on December 14, 1954, is
 >available on the Internet?

 >If not, is there any possibility of getting a copy?

 >(A quick reminder of the case: three disc-shaped objects
 >over Campinas; one of them, "in trouble", emitted a thin stream
 >of silvery liquid; some samples were collected and analyzed).


Hello Manuel,

Dr. Olavo Pontes isn�t available on the Internet, but I will try
to help you, ok?

Regards,


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
VICE-PRESIDENTE- EBE-ET
(EBE-ET VICE PRESIDENT)

www.ebe-et.com.br
ICQ 35119615









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:41:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:26:16 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young

 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:22:22 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>>>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>>>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>>>Consider ordinary sightings.

 ><snip>

 >>>>Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>>>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>>>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>>>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>>>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>>>fallibility, if they wish.

Bob replied:


 >What I have a problem with, in a line of thought like this, is
 >that there is no way to tell the difference. It the ETs can
 >disguise themselves like planes (and let's face it, how hard
 >would it be to put a couple anti-collision beacons and a red and
 >green light on their saucers?) why are there UFO reports of
 >things that don't look like planes? This hypothesis allows its
 >proponents to claim that they have proof of UFOs as ET craft,
 >let's say, when _anything_ is seen in the sky. There is no way
 >to advance knowledge.


Hi, Bob!

This is exactly the problem I've been trying to point out. On
the one hand, we have UFO cases like the Trents where the
mystery object looks suspiciously like a truck mirror. However,
where as proponents will give a variety of contrived technical
reasons why the object could, coincidentally, _look_ like a
truck mirror without actually BEING a truck mirror, the more
logical notion that UFOs might appear as planes, jets or
helicopters is considered absurd.

Why? Because there are no reported cases of UFOs appearing as
planes, jets or helicopters!

Of course, why would there be if the intent of the ET was to go
unnoticed? Therefore, all you have left are reports of craft
that don't look like terrestrial objects (except for truck
mirrors) or identifications so vague as to be heavily influenced
by personal bias or vested interest. In short, due to lack of
"proof", people rationalize whatever they want or do not want to
see. This includes both debunkers and believers, alike, I'm
afraid.

Then you have the situation where ETs are so vastly superior
that they not only take on the shape of terrestrial objects like
planes, jets and helicopters (but not truck mirrors), but they
have a galactic sense of humor, as well. They stir up trouble by
selectively choosing WHO will get to see them out of thousands
of potential witnesses. But they don't stop there! They go so
far as to screw around with only two frames out of thousands
that make up video documentation of their flight!

As Bob has correctly pointed out, if you buy into this line of
thought, then anything photographed is potential ET craft; from
the Goodyear blimp to a flock of pelicans. Why not? A flock of
pelicans would be a lot less noticeable than obvious flying
saucers.

"Unfalsifiable"? I don't have a problem with a theory that is
unfalsifiable if it makes sense. The inability to falsify a
theory doesn't inherently mean that the theory has a problem. On
the contrary, the inability to prove a theory wrong is generally
a good sign of a strong argument by the theorist.

However, there is a difference between a theory that is
unfalsifiable and simply making it up as you go along, like we
see presented in reference to the Mexico UFO footage.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

               Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:42:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:21:05 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:54:22 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Perfect Triangles & Useless Night Lights


 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:58:26 +0100
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings - Hatch

 >>>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:29:17 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>>>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:00:10 +0100
 >>>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Philippine Government's UFO Team On Recent Sightings

 >>>>Source: "Sun.Star Cebu Electronic Edition"

 >>>>http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/index.html


 >>>>Pagasa debunks UFO sightings
 >>>>By Minerva S. Zamora

 >>>>CLARK FIELD -- Government scientists Tuesday debunked the recent
 >>>>UFO sightings in nearby Mabalacat town and Angeles city saying
 >>>>the mysterious lights seen by local residents last Friday
 >>>>evening came from a land-based light source.

 >>>><snip>

 >>>The reporters (above) neatly avoided one of my favorite little
 >>>bugaboos. They failed to say that the useless night-lights were
 >>>in a " perfect triangle". For shame!

<snip>

 >>The original post that reported Phillipine scientists claimed
 >>those sightings were made from halogen lights reminds me of an
 >>incident this year in Germany. You may remember that several
 >>months ago on this list, in Filer's files, or one of the others,
 >>there was a report that a police officer and several other
 >>people in the town of Mochengladbach saw what appeared to be a
 >>UFO landing. It was investigated and was found to have been a
 >>prank caused by teenagers with stolen construction site halogen
 >>lights. They even fooled a member of the Polizei.

 >>Tschus, Josh

 >Hello Josh!

 >Hey! I know what lox is, but what's "Tschus?" Some kind of
 >"schmear" maybe?

 >Anyhow, I am now digging thru piles of back issues of
 >a couple of well known weekly UFO email newsletters.

<snip>

Hi Larry,

I'm not sure if it will help now, but you can use the search box
on the UFOINFO site to search the bulletins that I have. Single
word searches probably work best - once you get a list of
results you can then search within those results.

Database is usually updated around midnight Fridays or early on
Saturday morning.

Hope this is of some use to you.


John Hayes

webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives for UFO Roundup, UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI
Magazine plus archives of Filer's Files and Oz Files.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:10:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:23:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Message-ID: <a6.c7de90c.2751b2a8@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:26:16 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

<snip>

 >What I have a problem with, in a line of thought like this, is
 >that there is no way to tell the difference. It the ETs can
 >disguise themselves like planes (and let's face it, how hard
 >would it be to put a couple anti-collision beacons and a red and
 >green light on their saucers?) why are there UFO reports of
 >things that don't look like planes?

Hi Bob, list:

Indeed, if they disguise themselves perfectly like either
man-made or natural objects, then we wouldn't have any clue that
they were UFOs in disguise. So to the extent that that may have
been happening, there's no way we can learn of it. However,
through "minor" inconsistencies they have let us know in many
instances that these were no man-mad or natural objects. Their
lighting, though often of red and green lights, either doesn't
conform to our rules, or contains one or more additional lights
of colors our planes never use, and/or they make no sound, or
maneuver too fast or slow, etc. So they achieve two objectives
at the same time -- resemble man-made objects to those who don't
look at all closely, or who don't want to look closely, while
giving away the fact that they're not man-made objects to those
who can accept that possibility and who pay attention to the
details.

 >This hypothesis allows its
 >proponents to claim that they have proof of UFOs as ET craft,
 >let's say, when _anything_ is seen in the sky. There is no way
 >to advance knowledge.

Anything? Evidently not. As noted above, if they should make the
perfact disguise, we wouldn't know the difference, it wouldn't
look like anything remarkable to a witness, and it wouldn't get
reported as any UFO.

 >If one wants to propose this hypothesis, then how can it be
 >falsified? Well, I'm not sure I can think of a way, can you?

If it's the only remaining hypothesis after all other
possibilities have been exhausted, well... remember Sherlock
Holmes!

The witnesses indicate that the hoax hypothesis is not viable
for the Mexican City case. If there had been no witnesses, then
one could claim it was a hoax and probably be unchallenged in
that claim. The hypothesis might then be said to have been
falsifiable. Also, the absence of video-tapers coming forward
and explaining in detail exactly how they pulled off any such
video hoax is consistent with it not being any hoax. If they had
come forward and succeeded in showing how they did it, then the
hypothesis would be falsified in that case. Their failure to
come forward is consistent with the case being genuine, for the
usual reasons why even mere UFO witnesses hesitate to come
forward. The failure of anyone in the past three years of making
up their own video tape simulation of the event to demonstrate
how easily this could be done is also consistent with it not
being any hoax, no doubt because it would entail a lot of hard
work and yet the real thing would look more convincing in
comparison.

The Mexican City video having the "fingerprints of a hoax" then
is best accepted as showing the fingerprints of the aliens. It
was many years ago that enough evidence had already surfaced to
strongly suggest to Stan Gordon of PA MUFON that the UFO aliens
can plan their sightings to nearly coincide with, or occur
within about an hour of, some real event such as a fireball.
Then those who don't wish to accept it as an alien event can
claim it was the natural event and that the witnesses were mixed
up in their reported times of the event, or their reported
descriptions. Those who can accept it as the UFO it really was,
when study justifies it, then can examine it all more closely,
note the veracity of the witnesses, etc., and realize it was no
natural event. Thus, in such cases the aliens seem not to wish
to shatter the world views of those who can't accept their
existence or presence. At the same time, they seem not to desire
to present any UFO event so convincingly or directly that the
UFO coverup becomes abruptly uncovered. They can accomplish
several goals in any one event. They seem to be masters of
deception as well as Masters of the Skies.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                The Cydonian Imperative: Martian 'Graveyard'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:25:10 -0500
Subject: The Cydonian Imperative: Martian 'Graveyard'


11-26-00

The Cydonian Imperative

For Immediate Release

John Dyck has rendered a preliminary surface view of the
"graveyard" formations discussed on Page 9. A scaled version of
this intriguing profusion of triangles can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


Mac Tonnies
The Cydonian Imperative








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                      Saturn Moon Mimas & 'Deathstar'?

From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:35:24 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:27:49 -0500
Subject: Saturn Moon Mimas & 'Deathstar'?


 From our series 'How Did They Know It, And When?'

Do you know, if there are any pictures of Saturn moon Mimas and
its crater Herrschel before the ones from Voyager 1 in 1980 and
before Star Wars from 1977? I guess not!

Look at this striking similarity between the Death Star (120 km
diameter) from Star Wars and Mimas (392 km):

http://mars-news.de/movies/deathstar2.jpg

http://mars-news.de/movies/mimas.jpg

Also note, the latitude of the reflector on the Death Star. It is
precisely at "Hoagland-Coordinate" 19.47�N!

And not to forget the very low density of Mimas. It is with 1.17
g/cm^2 just slightly over Water, so it could be made of a heavy
material like metal or glass and hollow inside.

I do not buy the explanation of astronomers, that it is made
completely out of water ice. Imagine a snowball hit by an object
which could produce such a crater as Herrschel. It would simply
burst in pieces.


Holger Isenberg

H.Isenberg@ping.de
http://mars-news.de







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:02:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:41:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:32:51 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Any person defending the video must come up with a good reason
 >that explains the _hard_ data!. Jim has made a proposal that the
 >real UFO out there moved up and down in 1/30 of a second or less
 >just enough to avoid image edge smear. Perhaps there is another
 >reason. Perhaps someone can show that Jeff's result is an
 >artifact of the analysis.

 >There was another test applied: beside image shift up-down and
 >left right there is also image rotation. For each change from
 >frame to frame the image can rotate slightly about some axis
 >that could lie within the scene or outside the scene. In the MC
 >video there was very litle rotation (much less than a degree) in
 >most cases. However as the UFO image passed over the first
 >building there was a strange event: a sudden, about 2 degree,
 >rotation of the scene. This was determined by looking at the
 >vertical and horizontal edges of the building from one frame to
 >the next. This rotation, probably a result of hand vibration,
 >occurred in a couple of frames, almost like a rotatory
 >oscillation. Guess what? You guessed it: the UFO image did not
 >participate in the rotation.

If the aliens could sense the camera's rotational accelerations,
as perhaps by means of molecular sized strain guages and
transmitters within a "black dot" that may have been remotely
attached to the camera just before the videotaping began, I'd
surmise their black-dot device could sense angular accelerations
as well. The UFO would be able to maneuver itself in the proper
segment of an arc so as to negate the associated blurring due to
camera rotation just as well as doing so with vertical and
horizontal movements to negate vertical and transverse camera
jitters. Or, if the UFO was at the center of the frame, it need
only have rotated itself that amount, at high angular frequency,
superimposed upon its other motions.

On the upper left of the building that temporarily eclipsed the
UFO, there is a square panel that is relatively bright, perhaps
brighter than the UFO image. Bruce, did you by any chance, in
your light-intensity study, measure whether this panel, or parts
of it, was indeed slightly brighter or lighter than the UFO? If
so, from this could you say anything about whether the "paste on
lighter" instruction for an electronic hoax would have worked
there? I.e., should this panel have appeared slightly darker if
an e-UFO was passing by?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                   Free Download - Issues 1 & 2 of CE-BK!

From: Michael Wysmierski <wufor@ldnet.com.br>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:26:11 -0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:43:16 -0500
Subject: Free Download -  Issues 1 & 2 of CE-BK!


Greetings,

Good news!  A free download of issues 1 and 2 of Close
Encounters of the Brazilian Kind - CE-BK is now on line at
www.ce-bk.com.

Also, view exclusive photos of a a UFO landing site in So Jo
da Boa Vista, So Paulo.

All the best,

Michael Wysmierski








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:39:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:54:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500

 >Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >before eventually disappearing.

 >I apologize...

 >Michel M. Deschamps


Hello Michel:

OK, 18 sightings, not an issue.

The 18th one at Denise's house sounds an awful lot like the
apparent space-junk re-entry I saw a few years back.

Spectacular really, it would flare up and down, different colors
in succession, as if different materials were flaming up in the
atmosphere in sequence.

As for the shape, its about impossible to say given it was
hidden in its own surrounding plasma. Any oddly shaped object
seen at great distance will seem to resolve into an oval
shape... or more or less "round" if its far enough away...
finally a pinpoint of light at greatest visible distance.

I take it your object did no maneuvers, but simply kept going on
a more or less ballistic curve. If you call this a UFO, then I
have no problem with anyone having seen 10, 20 or more over the
years.

For me, the simplest assumption is that it was mundane, as in
manmade or possibly natural. I wouldn't be putting it into a UFO
catalog.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:59:05 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:58:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:55:45 +0100
 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military Academies?

<snip>

 >Subject: Soviet Recognition Of Visitors Taught At Military Academies?
 >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:51:25 GMT
 >From: Cliff Gieseke <cliffg@texas.net>
 >Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo

 >Has anyone run into any former Soviet military officers who
 >claim they were taught at their military academy that the earth
 >is being visited by extraterrestrials?

 >An army major from Kazakstan I met recently told me that this
 >had been included in his academy training in the former Soviet
 >Union. It was only briefly mentioned, he said, but it was, he
 >claims, part of their curriculum.


Hi everyone,

Michael Gershtein <ufo_miger@chat.ru>, Russian UFO researcher,
wrote the following regarding your question (in Russian):


"The fact is that the military in Kazakhstan paid much more
attention to the UFO phenomena and as far back as in 1990 they
placed their equipment for UFO research to the disposal of
civilian ufologists-enthusiasts, besides they did not make top
secrets from UFO sightings. I know that some of the ufologists
were invited to give lectures to military academies there, so
I'm not surprised by this post. However it is too short to
make sense of it." (Nov 27, 2000).

Sincerely,

Alex Persky








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:18:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:00:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:32:51 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:10:46 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 ><snip>

 >>I was carefully trained to question _everything_ Jim. I don't
 >>come by any of my beliefs concerning UFOs or their occupants
 >>lightly or easily. I'm ten times rougher on myself than I am on
 >>anybody else when it comes to asking questions and peeking into
 >>every nook and cranny.

 >>>I'm glad you're not dismissing the witnesses.

 >>Like I said, after my talk with Bruce regarding the video, the
 >>witnesses are the only real reason I still have my teeth sunk
 >>into the neck meat of this case. We shouldn't let go until we
 >>are satisfied that all the bases have been covered and that the
 >>witness testimony has been accounted for.>

 >>Also, bear in mind that what Bruce and Jeff are saying is; that
 >>based on their own analysis, the video may show the 'fingerprints'
 >>of a hoax based on the findings of a piece of software that relies
 >>on preset (by Jeff who developed the software) statistical
 >>parameters. Nowhere have I heard Bruce, Jeff, or anybody else
 >>declare the video a 'blatant' or a 'definite' hoax. They leave
 >>room in their own diagnosis for error. I'm sure they are leaving
 >>the back door open just a crack because they haven't brought
 >>any _direct_ or _undisputable_ evidence of a hoax to the table.
 >>They have not offered any hard proof that the video image was
 >>in point of fact a 'drop-in' or how it was accomplished. What
 >>Jeff and Bruce have offered is a single (though significant)
 >>potential indicator that a hoax may have been perpetrated.>

 >>That's a long way from; "Ladies and Gents this video is a
 >>concocted hoax. This the evidence for it, a,b,c,d, and here is
 >>how it was accomplished e,f,g, etc. We haven't heard that
 >>have we? Which means that the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet!

 >Let's be clear about the technical analysis vs witness
 >testimony. Those of you who are very perceptive and
 >"recollective" may recall that in a mesage a few days back I
 >said that the witness testimony might be real and the video a
 >fake (or something like that).

Bruce responded:

 >It has been my impression that Jeff is quite confident of his
 >analysis and made an extra effort to point out that the computer
 >analysis was completely unbiased. He simply asked it to compare
 >the edge gradient of the build and of the UFO with the image
 >shift from frame to frame. If the shift was zero the gradient
 >would be some value. As the shift increases the gradient should
 >shrink in proportion. It did for the building, but not for the
 >UFO. At the largest image shifts the building image was totally
 >smeared andthe edge gradient was small but not the UFO. It
 >seemed "immune" to the magnitude of image shift. And then there
 >are the two frames where you don't need a computer to see the
 >handwriting on the wall. Hence the "fingerprints of a hoax."

Bruce, did that apply to _all_ the 'non-UFO' elements in the
frame(s)? In other words, did you guys check other elements
within the view to determine if it was -only- the UFO that was
'out of synch' with everything else. You have already mentioned
checking out the edge gradient of the building vis-a-vis the UFO
from frame to frame, but was the edge gradient of _any_ other
element in the view then compared to either the building edge or
the UFO? Even if for no other reason than to determine if the
UFO was the 'only thing' exibiting this anomaly. It would be a
sure fire way to validate both the method and the accuracy of
the software used to make the gradient measurments.

 >Any person defending the video must come up with a good reason
 >that explains the _hard_ data!. Jim has made a proposal that the
 >real UFO out there moved up and down in 1/30 of a second or less
 >just enough to avoid image edge smear. Perhaps there is another
 >reason. Perhaps someone can show that Jeff's result is an
 >artifact of the analysis.

I'm no where near as knowledgeable about the software or the
math involved to carry on such an inquiry. (as are some others
on this List.) I'll leave a debate as technical as that one
would have to be to those who are much better qualified or
informed than myself. I'm flying by the seat of my pants and
relying on my own wits, - which should explain why I have so
many questions! <LOL>Also, because I had the chance to hear
some testimony from two of the witnesses on that Maussan video
that I translated into English.

Regarding the above; I always pay very careful attention to the
words that people choose. A lot of the speakers own subconscious
material/underlying thoughts etc. 'can be' revealed that way. Up
above you say; "Perhaps someone can show that Jeff's result is
an artifact of the analysis." The 'catchy little phrase' that
yanked my radar cable was, "artifact of the analysis."

Perhaps Bruce! I sure as hell won't be the one that does it, but
"perhaps" indeed. ;)  At any rate, a decent look at the method
used to arrive at the determination is a necessary thing to do
in any event. Again I'd like to thank you for being so
forthcoming and open with your information. I wish more research
people were like you Bruce. Willing to get down in the trenches
and explain/talk about what you do and how you do it. It's what
a healthy UFO study/research community -should be- all about.
Just wanted you to know that I respect the time/effort you take
to do it.  Right or wrong, agree or disagree, you're a good man
Charlie Brown and 'doin it the right way.' The "People" really
do have a "right" to know. ;) Better they get it from people who
are knowledgeable than the side-showmen that lurk in every dark
ufological corner.

 >There was another test applied: beside image shift up-down and
 >left right there is also image rotation. For each change from
 >frame to frame the image can rotate slightly about some axis
 >that could lie within the scene or outside the scene. In the MC
 >video there was very litle rotation (much less than a degree) in
 >most cases. However as the UFO image passed over the first
 >building there was a strange event: a sudden, about 2 degree,
 >rotation of the scene. This was determined by looking at the
 >vertical and horizontal edges of the building from one frame to
 >the next. This rotation, probably a result of hand vibration,
 >occurred in a couple of frames, almost like a rotatory
 >oscillation. Guess what? You guessed it: the UFO image did not
 >participate in the rotation.

Same question I had above, was the UFO the _only_ element in
the frame(s) that "did not participate?" Was any other element
(other than the building edge) used to make the comparisons?
Eliminating a few other elements that may lend themselves to
edge gradient measurments would isolate the UFO as the
"foreigner" in the _whole_ scene.

 >I should point out that another guy, a video "amateur" he called
 >himself (Ha!) contacted me. He wanted to send me a video he made
 >on the computer as a test to see if he could create something
 >like the MC video. Well, what he sent me 'floored' me. Jeff had
 >worked for weeks to create a stop-motion version (where the
 >buildings are constant from frame to frame and the only
 >remaining motion is (a) the buildings passing through the scene
 >and (b) the UFO mage itself undergoing its proper motion - as if
 >the camera had been _solidly_ on a tripod but panned slowly to
 >keep the UFO in the field of view..

It would be really interesting to see them played side-by-side.
Maybe you can post a short .avi clip from each video on your
website! I know I'd love to see em. ;)

 >What about the witnesses?

 >At the time Jeff and I were sweating over this video, frame by
 >frame and field by field (60 fields per second) and I was
 >writing an article for the MUFON journal outlining our results
 >(but before Jeff began the stabilized scene analysis that turned
 >up the 'fingerprints') I was in communuication with the Elders
 >who were in Mexico City with Maussan interviewing witnesses. I
 >was aware that, _if_ the witnesses were recalling - over a month
 >later - the exact dates of their sighting, (Aug 6) then there
 >was a reasonably good correlation between the sighting repots
 >and the UFO video. However, I was never able to establish 100%
 >correlation. Perhaps that could have happened with further work,
 >I don't know. It seemed to me that witness testimony alone
 >would have provided information for triangulation. Was that ever
 >done? I don't know.

I have asked Daniel Munoz or yourself if it would be possible
for either of you to round up Mr. Maussan for us. He seems to be
a central character in terms of the witnesses and other
researchers that have been reporting directly to him. Seems like
he'd have a good 'overview' of all the research that has been
conducted since the sighting. We really do need to learn more
about the witnesses and what they are reporting. Without that
major component, (the witnesses) our ability to make up our own
minds about the case becomes hopelessly crippled.

 >If there is a case here it must first be solidly established by
 >witness testimony. Then we can start to study the video again...
 >and appeal for the videographer to finally come forward.

Man, getting the videographer to come forward would be such a
telling/revealing thing! Bruce, can you get in touch with
Maussan and ask him if he'd be gracious enough to spend a little
time with a few 'gringo's' who are genuinely curious and
interested in the Mexico City case(s)? It would really help us
all to make determinations for ourselves about these cases based
on _solid_ and _reliable_ information.

And in the end... isn't _that_ what it's all about! ;)

Regards,

John Velez, just another schmuck that has a burning need to
know! ;)

******************************************************
           A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                   jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                        Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:23:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:01:47 -0500
Subject: Re:  Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Campinas, Brazil?
 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:11:16 +0100

 >Does anyone know if the original report by Dr. Olavo Fontes
 >about the Campinas (Brazil) incident on December 14, 1954, is
 >available on the Internet?

 >If not, is there any possibility of getting a copy?

 >(A quick reminder of the case: three disc-shaped objects
 >over Campinas; one of them, "in trouble", emitted a thin stream
 >of silvery liquid; some samples were collected and analyzed).



Hello Manuel:

Mark Cashman has an excellent presentation on his Temporal
Doorway website. It appears to be the original Fontes article,
or something just as good.

Sorry about the long URL. If truncated, you may need to piece it
together manually.

Its worth it.

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/physicalevidence/ubtatubamagnesium/index.htm

I heard vague rumors about the same sample(s) being re-analyzed
in recent years, but I have no further details to offer.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                     TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.27.00

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:43:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:03:49 -0500
Subject: TMP News: Weekly Briefing 11.27.00


TMP NEWS
The E-News Service of The Millennium Project

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews
http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

November 27, 2000

_____________________________


TMP News is the e-news service of The Millennium Project,
providing a Weekly Briefing summary of the latest news and
reports relating to the most phenomenal, enigmatic and
controversial issues of our time in science, technology and
global change and their present and future implications as we
enter the 21st century and a new millennium, as well as other
periodic information and updates on TMP- related projects and
events. TMP News is available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


WEEKLY BRIEFING
11.27.00


* Bacteria from Space? Scientists Discover Possible
   Extraterrestrial Microbes in Upper Atmosphere
* More Evidence Found Suggesting Water on Mars
* The Martian 'Monolith Graveyard'
* The Cydonian Imperative: Martian "Graveyard"
* The CSETI Disclosure Project - Update and Status
* IBM Sells Air Force New Supercomputer To Identify UFOs
* Govt UFO Team Probes Pampanga 'Dancing Lights' in Philippines
* Moscow's 'Museum of Parapsychology & Ufology'
* 'Hole-Punched Clouds' Over Melbourne, Australia
* Prime Lunar Real Estate for Sale - But Hurry
* Trend-Setters Offered Robotic Clothes
* West Nile Virus Spreading Worldwide



BACTERIA FROM SPACE? SCIENTISTS DISCOVER POSSIBLE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL MICROBES IN UPPER ATMOSPHERE

An international team of scientists has recovered microorganisms
in the upper reaches of the atmosphere that could have
originated from outer space, a participant in the study said
Friday. The living bacteria, plucked from an altitude of 10
miles (16 km) or higher by a scientific balloon, could have been
deposited in terrestrial airspace by a passing comet, according
to the researchers. The microorganisms are unlike any known on
Earth, but the astrobiologists "want to keep the details under
wraps until they are absolutely convinced that these are
extraterrestrial," said study participant Chandra
Wickramasinghe, a noted scientist at Cardiff University in
Wales...

http://CNN.com/2000/TECH/space/11/24/alien.microbe.claim/index.html


MORE EVIDENCE FOUND SUGGESTING WATER ON MARS

NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, currently orbiting Mars,
simultaneously snapped both a wide-angle and high-resolution
view of Hale crater that show gullies - possibly carved by water
- in the peaks of sand dunes inside the crater...

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0011/20mgsgullies/


THE MARTIAN 'MONOLITH GRAVEYARD'

A recent image from the Mars Global Surveyor shows an unusual
arrangement of triangular objects in the Martian sands. Yet more
anomalies to add to an already long list. Are they natural or
the remains of partially buried 'monoliths'?...

http://209.196.158.209/mars/monolith_graveyard.html


THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE: MARTIAN "GRAVEYARD"

John Dyck has rendered a preliminary surface view of the
"graveyard" formations discussed on Page 9...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/graveyard.html


THE CSETI DISCLOSURE PROJECT - UPDATE AND STATUS

In the past 4 or 5 months, CSETI has been able to identify,
contact and film nearly 90 military, intelligence and government
witnesses to UFO events and projects. Many of these interviews
and accompanying evidence are definitive and will be able to
establish the reality of the UFO/ET subject as well as the
nature and purpose of the secrecy surrounding it...

http://www.cseti.org/position/greer/disclosureupdate01.htm


IBM SELLS AIR FORCE NEW SUPERCOMPUTER TO IDENTIFY UFOS

International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N said on Wednesday it
sold the U.S. Air Force a supercomputer to help it to identify
unidentified flying objects. The Air Force's Space Surveillance
Team, based in Maui, Hawaii, will use the supercomputer to hunt
outer space for old satellites, foreign spacecraft, and other
UFOs that may be hurtling toward Earth, IBM said...

http://www.sightings.com/general5/ide.htm


GOVT UFO TEAM PROBES PAMPANGA 'DANCING LIGHTS' IN PHILIPPINES

A government team investigating unidentified flying objects
(UFOs) is expected to arrive here today to investigate the
mysterious light that danced in the sky for five hours over this
town and nearby Angeles City last Friday night...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/pampanga.html


MOSCOW'S 'MUSEUM OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY AND UFOLOGY'

Finding the Museum of Parapsychology and Ufology was about as
easy as spotting a UFO in the brilliant night skies above
Moscow. The museum itself is a tiny little place with only two
rooms actually devoted to exhibits. One of them has photographs
of various people apparently engaged in moving objects through
the power of their minds, plus drawings of various
extraterrestrials and spaceship landings; the other houses
computers equipped to monitor the spiritual powers of
visitors...

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2000/11/24/106.html


'HOLE-PUNCHED CLOUDS' OVER MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

A unusual cloud formation appeared in skies over the Space Coast
on Thursday caused by ice crystals and enhanced by the jet
stream. There is no scientific term for the cloud display you
see above. The National Weather Service calls the formation
"hole-punch" clouds because of the oval-shaped opening. The
image was captured by meteorologists Matt Bragaw and Peter
Blottman at the weather service office in Melbourne on Thursday
morning...

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/columnists/larimer/111200larimer.htm


PRIME LUNAR REAL ESTATE FOR SALE - BUT HURRY

Want to buy a piece of land that promises lots of quiet and
great views of the stars? There's a sale going on that's out of
this world. But hurry, the price will soon rise astronomically.
Hollywood celebrities, ex-U.S. presidents, "Star Trek" actors
and NASA employees have joined in the rush to call a piece of
the moon their own. The brainchild behind the lunar real estate
development is Dennis Hope, a U.S. entrepreneur who asserts he
secured legal ownership of the moon and most other bodies in the
solar system...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/11/20/lunar.land/index.html


TREND-SETTERS OFFERED ROBOTIC CLOTHES

Fashionable folk who simply must have the latest designer labels
can now don the smartest gear of all: "Intelligent clothing."
For scientists have stitched up jackets, shirts and trousers
with mobile phones and even mini-computers for a walkie- talkie
wardrobe...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/ptech/11/22/brussels.clothes/index.html


WEST NILE VIRUS SPREADING WORLDWIDE

It is one of the deadliest new viruses to have emerged on the
planet, and in the past few months it has begun to terrorise a
growing list of victim nations. West Nile Fever looks set to
become a global threat for the twenty-first century. Last month
the disease killed 12 Israelis; France and Jordan reported
outbreaks; and US scientists warned the disease has probably
spread across the nation, threatening new eruptions in areas
such as the Gulf coast...

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa/westnile.html


____________________________


To subscribe to TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-subscribe@egroups.com

To unsubscribe from TMP News, send your e-mail address to:
tmpnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

You can also subscribe, unsubscribe, custom modify your
subscription or browse the online archive of past issues on the
TMP News eGroups web site:

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews

See the TMP web site for complete listings of news
stories, reports and related information and links:

http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

For further information, submissions or inquiries, forward
all correspondence to:

THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT

Suite 202 - 2086 West 2nd Avenue
Vancouver, BC   V6J 1J4
Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://persweb.direct.ca/psa

_____________________________


� The Millennium Project, 2000














   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 27 Nov 2000 06:33:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:06:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500


 >>>>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>>>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>>>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>>>imagination.

 ><snip>

 >>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >>years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >>"trufo".

 >Luck of the draw Larry and no real reason to be skeptical of
 >Michels claim. I have that many 'sightings' in any given three
 >year period! I too have spent almost 30 years studying the sky-
 >both day and night time versions. I can tell the difference
 >between a balloon, a bird, an airplane etc. and even if I say so
 >myself, I am good at it. I know some few people that have fairly
 >regular sightings of objects which do not display any of the
 >characteristics of conventional 'sky objects.' I have been
 >recording them on film and video for years now. So have guys
 >like Tommy King from Arizona, that priest down in Mexico City
 >(sorry, don't recall his name at the moment) and several others.
 >It's not hard for me to believe Michel when he states that he
 >has had 17 sightings of objects that are best catagorized as
 >"UFOs."

John, I agree with you as I do not find multiple sightings of
true UFOs unusual. I, myself, have had dozens of sightings of
real unidentifieds over the decades, both daytime and nighttime.

 >The reason you give for being skeptical of the number of
 >Michel's sightings that may represent actual UFOs is that, you
 >haven't had the luck (or 'misfortune' depending on your point of
 >view) of having seen one of these 'things' for yourself.

 >I'm sure that's the same thing the Pope said to Galileo about
 >his 'sighting reports' of Jupiters' moons. ;)

 >>What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >>re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >>trufo.

 >Take the time to get to know Michel. I think you'll find that he
 >is not an "incautious" observer. 'Some' of the folks that are
 >reporting these "regular" UFO sightings turn out to be trained
 >or experienced observers. We just have to take the time to ask
 >them what that 'experience' is before we dismiss their
 >observations as "incautious." I know I get pissed when I'm
 >dismissed out of hand by someone who knows nothing about me or
 >what my 'sky observing' experience might consist of.

 >>I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >>seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >>you saw seventeen (17) of them.

 >Maybe not Larry. But it's still -no reason- to dismiss the
 >claims of another that -they- have had repeated sightings.
 >
 >>Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >>even a quarter of that number?
 >
 >I have three to six a year Larry. If you're asking me, I think
 >Michel's odds are good that he'll have -another- sighting. He
 >'may be' doing something that you're not. Maybe it's not him!

 >Grab a brew, a hunk of bread, and a slice of that expensive
 >Frenchie bleu cheese and enjoy the pix I am attaching just for
 >you. I can just imagine how frustrated you must feel that after
 >so many years of looking, you haven't had much luck spotting a
 >UFO and here is this 'smarty pant's Michel reporting 17 of em!
 ><LOL>This is a little something to help 'scratch your itch.' ;)

 >Enjoy the pix Larry. I am including sighting description number
 >two for my friend Jim Deardorf. I have accumulated a heap of
 >video of these unidentified flying objects over the last 5
 >years. This is just a sampling of one of those many sightings.
 >I'm not sure how many there are by now, but I can tell you
 >that's its more than 17. If you are having trouble believing
 >Michel, I don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell with you.
 ><LOL>;)

 >Here are the details first: (The "List version" of my report)

 >Daytime.

 >This 'thing' (disc shaped, silver metallic object) was up
 >approx. 800 to 1200 ft. high in altitude. I guesstimate it must
 >have been some 20 to 30 ft. or so across in diameter. It
 >approached my location in a straight line from the Southwest. It
 >stopped overhead, hovered, and then slowly began to tumble end
 >over end while maintaining the same position in the sky. It
 >tumbled for a half-a-minute or so, then it stopped tumbling,
 >hovered for a few seconds, and then it took off in the same
 >direction it had come from! No wings, no engines, no sound.

 >How it _really_ went down: (For you Jim.)

 >I went out back to skywatch/look for UFOs. I had just stuck
 >my head out of my back door to check out the sky and seeing
 >conditions when I spotted the disc approaching. I hollered for
 >Margie (my wife) to bring me the videocam because I didn't want
 >to take my eyes off of it for a nanosecond.

 >I was mumbling out loud, "don't disappear yet, I want to get
 >you on video" when the disc stopped dead in its tracks. It
 >hovered there for a few seconds. Next; I felt Margie tap me
 >on the shoulder, I reached around and grabbed the camera,
 >fired it up, pushed all the right buttons, put it up to my eyes,
 >got the disc centered in the view and hit the record button.

Years ago I experienced interactions similar to what you describe.
Also attempted experiments with light beam transceivers, a kind of
UFO SETI, but not much proactive search or attempted communication
is done these days, except for people like Tom King.

Bill Hamilton









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:43:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:09:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:05:07 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

Previously, Larry wrote:

 >>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >>years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >>"trufo".
 >
 >>What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >>re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >>trufo.

 >>One space-junk burnout was so spectacular that skeptical friends
 >>telephoned to point it out. I guess I disappointed them by not
 >>taking the bait.

 >>I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >>seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >>you saw seventeen (17) of them.

 >>Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >>even a quarter of that number?

Robert replies:

 >Personally I have seen over 15 Minuteman missile launches from a
 >distance at Vandenburg since the 70s. I watch the so called
 >unclassified launch schedule and generally catch at least one or
 >two a year.

 >Had a friend tell me that because he had never seen one, he
 >thought it was absolutly ludicrous that anybody could "see"
 >(as opposed to watching any media coverage) the missile going off
 >because he had never seen one himself in all those years.

 >I guess the point being is that just because we haven't seen
 >with our own eyes, doesn't mean its not true, just means
 >we haven't seen it yet.

Happy holidays, Robert!

Hope things are well with you.

To the point at hand:

First off, there is a fundamental difference between your
sightings and Michel's. Mainly that we know for an absolute fact
that Minuteman missiles exist! Does this mean that you have to
be telling the truth regarding your claims? No, but the dynamics
are totally different. No one cares if you spotted even 100
Minuteman launches or not. On the other hand, we are all dying
to witness even one true "close encounter". Therefore, anyone
that can truly claim such a thing does become somewhat of a
celebrity, at least within UFO circles.

Second, Michel strongly protests when "eyewitness testimony"
isn't taken at face value. However he, himself, is so apparently
casual as to have lost rack of the number of his sightings, even
though these sightings are supposedly the basis for his solid
convictions regarding ET life. That is tantamount to my Baptist
grandmother "forgetting" that she ran into Jesus on her way to
the supermarket.

Third, despite his pleas for belief about ET life, he has
inexplicably avoided using his "gift" for sightings to arrange
for documentation of what could be some of the best UFO shots
that ever existed! I mean, if his 17 or 18 sightings (pick a
number) are THAT significant as to be the basis for absolute
conviction regarding ET life, then they must be pretty up close
and personal, don't ya think?

In short, his stories are inconsistent regarding number,
significance of event, and efforts regarding documentation. I
find his credibility pretty low. Again, another classic example
of why witness testimony needs to be validated.

King Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 27

                       Re: WOW Signal Details - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:40:23 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:12:25 -0500
Subject: Re: WOW Signal Details - Sparks


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:31:00 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: WOW Signal Details

 >Dear list:

Hi Larry!.

I appreciate all the effort you've made into getting us the
facts about this fascinating signal detection. I plan on posting
soon at length. Just a few quick corrections:


 >Some technical details about the 1978 WOW signal recently
 >discussed may be in order.

<snip>

 >On 15AUG1978 at 23:16:01 hrs EDT (local Eastern Daylight time)
 >the notable "WOW" signal was received at the then huge Big Ear
 >radio telescope in Delaware, OH, USA.
<SNIP>

The date was in 1977 rather than 1978. The time was from about
23:15:26 (11:15:26 PM) EDT to about 23:16:36 +/-2 seconds each,
for a duration of about 70 seconds, not the 72 seconds I keep
seeing all over. The last 2 seconds of each 12-second cycle was
for computer analysis of of the previous 10 seconds of signal
reception and averaging.

Most of the data on this signal was not directly measured but
was based on modeling assumptions that may or may not be correct
in all cases.


 >The narrow-band WOW signal came in at 1420.4556 MHz (+/- 0.005
 >MHz) with an amazing peak Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 30.76.
 >i.e., the signal was over 30 times louder than the ever-present
 >natural background noise.
<SNIP>

The signal amplitude of 30.76 is a best-fit value fitting the
curve of data points to a bell-shaped Gaussian curve. The actual
measurement is _assumed_ to be between 30 and 31. Worst of all,
we can't be absolutely sure even about that because there is a
35-level ambiguity in the computer printout and technically a
slight chance that it really represents 65 to 66 or even higher.


 >Oddly, and very sadly, the WOW signal only came in on one of
 >these horns, and an oversight in the original software does not
 >permit the scientists to determine which one! (Subsequent
 >experiments and analysis proved fruitless.)

 >As a result, there are not one but two Right Ascensions (R.A.
 >analogous to stellar longitude East - West) but a single
 >Declination (North- South) coordinate.
<SNIP>

 >As the sweet spot swept past the WOW signal, for some 72 seconds
 >or so, it increased and decreased back down to background noise
 >level in the familiar bell shaped curve as one might expect.
 >This eliminates possible ground based transmitter interference
 >as a source.

It was about 70 seconds as I stated above. And we actually only
know that the signal came in sometime during the 10-second
segment of signal reception. It could be almost 10 seconds less
at both ends of the interval for a duration of about 50 seconds.
It is _assumed_ that since the data points fit a bell-shaped
curve so nicely that most of the 10-second intervals were filled
with signal above noise level (thus about 70 seconds total).
However I have been unable to find an exact curve on the Web to
see exactly how far the "tails" do project timewise, and I don't
feel like digging out math tables to deduce it myself just to
pin it down by a few seconds more -- given the overall level of
uncertainty it's probably not warranted.

 >Given the longitudinal (RA) ambiguity, but known declination
 >(N-S "tilt") and tons of gosh-awful math, scientists arrived at
 >two possible points in the sky:

 >For Right Ascension (RA)

 >POS horn hypothesis: 19hrs,25mins,31secs (+/- 10secs)
 >NEG horn hypothesis: 19hrs,28mins,22secs (+/- 10secs)
 >Declination (both) 26 degrs 57 mins (+/- 20 mins)
 >[ all figures corrected to epoch 2000 A.D. by Ehman ]

<snip>

Even here where the assumptions are more obvious -- they don't
even know which antenna horn the signal came through (hence the
0.7 degree ambiguity in RA) -- there are still more hidden
assumptions underlying even these. The signal could have come
through sidelobes of the antenna in still different directions
than those given and it is not clear that all of the sidelobes
have been fully mapped, including those that could come from
ground interference. The width of the sidelobes being different
could be overcome by the signal itself. The error bars are
actually HPBW's (half power beam widths). The actual
full-widths down into the noise level are almost _double_ these
in angular size.

Best regards,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:51:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:24:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 27 Nov 2000 06:33:20 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>>>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >>>>>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>>>>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>>>>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>>>>imagination.

 >><snip>

 >>>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >>>years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >>>"trufo".

 >>Luck of the draw Larry and no real reason to be skeptical of
 >>Michels claim. I have that many 'sightings' in any given three
 >>year period! I too have spent almost 30 years studying the sky-
 >>both day and night time versions. I can tell the difference
 >>between a balloon, a bird, an airplane etc. and even if I say so
 >>myself, I am good at it. I know some few people that have fairly
 >>regular sightings of objects which do not display any of the
 >>characteristics of conventional 'sky objects.' I have been
 >>recording them on film and video for years now. So have guys
 >>like Tommy King from Arizona, that priest down in Mexico City
 >>(sorry, don't recall his name at the moment) and several others.
 >>It's not hard for me to believe Michel when he states that he
 >>has had 17 sightings of objects that are best catagorized as
 >>"UFOs."

Hi Mr. Bill, hi All,

 >John, I agree with you as I do not find multiple sightings of
 >true UFOs unusual. I, myself, have had dozens of sightings of
 >real unidentifieds over the decades, both daytime and nighttime.

Thanx for chiming in in support Bill. As I wrote the post I
could almost hear the thoughts of some of those who would
eventually read it. I've been down this road before. I'm glad
that you are around to confirm some of my statements. Multiple
sightings by one person are not as "unusual" as many would
think.

I wrote in the original:

 >>How it _really_ went down: (For you Jim Deardorff)

 >>I went out back to skywatch/look for UFOs. I had just stuck
 >>my head out of my back door to check out the sky and seeing
 >>conditions when I spotted the disc approaching. I hollered for
 >>Margie (my wife) to bring me the videocam because I didn't want
 >>to take my eyes off of it for a nanosecond.

 >>I was mumbling out loud, "don't disappear yet, I want to get
 >>you on video" when the disc stopped dead in its tracks. It
 >>hovered there for a few seconds. Next; I felt Margie tap me
 >>on the shoulder, I reached around and grabbed the camera,
 >>fired it up, pushed all the right buttons, put it up to my eyes,
 >>got the disc centered in the view and hit the record button.

Bill responds:

 >Years ago I experienced interactions similar to what you
 >describe.

I used to be in almost daily touch with Tom King. I know that he
had several "interactive" sightings/encounters himself. This is
the first time that I have made mention of the "interactive"
component of 'some' of the sightings. Mostly I did it for Jim
Deardorff because he is currently getting his keister kicked all
up and down the street on the List for even suggesting such a
thing is possible. I didn't think that his introduction of the
'alien-ufo / witness interaction' component was 'timely' in
regard to the discussion we were having about the Mexico City
UFO video, but that doesn't mean that I completely disagree with
him either. Like it or not (and believe me I have fought with
the idea) there _is_ in some instances a definite "interaction"
between the witness and the UFO/or its occupants. I don't like
to bring it up because it's hard enough to prove that the things
we are seeing and photographing are the genuine article without
introducing the -fact- that it is possible to conduct a form of
telepathic communication with the objects. (Where the object
responds to the 'thoughts' of the observer.) I have had at least
four such encounters. And don't even think to ask me to
'explain' it or to 'prove' it. It just is. It happens. How it
works or why is beyond my ken.

 >Also attempted experiments with light beam transceivers, a kind of
 >UFO SETI, but not much proactive search or attempted communication
 >is done these days, except for people like Tom King.

It's the same reason why I don't post any more of my sighting
pix or even report a sighting to the List anymore. After awhile
it gets really frustrating (not mention a drain) to have deal
with the "armchair" arguments and theories of people who have
never even seen (much less studied) a single frame of our
videos. There is strength in numbers and if there are enough of
us throwing reports and video/film at the people we're bound to
make an impression sooner or later.

But it's like banging your head (hard) up against a stone wall.
Many of them just think we must be crazy or lying and blow all
of it off without so much a cursory look-see. Many is the time
that I don't think it's worth it either. I'm still here because
I have the truth on my side and because I don't like to back
down from anything or anybody. It's more of a 'challenge' to me
than it is a pain in the as*.

It's good to have _you_ back though!  ;)

Hey Bill, I'd really be interested to hear about your own
"interactive" UFO sightings if you wouldn't mind sharing them.
;)

Warm regards,

John Velez, fellow skywatcher
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:47:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:28:27 -0600

 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :;>
 >Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 1:42 PM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Can you accept the reality of the flickering black dot that Ed
 >>Walters observed on his window pane while he was getting ready
 >>to photograph the UFO that had showed up in the distance? And
 >>that his camera then took a picture of it before he pressed the
 >>shutter button?

 >>Would you, as a caveman, accept the possibility that men could
 >>some day travel to the Moon, walk on its surface and return?

 >>You see what I'm getting at. Please let us know where you stand.

 >Jim,

 >Here's where I stand -- with one simple question:

Dennis,

Larry has let us know where he stands with respect to that
flickering black dot that Ed observed, but you haven't yet. You
said "Here's where I stand" but failed to state where you stand.

 >Is there anything the aliens _can't_ do, in your mind?

I'm sure there're plenty of things they can't do, how much or
how little depending upon how many thousands of centuries more
evolved than us the particular aliens involved are. I'm in no
position to guess what they can't do, and can only point to the
evidence telling us what they can do. For now, let's just stick
to what the UFO evidence suggests they can do. Larry pointed out
one thing it would seem they couldn't do.

And what's your personal answer to the caveman question?

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:51:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:59:02 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:06:55 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Jim, John, List:

 >>>>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>>>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>>>evidence acceptable to science.

 >>>Dear Bob:

 >>>Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

 >>>Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
 >>>theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
 >>>countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
 >>>trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
 >>>hand motions of some person taking the video!

 >>>That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
 >>>List.

 >>>It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

 >>>I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
 >>>all?

 >>Larry,

 >>I'd be interested in just where you draw the line between
 >>reality and fiction, or between the possible and the impossible.

 >>I take it you believe that some UFOs are 'genuine' and that they
 >>can undergo tremendous accelerations without falling apart or
 >>injuring their occupants? Or do you not accept even that much?

 >Yes, I can accept that based on numerous accounts.

 >>Do you accept that some UFOs can maneuver like a falling leaf?
 >>That some can vanish abruptly from our sight?

 >Yes again. The vanishing act could be some sort of sophisticated
 >camouflage, or something else entirely.

 >>Do you accept that some UFOs (along with their occupants) can
 >>remotely disarm, or otherwise tamper with, nuclear weapons
 >>within a nuclear missile site?

 >Questionable, but not out of the question, if we hypothesize
 >highly advanced technology.

Hi Larry,

Thanks for giving straightforward responses. I surmise that
where a lot of scientists go astray is in assuming that science
could never advance more than a century or two ahead of our own,
whichever year or century we're in. They can't fathom that
science & technology & other learning could continue advancing
for centuries, hundreds of centuries and thousands of centuries,
for alien civilizations that survive.

 >>Do you accept the likely genuineness of reports that a UFO in
 >>the distance remotely caused a camera to take a picture, or, in
 >>other cases, caused the camera to fail to function (rather like
 >>automobiles, etc.)?

 >There are many car cases yes. As regards camera effects, a
 >camera malfunction is far far more common than one which takes a
 >shot unassisted by the owner. I'd have to dig deep to find one (
 >other than Walters, see below .. )

I've read of several such cases, but don't have them handy in my
records.

 >>Do you accept the reports that UFOs can instantaneously respond
 >>to a witness's thoughts or to a movement of their flashlight
 >>beam by abruptly moving much closer or similar maneuver?

 >Mind-reading is a bit of a stretch. I'm not ready to climb that
 >far out on a limb. There are reports of UFOs responding to
 >flashlights and other signals. Some of these seem reasonably
 >credible.

A key point is that the response seems instantaneous, not five
or ten seconds later after the UFO pilot has shifted gears and
plotted a course.

 >>Can you accept the reality of the flickering black dot that Ed
 >>Walters observed on his window pane while he was getting ready
 >>to photograph the UFO that had showed up in the distance? And
 >>that his camera then took a picture of it before he pressed the
 >>shutter button?

 >Frankly, I have serious doubts about the entire Walters story,
 >that part included. How can you call that a "reality" when his
 >entire story is held in question by so many others?

I respect Bruce's work on the case, as well as the corroborating
Gulf Breeze evidence. The fact that quite a few other ufologists
don't accept it merely means they don't want to think of the
implications of its being real. They're not ready to accept it.
So what? The aliens involved in the UFO phenomenon appear to
realize that this reaction will often occur, and so they haven't
so far forced anyone to accept what they can't, except perhaps
for isolated individuals who bear the brunt of close-up
sightings, encounters or abductions. It took until about 1985
before a substantial fraction of ufologists decided they had
been wrong about dismissing all abductees the way they do
contactees. Now it's probably a majority who take abductions
seriously, due to their sheer numbers and the credibility of the
experiencers. So whether it's many or few who understand a
phenomenon to be real has little to do with its actual reality.

 >>Would you, as a caveman, accept the possibility that men could
 >>some day travel to the Moon, walk on its surface and return?

 >As a caveman, I would probably scoff at the possibility; unable
 >to visualize the science and technology required.

 >>You see what I'm getting at. Please let us know where you stand.

 >>Jim Deardorff

 >Simple: As I read it, you have the UFO so carefully zeroed in on
 >the (single) videocam, that it can instantaneously cancel out
 >hand-jiggle effects by its own proper motions.

 >Suppose there were several other video-cameras, lots of newsmen
 >and tourists in Mexico City probably carry them. Each will have
 >its own peculiar hand jiggle when shooting footage. The UFO
 >would require entirely separate sets of anti-jiggle maneuvers
 >for each camera!

That would indeed seem to be an impossibility! But I haven't
heard that any other videos of that event were taken or made
available.

 >What would be the purpose of all this? Just to make any video
 >"look" fake?

As I've been saying to John Velez, they purposely leave the
sighting or video ambiguous in one or more ways, if it's a
pronounced event, so that skeptics who would be psychologically
devastated if they were suddenly forced to learn the reality of
it, can continue to deny it. At the same time, they leave enough
evidence within the same event to show those who can look into
the situation more fully, and who can place it within the
context of the UFO phenomenon as a whole, that its a real event.
In the Mexican City case, it's mainly the fact that there were
witnesses to it, who were found to be credible by Jaime Maussan,
which the positive skeptics can take into account instead of
ignoring. So, is it so hard to understand that these aliens are
capable of fulfilling two or more aims with one UFO event?
Namely, (1) providing evidence of their existence to those who
can accept it, and (2) providing ambiguous or deceptive evidence
in addition, by means of their advanced technology, that can
allow skeptics to consider only the ambiguous evidence and
dismiss the  unambiguous evidence. That video doesn't look like
a fake to those who can comprehend that it could be real,
expecially if they've looked at all into alien strategy the past
50 years.

 >By far the simplest assumption is that the saucer image
 >was superimposed onto a genuine shot panning some tall
 >buildings.

But remember, it would not have been a single saucer image that
the supposed hoaxers would have had to superimpose. It would
have required how many? 20 or 30 or 50 separate images, pasted
in one after the other in the proper combination, every frame or
two, to make the craft appear to be rotating about its vertical
axis while wobbling in a precessing manner at the same time as
it traversed.

I don't see the simplicity in that assumption of yours.

 >Having the UFO dance in perfect synch with the hand motion of
 >one particular camera (the video presented for sale) is such a
 >stretch that I'm amazed anyone would ever suggest it.

As you've noted, the idea that aliens can communicate with each
other via telepathy (read minds) and also with abductees is
similarly quite a stretch for you. In our business, minds need
to be stretched, in a variety of different ways. Why should
anyone on this UFO list take pride in having an inflexible mind?

 >- Larry Hatch

 >PS: I hear you have a website up. _If_ so, Would you like to
 >provide a URL we can click on? That might shed some light on
 >your opinions of this and similar matters.

 >-LH

I've posted it here before. It's:

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

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:12:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:53:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:35:52 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Hi,

 >Recently on the list a lot has been spoken about misperception
 >in conjunction with UFO cases.

 >I would like to ask those researchers who are putting this
 >forward the following:

 >Are you telling us that the UFO footage being filmed by
 >Christopher Martin is Misperception?

 >Or is the footage too near the mark?

 >I am beginning to feel that the neglect of any research into the
 >footage filmed by Christopher Martin (For those who have not
 >seen this you can see a small capture of this at my web site:

 >www.thelosthaven.co.uk

 >click on the intruders link) from those prominent UK
 >investigators does show a remarkable aspect of selectiveness on
 >their part.

 >I would also offer that the footage does represent a huge whole
 >in the arguments of sceptics, who rant and rave about such
 >applied psychological answers in relation to the UFO enigma.
 >(The footage shows objects under intelligent control).

 >We require hard evidence of UFO reality, we are being given
 >this, by the remarkable film footage of Chris Martin. (The
 >footage stunned those who attended the Leeds UFO Mag Conference
 >in September).

 >We should debate this case, it has too much good footage for it
 >to be denied.

 >It could well be a UFO waiting to be an IFO but deadly silence
 >on this case from UK sceptics is making me wonder.

Good post Roy,

The record shows the List was informed of this _new_ footage (I
even wrote privately to some researchers) all was met with the
same 'deadly silence' you mentioned.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

Whilst Chris Martins footage shows a definite airborne anomaly
it does not by any means show dust particles, lens reflections
or a pie plate on a wire.

I would have thought that alone would have caused some
conversation but no.

Whoever see's the footage seems to loose the ability to
communicate.

Even more Curiouser.

Perhaps 50 years from now we will all be happy to discuss the
matter.


Until then,

Dave Bowden









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                          Secrecy News -- 11/27/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:31:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:55:28 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/27/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 27, 2000

**      PENTAGON IG REPORT FINDS DEUTCH BEHAVIOR "EGREGIOUS"
**      CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ONLINE


PENTAGON IG REPORT FINDS DEUTCH BEHAVIOR "EGREGIOUS"

A new report of the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG)
finds that the conduct of former Deputy Secretary of Defense
(and former Director of Central Intelligence) John M. Deutch
with respect to the handling of classified information during
and after his tenure at the Pentagon was "egregious."

The new IG report, dated August 28, follows a report on the
Deutch matter from the CIA Inspector General that was issued
last February.  A parallel investigation was completed by the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in May.  And yet
another inquiry was initiated by the Department of Justice which
is still pending.

The new DOD IG report was first reported by Tony Capaccio of
Bloomberg News and Defense Week.

The report focuses on the disposition of the various computers
that were used by Deutch while he served at the Pentagon.
Pentagon investigators criss-crossed the country looking for
discarded computers that Deutch might have used, arriving at one
point at a Mennonite School in Ephrata, Pennsylvania, where five
computers and six loose hard drives were retrieved.  (Only one
of the hard drives at the school turned out to have DOD-related
information on it but it was unclassified and, in any case,
unattributable to Dr. Deutch.)

The inspector general report does not provide a damage
assessment, but specifically criticizes Deutch's storage of
classified files on the computer used to access his AOL account.
"Dr. Deutch's practice of using computers in this manner was
extremely risky in that a computer 'hacker' could have gained
on-line access to Dr. Deutch's computer and the information
stored in temporary files on the hard drive."

The security violations committed by Deutch have frequently been
compared to those committed by Wen Ho Lee to highlight the sharp
discrepancy in the government's handling of the two cases.

But in several respects, the Deutch case bears closer comparison
to that of Dr. Glenn Seaborg, the esteemed Nobel laureate who
chaired the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 to 1971, and who
was accused by the Department of Energy in the 1980s and early
1990s of improperly storing classified information at his home.

Both the Deutch and Seaborg cases involved agency heads.  Both
men kept a daily diary in which classified information was
found.  And both stored their diaries and related records in
unsecure facilities at their homes.  (Seaborg's records were all
hardcopy, however, and immune to hypothetical cyber-theft.)

The different outcomes of the two cases tell us something about
the shift in the political climate that has taken place.  The
Seaborg case was handled with kid gloves.  "Considerations of
Dr. Seaborg's stature precluded more aggressive action," said
one senior security official quaintly.  Third parties
consistently sided with Seaborg in his dispute with the Energy
Department.  Senator Moynihan even introduced legislation that
would have required DOE to declassify Dr. Seaborg's journal and
return it to him.  In contrast, Dr. Deutch has been roundly
vilified and investigated over and over again.  Roughly
speaking, the Seaborg case is to the Deutch case what the Deutch
case is to the Wen Ho Lee case.  There is, in other words, a
shifting and somewhat arbitrary double standard at work.

A copy of the new DoD Inspector General report may be found
here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/ig_deutch.html


CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ONLINE

Several transcripts of Congressional hearings on secrecy,
security or intelligence topics have been published lately and
are available online as follows:

"The Public Interest Declassification Act," a hearing before the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, July 26, 2000:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/pidahrng.html

"Safety and Security Oversight of the New National Nuclear
Security Administration," a hearing before two subcommittees of
the House Commerce Committee, March 14, 2000:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/nnsahrng.html

"Russian Threats to United States Security in the Post-Cold War
Era," a hearing before the House Government Reform Committee,
January 24, 2000.  This is an eccentric spectacle on the
potential for Russian sabotage directed at domestic U.S.
targets:

        http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_012400.htm

"The National Intelligence Estimate on the Ballistic Missile
Threat to the United States," hearing before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, February 9, 2000:

        http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_020900.htm

******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]


To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                          Filer's Files #47 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:28:26 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:58:13 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #47 -- 2000


Filer's Files #47 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations George
A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern November 27,
2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts - Webmaster C. Warren
http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

SPACE WEATHER

The first of several coronal mass ejections now heading toward
Earth hit our planet's magnetosphere between 0500 and 0600 UT
on November 26, 2000. Geomagnetic activity could become severe
during the next 48 hours as one shock wave after another
reaches Earth. We encourage sky watchers to be alert for the
Northern Lights at middle and perhaps even low-latitudes
tonight. http://www.spaceweather.com. New reports indicate
bacteria may come from space.

UFO ACTIVITY HEATS UP with reports around the United States .

New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Texas

NEW HAMPSHIRE FLYING WING

SEABROOK -- Kenny Young reports the witness was driving north
on Route 95 and saw what he thought was a large plane coming in
for a landing at Peas International Airport at 5:00 PM. It
looked like a wingspan, however it had an unusual light pattern
that caught my attention. The witness stated, "The left wing
(or what I assumed was a wing) had four white lights
equidistant from one another." These four lights were blinking
like an automobile directional signal. The right wing had two
lights, a white and a red and appeared to be at the inside and
outside ends of the "wing." The blinking in unison of the four
white lights made me think the craft was having electrical
problems. As my perspective changed while driving I could see
that the craft, which appeared to be at about 1000 feet was
actually hovering and not a landing jet plane. A few moments
after this realization I tried to see if this was a blimp or
some other recognizable craft. Then, as I watched, the craft
split into two: the left went down and the right went up. The
two maintained close proximity to one another. Then, to my
amazement, a star like fireball was shot/ejected in a northerly
direction. I heard no noise and saw no muzzle blast. The
fireball held a straight trajectory until disappearing from
view in the distance. I pulled into a rest area and parked my
car. I watched as the two crafts slowly hovered in a south
westerly direction. The entire event lasted approximately
fifteen minutes. Thanks to Kenny Young U F O R e s e a r c h
http://home.fuse.net/ufo/ ufo@fuse.net

NEW YORK LOW FLYING UFOS

LONG ISLAND -- George Krug writes, Hi, just a quick note to say
that I just read the article regarding the silent craft
witnessed on the South Shore. I live in Farmingdale near
Republic Airport. I saw one of those craft about 1 or 1 1/2
years ago around midnight. It was immense, very low, red light
in the center. Strobe lights spaced on both sides of that and
further away another strobe type light smaller and all the
lights moved at different speeds. What was remarkable to me was
the fact there was no sound. It moved slowly and was very low
over the houses. I estimated the size of this object was at
least 240 feet or more using the properties as a gauge. It was
a moonless night. It continued east and went over the airport.
I reported this to MUFON. Thanks to Helen K

NEW YORK FLYING TRIANGLES

FREEPORT -- Peter B writes as a regular reader of the 'files'
and a pilot I felt compelled to comment on the sightings
reported last week near J. F. Kennedy Airport by Ruth. She
states she saw, "a group of seven to eight craft flying one by
one, at 2 to 4 minute intervals, heading due south, then
eventually turning slightly to the right, going out over the
ocean. This always happens between 5:30 to 6:00 AM at low
altitudes. I am located in a flight path for planes from
Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports and these are different. These
craft fly much slower and much lower than the commercial
planes."

Ruth is clearly seeing the early morning arrivals to JFK. On
this particular morning sounds like they were using the
approaches to runway 33 Left and 33 Right. Arriving from Europe
they pass over DPK (Deer Park VOR) and depending on volume of
traffic, head south over the water or more inland (i.e. the
Meadowbrook) before heading south over the ocean then west to
land on 33 which lands them to the Northwest. The 2 to 4 minute
intervals" was a dead giveaway.

"I am not sure of the exact size, since they are always seen at
night or very early morning before sunrise. Ruth says,
"Lighting on these crafts consists of two very bright white
strobes, one on each side, which flash simultaneously, and one
red light on the underside, in the center, which flashes
alternately." There is never any sound!" Again clearly jet
arrivals to JFK. I too have noticed some new interesting
light/strobe patterns lately. There is big emphasis on
collision avoidance and they do appear to give the aircraft a
very triangular appearance at night. As for the lack of sound,
on the ILS these aircraft have the power back and are usually
doing about 200-250 Knots. At these speeds with today's
turbofan technology, they are VERY quiet indeed. Depending on
the amount of traffic stacked up on the ILS the arrival pattern
will vary. Any where from remaining south of the beach, to
flying up the Meadowbrook Highway and making a sharp turn over
Garden City to the Southwest to JFK. They are allowed to fly
down to 1500 ft, so they can come down pretty low if the
weather is bad. Thanks to Peter B PTBPILOT

PENNSYLVANIA CRESCENT SHAPED OBJECT

DOUGLASSVILLE --The sky was clear, dark, stars were prominent.
I was sky surfing on November 25, 2000, and saw a crescent
shaped craft heading east, while I was facing southeast at
10:30 PM. The object was about at 1000 feet, and appeared to
sparkle with multi-colored lights of yellow, blue, red, green
and white. It was beautiful. It moved slowly, then turned
coming toward me, went in an ark over me, still high, at about
800+ feet. It then turned to the east again, and I watched it
until it was out of my field of vision. I could not identify it
as anything we have in the air now. It was awesome. My
girlfriend and her husband also saw it, and thought it was
spectacular.

PENNSYLVANIA ASTEROID OR METEOR OVER MOSCOW -- Hello, my name
is Sandra De Pew, could you let me know if there was any
meteoric activity on the night of October 30, 2000? Traveling
home around 10:00 PM on a very cold and clear night on Route
380 East going toward the Poconos , I took the Elmhurst Exit to
Rout 435 South going towards Moscow, Pa. There were no
streetlights or other cars around to cause distractions or
reflections. I saw a bright orange fireball with a long orange
tail go across the night sky from left to right across the line
of vision. It was not too high above the mountain line as I
could see it at the top of my windshield without looking
upwards. It was moving much faster than any plane or jet, and
was going in a horizontal straight line. It reminded me of the
much televised Scud missiles of Desert Storm. Can you verify
that maybe this was part of a significant meteor or asteroid
event? Thanks to Sandra De Pew - Sdepew@allied-services.org.

Editor's Note: There has been a series of meteor and UFO
reports. Yours sounds like a meteor.

DELAWARE LARGE "STEALTH" STYLE CRAFT

DOVER -- My family was driving south on Route 113 at mile
marker 46. in Delaware, when we saw bright "airplane" lights
approximately two miles away on November 3, 2000. We continued
to drive towards the lights at 7:40 PM. As we approached the
lights, we thought they might be from an athletic field,
however; as we got closer, we could clearly see a "Stealth"
shaped aircraft. The ends of the wings curved inward toward the
fuselage. The aircraft appeared to be the size of a large
passenger jet. The aircraft hovered 200 to 300 feet off the
ground, as we passed within 200 feet of its location over a
field on the side of the highway, near a stand of trees. There
was no sound that we could hear over the "road noise" of our
van. We were very exited and I turned our van around in the
highway median and went back for another look. The aircraft
moved across the road in front of us and off in a northeast
direction. We lost sight of the aircraft as we drove by a stand
of trees, and when we cleared the trees, the aircraft was gone.
The aircraft appeared to have three lights on the front of each
wing which projected from the nose of the aircraft. There was
also a red blinking light in the middle of the plane. At the
time, we were six miles or so from the Dover Air Force Base. I
think this may have been an experimental military jet, but I
have never heard of a jet this large capable of hovering like a
Harrier Jet.  There were many cars on the road at the time, and
we are sure that many other drivers must have seen the
aircraft. I reported the sighting to the Delaware State Police
the next morning we've never hear of, or seen anything like
this. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

TEXAS FLYING TRIANGLE

HOUSTON - Mike Tamburri, an attorney and his fianc were
watching the clear star studded night sky from their deck four
stories up that overlooks the city. They were watching numerous
aircraft landing at Hobby and Houston International Airports on
November 26, 2000, the last night of the Thanksgiving weekend.
At 8:40 PM, a huge Flying Triangle moved over the city blocking
out the stars with numerous lights along the three edges of the
craft. Almost all other aircraft in the sky had blinking and
strobing lights. This craft stood out because of its size and
lack of collision avoidance lights. The craft was at least
double the size of 747, one of the largest aircraft in the
world. The craft made absolutely no sound. They ran to get
their camera but the craft was gone before they could get it on
film. Thanks to Mike Tamburri for calling in with his sighting.

TEXAS UFOs INSIDE CONTRAILS -- Marilyn Ruben writes, "We have
just received very interesting chemtrail photos at the Alien
Abduction Experience and Research web site." The photos were
taken July 20, 2000, by Lynn Stokes who was in a grocery store
parking lot in San Antonio, Texas. When Mr. Stokes looked up at
the sky, he saw massive chemtrails being sprayed by jet
aircraft. He ran back into the store to buy a disposable camera
and took photos of the chemtrails. Much to his surprise, when
the photos were developed, one of them showed a large round
object streaking through the sky with an orangish tail. The
witness explained he did not see the round object in the sky at
all while he was taking pictures. A close up of the photos
indicates up to seven unidentified objects in the vicinity of
the chemtrails. One of these objects is enlarged and enhanced
at the web site. The photos may be seen at the web site for
Alien Abduction Experience and Research ,
http://www.abduct.com/ or at
http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn006.htm Thanks to Marilyn Ruben

VICTORIA --- My name is Steve Antrich. I am a Houston Chronicle
carrier and I am out between the hours of 2 and 9;00 AM. I
usually watch the skies at night since I have an extensive
rural route in the Schulenburg/Flatonia/Moulton/Shiner area
about 45 miles from Victoria. This morning on November 22,
2000, in the southern sky I saw a white/orange light fairly
close to the horizon, hold your arm out, close your hand (not
fist, but with fingers extended and together) and it was four
finger widths above the horizon. I would guess about 25 degrees
above the horizon. I dismissed it as a weather balloon
reflecting the rising sun. BUT was it? The sun was still below
the eastern horizon. The sky wasn't that bright at 5:10 AM. The
craft was pretty much stationary. I know what a flying plane
looks like when it flies into a sunrise/sunset. It wasn't a
plane! I'm pretty sure it wasn't a planetary  phenomena, but
I'm not positive, my astronomy is a little rusty. Thanks Steve
Antrich santrich@cyrunner.net and Whitley Strieber-
whitley@strieber.com

IDAHO NOT INDIANA FLYING TRIANGLE HOVERS ABOVE HUNTERS

CHALLIS -- In Filer's Files #45 I reported on a case on a
September 27, 2000, where three hunters spotted a large UFO
over their camp. This sighting occurred in Idaho and not
Indiana. The hunters saw a dark triangular object floating
silently above them. This was a dry camp, so alcohol couldn't
be blamed for what they saw at 9:45 PM They saw a craft with
rounded dark edges and a flat bottom that had a texture like
suede leather and was colored gold-gray. He said that after he
shined his light on the object it throttled up with a deep low
sound of intense power and floated straight up and then forward
up a steep canyon moving like a hockey puck sliding on ice.

Two other campers grabbed their binoculars to check it out
until it moved out of sight. There were three lights, one on
each corner of the triangle. Each light was about 10 feet in
diameter and glowed like a dim dome light. Another light in the
center was described as being 20 feet in diameter, protruding
below the bottom of the object about eight feet. It was deep
red and pulsed once a second. Peter Davenport wrote, "Just for
your information, the report from Challis, ID, is from the
National UFO Reporting Center, not from NIDS. Thanks to Peter
Davvenport.

CATTLE MUTILATIONS

Researcher Don Ware writes, "I agree that UFOs are responsible
for most bovine mutilations." I have seen much evidence that
the blood and the tissues around the orifices that contain the
amino acids needed for new tissue growth are used to feed our
hybrid babies, "Homo alterios spacialis." There are many. It is
a joint human/Zeta program. The last time we got such a genetic
upgrade, Adam and Eve produced a genetically improved
population of a million before Eve screwed up, according to
"The Urantia Book." That was 43,000 years ago. Thanks to Don
Ware, donware@earthlink.net (earthlink.net)

RUSSIA: FLYING SAUCER JEOPARDIZES ARMY NEAR CHECHNYA

MAJACHKAL - Last week we reported on a UFO over Russian troops
near Daguestan, a Republic bordering Chechnya on November 14,
2000. Apparently Russian aircraft were launched to intercept a
low flying UFO near the Caspian Sea. Muslim rebels are fighting
against Russian forces north of the Caucasus for over a year
and a half. The UFO caused the Russian to sound battle
stations. Some garrisons noted the object was flying at low
altitude of only a 100 meters and had three fluorescent lights
above with two meter spaces between them. The Muslim rebels
hailed the UFO phenomenon as a sign from Allah. Muslim leaders
in Dagestan claimed "the strange phenomenon was a portent which
bore a message from Allah himself. An Islamic spiritual leader
stated that, "Without any doubt it was 'a JINN, an angel or
another heavenly being, since Allah's Garden of Bliss is filled
with these.'"

Editors Note: Powerful Islamic forces are rising in the Middle
East using UFOs as an influential motivating factors. Islamic
forces are fighting in Israel, Iraq, and Russia. To help you
understand the significance of these sightings, I have included
the following data about JINNS and UFOs.

THE TRUE NATURE OF THE "UFO ENTITIES"

Gordon Creighton of Flying Saucer Review writes: One of the
more curious features of the followers of the various religions
is that, being so dogmatically certain that in their own
particular little faith they already possess the whole truth
about all things in Heaven and Earth, it almost never occurs to
any of them to look elsewhere and find out what the followers
of other religions may know or may have discovered. This is
certainly a pity, for study of all the great world religions -
and notably Islam one of the world's great religions - yields
valuable clues as to the true nature of the "UFO Phenomenon"
Islam knows, in fact, of the existence of three entirely
separate and distinct species of intelligent beings in the
Universe, and indeed can furnish surprisingly precise details
regarding their natures and roles and activities. Angels, Men,
and JINNS.

The first category is that of the Angels or Messengers. The
second are Men, with planetary physical bodies assembled from
the mineral and chemical elements of our Periodic Table. The
third category, is the category of those beings created before
man was who are referred to collectively in Arabic as Al-Jinn
that means. "to hide or to conceal" indeed a very fitting
derivation for the name of these creatures. Whereas the bodies
of Angels are of light, the bodies of Al-Jinn consist of
"essential fire", or "essential flame", or "smokeless fire", or
"smokeless flame." It is specifically stated in the Qur'an
(Surah XV, 26 and 27) that they were created before mankind and
some scholars speculate these might be the "Pre-Adamic men"
whose existence is hinted at here and there in the "Holy
Bible." Western occultists have tried to describe them as
ether, or as etheric or astral planes. I have also seen it
suggested that some sort of plasma is indicated.) The Source of
the Jinns is not very distant from us, yet at the same time
somehow very far from us. In other words, on some other
dimension, or in some other Space/Time framework, "right here",
some other Universe that is here, behind Alice's mirror: "a
mirror-universe on the other side of the Space-Time Continuum"
as it has been neatly put by some investigators.

Although, the Qur'an (Koran) is not clear on this, it looks as
though some of the Jinns could be fully physical and what we
call extraterrestrials, while other species of them are of an
altogether and finer sort of matter, corresponding to what
various UFO investigators have tried to indicate by such terms
as "ultraterrestrial" or "metaterrestrial". In thinking about
these ideas, we might bear in mind the theory of the Russian
philosopher P. D. Ouspensky regarding the possible existence of
other, more subtle, levels of matter on which the elements of
the Periodic Table of our own chemical world are repeated --
and, if I understand him aright, repeated more than once, on
more than one level. The early writings of Dr. Meade Layne in
the USA about the "Dense Etheric World" from which he
maintained that the UFO entities and their craft originated
should also be borne in mind. (His book The Coming of the
Guardians, was published in 1958, and may prove to have been
very important.) Certain of the benevolent Jinns may well be
our "Guardians".

That there is some close affinity, or some link of destiny
between Jinns and Mankind seems certain, for although the vast
majority of the Jinns are devils, shaytans, nevertheless we are
assured in the Qur'an that some among their many species are
"goodies" and are capable of salvation. For it is specifically
stated that Muhammad was sent as a Messenger to both Mankind
and the Jinns, so that, in the Final Days, some of the Jinns
will enter into Paradise, while the rest of them will be cast
down into Hell. Their revelation to IBLIS, the Top Devil ( =
"SATAN") is in general somewhat obscure. In the Qur'an Iblis is
certainly described as a Jinn, but elsewhere in the Qur'an he
is also described as an Angel. (Surely the explanation is that
Iblis is that same high being, originally of Angelic status,
who rebelled against God and is named in the Christian texts as
"Lucifer") Had we the space, much more might be said about the
Jinns and their doings, but only a brief account of their main
characteristics can here be given. Their principal features, as
listed below, are as I have gathered them from all the Muslim
written and traditional sources that I have been able to
consult over the past 15 years. The reader can see for himself
the parallels with the reported features of UFO entities and
can draw his own conclusions.

The Chief Characteristics of the Jinns are: 1. In the normal
state they are not visible to ordinary human sight. 2. They
are, however, capable of materializing and appearing in the
physical world. And they can alternately make themselves
visible or invisible at will. 3. They can change shape, and
appear in any sort of guise, large or small. 4. They are able
also to appear in the guise of animals. 5. They are inveterate
liars and deceivers, and delight in bamboozling and misleading
mankind with all manner of nonsense. (See the average
Spiritualist sance for examples of their activities, and also
the usual "communications" from UFO entities in close-encounter
cases.) 6. They are addicted to the abduction or kidnapping of
humans. (The Scotsman Robert Kirk, who wrote "The Secret
Commonwealth" in 1691, evidently "knew more than was good for
his health", and was killed by them.) 7. They delight in
tempting humans into sexual intercourse and liaisons with them,
and Arabic literature abounds with accounts of this kind of
contact by mankind with both the "goodies" and the "baddies"
among the Jinns. There are also even a considerable number of
accounts of encounters between the "goodies" and famous Muslim
saints.

In official Islam - and this cannot be over-emphasized - the
existence of the Jinn's has always been completely accepted,
even legally, and even to this day, in Islamic jurisprudence.
The full consequences implied by their existence were worked
out long ago. Their legal status, in all respects, was
discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them
and mankind -- especially in relation to questions of marriage
and property! - were seriously examined by jurists, as the
greatest and most authoritative Western source, the
Encyclopedia of Islam, confirms. Stories of sexual commerce
between Jinn's and mankind have been of perennial interest to
Arab readers, and it is important at this point to mention that
in Chinese literature there is also a considerable tradition of
this sort which awaits examination by Ufologists. The great
Arabic literary catalogue known as the Fihrist, compiled in the
year 373 of the Muslim Calendar ( = A.D. 995) by Muhammad bin
Ishaq bin Abi Ya'qub al-Nadim al-Warraq al-Baghdadi, lists no
less than sixteen works dealing with this theme. (Compare also
the European occultists' records of sexual contact between men
and female Sylphs, as well as the copious medieval Christian
records relating to Incubi and Succabae. Thanks to Gordon
Creighton and Flying Saucer Review Vol. 29, No. 5

SCIENTISTS REPORT 'ALIEN' LIFE'

LONDON'S DAILY MAIL NEWSPAPER reported on November 25, 2000,
that scientists in Wales said they discovered what may be a
tiny form of primitive alien life that a passing comet may have
dropped into Earth's atmosphere, reported Wednesday.
Researchers said that in the filter of a high-flying balloon
operated by the Indian Space Research Organization, they found
a strain of bacteria unlike anything on Earth. The bacteria
were found at an altitude of 10 miles and scientists from the
ISRO, Cardiff University and the University of Wales College of
Medicine said it may have come from a comet on a close approach
to earth, according to the Daily Mail.  Prof. Chandra
Wickramasinghe, who is based at Cardiff University, said the
discovery marked "the first time we have had direct evidence
for the hypothesis that comets seed life on other planets."
Wickramasinghe and astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested the theory
of "panspermia" more than two decades ago, that the seeds of
life, either DNA or microbes, could be carried by asteroids or
comets and dropped off on planets such as earth to germinate
life. The bacteria found in the balloon's filter "is a hitherto
unknown strain," Wickramasinghe said. "It is so different from
anything we've seen before that there are only two possible
explanations." One, he told the Daily Mail, is that "organisms
have been lifted from the earth to great heights in the skies
and have somehow multiplied there and changed over time." The
second, he said, is "that this is an example of primitive alien
life."   The newspaper said samples of the bacteria are under
study at Cardiff's Astrobiology Center, which Wickramasinghe
and other scientists from ISRO, Cardiff University and the
College of Medicine have teamed up to form. Copyright 2000 by
UPI.

Editor's Note: The Earth is being hit almost daily by
meteorites, cosmic dust, coronal mass ejections, and apparently
now bacteria.

AIR FORCE BUYS IBM SUPERCOMPUTER TO IDENTIFY UFOs

Sam Sherman writes that International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM) announced it sold the U.S. Air Force a
supercomputer to help it to identify unidentified flying
objects. The Air Force"s Space Surveillance Team, based in
Maui, Hawaii, will use the supercomputer to hunt outer space
for old satellites, foreign spacecraft, and other UFOs that may
be hurtling toward Earth, IBM said. The IBM system will be used
to detect and identify some 9000 objects currently flying
around in Earth's orbit. The computer can process 480 billion
calculations per second to help improve blurry telescopic
images of space objects. Thanks to Sam Sherman FLEXARET2

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs
available and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy
Commander Graham Bethune.. $10.00. Send check or money order to
G. Filer 222 Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055

US GOVERNMENT UFO PROOF RELEASED: Audio tapes of a genuine UFO
Alert at Edwards Air Force base and studied by the Foreign
Technology Division at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, are now
available for distribution to the public. Sam Sherman's audio
documentary tape called 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
Edwards AFB. Tower operator Sgt. Chuck Sorrels spotted them and
is heard on the original tapes and notifies the Air Defense
Command. The UFOs are described and a decision is made to
launch F-106 fighter interceptors. You are there for an
important part of UFO history. Hear it for yourself, it's the
best UFO tape ever made. Tape cost is $14.95 each plus $2.00
for shipping -- total $16.95 -- (for overseas orders-out of US
- add $6.00 shipping cost -- total -- $20.95) you can send
either a personal check or money order to: Independent
International Pictures Corp, Box 565, Dept. GF, Old Bridge, New
Jersey 08857.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has noticed
that when NASA is picking up UFOs they have tendency to first
zoom in to observe the UFO better and then they cut the feed to
the outside world. Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the
shuttle broadcasts from space. He is now an expert on NASA
missions and even those onboard the shuttle are unlikely to see
what Jeff does. He has gained his experience from watching
numerous shuttle missions and using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice
crystals and real UFOs. Using his experience you can also learn
the difference. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle
from space. I feel confident we could go into a court of law
and convince any jury that there are UFOs moving at high speed
around the Earth. Send $25 to: Jeff Challender 2768 Mendel Way
- Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate
agents or sales representatives are part timers and
inexperienced. Others are experts with an excellent experience
and capabilities. When you are selling or buying your home, you
need to make sure you have the best real estate agent working
for you before you make any important financial decisions on
one your biggest investments! Remember, the majority of people
do not know the right questions to ask, and what pit falls can
cause major problems. Picking the right real estate agent can
be a wonderful experience, and picking the wrong one can be a
big mistake that can waste your time and cost you thousands!
Find out, " What you need to understand before hiring any real
estate agent!" These are the questions that many agents do not
want you to ask. Learn how you can obtain the best real estate
agent for your needs. To get a free copy of this report, just
call (609) 654-0020 or e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com. We can
also help you with your own or corporate Worldwide Relocation
to Australia, Benelux, Canada, Cayman Islands, England, France,
Guam, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern
Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the
US.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com. Mention I
recommended you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted
2000 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved. Readers may post
items from the files on their Web Sites provided that they
credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date
of issue that the item appeared. Caution: Most of these are
initial reports and require further investigation. These
reports and comments are not necessarily the official MUFON
viewpoint. Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name. Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                  Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:04:09 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:59:28 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Sparks


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978


 >Hello again!

 >At the risk of beating the WOW event to death, I looked up UFO
 >sightings for the single month of August, 1978. Since the WOW
 >signal came in on the 15th of August, a period of +/- 15 days or
 >so seems like a nice short study.

Wrong year old buddy.  It was 1977.

Brad









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                       Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:10:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:01:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Borraz


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:23:09 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil?

 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Campinas, Brazil?
 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:11:16 +0100

 >>Does anyone know if the original report by Dr. Olavo Fontes
 >>about the Campinas (Brazil) incident on December 14, 1954, is
 >>available on the Internet?

 >>If not, is there any possibility of getting a copy?

 >>(A quick reminder of the case: three disc-shaped objects
 >>over Campinas; one of them, "in trouble", emitted a thin stream
 >>of silvery liquid; some samples were collected and analyzed).

 >Hello Manuel:

 >Mark Cashman has an excellent presentation on his Temporal
 >Doorway website. It appears to be the original Fontes article,
 >or something just as good.

 >Sorry about the long URL. If truncated, you may need to piece it
 >together manually.

 >Its worth it.

 >http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/physicalevidence/ubtatubamagnesium/index.ht
m

 >I heard vague rumors about the same sample(s) being re-analyzed
 >in recent years, but I have no further details to offer.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch


Hi Larry:

This is just another case (Ubatuba, 1957(?) ), with metallic
samples too. However, thanks for the interesting link.

Manuel








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                 Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:36:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:02:52 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Maccabee


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978

<snip>

 >Sightings trailed off after 1978, into a long trough
 >of relative inactivity through the 1980s.

Yes, but, for what it is worth, there were some famous sightings
after Aug. 1978 Valentich disappearance in October New Zealand
Dec. 31, 1978.

I seem to recall sightings off the coast of Naples, Italy in
December of that year (but might be mixing it up with some other
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:36:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:02:39 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video


<snip>

 >On the upper left of the building that temporarily eclipsed the
 >UFO, there is a square panel that is relatively bright, perhaps
 >brighter than the UFO image. Bruce, did you by any chance, in
 >your light-intensity study, measure whether this panel, or parts
 >of it, was indeed slightly brighter or lighter than the UFO? If
 >so, from this could you say anything about whether the "paste on
l>ighter" instruction for an electronic hoax would have worked
t>here? I.e., should this panel have appeared slightly darker if
 >an e-UFO was passing by?


Because one doesn't know a priori how bright the "panel" or
window 'should' be, all one can do is ask the question: "did the
brightness change as the UFO seemed to go behind it?"

As I recall, the answer is, there was no change.

We had hoped this would be a window through which one could see
the UFO passing by... which definitely wuld have changed its
apparent brightness if light were shining through it. There was
no change, however.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                     Martian 'Monoliths' Pose Questions

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:06:33 -0500
Subject: Martian 'Monoliths' Pose Questions


For Immediate Release

THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

11-27-00

Martian "Monoliths" Pose Questions*

by Mac Tonnies

*for illustrated, linked version, visit:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

1.) Intelligent layout?

Additional independent study indicates that the so-called
"Monolith Graveyard" (see top of page) may be an artificial
arrangement. The regularity, shape and spacing of the
projections appears totally unique: they're not sand dunes (in
fact, the surrounding terrain is unsually flat) or "hills" in
any useful sense of the word. And it's just possible that the
features seen in the existing MGS frame conform to ronrandom
patterns (see image), an almost irrefutable sign of
intelligence.

[image]

If this is true, then the "Graveyard" might be a more elaborate
version of Stonehenge, with its own share of astronomical
alignments; if the "Graveyard" is a deliberate layout, then it's
doubtful if the positions of the individual triangular
"monoliths" is arbitrary. If alignments with celestial objects
(or conformation to some other pattern or design) can be
empirically demonstrated, then the monoliths on Mars, like the
one in Kubrick's "2001," might constitute the "smoking gun" for
extraterrestrial intelligence.

2.) Context

The Martian monoliths get more interesting. Using NASA's
Armchair Astronaut software, it was determined that the
monoliths appear in the region shown below:

[image]

A closer look shows a large circular anomaly (an eroded crater?)
alongside what appears to be a cylinder of some kind.

[image]

The impression is of a marker or shrine. The feature's discover
(see link below) likens its appearance to a sundial.

3.) Afterword

As always, additional photos (and a fair amount of computer
time) are necessary to test this hypothesis. More information on
this enigma can be found here, where I first learned on these
formations. I offer my congratulations to this site's author for
presenting this subject in a sane format.

[image]

John Dyck has computer-rendered a view of the Martian triangles
by using elevation data provided by the black and white MGS
image. While some elements of Dyck's color version are
necessarily speculative, this still gives a very good idea of
what these peculiar features would look like from the ground.
The question remains: What are they?

-end-

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
105 Ward Parkway #900
Kansas City, MO 64112
816-561-0190
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonian Imperative: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:13:35 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:10:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report -


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:38:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Feedback on 'Wow' 20th Anniversary Report

 >Dear list:

 >Here is a kind response from Dr. Jerry R. Ehman Ph.D to some
 >questions I posed w/ref to the 1978 WOW SETI signal.

 >-------- Original Message --------
 >Subj: Feedback on Wow 20th Anniversary Report
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:58:47 -0500
 >From: J. Ehman <jehman@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 >To: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>

 >Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>wrote:

 >>Dear Dr. Ehman:

 >>In a recent email exchange here, the WOW signal
 >>came up. The discussion hinges on the signal
 >>coming from some source, stationary with respect
 >>to the stars.

 >>In your detailed article:

 >>http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm#radec

 >>.. you discuss several possibilities: space-junk,
 >>satellites and so forth.

 >>Some questions remain, and I may have missed
 >>something here:

 >>1) Was the signal of sufficient duration to
 >>effectively "rule out" conventional sources?

Hi Larry,

Thanks for interacting with the "big shots" on this WOW! signal.
If nothing it gives us a fascinating look into the workings of
SETI on an important issue. It's also interesting to see
interaction between UFO and SETI communities however tenuous (I
don't know if Ehman realizes this is a UFO discussion list).


 >Larry, the duration of the signal (about 72 seconds) was the
 >length of time that we would see a celestial source, given Big
 >Ear's beamwidth and the speed of the rotation of the earth.
 >I'm not sure what you mean by "conventional sources". An
 >earth-based source (which we might call interference) could
 >have either been much shorter than 72 seconds or else could
 >have lasted much longer than 72 seconds, and, in either case,
 >we would not have seen the pattern we did (the beam pattern)
 >for such a terrestrial source.

I don't know why Ehman keeps talking about a 72-second duration.
He explains very clearly on his webpage article
(http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm) that the last 2 seconds are
not signal reception but computer activity. Also one cannot be
sure the signal was received during the entire 10-second
intervals at the beginning and end. Hence the duration was from
50 to 70 seconds and more likely closer to the latter.

As for the "pattern" matching, he is basing this on an
_assumption_ of the bell-shaped "pattern" of signal strengths
being caused by the earth's rotation sweeping the Ohio State Big
Ear antenna across the sky and across an _assumed_ source fixed
in position on the celestial sphere. But this "pattern" of a
bell-shaped Gaussian curve or cosecant-squared curve is not
unique to Ohio State's antenna and the pattern could be caused
by a transmitter doing the sweeping motion rather than the
receiver. The approximately bell-shaped curve is actually common
among both transmitting and receiving antennas. The shape of the
curve of data points could be caused by a _transmitter_ sweeping
across the earth (including Ohio State) from a relatively
motionless location with respect to the earth, i.e., from an
aircraft headed towards or away from the Big Ear or from a
geostationary satellite. (More on this in a later posting.)

The only thing arguing for a celestial fixed source is the
precise _duration_ of the signal supposedly matching the
beamwidth of the Ohio State antenna and that is in some doubt.
Given that this is the crux of the whole question of the
signal's origin there should be or have been an intense focus on
the beamwidth and signal duration, but there really has not. I
will discuss this in a later posting.

 >>2) Was WOW loud and long enough to make a
 >>reflected Earth signal extremely unlikely?

 >I'm not sure of the geometry of the reflected earth signal you
 >are suggesting. I don't see how an earth-based signal could
 >be reflected off a piece of space debris and still give us the
 >pattern of the signal we saw.

If the space "debris" consisted of a parabolic antenna on a
derelict spacecraft it would generate exactly the same
bell-shaped curve that the Ohio State receiving antenna would
create.

 >>3) How much confidence can one safely give to the
 >>star-stationary theorem... perhaps in terms of
 >>probabilities... regardless of the actual source?

 >I give it a very high probability. I did calculations that
 >showed the correlation coefficient between the "Wow!" signal
 >pattern and the pattern we see with strong celestial sources
 >to be over 0.992 (where 1.000 is perfect correlation). This
 >correlation is so high that it is very hard to imagine
 >anything other than a celestial source being responsible for
 >our signal.

Again, this correlation coefficient is as to the _shape_ of the
curve and many antennas can do the same (see what I said above).
It has nothing to do with the location being fixed in the
celestial sphere, as I pointed out earlier.


 >>4) If the star-stationary assertion is deemed to
 >>be true, does this imply a very distant source,
 >>i.e. stellar vs planetary or orbital distances?

 >Yes. No object in earth orbit stays fixed with respect to the
 >celestial sphere. All satellites and space junk move with
 >respect to the stars (even geosynchronous satellites move with
 >respect to the stars). So the distance is well beyond the moon
 >and probably beyond Mars.

<snip>

Again, the transmitter antenna could have swept the earth from a
non-celestially-fixed location. It would not have had to be
beyond the moon or Mars.

Best regards,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:47:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:12:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:09:11 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Hello Roy:

 >If you could, please give URL links as

 > http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk

 >with the http part and all.

 >This is translated into a link we can click on directly; not
 >one we must tediously type in by hand, introducing possible
 >errors.

 >Best

 > Larry Hatch


Dearest Larry,

I am sorry. I post the link to take you straight to Chris
Martin's Footage.

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/Chrismart.htm

Perhaps you may wish to contribute some thoughts on the footage?
I know you have a great deal of experience of the UFO subject.

Regards,

Roy..

"Listen Can you hear the Pin Drop "







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:17:12 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:15:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 27 Nov 2000 06:33:20 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >I do not find multiple sightings of true UFOs unusual. I, myself,
 >have had dozens of sightings of real unidentifieds over the decades,
 >both daytime and nighttime.

Hi, Bill:

In 1993 you reported in the MUFON Journal seeing UFOs which you
named "Skydancers". I submitted an article identifying many of
these as daylight observations of Venus, but my article was not
accepted for publication. Following is my article for the
information of folks on this List. Your comments are invited:

Copyright 1994 Robert R. Young

VENUS: AN EXPLANATION FOR MANY "SKYDANCER"
UFO SIGHTINGS

Questionable astronomical assumptions can lead one astray
By Robert R. Young

Bill Hamilton reported 1993 UFO observations at Antelope Valley,
California, in MUFON UFO Journal (April 1994). He ruled out an
astronomical explanation for a number of reasons, all of which
were wrong.

Questionable astronomical assumption #1: Hamilton wrote that
"silvery" or "white" UFOs which "hovered motionless" were at a
"very high altitude". The distance of an unknown object cannot
be determined by a single observer unless there are known
reference objects at known distances from it.

Questionable astronomical assumption #2: Hamilton wrote that
these objects could not be planets because only novas have been
seen in the daylight sky. He must have meant supernovas
(exploding stars) since no known nova (a less catastrophic
event) has ever been seen with the naked eye in daylight. The
last supernova seen in daylight was Kepler's Star in 1604.
(Illingworth)

Hamilton is wrong about Venus, which can be found in the
daylight sky with the naked eye if one knows where to look.
(Sidgwick)  In fact, experienced amateur observers of the planet
often prefer to observe it in daylight. (Bishop)  The first
observation of "critter" occurred June 8 at 11 A.M. when
Archie was observing circling birds. He described the object
as a "dim daytime star" which was "round and bright white"
and "stationary" when viewed in 7 and 10 power binoculars.
Many subsequent observations were also made with
binoculars.

Questionable astronomical assumption #3: Hamilton reasoned that
since Venus was seen rising in the early morning hours before
the Sun (that is, west of the Sun), it could not have been the
UFOs seen later. But since Venus and the Sun move together
across the sky as the Earth turns, it would still be west of the
sun. All four positions given by Hamilton (see Table) for
observations of ufos place them west of the sun!

TABLE - "UFO" observations vs. Venus position (Tellstar)

Observer: Date/time:  "UFO" Azimuth, Altitude: Venus Az. Alt.

Archie     6/8  11:00           225 deg  30 deg          219   60
Archie     7/5  11:45                               "high"             244
58
Hamilton, Pam and
   Archie   8/14 12:15           262        80-85              250   61
Hamilton, Mike and
   Steve    8/21 12:05               250         75                  243   65
Hamilton, Drue and
   Archie   8/28 12:11           240         85                  240   64

None of the positions given are exactly that of Venus except for
the August 8th azimuth, but how accurate are the positions given
by the observers? The only sighting given which includes a known
astronomical object for comparison is on August 14 when
Hamilton, Pam and Archie saw an object one binocular field
"west" of the moon, which they said was at "about 80-85 degrees
elevation."  Consulting an ephemeris one finds that at that time
the moon was 65 degrees high, an error of 15-20 degrees. If we
give the observers the benefit of the doubt and assume that this
is the maximum error that they ever made in their measurements,
three of the four reported locations for UFOs and Venus are
within this error box.

On August 14 Venus was 7 degrees east of the Moon, at almost
exactly the 6 degree diameter of the 10 X 50 Bushnell binoculars
that they used (Sky & Telescope). If one assumes that the
observer confused the object's direction as "east" instead of
"west", Venus could have been in the field of view.

In three out of four cases, elevations given for the UFOs are
greater than Venus, as was the Moon's for August 14 (80-85
degrees instead of its actual height, 61 degrees). Experienced
astronomical observers know that this is a common error. Most
people report any object over 45 degrees (half-way up) to be
"overhead".

Multiple pictures were taken by the Antelope Valley observers,
but no examples were published. Pictures of Venus in a daylight
sky are not difficult (Schaeffer), and therefore do not prove
that the objects were extraordinary. The claim is made that
multiple photographs would for some reason be harder to explain
than single pictures for nearly motionless objects visible for
over an hour, but no reasons are given.

Several examples of "UFO" motion are given. On July 22 Archie is
said to have noticed the object begin to move as soon as he
raised his binoculars. The UFO later maneuvered like a fly or a
bee. I own a pair of 10 power binoculars and use them often for
astronomy. I can attest that it is nearly impossible to hold
them steady without the use of a tripod. This claim of unusual
motion does not prove the objects were extraordinary.

A number of sightings described by some witnesses seem quite
different than the "Skydancer" and "critter" UFOs. There is no
discussion of how possible aircraft from the nearby Edwards Air
Force Base complex were ruled out for these sightings.

The "filtering out" of possible astronomical explanations for
day or night UFO sighting reports should be one of the first
things done by investigators. One should consult a local
planetarium; an astronomy club; a library for an ephemeris such
as the U.S. Naval Observatory's yearly Nautical Almanac; the
monthly magazines Sky & Telescope or Astronomy; a basic
observational astronomy reference, such as Bishop or Sidgewick;
or one of the many inexpensive computer programs now available.

Sources:

Bishop, Roy L., Ed., 1993. Observer's Handbook 1994, Royal
       Astronomical Society of Canada: Ontario, p. 113.
Illingworth, Valerie, 1985. The Facts on File Dictionary of
     Astronomy, Revised Edition, p. 381.
Sheaffer, Robert, 1981. The UFO Verdict - Examining the
      Evidence, plate 2, p. 127.
Sidgwick, J.B., 1971. Observational Astronomy for Amateurs,
     p. 113.
Sky & Telescope, 1994, advertisements for Bushnell binoculars.
Tellstar, Planetarium program, copyright Scharf Software Systems,
     Inc.
_________________________________________________________________

Robert Young is a planetarium educator at the State Museum of Pennsylvania.
He has been an amateur astronomer for nearly 40 years.
_________________________________________________________________








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:51:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:19:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps



 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:39:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500

 >>Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >>the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >>A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >>which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >>before eventually disappearing.

 >>I apologize...


 >OK, 18 sightings, not an issue.

 >The 18th one at Denise's house sounds an awful lot like the
 >apparent space-junk re-entry I saw a few years back.

 >Spectacular really, it would flare up and down, different colors
 >in succession, as if different materials were flaming up in the
 >atmosphere in sequence.

 >As for the shape, its about impossible to say given it was
 >hidden in its own surrounding plasma. Any oddly shaped object
 >seen at great distance will seem to resolve into an oval
 >shape... or more or less "round" if its far enough away...
 >finally a pinpoint of light at greatest visible distance.

 >I take it your object did no maneuvers, but simply kept going on
 >a more or less ballistic curve. If you call this a UFO, then I
 >have no problem with anyone having seen 10, 20 or more over the
 >years.

 >For me, the simplest assumption is that it was mundane, as in
 >manmade or possibly natural. I wouldn't be putting it into a UFO
 >catalog.


Nor if seen with binoculars, which it was. A simple re-entry of
anything is _easy_ to ID. This wasn't it...

Sorry again. Good observational skills after very few mistaken
identity problems earlier, during 2nd sighting in October 1990.
40-foot red and white pulsating mass hovering to abandoned radar
base.

Michel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                   NASA Mars Viking Project Scientist Dies

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:12:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:20:25 -0500
Subject: NASA Mars Viking Project Scientist Dies



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

NASA MARS VIKING PROJECT SCIENTIST DIES

Dr. Gerald Soffen, NASA's lead scientist for the Viking Mars
Project, passed away last Friday, November 24.

Soffen was the man who first introduced the Face on Mars at a
NASA press conference on July 25, 1976 saying, "Isn't it
peculiar what tricks of lighting and shadow can do?"

Soffen told the press that when another image was taken a few
hours later the effect of a human visage went away.

Richard Hoagland, in 'The Monuments of Mars' challenged Soffen's
initial assertion by pointing out that frame 35A72 was captured
at approximately 6:00 p.m., and that "'a few hours later' would,
by necessity, have been taken in total darkness." Soffen later
recanted his statement.

Vince DiPietro and Greg Molenaar, two NASA computer imaging
experts, later tracked down a second, corroborating image of the
Face that had been misfiled in the National Space Science Data
Center archives.

DiPietro and Molenaar's subsequent digital imaging enhancements
of this enigmatic Martian landform sparked a controversy that
continues to this day.

NASA's announcement described Soffen as a guiding force in their
effort to search for life elsewhere in the Universe.

NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin praised Soffen's passion for
space exploration saying, "Gerry's lasting legacy to us is he
helped usher in a new era of discovery that will bring a new
understanding of fundamental life processes on Earth and
throughout our Universe."

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORY

NASA Loses Veterans in Science, Public Affairs
http://www.nasa.gov/yesterday/fullstory/fullstory-11-27-00-welch_soffen.html

------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
November 27, 2000
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com
(Kurt Jonach)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                                 'Polaris'?

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:49:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:22:35 -0500
Subject: 'Polaris'?

Hi All,

Nope, not the star!  ;)

I received an inquiry today about a US military (?) project
called "Polaris". It is supposed to be a massive excavation that
is being conducted in the extreme Northwest somewhere. Purpose
unknown. Does anybody have _any_ info on it? I never heard of it
myself. I checked UFO Mind and the search engine at the Black
Vault, etc. etc. - nothing, nada, zippo, zero.

I now know way more than I ever wanted to about the 'star'
Polaris. Nothing about this alleged military project.

I'd appreciate any info.

Thanx,

John Velez ;)
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:50:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:27:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >End of recording. And after it flew off and faded from view so
 >was the sighting. It was like it came to be photographed and
 >then split. But that's all pure speculation on my part. ;)


Hello John:

Its indeed a shame I wasn't there to see it myself.

Disappointing as it is, I must rely on the sightings of others
just to maintain an interest in this frustrating field.

No camera shot is the same as seeing something with ones own
eyes. If somebody just mailed me those 6 frames with no
explanation, I would dismiss them as a blimp or a balloon.

Somewhere I have a really great shot, good resolution and
detail, of an object with a somewhat similar (ovoid) shape.

I was eyewitness for that one, a Goodyear type blimp over a big
Stanford football game taken from my former balcony in Menlo
Park, CA.

I waited until the obvious giveaways (flaps, logos etc.) were
rotated away from my vantage point and then shot the photo for a
lark. It came out nicely!

I suppose Bruce could pick it to pieces in short order, but it
would look darn good to a newcomer.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:56:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:31:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:05:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>Hello Michel and Andy:

 >>Michel: If each of your seventeen personal sightings defies
 >>conventional explanation, then you at least are calling them
 >>"trufos", a convenient term which means that mundane
 >>explanations are effectively ruled out.

 >>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >>years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >>"trufo".

 >>What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >>re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >>trufo.

 >>One space-junk burnout was so spectacular that skeptical friends
 >>telephoned to point it out. I guess I disappointed them by not
 >>taking the bait.

 >>I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >>seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >>you saw seventeen (17) of them.

 >>Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >>even a quarter of that number?

 >Personally I have seen over 15 Minuteman missile launches from a
 >distance at Vandenburg since the 70s. I watch the so called
 >unclassified launch schedule and generally catch at least one or
 >two a year.

 >Had a friend tell me that because he had never seen one, he
 >thought it was absolutly ludicrous that anybody could "see"
 >(as opposed to watching any media coverage) the missile going off
 >because he had never seen one himself in all those years.

 >I guess the point being is that just because we haven't seen
 >with our own eyes, doesn't mean its not true, just means
 >we haven't seen it yet.



Hello Robert!

Fair enough. I recall the story of some hick who wouldn't
believe in a Giraffe until he saw one himself.

Finally someone took him to a zoo, and there's this perfect
giraffe, insanely long neck, horns with balls at the end ..
stripes .. chewing on leaves.

The hick wandered off in a half-daze muttering "Ain't no such
animal .."

Best!

- Larry Hatch

PS: I don't see how anyone could question the verity or
visibility of a missile launch; not in recent decades anyhow.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

               Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:38:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:33:48 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights -


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:42:24 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: Re: 'Perfect Triangles' & Useless Nightlights

<snip>

 >Hi Larry,

 >I'm not sure if it will help now, but you can use the search box
 >on the UFOINFO site to search the bulletins that I have. Single
 >word searches probably work best - once you get a list of
 >results you can then search within those results.

 >Database is usually updated around midnight Fridays or early on
 >Saturday morning.

 >Hope this is of some use to you.

 >John Hayes

 >webmaster@ufoinfo.com

 >UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

 >Official Archives for UFO Roundup, UK UFO Network Bulletin,
 >AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI
 >Magazine plus archives of Filer's Files and Oz Files.

Hello John!

Josh explained about Tschus, its tchust a sort of farewell
greeting.

Anyhow, your archives of UFO Roundup, Filers Files etc. are
indeed a resource. I've used them myself, and the lookup
mechanism is a real help.

I have two links on my " How to Report a UFO " page directly to
pages on your website for that purpose.

People who want to look up recent sightings sometimes email, and
I cannot list them all here for several reasons.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                       Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:32:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:42:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Cashman


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:23:09 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil?


 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates -  Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Campinas, Brazil?
 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:11:16 +0100

 >>(A quick reminder of the case: three disc-shaped objects
 >>over Campinas; one of them, "in trouble", emitted a thin stream
 >>of silvery liquid; some samples were collected and analyzed).

 >Hello Manuel:

 >Mark Cashman has an excellent presentation on his Temporal
 >Doorway website. It appears to be the original Fontes article,
 >or something just as good.

The Ubatuba article is the original one, but it is not the one
he mentions. The article he is discussing has to do with some
material gathered from some hanging laundry after the described
incident, which, IIRC was determined to be tin.

------
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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

                   Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:04:55 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:45:33 -0500
Subject: Re: LRV in Popular Mechanics - Balaskas


 >Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:04:13 +0100 (CET)
 >From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: LRV in Popular Mechanics

 >In connection with the article in PM about the Lenticular
 >Reentry Vehicle it is interesting, that a few month ago, a
 >weather satellite made a picture which shows a very similar
 >object as the escape capsule from this vehicle.

 >I cannot find the photo from the satellite at the moment. Maybe
 >someone can help?

<snip>

Hi Holger.

I think you are looking for Bruce Maccabee's article (see below)
about the satellite photo taken of the Earth which contained,
what seemed to me at least, a spacecraft that closely resembled
the escape capsule of the secret U.S. saucer-shaped spacecraft
described in the Popular Mechanics article.

http://brumac.8k.com/DMSP/DMSP.html

If you go to the UFO UpDates Mailing List Archives:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/oct/m14-007.shtml

you will also find my original comments regarding this possible
connection which was posted on October 14 of this year.

Nick Balaskas


P.S.  I really enjoyed looking through your web site. Although
some of your interpetations of some very real and unusual things
photographed, by the Mars landers for example, may be a little
too good to be true (eg. moving alien life forms), you certainly
do have a sharp eye for details. As for Mars having a blue sky
rather than a red one, if one does the same simple experiment I
did*, I think others will also agree with us that the Martian
sky has to be blue too.

*Find photos of the Viking landers taken on the Earth and
compare the shades of red, white and blue on the U.S. flag
painted on these landers with photos of the same flags on the
landers when were on the surface of Mars.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:49:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:09:26 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >>Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >>the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >>A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >>which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >>before eventually disappearing.

 >>I apologize...


 >Apology accepted, for what ever it's worth. But, I don't think
 >you seem to understand the point, here. Are we to take you at
 >your word about these sightings? Have you had so many that
 >you've reached the point of _forgetting_ a sighting? Are you
 >that casual about it?

 >Most of us would give anything to have a single close encounter
 >in our entire life. You seem to have a sighting every 16 months,
 >on average! Not only that, but you maintain that these sightings
 >are the source of your convictions regarding the existence of ET
 >craft and the like. However, the previous description you give
 >of "a small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the
 >sky, which would flare up 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >before eventually disappearing" is hardly ground breaking, by
 >anyone's standards. The fact that you forgot about it certainly
 >points out how unaffected you were by the event.

 >I think you must see the problem that exists, here.

 >My position is that testimony is valuable once it has been
 >validated. Your position is that testimony should not have to be
 >validated to be valuable. However, you present a pretty poor
 >standard for what constitutes "valid testimony", don't you
 >think? After all, anyone that continually signs off with a self
 >inflated moniker like the following

 >>Michel M. Deschamps
 >>MUFON provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,
 >>UFO Researcher/Historian & UFO eyewitness to 14 separate sightings
 >>(1974 - 1998).

 >had better put up a better front than you've presented. You can
 >apologize all you want for being "forgetful", but all you've
 >done is reinforce my point that memory can't always be trusted
 >when it comes to witness testimony.

Roger,

First of all, you have to look at the whole picture.

Sudbury, Ontario, Canada is the nickel capital of the world,
with INCO and Falconbridge as its main employers. These two
companies are in the forefront of mineral exploration,
extraction and refining. Flying saucers have been seen by many
credible witnesses here since 1947. Other sightings were made
back in 1914 and 1916. This area, with its high concentration of
mines located on the rim of an asteroid impact site, is a magnet
for UFOs.

People have been overflown by these objects as close as 50 feet. Several
power outages have been directly linked to them.

My father moved his family here from Northern Quebec in December
1968; we had just missed a large rash of sightings that had been
taking place since 1966.

I had my first sighting in 1974, when I was nine years old.

But my other sightings began almost 20 years later, with my
second observation which took place on October 9, 1990.

I have found official reports of my first sighting which had
been witnessed by other people and reported to the radar base,
at the time. During other occasions, there were people present.

One thing you have to keep in mind: I never went out looking for
them. These sightings were all _accidents_. Therefore, I did not
expect to see anything and most of the time, I was not equipped
to view or photograph them.

I've heard the same thing from other witnesses who say that,
after their initial sighting, will carry a camera and/or
binoculars wherever they go. I don't alway do this.

Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
saucers are real.

If you've never seen anything, you can't know for sure. But
believe me, if you ever do see something, you won't be able to
deny it to yourself... eventually.

It took me a long while to accept what I had seen, and each
time, I had a hard time believing what my eyes saw or what my
camcorder captured on tape.

The only questions I ask myself now is not _Are We Alone?_. But
1) Who are they?, 2) Where are they from?, 3) Why the hell are
they here? and 4) What's in it for mankind?.

One more thing: Just because I never went to College or
University, it does not mean that I don't know what I'm looking
at! When you see something like this, whether it's last
year...or fifty years ago...it is etched in your mind forever.
You never forget it!

For those people who know me, my credibility is never
questioned.

Michel








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 28

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:47:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:25:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >>>Hi,

 >>>Michel wrote:

 >>>>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>>>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>>>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>>>imagination.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Larry, Michel, All,

 >Larry writes:

 >>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for maybe 25
 >>years. I have yet to see a single event that I would call a
 >>"trufo".

 >Luck of the draw Larry and no real reason to be skeptical of
 >Michels claim. I have that many 'sightings' in any given three
 >year period! I too have spent almost 30 years studying the sky-
 >both day and night time versions. I can tell the difference
 >between a balloon, a bird, an airplane etc. and even if I say so
 >myself, I am good at it. I know some few people that have fairly
 >regular sightings of objects which do not display any of the
 >characteristics of conventional 'sky objects.' I have been
 >recording them on film and video for years now. So have guys
 >like Tommy King from Arizona, that priest down in Mexico City
 >(sorry, don't recall his name at the moment) and several others.
 >It's not hard for me to believe Michel when he states that he
 >has had 17 sightings of objects that are best catagorized as
 >"UFOs."

 >The reason you give for being skeptical of the number of
 >Michel's sightings that may represent actual UFOs is that, you
 >haven't had the luck (or 'misfortune' depending on your point of
 >view) of having seen one of these 'things' for yourself.

 >I'm sure that's the same thing the Pope said to Galileo about
 >his 'sighting reports' of Jupiters' moons.  ;)

 >>What I have seen, a number of times, are blimps, satellite
 >>re-entries etc. which an incautious observer might mistake for a
 >>trufo.

 >Take the time to get to know Michel. I think you'll find that he
 >is not an "incautious" observer. 'Some' of the folks that are
 >reporting these "regular" UFO sightings turn out to be trained
 >or experienced observers. We just have to take the time to ask
 >them what that 'experience' is before we dismiss their
 >observations as "incautious." I know I get pissed when I'm
 >dismissed out of hand by someone who knows nothing about me or
 >what my 'sky observing' experience might consist of.

 >>I don't think you can reasonably expect a person who has never
 >>seen a single genuine UFO to not be a bit skeptical when you say
 >>you saw seventeen (17) of them.

 >Maybe not Larry. But it's still -no reason- to dismiss the
 >claims of another that -they- have had repeated sightings.

 >>Can you imagine the odds against some random observer seeing
 >>even a quarter of that number?

 >I have three to six a year Larry. If you're asking me, I think
 >Michel's odds are good that he'll have -another- sighting. He
 >'may be' doing something that you're not. Maybe it's not him!

 >Grab a brew, a hunk of bread, and a slice of that expensive
 >Frenchie bleu cheese and enjoy the pix I am attaching just for
 >you. I can just imagine how frustrated you must feel that after
 >so many years of looking, you haven't had much luck spotting a
 >UFO and here is this 'smarty pant's Michel reporting 17 of em!
 ><LOL>This is a little something to help 'scratch your itch.' ;)

 >Enjoy the pix Larry. I am including sighting description number
 >two for my friend Jim Deardorf. I have accumulated a heap of
 >video of these unidentified flying objects over the last 5
 >years. This is just a sampling of one of those many sightings.
 >I'm not sure how many there are by now, but I can tell you
 >that's its more than 17. If you are having trouble believing
 >Michel, I don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell with you.
 ><LOL>;)

<snip>

John,

I wish to thank you for the support you've given me.

Maybe what I should do is provide a complete listing of my
sightings online. That way, the List members would be able to
get a better picture of what I was trying to describe in terms
of high strangeness.

Now, if they decide that what I saw was something other than a
UFO, flying saucers, whatever....then they would be the ones
making a mistake, because their explanations would not fit the
things that I saw...

Then, I think _their_ credibility, just like their common sense,
would go out the window!

cordially,

Michel











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                               Russian Sources

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:39:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:06:29 -0500
Subject: Russian Sources


Kazakhstan-USSR

The best source may be Mr. Mikhail Yel'tsin (no relation), who
resided in Kazakhstan, and conducted several important
expeditions to the Tien Shen Mountains. He had solid ties to the
local military, and law enforcement officers; some joined his
expeditions. His ufology experts presented lectures at the local
military cilleges. I personally do not believe that the Soviet
military academies would teach that aliens visited the Earth.
They might phrase it differently. In my book THE SOVIET UFO
FILES, I mention Soviet Central Asia several times. Besides
Messers. Gershtein and Yeltsin, I would also contact Mark
Shteinberg, a former career Soviet officer, now residing in New
York; a writer and journalist.


Soviet Institute for Management Issues

I found a curious mention of the Soviet Institute for Management
Issues. Apparently, UFO ("flying saucer") phenomenon was one of
their "issues". This was revealed in an interview, reprinted in
a Russian-American newspaper. The person who was interviewed was
one of the officials at the Institute. This is the first mention
of this Institute and Soviet UFOs I'd ever seen. Those who need
more details, please contact me.

Russian And Russian Sources


http://onwin.wplus.net/incredible/incredib.htm

There is a great publication, available in English, too, from
Russia. You can also send your inquiries there.

A noted Russian ufologist, Yuri Smirnov, publisher of
Chetvortoye Izmereniye i NLO newspapere can be found on this
site. He is capable of responding to English-language inquiries:
http://www.yarosufo.boom.ru/

In my native Ukraine, one of the best sources is Dr. Rubtsov.
You can email him at:

riap777@chat.ru

English is no problem. He recently published an excellent
response to Platov/Sokolov "revelations" about Soviet ufology.
("History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Dr.
Yuliy Platov   and Colonel (ret.) Boris Sokolov. )

Ufology is being studied in Ukraine.


Reliable researchers: Lithuania/Russia

Fot those who seek reliable English-language research from the
former Soviet Union, besides people I have mentioned previously,
I would like to add Mr. Anatoly Kutovoj's name. He is fluent in
English, resides in Lithuania; has extensive contacts throughout
Russia. I have followed his research endeavors, and am
impressed. he has no hidden agendas, and does not denigrate
Western researchers (the same goes for the people I have listed
in my previous letters).

It is because of people like him, as well as Messers Subbotin,
Gershtein, Rubtsov, and Chernobrov that post-Soviet ufology is
alive. Some agree with me, some disagree, but they do so ina a
pleasant, affable, civilized manner. They possess a wealth of
knowledge, and great databases. I am not nearly as savvy, when
it comes to technology, as Mr. Kutovoy is.

My main purpose in presenting the above-mentioned individuals is
to introduce ufologists who reside in the West and the Orient to
the new breed of UFO researchers in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania,
and so forth.

Here is how you can reach Mr. Kutovoj, (and at the same time
check out Nick Subbotin's research):

Nikolay.Subbotin@psu.ru

http://ufo.psu.ru/

Once on the website, go to the English-language page. I think
you will enjoy the research presented therein.

Mr. Kutovoy has an extensive collection of materials about
Felix Zigel.


Paul Stonehill








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                           Russian Physicist Lost

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:30:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:10:36 -0500
Subject: Russian Physicist Lost


This news item was just received from Russia, from the
Kosmopoisk research Group:

A famous physicist was lost in an anomalous area. His relatives
made a report to official entities, and asked the Kosmopoisk to
help them organize the search. Should there be no results until
Friday, December 1st, the search will resume at the exact
location. The Kosmopoisk has asked veterans of its expeditions,
who are ready to join the search after December 1st, to confirm
their participation, and to await notification.

------------------------------------------------
Here is how the group describes itself:

MAI-Kosmopoisk". SpaceSearch Search Group.

MAI-Kosmopoisk search group consists of 30 permanent members and
approximately 300 volunteers from a number of Russia regions who
either participate in the expeditions on their own or assist the
group in a number of ways.

The group's database lists up to five thousand researchers
and explorers all around the Russia.

Since 1982, the group had carried out 53 expeditions in the
different regions of former USSR and Russia, including Moscow
region, Ural, Volga region, Caucasus, Siberia, Baltic countries,
Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Crimea.

The expeditions?

Teams included from 2 to 70 persons - both schoolchildren and
professionals with academic degrees.

The expedition's purposes included complex search, astronomical
observations, meteorite searches, ufological observations and
research, archeology, ethnography etc.

The group had organized and carried out the expedition to the
Podkamennaya Tunguska region to the 1908 explosion place as well
as the searches to the mysterious explosions? places in the
Volgograd region. Also six meteorite search parties were
conducted in Kaluga, Ulyanovsk and Tver regions. The expeditions
to Yaroslavl region and Uzbekistan are under preparation. (sic)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:22:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:12:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:49:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:49:02 -0500

 ><snip>

 >>I still think that the number of genuine UFO reports far
 >>outweighs the number of IFO reports by a long shot!

 >Hi, Michel:

 >Are you saying that most UFO reports represent True UFOs? Do you
 >have a guess as to what the ratio of UFOs vs potential IFOs in a
 >large sample of UFO reports might be?

 >Can you offer some suggestions for sorting these out, do you
 >have a checklist of things which you think can definitely allow
 >us to ID True UFOs?


Bob,

I was simply saying that _my sightings_ were True UFOs. As for
someone else's sightings, I don't know.  But since I saw True
UFOs, why couldn't someone else see True UFOs, right?

I'm not that special...

Michel







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:56:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:15:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:39:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500

 >>Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >>the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >>A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >>which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >>before eventually disappearing.

 >>I apologize...

 >Hello Michel:

 >OK, 18 sightings, not an issue.

 >The 18th one at Denise's house sounds an awful lot like the
 >apparent space-junk re-entry I saw a few years back.

 >Spectacular really, it would flare up and down, different colors
 >in succession, as if different materials were flaming up in the
 >atmosphere in sequence.

 >As for the shape, its about impossible to say given it was
 >hidden in its own surrounding plasma. Any oddly shaped object
 >seen at great distance will seem to resolve into an oval
 >shape... or more or less "round" if its far enough away...
 >finally a pinpoint of light at greatest visible distance.

 >I take it your object did no maneuvers, but simply kept going on
 >a more or less ballistic curve. If you call this a UFO, then I
 >have no problem with anyone having seen 10, 20 or more over the
 >years.

 >For me, the simplest assumption is that it was mundane, as in
 >manmade or possibly natural. I wouldn't be putting it into a UFO
 >catalog.


Larry,

Why is it that UFO sightings have to be exciting and fantastic?
Some of the sightings I've had were the most boring ones
compared to the others, but still fell out side of the
_man-made_ or _natural_phenomena_ bracket.

We humans have a tendency to complicate things all the time.
I'm betting that UFOs are a lot simpler to distinguish from
everyday things than we tend to believe.

At least, most of us UFO eyewitnesses know this for a fact.

Michel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:44:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:18:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:59:02 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >I surmise that
 >where a lot of scientists go astray is in assuming that science
 >could never advance more than a century or two ahead of our own,
 >whichever year or century we're in. They can't fathom that
 >science & technology & other learning could continue advancing
 >for centuries, hundreds of centuries and thousands of centuries,
 >for alien civilizations that survive.

Larry had written:

 >>By far the simplest assumption is that the saucer image
 >>was superimposed onto a genuine shot panning some tall
 >>buildings.

Jim replies:

 >But remember, it would not have been a single saucer image that
 >the supposed hoaxers would have had to superimpose. It would
 >have required how many? 20 or 30 or 50 separate images, pasted
 >in one after the other in the proper combination, every frame or
 >two, to make the craft appear to be rotating about its vertical
 >axis while wobbling in a precessing manner at the same time as
 >it traversed.

 >I don't see the simplicity in that assumption of yours.

Hello, Jim.

Here's the odd thing about your position. On the one hand, you
give the proposed ETs an incredible benefit of the doubt, not
only regarding their very existence, but in regard to how far
advanced they are in their technology. On the other hand, you
seem to ignore present day human technology that would allow for
the faking of the very image you base your assumptions on!

I speak of simple, off the shelf non-linear programs like
Premier, made by Adobe, or Reel Time, made by Pennacle, or Speed
Razor, or Avid, or Media 100, or DPS's Velocity system, just to
name a few. ALL of these systems are available for less than
$5,000 and will work on any PC based system with at a minimum of
256 megs of RAM and a mere 350MZ processor. These systems ALL
allow for sophisticated layering and programming moves of
objects to be placed in pre-existing footage. They can layer up
to 99 different tracks of video and produce mattes that defy
detection, if used properly. And, unlike your assumption, this
does NOT have to be done on a frame-by-frame basis. I use
Premier all the time in my effects work and the kind of moves
necessary in the Mexico footage are simple to program.

This isn't technology that won't be around for thousands of
centuries in another star system. This is technology that is
available here and now to any Santilli wanna-be.

Most importantly, it is a technology that you purposely ignore
in favor of "alien magic".

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:06:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:20:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:10 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:09:26 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Most of us would give anything to have a single close encounter
 >>in our entire life. You seem to have a sighting every 16 months,
 >>on average! Not only that, but you maintain that these sightings
 >>are the source of your convictions regarding the existence of ET
 >>craft and the like. However, the previous description you give
 >>of "a small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the
 >>sky, which would flare up 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >>before eventually disappearing" is hardly ground breaking, by
 >>anyone's standards. The fact that you forgot about it certainly
 >>points out how unaffected you were by the event.

Michel replies:

 >Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
 >sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
 >saucers are real.

 >If you've never seen anything, you can't know for sure. But
 >believe me, if you ever do see something, you won't be able to
 >deny it to yourself... eventually.

 >It took me a long while to accept what I had seen, and each
 >time, I had a hard time believing what my eyes saw or what my
 >camcorder captured on tape.

 >For those people who know me, my credibility is never
 >questioned.

Hello, again!

So let me get this straight; you know flying saucers are real
because you have video tape of them?

Do the people that know you believe you because they are your
friends or because you have shown them video tape of something
that clearly, unquestionably, without a doubt looks like a
flying saucer? Is this the source of your conviction?

It's showtime, Michel! Show us the best, clearest frame of a
flying saucer you have. If it looks anything like a flying
saucer, I will apologize on this List and send you a bottle of
fine wine. If it doesn't, then...

Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:19:06 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:22:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:36:34 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:02:39 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>On the upper left of the building that temporarily eclipsed the
 >>UFO, there is a square panel that is relatively bright, perhaps
 >>brighter than the UFO image. Bruce, did you by any chance, in
 >>your light-intensity study, measure whether this panel, or parts
 >>of it, was indeed slightly brighter or lighter than the UFO? If
 >>so, from this could you say anything about whether the "paste on
 >>lighter" instruction for an electronic hoax would have worked
 >>here? I.e., should this panel have appeared slightly darker if
 >>an e-UFO was passing by?

 >Because one doesn't know a priori how bright the "panel" or
 >window 'should' be, all one can do is ask the question: "did the
 >brightness change as the UFO seemed to go behind it?"

 >As I recall, the answer is, there was no change.

 >We had hoped this would be a window through which one could see
 >the UFO passing by... which definitely wuld have changed its
 >apparent brightness if light were shining through it. There was
 >no change, however.

Bruce,

Doesn't this imply, then, that if there were an e-hoaxer, he did
not use the "paste on lighter" command, contrary to what Jeff
Saino assumed? Most of the underside of the UFO appeared to be
slightly darker than the left-hand third and right-hand third of
that panel. So the paste-on lighter instruction would then have
caused a small change in apparent brightness there, as if it had
been an open two-way window.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                  Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:14:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:54:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:36:22 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978

 ><snip>

 >>Sightings trailed off after 1978, into a long trough
 >>of relative inactivity through the 1980s.

 >Yes, but, for what it is worth, there were some famous sightings
 >after Aug. 1978 Valentich disappearance in October New Zealand
 >Dec. 31, 1978.

 >I seem to recall sightings off the coast of Naples, Italy in
 >December of that year (but might be mixing it up with some other
 >time).

Hello Bruce:

I meant that the years after 1978 trailed off, at least in my
sightings counts.

Year - Count
1977 - 465
1978 - 569
1979 - 342
1980 - 237
1981 - 200
1982 - 145
1983 - 104  ..  and so on.

Things started trending back up a bit in the late 1980s.

1978 was a really busy year for Italy in any case.

Here's just one month's worth starting in mid-August. Other
catalogs will no doubt have many more.

1978/08/19  MONTE del LAGO,ITL:
1978/08/22  BOLZANO,ITL:
1978/08/28  LIVORNO,ITL:
1978/09/xx  PENNA St.ANDREA,ITL:
1978/09/02  SAN MICHELE,ITL:HISS:
1978/09/06  SASSELLO,ITL:
1978/09/13  SPINETTA MARENGO,ITL:
1978/09/14  SAN BASILIO,ITL:
1978/09/14  VIGNALE MONFERRATO,ITL:
1978/09/15  off FIUMICINO,ITL:
1978/09/16  off CECINA,ITL:
1978/09/16  S.TERESA/GALLURA,ITL:
1978/09/16  SPINETTA MARENGO,ITL:
1978/09/17  TORRITA di SIENA,ITL:
1978/09/18  nr ROMA,ITL:
1978/09/18  S.GIORGIO/NOGARO,ITL:

(Details omitted for brevity.)

Most of these come from Maurizio Verga's ITACAT Catalog, various
issues of LDLN, FSR etc. which were available here.

I can look up Naples area events for December if you like.

I agree that at least some of the best sightings seem to occur
during slow months and years.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:22:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:57:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:47:37 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:09:11 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Hello Roy:

 >>If you could, please give URL links as

 >>http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk

 >>with the http part and all.

 >>This is translated into a link we can click on directly; not
 >>one we must tediously type in by hand, introducing possible
 >>errors.


 >Dearest Larry,

 >I am sorry. I post the link to take you straight to Chris
 >Martin's Footage.

 >http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/Chrismart.htm

 >Perhaps you may wish to contribute some thoughts on the footage?
 >I know you have a great deal of experience of the UFO subject.

 >Regards,

 >Roy..

 >"Listen Can you hear the Pin Drop "


Hello Roy:  (please have pin ready)

Thanks for the specific URL, it  came right in.
I had to do some work unzipping the file
capture2b.zip (my browser couldn't do it
automatically).   WinZip did however.

I saw one and then two "boxes" dancing around
the screen as if the cameraman had shaky hands.
At times there were more.

Unless I'm mistaken, The "boxes" appear to be over-enlarged
pixels, i.e. one, two or three night-lights maneuvering with
respect to one another (in addition to camera jiggle of course.
)

There are no other objects (trees etc.) to put things in
perspective, just lights dancing in the blue.

There isn't much I can add to that.


Best wishes (now drop the pin please!)

- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                            Turkish Announcements

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:00:42 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:12:38 -0500
Subject: Turkish Announcements


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

From: Haktan Akdogan <ufotr@netone.com.tr>
To: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:36:43 +0200
Subject: TWO IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS



Two Important Announcements

Presented by

Sirius Space Sciences Research Centre Istanbul




The Third Annual International New Age Symposium Of Eastern
Europe, Balkans And Middle-East'

Istanbull & 'The House'

have just been established and we are so happy that a lot of
important UFO & NEW AGE titles by world�s leading Scientists,
Researchers, Abductees and Contactees in this field, will soon
be available in Turkish to the people of Turkey

(all book applications are welcome)


Sirius U F O Space Sciences Research  Centre (SUSSRC)

Istanbul, Turkey

Was founded in May, 1998 in Istanbul,  as a non-profit
tax-exempt Research and Educational Organisation, founded and
directed by 'Haktan Akdogan'. It is a scientific, philosophical
and ethical association established for the purpose of
broadcasting information regarding UFOs, ETs, and Spiritual
Phenomena explainable through experiment and objective
knowledge.

to provide research and education in the field of UFO, Space and
Psychic Phenomena,

the systematic collection and analysis of UFO data; best
evidence and witnesses, photos, videos, official documents, and
continuing examination and analysis of them,

to promote serious scientific interest in UFOs and to serve as
an archive for reports, documents, and materials about UFO
phenomena,

to research and scientifically explain every sort of Psychic
Phenomena,

to study the nature of human existence and to prevent the
misinterpretation of the knowledge thus obtained by conducting
various spiritual experiments and investigations,

to serve the promotion of higher moral principles and spiritual
values,

to serve in examining positive morality within present knowledge
and in promoting the emergence of transcendent spiritual values
for strengthening unity, wholeness and solidarity amongst
humanity,

Organizes weekly meetings, conferences and gives courses and
seminars,

With over 1900 volumes on the subject of UFOs, Sprituality and
related issues, our library has the richest collection of
metapsychical literature in Turkey,

Also holds National and International Conferences and
Symposiums,

Cooperates, communicates and establishes relationships with
individuals and institutions on a national or international
scale. and exchanges knowledge with other Organisations that are
working in service of the same objectives,

It also produces multimedia publications (audio - video tapes,
bulletins,..etc),

Broadcasts Television and Radio Programmes: We have produced and
broadcasted 40 episodes of weekly documentary TV. Programme
about UFOs called 'UFO Reality', on two of the most watched
national TV. Channels (Star TV and Channel 6) of Turkey.

We have also hosted a weekly Radio programme about UFOs and
Psychic Phenomena at 'Cool FM' for a long period of time..

Our founder and chairman Mr. Haktan Akdogan has appeared on more
than 55 national TV shows and been on countless radio programs..

The interviews made with Mr. Akdogan, have also taken place in
numerous national newspapers and magazines. Mr. Akdogan
continues to speak at numerous national and international
conferences..

We have just established 'The Sirius Publishing House' and are
so happy that a lot of important UFO & New Age related books by
world�s most important scientists, researchers, abductees and
contactees will soon be available in Turkish to the people of
Turkey... (all applications are welcome)

By utilising every source of knowledge, explains the issues
related to the spiritual being with a global understanding;
experimental work, surveys, field studies, and literature
studies related to this issue are carried out, evaluated and
then communicated through mass media services, communication
systems and national and international conferences,

'Sirius UFO Space Sciences Research Center' would also like to
inform you of the 'Third Annual International UFO and New Age
Symposium of Eastern-Europe, Balkans and Middle-East' which will
take place on the 17th and 18th of November 2001 in Istanbul by
the participation of world�s leading Scientists, Researchers,
Abductees and Contactees. This follows the First and Second
International UFO and New-Age. The First one took place on the
20th and 21st of February 1999 in Istanbul and was attended by
over 5200 people from Turkey and from various neighbouring
countries. It also attracted mass media coverage of over 285
journalists and reporters from different countries.

The speakers at the First International UFO & NEWAGE Symposium
were:

Erich von Daniken    (Researcher - Writer)
Stanton T.Friedman   (Nucleer Physicist - Researcher - Writer)
Budd Hopkins         (Expert on Abduction - Researcher - Writer)
Micheal Lindemann
Dr. Bruce Maccabee   (Physicist - Researcher - Writer)
Prof.John E.Mack     (Harvard Univ.Psychology Sciences - Abduction Expert)
Prof. Brian O�Leary  (NASA Astronaut - Physicist - Astronomer - Writer)
Marina Popovich      (Russian Cosmonaut - Test Pilot - Researcher - Writer)
Travis Walton        (Abductee - Writer)
George Wingfield     (Researcher - Writer)

The Speakers for The Second  International Symposium which took
place recently on the 23rd of June through 25th of June 2000,
were:

Sheldan Nidle       (Contactee - Writer)
Wendelle Stevens    (Ret. Lt. Col. US Air Force - Researcher - Writer)
Derrel Sims         (CIA Ex-Officer - Researcher -Writer)
Nick Pope           (High Executive Officer U.K. Ministry of Defense - Writer)
Lyssa Royal         (Contactee - Writer)
Donald Ware         (Ret. Lt. Col. USAF - International UFO Congress Director)
Robert O. Dean      (Ret. Command Serg. Major, USAF - NATO - Writer)
Marcia Schafer      (Contactee - Writer)
K.T. Frankovich     (Contactee - Writer - Film Producer)
Kelly Cahill        (Abductee - Writer -Researcher)
Budd Hopkins        (Abduction Expert - Researcher - Writer)
Prof.John E.Mack    (Harvard Univ.Psychology Sciences - Abduction Expert)
Stanton T.Friedman  (Nucleer Physicist - Researcher - Writer)
Sean D. Morton      (TV-Film Producer on UFO&Psychic - Writer -Researcher)

Besides these Annual International Symposiums, we also organise
Special Events of world's leading contactees and channelers in
this field. For example;  we had recently organised the "P'TAAH
Event" by Jani King in Istanbul on the 22nd through 25th of
September 2000.

Mankind is now more than ever in need of a unifying
knowledge.Humanity must evolve hand in hand in accordance with
the Law of Universal Mutual Assistance and Solidarity.

Love and Light,

Founder and Chairman

Istanbul - Turkey

Sirius Space Sciences Research Centre (SUSSRC)

Istanbul Turkey


Tel: +90-216-69 92 48 or 369 92 52


Fax: + 90-216-369 92 52

E-mail :  ufotr@netone.com.tr

Address: 18 Mart Sk. No:9,
          C: Blok,
          D:15 Ciftehavuzlar
          Istanbul, Turkey









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 07:14:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:42:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:51:06 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 27 Nov 2000 06:33:20 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:24:41 -0800
 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:32 -0000

 >>>>>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>>>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:56:31 -0500

 >>>>>>If IFOs is all you want, IFOs is all you get....

 >>>>>>I have had 17 personal sightings since 1974, and none of them
 >>>>>>has a conventional explanation, by any stretch of the
 >>>>>>imagination.

 >>><snip>

 >>>>Seventeen! I have been sky-watching as time permits for
 >>>>maybe 25

<snip>

 >Hi Mr. Bill, hi All,

 >>John, I agree with you as I do not find multiple sightings of
 >>true UFOs unusual. I, myself, have had dozens of sightings of
 >>real unidentifieds over the decades, both daytime and nighttime.

 >Thanx for chiming in in support Bill. As I wrote the post I
 >could almost hear the thoughts of some of those who would
 >eventually read it. I've been down this road before. I'm glad
 >that you are around to confirm some of my statements. Multiple
 >sightings by one person are not as "unusual" as many would
 >think.

 >I wrote in the original:

 >>>How it _really_ went down: (For you Jim Deardorff)

 >>>I went out back to skywatch/look for UFOs. I had just stuck
 >>>my head out of my back door to check out the sky and seeing
 >>>conditions when I spotted the disc approaching. I hollered for
 >>>Margie (my wife) to bring me the videocam because I didn't want
 >>>to take my eyes off of it for a nanosecond.

 >>>I was mumbling out loud, "don't disappear yet, I want to get
 >>>you on video" when the disc stopped dead in its tracks. It
 >>>hovered there for a few seconds. Next; I felt Margie tap me
 >>>on the shoulder, I reached around and grabbed the camera,
 >>>fired it up, pushed all the right buttons, put it up to my eyes,
 >>>got the disc centered in the view and hit the record button.

 >Bill responds:

 >>Years ago I experienced interactions similar to what you
 >>describe.

 >I used to be in almost daily touch with Tom King. I know that he
 >had several "interactive" sightings/encounters himself. This is
 >the first time that I have made mention of the "interactive"
 >component of 'some' of the sightings. Mostly I did it for Jim
 >Deardorff because he is currently getting his keister kicked all
 >up and down the street on the List for even suggesting such a
 >thing is possible. I didn't think that his introduction of the
 >'alien-ufo / witness interaction' component was 'timely' in
 >regard to the discussion we were having about the Mexico City
 >UFO video, but that doesn't mean that I completely disagree with
 >him either. Like it or not (and believe me I have fought with
 >the idea) there _is_ in some instances a definite "interaction"
 >between the witness and the UFO/or its occupants. I don't like
 >to bring it up because it's hard enough to prove that the things
 >we are seeing and photographing are the genuine article without
 >introducing the -fact- that it is possible to conduct a form of
 >telepathic communication with the objects. (Where the object
 >responds to the 'thoughts' of the observer.) I have had at least
 >four such encounters. And don't even think to ask me to
 >'explain' it or to 'prove' it. It just is. It happens. How it
 >works or why is beyond my ken.

John, this is one of the essential factors in observing UFOs and
Dr. Richard Haines refers to it as a CE-5, the human interaction
with UFOs. It was also paramount in establishing the sighted
object as something beyond normal, conventional flying objects.

The telepathic interaction I experimented with as a teenager
proved to me that something paranormal was in our skies. My
friend Yves Lauriault and I conducted this experiment in the
1950s and succeeded. We actually attempted to communicate our
desire to see flying saucers via telepathy and it worked! Our
first sighting was of a number of red-glowing discs that
manuevered according to our mental requests - it was eerie to
begin with, but I felt like we were breaking ground. These red
discs were turn or follow one another on request. We directed
these mental requests at a private aircraft as a control and, of
course, no response. It was at that moment that I knew that we
were interacting with something unearthly and definitely not
from here.

You would think that scientific experiments along this line
should stimulate further investigation and others to set-up even
more rigourous experiments to attempt two-way communication with
the guiding intelligence behind the UFOs, but now over 40 years
have passed and the only person I have seen attempt these
activities is Dr. Steven Greer who has been treated with
contempt. I am not endorsing Greer here, but at least he
experimented with CE-5s and I do not see others doing much.
Light beam transceiver communication was pioneered by John Otto
and he also got results, but he has long been forgotten.

One person who studied this interactivity was Professor
Rutledge.

He describes it in his book:

AUTHOR: Rutledge, Harley D.
TITLE:  Project Identification : the first scientific field
         study of UFO phenomena
PUBLISHER Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c1981.
265 p., [16] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.

I also recommend:

Ce-5: Close Encounters Of The Fifth Kind
By: Haines, Richard F. // Foreword by Greer, Stephen // Foreword
     by Rodeghier, Mark
Edition #1999//Trade Paper
700 pages

"CE-5" is the ultimate reference of real data on the hottest
topic in UFOs. This book documents, explains, and questions
nearly 250 UFO incidents from around the world where people have
deliberately tried to have contact with UFO phenomena or alien
beings and succeeded.

Publication Date: March 1999
Publisher: Sourcebooks, Inc.

Both of these books discuss the interaction factor so you might
say it is part of the growing field of ufological studies.

 >>Also attempted experiments with light beam transceivers, a kind of
 >>UFO SETI, but not much proactive search or attempted communication
 >>is done these days, except for people like Tom King.

 >It's the same reason why I don't post any more of my sighting
 >pix or even report a sighting to the List anymore. After awhile
 >it gets really frustrating (not mention a drain) to have deal
 >with the "armchair" arguments and theories of people who have
 >never even seen (much less studied) a single frame of our
 >videos. There is strength in numbers and if there are enough of
 >us throwing reports and video/film at the people we're bound to
 >make an impression sooner or later.

I welcome skeptics, but some just approach us and say "where is
the hard evidence?" or "Prove to me that UFOs are real!" My
answer is "Study the literature, watch the videotapes, talk to
the researchers and investigators, do your homework, then come
back and ask your questions". Proof is a subjective experience.
It is the mental state of reaching a conviction by the complex
interaction of examining evidence, perceiving consistency and
relationships during the examination, and a little dash of
intuition before something is accepted as proven. There is also
the sheer numbers of those who are in agreement.

We should be stepping beyond the passive collection of evidence
and actively going out in the field to attempt observation and
recording of UFO events, and when convinced that there is a
guiding intelligence behind these, to attempt to communicate
with it. That is what gives us the real jump on the SETI
scientists.

Bill








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:53:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:46:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


Dave wrote:

 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:12:06 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Good post Roy,

 >The record shows the List was informed of this _new_ footage (I
 >even wrote privately to some researchers) all was met with the
 >same 'deadly silence' you mentioned.

 >Curiouser and Curiouser.

Hi Dave,

Well I am staggered, it seems now that a case which has
excellent footage to back it up, has been thrown into the
debating arena and suddenly everything goes quiet?

I think what some of the sceptics have been saying on Updates
regarding Misperception, Dust balls straight out of your Hoover
bag seems to fall down completely with the footage of Chris
Martin. I think I can say that this footage is a clear marker
for real UFO events happening here in the UK. The question must
surely be asked, if Chris is filming this kind of footage is he
alone in doing so? It raises the possibly of other excellent UFO
footage out there somewhere in the UK.

 >Whilst Chris Martins footage shows a definite airborne anomaly
 >it does not by any means show dust particles, lens reflections
 >or a pie plate on a wire.
 >I would have thought that alone would have caused some
 >conversation but no.

Exactly my point. Here with have on film, objects performing
great manoeuvres in the sky ( Daylight Mostly) and they seem to
hang around long enough for Chris to capture some of their
strange and puzzling movements. Now I have to mention, that
having colleagues around the UK can be a benefit, by this I mean
they get to see lectures in their living regions. And of course
this information becomes of interest if certain speakers begin
to put the notion that all UFO sightings are solvable. If this
is the case, then they are being selective on their UFO related
issues and are not in fact mentioning such film DATA as that of
Chris Martin. The question should be why? Again I ask, is the
footage of Chris Martin too near the mark?

To counter balance this approach by some of the UK sceptics,
Chris has taken on a kind of UK tour of open minded UFO groups
in the UK, and by all accounts this has gone down well. Please
remember, Chris has his footage to back most of his lectures up.
Usually evidence is required by those sceptics who refuse to
accept the notion of UFOs under intelligent control. Is there a
different agenda running here in the UK, concerning excellent
UGFO footage like that of Chris Martin's?

Perhaps these much put ideas and theories like everything is
misperception and such like, can now be readily disputed as we
do have hard DATA to debate.

 >Whoever see's the footage seems to loose the ability to
 >communicate.

 >Even more Curiouser.

I have seen sceptical friends of mine gob-smacked by Chris's UFO
footage, they have not been able to come to any idea of what is
on Chris martins tapes. I can recall when I first posted the
information on the footage top this list, and subsequently
receiving a lambasting from certain sceptics who hadn't even
looked into the case in any detail, I also recall the mention of
these sceptics going to see the leeds Chris Martin lecture and
they would post their review, and I am still waiting for these
people to do so! It seems that all the shouting and attacks I
suffered were not in vain, as now they have nothing to put
forward which proves their argument.

It's no good just saying we haven't looked at the Chris Martin
case, because the UK researchers who subscribe to this list do
have a wide and varied opinion on a lot of past and present UFO
cases?

 >Perhaps 50 years from now we will all be happy to discuss the
 >matter.

 >Until then,

 >Dave Bowden

Dave, a sad indictment of UFO research today, sceptics scream
and rant about evidence of UFO DATA which is above average and
needs to show some kind of intelligent control and here we are
just me and you Dave debating it. Perhaps when we are in our
seventies we may be able to chip in to the future Chris Martin
UFO footage debate.

Regards,

Roy..


http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 07:56:18 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:52:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hamilton


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:17:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 27 Nov 2000 06:33:20 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>I do not find multiple sightings of true UFOs unusual. I, myself,
 >>have had dozens of sightings of real unidentifieds over the decades,
 >>both daytime and nighttime.

 >Hi, Bill:

 >In 1993 you reported in the MUFON Journal seeing UFOs which you
 >named "Skydancers". I submitted an article identifying many of
 >these as daylight observations of Venus, but my article was not
 >accepted for publication. Following is my article for the
 >information of folks on this List. Your comments are invited:

My comments are listed below.  Thank you Robert.

 >Copyright 1994 Robert R. Young

 >VENUS: AN EXPLANATION FOR MANY "SKYDANCER"
 >UFO SIGHTINGS

 >Questionable astronomical assumptions can lead one astray
 >By Robert R. Young

 >Bill Hamilton reported 1993 UFO observations at Antelope Valley,
 >California, in MUFON UFO Journal (April 1994). He ruled out an
 >astronomical explanation for a number of reasons, all of which
 >were wrong.

 >Questionable astronomical assumption #1: Hamilton wrote that
 >"silvery" or "white" UFOs which "hovered motionless" were at a
 >"very high altitude". The distance of an unknown object cannot
 >be determined by a single observer unless there are known
 >reference objects at known distances from it.

As I have said before I could not determine the distance of this
unknown object and only noted that it was at a very high
altitude as it took binoculars to see it clearly at all.

 >Questionable astronomical assumption #2: Hamilton wrote that
 >these objects could not be planets because only novas have been
 >seen in the daylight sky. He must have meant supernovas
 >(exploding stars) since no known nova (a less catastrophic
 >event) has ever been seen with the naked eye in daylight. The
 >last supernova seen in daylight was Kepler's Star in 1604.
 >(Illingworth)

 >Hamilton is wrong about Venus, which can be found in the
 >daylight sky with the naked eye if one knows where to look.
 >(Sidgwick)  In fact, experienced amateur observers of the planet
 >often prefer to observe it in daylight. (Bishop)  The first
 >observation of "critter" occurred June 8 at 11 A.M. when
 >Archie was observing circling birds. He described the object
 >as a "dim daytime star" which was "round and bright white"
 >and "stationary" when viewed in 7 and 10 power binoculars.
 >Many subsequent observations were also made with
 >binoculars.

I checked out this object reported to me by a security guard
because I was skeptical of his repeated sightings.  I
entertained the idea initially that he could be observing Venus
in the daytime sky though Venus is almost impossible to see in
hazy California skies. I ruled out Venus as soon as I saw it
move. However, I cannot say that all observations reported by
Archie ruled out Venus.

 >Questionable astronomical assumption #3: Hamilton reasoned that
 >since Venus was seen rising in the early morning hours before
 >the Sun (that is, west of the Sun), it could not have been the
 >UFOs seen later. But since Venus and the Sun move together
 >across the sky as the Earth turns, it would still be west of the
 >sun. All four positions given by Hamilton (see Table) for
 >observations of ufos place them west of the sun!

Since this was a repeater and came into view almost, but not
every day and stay for 1 to 2 hours then move out I was able to
make further observations to help rule out astronomical and
aeronautical sources.

Venus and the sun may move together and cover 1 degree of arc in
4 minutes, but this object did not share that motion but appeared
to be fixed with respect to the earth.  In fact, we videotaped it
for a duration of 2 hours and it should have moved 30 minutes of
arc westward and yet it was still directly overhead.  When it moved
it would either

1)  appear to vanish instantly or

2)  move slowly and appear to be tumbling as the surface
     reflections would alter to give that appearance

3)  move at such blinding speed that in 1 second it had reached the
     far end of the western sky and appear to be only about 10-15
     degrees above the horizon.

4)  move slowly eastward, then reverse its path of travel
     180-degrees and move westward.

These additional observations proved to me that I was not
observing Venus.

 >TABLE - "UFO" observations vs. Venus position (Tellstar)

 >Observer: Date/time:  "UFO" Azimuth, Altitude: Venus Az. Alt.
 >
 >Archie     6/8  11:00           225 deg  30 deg          219   60
 >Archie     7/5  11:45                               "high"             244
 >58
 >Hamilton, Pam and
 >  Archie   8/14 12:15           262        80-85              250   61
 >Hamilton, Mike and
 >  Steve    8/21 12:05               250         75                  243   65
 >Hamilton, Drue and
 >  Archie   8/28 12:11           240         85                  240   64

 >None of the positions given are exactly that of Venus except for
 >the August 8th azimuth, but how accurate are the positions given
 >by the observers? The only sighting given which includes a known
 >astronomical object for comparison is on August 14 when
 >Hamilton, Pam and Archie saw an object one binocular field
 >"west" of the moon, which they said was at "about 80-85 degrees
 >elevation."  Consulting an ephemeris one finds that at that time
 >the moon was 65 degrees high, an error of 15-20 degrees. If we
 >give the observers the benefit of the doubt and assume that this
 >is the maximum error that they ever made in their measurements,
 >three of the four reported locations for UFOs and Venus are
 >within this error box.

 >On August 14 Venus was 7 degrees east of the Moon, at almost
 >exactly the 6 degree diameter of the 10 X 50 Bushnell binoculars
 >that they used (Sky & Telescope). If one assumes that the
 >observer confused the object's direction as "east" instead of
 >"west", Venus could have been in the field of view.

 >In three out of four cases, elevations given for the UFOs are
 >greater than Venus, as was the Moon's for August 14 (80-85
 >degrees instead of its actual height, 61 degrees). Experienced
 >astronomical observers know that this is a common error. Most
 >people report any object over 45 degrees (half-way up) to be
 >"overhead".

 >Multiple pictures were taken by the Antelope Valley observers,
 >but no examples were published. Pictures of Venus in a daylight
 >sky are not difficult (Schaeffer), and therefore do not prove
 >that the objects were extraordinary. The claim is made that
 >multiple photographs would for some reason be harder to explain
 >than single pictures for nearly motionless objects visible for
 >over an hour, but no reasons are given.

I have been unable to photograph Venus in the California desert
during daylight hours, but I am willing to attempt this and
compare the result with the earlier photos.

By the way did I mention that two or more of these objects were
visible at the same viewing time.  In fact at the end of our
video recording of skydancer, a second skydancer appears and
moves eastward within a degree or two of the first object. It
also appeared to be tumbling.  In magnified video frames, the
tumbling object appears to blink on and off (appear and
disappear).

 >Several examples of "UFO" motion are given. On July 22 Archie is
 >said to have noticed the object begin to move as soon as he
 >raised his binoculars. The UFO later maneuvered like a fly or a
 >bee. I own a pair of 10 power binoculars and use them often for
 >astronomy. I can attest that it is nearly impossible to hold
 >them steady without the use of a tripod. This claim of unusual
 >motion does not prove the objects were extraordinary.

We did mount both videocam and telescopes on tripods at a later
time.  I braced my binoculars because I am all too aware of the
unsteady motion of my hands, but we still saw this object dash
out of the field of view or move in wide erratic circles!

 >A number of sightings described by some witnesses seem quite
 >different than the "Skydancer" and "critter" UFOs. There is no
 >discussion of how possible aircraft from the nearby Edwards Air
 >Force Base complex were ruled out for these sightings.

We called Edwards AFB to report our sightings and check into
experimental aircraft activity, even though something beyond jet
propulsion might be in use for the apparent 'warp" speed this
object could attain, but they could not confirm any experimental
aircraft in the air at the time of the sighting, but did show an
interest in meeting with us and discussing these sightings
further (not investigating because the USAF no longer
investigates sightings - right? :))

 >The "filtering out" of possible astronomical explanations for
 >day or night UFO sighting reports should be one of the first
 >things done by investigators. One should consult a local
 >planetarium; an astronomy club; a library for an ephemeris such
 >as the U.S. Naval Observatory's yearly Nautical Almanac; the
 >monthly magazines Sky & Telescope or Astronomy; a basic
 >observational astronomy reference, such as Bishop or Sidgewick;
 >or one of the many inexpensive computer programs now available.

Drue and I did most of the above.  We checked on the computer
and astronomy magazine.  We also have a local astronomy club.
As an amateur I am looking at joining as soon as I get my now
damaged telescope replaced.  I was using a wide-field Orion
refractor.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                  Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:12:45 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:57:23 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Sightings In August 1978 - Young


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978

 >At the risk of beating the WOW event to death, I looked up UFO
 >sightings for the single month of August, 1978. Since the WOW
 >signal came in on the 15th of August, a period of +/- 15 days or
 >so seems like a nice short study.

 >I found 51 records in the *U* Database for AUG 1978, 20 in north
 >America, 18 in Western Europe, 5 in South America and the rest
 >scattered elsewhere.

<snip>

 >One statistical feature of the *U* database breaks down
 >sightings by Right Ascension (i.e. which part of the stellar
 >sphere is directly over the meridian at the date/time/location
 >of UFO sightings).

 >Listings with imprecise/unknown dates/times are excluded of
 >necessity, so only 38 of the 51 listings were automatically
 >counted - no dimpled ballots!

 >Dividing the starry sky into 24 "hours" of Right Ascension (and
 >ignoring declination entirely) one might expect this breakdown
 >to divide out to one or two sightings per each hour of RA.

 >Oddly enough, there was a peak of seven (7) sightings with RA of
 >19 hours... (plus/minus 30 minutes RA). The WOW signal came
 >from that same slice of sky, 19hrs, 25 or 28 mins RA.

 >The local time of day breakdowns peaked out between 23:00 and
 >2359 hrs. The WOW signal came in at 23:16 hrs EDT in Ohio.

 >Nobody should draw statistical conclusions from this, the
 >numbers are far, far too small.

Hello Larry, List:

Remember the movie "Contact"? The signal came from Right
Ascension 18 hours, Declination 39 minutes. I remember sitting
in the movie theatre thinking, "18 hours... 18 hours... the
summer sky!" The star where the ET signal came from in the movie
was Vega, brightest star in the Summer Sky at the latitude of
the States, and part of the famous Summer Triangle.

Well, when I was reading your post and the RA of the WOW source,
I thought about that movie. It occurred to me that Carl Sagan,
who wrote the book and screenplay, probably had the WOW incident
in his mind. I checked the recent biography by Keay Davidson,
Carl Sagan, A Life (Wiley, 1999), but saw nothing about this.

Anywhoo... back to List Topic: While reading your post all of
this got me thinking about this celestial position. I wondered
what might account for this seeming correlation you have pointed
to. Since the Sidereal Time of the two are close, might the date
be the thing? I'd remembered that the 'scope was a fixed array
which used the motion of the Earth to sweep the sky.

There is a neat SETI site http://www.bigear.org/about.htm which
includes a sort of memorial to the Krause radio telescope, which
was demolished for a golf course. Typical! This site includes
this good description:

"The telescope was a "drift field" design: that is, the rotation
of the Earth scanned it in "right ascension" or RA across the
sky from west to east (so the sky looked like it was moving east
to west). The flat tiltable reflector was adjusted to point to a
position in the south along the "meridian" line from south to
north: that position was the "declination" of the telescope."

It so happens that on that date at about 11:15 local time, the
telescope picked up the WOW signal, as you pointed out. This
happens to be during the statistical daily peak of UFO reports.
On your site your Siderial Histogram present this very well,
with a daily peak at from 18 to 23 hours local time, with a peak
at 21 hours.

This seems to be a statistical coincidence because this long
noted daily peak around midnight is, of course, something that
happens year-round, with different sidereal times at midnight,
as the seasonal sky changes.

As you noted, this is not too significant a "bump", anyway.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 29

                  Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:53:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:58:52 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Young


 >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <>
 >Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978

Larry, List:

In my recent post about the WOW signal, I meant to refer to your
Hourly Sightings Histogram, showing a peak of UFO sightings
around the midnight hours, not your Sidereal Histogram.

But, now that I mentioned it, why do you think UFO reports
cluster around the 18 to 23 hours in Right Ascension.  I believe
that it is due to the fact that this is in the summer months for
the midnight hours.

For evidence is this, I refer to your Days of the Year
Histogram, with its modest peak during the summer, which is also
probably related to the modest peak for the Sidereal Histogram.

Hey, man: hours of fun riffling through your stuff.

Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:21:54 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:10:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Bowden


 >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:38:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:07:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:36:10 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:12:10 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On ABC.com's UFO2000

 >><snip>

 >>>Suppose for a moment that the aliens are smart enough to have
 >>>more than one purpose in mind for many of their actions.
 >>>Consider ordinary sightings. They have presented themselves in
 >>>such a manner that those who can accept the possibility of their
 >>>reality can readily explore the matter and confirm this reality
 >>>to their own satisfaction. Those who can't, can complain that we
 >>>don't have hard physical evidence, or enough good videos, etc.,
 >>>and so don't have to believe what they are unable to accept due
 >>>to their preexisting belief in scientism, religion,
 >>>anthropocentrism, or similar reason. In walking this tightrope,
 >>>these aliens can get across a lot of information regarding their
 >>>technical and psychic capabilities and their concerns and
 >>>ethics. Their strategy seems to include presenting themselves to
 >>>us in such a manner that the UFO coverup doesn't come unraveled
 >>>before they think we're prepared for that. Hence they seem to
 >>>have kept their frequency of sightings at a level such that the
 >>>degree of belief in UFO reality stays somewhere around 50% --
 >>>much higher and a snowball effect of unraveling the coverup
 >>>prematurely would set in. In so doing, they have had to make
 >>>sure that science as a whole doesn't catch on to their reality,
 >>>and this they can easily do by making sure they don't leave too
 >>>much evidence behind, don't show themselves to too many people
 >>>at once or for too long, utilize advanced technology that
 >>>scientists will think is impossible, and even at times utilize
 >>>this technology and advanced knowledge so as to allow
 >>>single-minded scientists to come to the wrong conclusion if they
 >>>so desire. Examples of the latter include those where the UFO
 >>>poses like an airplane or helicopter though possessing
 >>>impossibly different flight characteristics or navigational
 >>>lights or noise level, etc.; these the skeptics can shrug off as
 >>>airplanes and helicopters, etc., combined with witness
 >>>fallibility, if they wish. Other examples abound where the UFO
 >>>was a point of light in the night sky, but made *large* zigzag
 >>>movements, but thereafter remaining motionless, appearing as a
 >>>normal star. These the astronomers who don't know better will
 >>>pass off as stars mistakenly thought to have moved through a
 >>>trick of the eye. With hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings in
 >>>the records, the fact that in none of these (none available to
 >>>us to study) did the aliens stick around long enough for the
 >>>news media to converge on it and confirm it publicly is
 >>>consistent with this strategy. If no such strategy were in
 >>>place, sheer statistics would indicate that a small percentage,
 >>>like 0.1% (?), would have stuck around for 24 hours or longer
 >>>and caused the UFO coverup to come unraveled.

 >>Jim, John, List:

 >>The trouble with all of this is that it is an unfalsifiable
 >>hypothesis, and thus will never be considered as science or as
 >>evidence acceptable to science.

 >Dear Bob:

 >Its much worse than falsifiable, its downright pathological.

 >Here we have a Ph.D, - Deardorff in this case - presenting the
 >theory that the aliens not only hid themselves from the
 >countless millions in Mexico City, but that they went to the
 >trouble to jiggle their UFO so perfectly as to mimic the random
 >hand motions of some person taking the video!

 >That has to be the saddest assertion I have ever seen on this
 >List.

 >It makes the questions raised by skeptics pale in comparison.

 >I am amazed that nobody else throws up a flag. Where are you
 >all?

Hi Larry,

Sorry about the delay in replying, Christmas is a comin' and
I've got kids want their Barbies.

I would have thrown up the flag long ago had I not recalled an
account from last year about someone walking around crop circles
in the UK dressed as Jesus Christ. This person was apparently
walking around blessing everyone.

My take is, these guys exist, pay them no attention unless they
can prove their outlandish claims.

Jim's theories are presented as though they were fact. Let's not
forget they are just theories. Jim can no more prove his
theories as the guy in the crop circle can prove he really is
Jesus Christ.

I must admit I've read some of Jim Deardorff's mails with some
amusement and like yourself I do wonder why no-one has pointed
out some things.

Perhaps in Jims world we're all inferior and he has some special
knowledge.

Or perhaps Jim only _thinks_ he has.

Although somehow I don't think he would be ready to to take that
leap.

Till later,

Dave Bowden







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:50:30 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:02:44 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>End of recording. And after it flew off and faded from view so
 >>was the sighting. It was like it came to be photographed and
 >>then split. But that's all pure speculation on my part. ;)

 >Hello John:

 >Its indeed a shame I wasn't there to see it myself.

 >Disappointing as it is, I must rely on the sightings of others
 >just to maintain an interest in this frustrating field.

 >No camera shot is the same as seeing something with ones own
 >eyes. If somebody just mailed me those 6 frames with no
 >explanation, I would dismiss them as a blimp or a balloon.

I guess it's a good thing that I included an "explanation" eh!

That is precisely why I don't post images to the List anymore. I
got sick and tired of having people debate and dismiss the
pictures - out of hand - without ever having looked at, or
analysing carefully a single frame of it for themselves.
"Armchair" photoanalysts! Unbelievable.

I have developed  a 'tendency' myself; I now tend to 'dismiss'
the people who dismiss my pictures without ever having studied
them as, biased, and intellectually dishonest. The other (and
much more deeply insulting) part of it is, the 'implication' in
their mindless (and mentally lazy) dismissal is that whoever is
submitting the photo evidence is a liar and a cheat.

Back in the days, folks could easily find themselves on the
other end of a 'duel with deadly weapons' for thoughtlessly
smearing a man's name, character, and reputation that way, folks
used to make absolutely sure they were correct before making
such remarks. It was literally a 'life or death' situation to
accuse somebody of being a liar or a cheat without having having
some convincing proof for it. The 'false bravado' displayed by
so many today is directly attributable to the safety cushion
that is provided by having a computer screen between themselves
and the person they are insulting. People will feel free to say
things via e-mail that they would never say to a person's face.
It's a shameful form of electronically enabled demonstrations of
cowardice. (A rose by any other name is still but a rose.)

It may sound brutish and violent, but there's something 'right'
and 'psychologically healthy/socially correct' about being able
to punch the person (who offers no proof, but calls you a liar
in public anyway,) right in their mouth. That's the 'safety
cushion' that the internet cowards hide behind and take full
advantage of. In the neighborhood I grew up in if you had
something you couldn't say right to a man's face, you kept your
mouth shut. Brutish and violent though it may be, it's honest
and honorable. There's a lot to be said for that kind of a 'code
of ethics.'

I'm glad you're not like some of those others.   ;)

 >Somewhere I have a really great shot, good resolution and
 >detail, of an object with a somewhat similar (ovoid) shape.

Sorry about the resolution and detail. I'm using the video
capture capability that came with my old 8500 powermac, (which
is nowhere near as good as a dedicated video capture card) and I
get a lot of image degradation and frame dropout whenever I
transfer something from tape to hard disc. The original 8mm
videotape is much clearer (better resolution) than those JPGs.
In this case it's the hardware, not me.

 >I was eyewitness for that one, a Goodyear type blimp over a big
 >Stanford football game taken from my former balcony in Menlo
 >Park, CA.

 >I waited until the obvious giveaways (flaps, logos etc.) were
 >rotated away from my vantage point and then shot the photo for a
 >lark. It came out nicely!

Ok, what do your blimp pictures have to do with my pix? I don't
photograph/videotape blimps. Man has not created a blimp that
can move the way the things that I record move.

Damn I'd love to have you standing next to me when one or more
of these buggers are buzzing around up there. Darting from one
spot to another, hovering, creating triangular formations that
then begin to rotate slowly around a common (invisible) central
axis point. Some of the manouvers are breathtaking. I was
watching a stationary, glowing, white sphere one day (through
7x50 binocs) when quite suddenly, from above the object I was
observing, comes a second _identical_ object, spins around the
one I was watching, twice, (two tight, fast orbits) and then it
shoots off at incredible speed. Zipped out of the vicinity at
Warp 10, Larry. Know of any "blimps" that can haul-ass like
that?

How about three high altitude blimps that can come together and
form a perfect triangle and then rotate about a common axis
without losing formation? Ever hear of those?

Me neither.

 >I suppose Bruce could pick it to pieces in short order, but it
 >would look darn good to a newcomer.

I offered Bruce _all_ of my tapes over a year ago. He was too
busy 'at the time' to work on any of them. That's cool, he's a
busy man. As for fooling "newcomers," -screwing with people's
heads via e-mail is tailor made for kids who like to make crank
calls and play 'ring and run.' Or, in the case of an adult, a
person with no sex life. At 51 I'm not nimble enough to play
ring & run. And in case you're wondering, I have a happy,
healthy, satisfying sex life.  <LOL>

I'm too busy with the 'real thing' to mess with fakes. Or fakers
who pretend they know what they're talking about.

Warm regards,

John Velez, witness

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                           Calling Jaime Maussan!

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:14:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:32:45 -0500
Subject: Calling Jaime Maussan!


Hi All,

Has anyone (that knows him) contacted Jaime Maussan to ask if
he'll join us for a short bit to share what he knows about the
Mexico City UFO video case?

If not, can anybody provide me with an e-mail address for him
(that will reach him) so that I can invite him/ask him, myself?
I just want to know what the story is with the witnesses and
details of the Mexican end of the "investigation."

As it stands right now, we don't even know if a co-ordinated
investigation was conducted, or by whom. It seems a lot of
individuals got their hands into the case, but we haven't heard
anything from anybody that sounds as if it represents the
results of a concerted or formal investigation.

Unless I missed some posts!  ;)

Regards and thanx for the help.

John Velez, asking: "Que esta pasando en Mexico?"


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                           Phil Klass - Sleeping?

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:34:28 -0500
Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?


Hi there folks-

Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?


Thanks.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy  - "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(beCAUS you demanded it yet again! UFO Dirtbag of the Month)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:44:58 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:59 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:59:02 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>I surmise that
 >>where a lot of scientists go astray is in assuming that science
 >>could never advance more than a century or two ahead of our own,
 >>whichever year or century we're in. They can't fathom that
 >>science & technology & other learning could continue advancing
 >>for centuries, hundreds of centuries and thousands of centuries,
 >>for alien civilizations that survive.

 >Larry had written:

 >>>By far the simplest assumption is that the saucer image
 >>>was superimposed onto a genuine shot panning some tall
 >>>buildings.

 >Jim replies:

 >>But remember, it would not have been a single saucer image that
 >>the supposed hoaxers would have had to superimpose. It would
 >>have required how many? 20 or 30 or 50 separate images, pasted
 >>in one after the other in the proper combination, every frame or
 >>two, to make the craft appear to be rotating about its vertical
 >>axis while wobbling in a precessing manner at the same time as
 >>it traversed.

 >>I don't see the simplicity in that assumption of yours.

 >Hello, Jim.

 >Here's the odd thing about your position. On the one hand, you
 >give the proposed ETs an incredible benefit of the doubt, not
 >only regarding their very existence, but in regard to how far
 >advanced they are in their technology.

Roger,

If they can get here from there with craft that can withstand
many hundreds of g's acceleration, and can suddenly vanish from
sight, they're very, very far advanced over us. Why forget that
simple fact?

 >On the other hand, you
 >seem to ignore present day human technology that would allow for
 >the faking of the very image you base your assumptions on!

 >I speak of simple, off the shelf non-linear programs like
 >Premier, made by Adobe, or Reel Time, made by Pennacle, or Speed
 >Razor, or Avid, or Media 100, or DPS's Velocity system, just to
 >name a few. ALL of these systems are available for less than
 >$5,000 and will work on any PC based system with at a minimum of
 >256 megs of RAM and a mere 350MZ processor. These systems ALL
 >allow for sophisticated layering and programming moves of
 >objects to be placed in pre-existing footage. They can layer up
 >to 99 different tracks of video and produce mattes that defy
 >detection, if used properly. And, unlike your assumption, this
 >does NOT have to be done on a frame-by-frame basis. I use
 >Premier all the time in my effects work and the kind of moves
 >necessary in the Mexico footage are simple to program.

But you didn't even mention how one would cause the UFO image to
precess and also rotate. And evidently you're not permitted to
use the "paste on lighter" command, since the brightness of the
panel doesn't seem to darken as the UFO goes behind the building
top.

If it's so simple, why don't you get hold of a similar city
scene and fake up a few minute's worth of UFO video with the
same level of complexity? No one else has yet done it. Show us!
If you could accomplish it with the same level of realism as in
the Mexico City video, you'd make quite a splash. Your UFO image
must precess as well as rotate quickly, and pass behind the top
of a building having a light-colored panel near the top.

In the meantime, some of us are still waiting for you to come up
with that truck mirror!


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                        Sasovo And The Lost Scientist

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:42:17 -0500
Subject: Sasovo And The Lost Scientist


Here is an update from the Kosmopoisk Group. To reach them, use
this ee-mail address:

kosmopoisk@kosmopoisk.null.ru

(Ask for Vadim Chernobrov, or Mr. Aleksadrov. Mr. Chernobrov is
a seasoned, experienced field researcher. More about him in 'The
Soviet UFO Files' and my new book - along with Philip Mantle
- about UFO research in Russia/CIS).

______

Attention! Urgent! Utmost importance!

In addition to the previous announcement:

Kulanin Nikolay Victorovich, year of birth 1949, employee of the
Shmidt Joint Institute of the Earth Physics, planned to conduct
magnometric research in the Sasovo Crater, and in the Ulyanovsk
region. He phoned home on a daily basis, the last time he did so
was on Thursday, the 23rd of November. He informed them that he
is staying at an inn, in Sasovo. However, when all three city
inns/hotels were called, it was determined that he was not
registered there.

Should there be no positive information by Friday, December 1,
volunteers will depart for Sasovo, and perhaps, Ulyanovsk.

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

What is the significance of Sasovo?

Read the following. Philip and I will have more details of this
very strange case in our book.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf093/sf093g13.htm

The story  is by no means over...


Paul Stonehill
Russian Ufology Research Center







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                        UFO*BC Xmas Gift Suggestions

From: David Pengilly - UFO*BC  <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:24:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:47:09 -0500
Subject: UFO*BC Xmas Gift Suggestions


The following items are linked from our Homepage, under
"What's New".

1) UFO*BC Christmas Gift Suggestions

  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_Store/special2000.htm

  - If you have any of those hard-to-buy-for people on your Xmas
    list, then we might be able to help. Please view our sale
    items.

  - The new Alien Bookends really set off a UFO book collection.


2) "A Cut Above the Rest"

  - http://www.ufobc.org/BC_Abductions/cutabove.htm

  - After a strange experience in a secluded location, a logger
    suddenly develops artistic and poetic talents.

  - Visit "The Outpost" in Squamish to view his work.


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


UFO*BC is a registered non-profit organization.

Dave Pengilly
dave@ufobc.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:07:42 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:48:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:22:42 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:49:31 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:49:02 -0500

 >>>I still think that the number of genuine UFO reports far
 >>>outweighs the number of IFO reports by a long shot!

 >>Hi, Michel:

 >>Are you saying that most UFO reports represent True UFOs? Do you
 >>have a guess as to what the ratio of UFOs vs potential IFOs in a
 >>large sample of UFO reports might be?

 >>Can you offer some suggestions for sorting these out, do you
 >>have a checklist of things which you think can definitely allow
 >>us to ID True UFOs?

 >Bob,

 >I was simply saying that _my sightings_ were True UFOs. As for
 >someone else's sightings, I don't know. But since I saw True
 >UFOs, why couldn't someone else see True UFOs, right?

Michel:

Yes, there is no reason why someone else couldn't see the that
sort of things that you did, unless what either of your saw was
truly unique and a one-time event.

One question that I use when investigating a sighting I picked
up years ago from reading something by Allen Hynek or Allan
Hendry, I forget which now. That is the question, What natural
or man-made object or or phenomenon most closely resembled what
you saw and list the reasons you thought it was not that type of
object. When one looks into the reasons that people think that
something they have seen is unique or unusual, it often turns
out that they are mistaken about one or more reasons.

I have found that this helps get a handle on _what it was that
was unusual_ about their experience or sighting. Of course you
have to be careful that you don't just use this question as a
broom to sweep everything under the carpet or into the IFO bin.

It would be interesting to see how you would use these two
questions to consider one of your sightings.


Clear skies,

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

             Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:43:48 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:57:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro



 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:47:37 -0500

<snip>

 >Maybe what I should do is provide a complete listing of my
 >sightings online. That way, the List members would be able to
 >get a better picture of what I was trying to describe in terms
 >of high strangeness.

 >Now, if they decide that what I saw was something other than a
 >UFO, flying saucers, whatever....then they would be the ones
 >making a mistake, because their explanations would not fit the
 >things that I saw...

 >Then, I think _their_ credibility, just like their common sense,
 >would go out the window!


Dear Michel, List, Errol,

What an interesting idea. As if this lost list has not had a
surfeit of evidence thrust in their respective faces, eyes and
other sensory organs, only to be forced by some irresistible
force of their paradigmical nature (I invented that word, how do
you like it?) to reject and malign not only the list of
sightings but the photos and whatever else is thrust in their
faces. Intellectus interruptis.

Talk about run on sentences, but it was worth it.

If this sounds like a man who is convinced that no one on this
or any other List, with the exception of those who have
experienced these phenomena believe you, then you are quite
correct, sir.

I've sat here for about three years reading a good deal of the
stuff posted, including my own stuff. And you wanna know
something? Nothing is revealed. When I was a member of a support
group, I was told this was "the" premier place on which to
garner some measure of hopeful import, a place where the best of
the best congregated in order to debate that which we who have
experienced the phenom, debate with ourselves every waking
moment of our lives.

The sightings, the experiences, we have nothing better to do
than admit to either implication or outright accusations of our
insanity; they wish only to expose our stupidity, our utter and
complete gullibility. Such guile you have, Michel. What balls I
have and so many like me, like you, to believe our own senses,
our own memories. How can you be so stupid as to consider that
what you've seen is nothing more than swamp gas or bovine
defecation, or perhaps the planet what-the-hell-ever?

They swarm like busy bees over honey trying to take it apart.
Like some on this list who tune in occasionally to make a
statement of their opinion, which is about as valued by such
as us, as a lump on a frog.

So who is maligned in the end? Not us, pal. Only the maligners.
Only the whiners. They know who they are. They sit in front of
their computer screens thinking of new ways to attempt making an
ass out of you and me. Based purely on their own ass-umptions
sometimes disguised as erudition and science.

The good guys? Are people who have an open mind. The others? The
people who have it shut as tight as... well, allow me the honor
of avoiding the metaphor. It ain't nice. And neither am I right
now. But I truly believe that this needs to be said.

Please Doctor Errol, Sir... this is not an indictment of you.
You, who work tirelessly on this List, only to have to produce a
plethora of culpable ignorance in large measure from those who
should not be culpably ignorant. And we, only to hope beyond
hope that someone will come up with something.

To be truthful, there is a need for skepticism. But there is a
much greater need for truth. And sometimes, the truth is a lot
harder to investigate than the skepticists' mouths.

Which is worth your time? Or mine? Which is to say, that
sometimes, what is said here, someone's experience, perceived or
absolute, is of greater import to investigate. Sometimes, it is
more important to take a position and investigate a memory as if
it were a truth and go from there.

Ah hell. Who am I kidding?

God bless America and all the ships at sea. Dit dah dit dah dit.
Dah dit dah.

Mortellaro








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                  [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files

From: Martin Jasek <mjjasek@yknet.yk.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:52:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:00:52 -0500
Subject: [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files


Hello group

A few weeks ago I received in the mail a copy of 5 microfilm
reels showing declassified Canadian UFO sighting reports,
RG(Record Group)-24 and RG-77. I know there are a few on this
list that have gone through some (or all?)of these. Any ways, I
have them as long as I want since I bought them. $30 each after
shipping and GST. I could use some help. Anybody have the legend
what each piece of information designated by a letter stands for
on the sighting report forms?

A:
B:
C:...

They typically standing for such things as date, location,
color, etc. I believe this is the NRC report form. Is the
military one used in CIRVIS reports equivalent?

Has anybody come up with some sort of index for these microfilm
reels. I am planning to get a bunch of volunteers together and
pick out all the Yukon sightings. While we are at it, it may be
a good idea for us to jot down a basic index of what is on them.
By basic, I mean Date and location.

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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:57 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:02:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:06:48 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >It's showtime, Michel! Show us the best, clearest frame of a
 >flying saucer you have. If it looks anything like a flying
 >saucer, I will apologize on this List and send you a bottle of
 >fine wine. If it doesn't, then...

Unless of course it has some vague resemblance to a mirror or
sorts...... :)


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:48:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:40:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


Larry wrote:

 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:22:15 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Hello Roy:  (please have pin ready)

 >Thanks for the specific URL, it  came right in.
 >I had to do some work unzipping the file
 >capture2b.zip (my browser couldn't do it
 >automatically).   WinZip did however.

 >I saw one and then two "boxes" dancing around
 >the screen as if the cameraman had shaky hands.
 >At times there were more.

 >Unless I'm mistaken, The "boxes" appear to be over-enlarged
 >pixels, i.e. one, two or three night-lights maneuvering with
 >respect to one another (in addition to camera jiggle of course.

 >There are no other objects (trees etc.) to put things in
 >perspective, just lights dancing in the blue.

 >There isn't much I can add to that.

 >Best wishes (now drop the pin please!)


Hi Larry,

Well let's get this ball rolling shall we!

Firstly I should mention that, the footage on my site is
compressed down to a small file, hence the shaky over pixel
appearance. But if you would like to really look at this case, I
am sure that Dave Bowden would not mind sending you a high
quality CD of this footage and more.

Chris does have a big library of footage, which does include
trees, houses aeroplanes etc., all in the same shot as the UFOs,
if that is what you are looking for then this is on tape. This
footage if viewed at the high quality standard of the CD which
Dave has is remarkable, that is one of the main reasons I am
pushing this footage to be debated, it is rare to get high
quality UFO video footage, and Chris has managed to get it.

So please do not judge the whole Chris Martin footage from  my
web site, that footage is only there to let people find out
about Chris and his footage. You will not be let down in asking
for the CD from Dave, and you will be able to have a better
judgement on the whole footage itself.

Thanks Larry for taking the time to write about this case, it's
a pity the UK guys aren't so vocal!

Best,

Roy..

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:16:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:53:10 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Dave wrote:

 >>Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:12:06 +0000
 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Good post Roy,

 >>The record shows the List was informed of this _new_ footage (I
 >>even wrote privately to some researchers) all was met with the
 >>same 'deadly silence' you mentioned.

 >>Curiouser and Curiouser.

 >Hi Dave,

 >Well I am staggered, it seems now that a case which has
 >excellent footage to back it up, has been thrown into the
 >debating arena and suddenly everything goes quiet?

Hello Roy, Dave, All,

This is 'par for the course' gentlemen. I have viewed one of the
clips that you have posted at the website. This is exactly the
same kind of "UFO" video that has been coming out of Mexico
since 1991. Tom King, Bill Hamilton, John Bro, myself, and
several others have been recording _daylight_ objects performing
all kinds of wild acrobatics for years. I'm talking about
_UFOs_, not balloons, birds, airplanes, or blimps.

It _all_ gets ignored.

Chris's video is great because it is so close-up. But it's no
different from many other recordings that people have been
submitting for quite some time. Maybe you're all fired up
because the video originates in England. But where have you been
on the material that has been coming out of Mexico all this
time? Haven't you seen how it is all dismissed as the results of
videotaped "Party balloons" or a product of "Adobe Premiere"?
Why would you expect Chris's video to receive different
treatment?

You're not going to get a big rise out of anybody on this side
of the pond I can promise you that. I've seen it time and again.
Video has been labelled unsuitable as evidence for anything only
because software exists that can reproduce anything that you can
imagine. We're caught in a catch 22. The only way that Chris or
myself or anybody else can prove that we saw what we claim we
saw is to record the event as best we can. Film or video. But
the minute you make your report and try to back it up with your
film/video it gets dismissed because "anybody can fake it,"...
and then, it gets ignored.

Good luck drumming up interest in Europe for Chris's video.
Here, it's just another video that could have been faked by
anybody with the right software.

And, it doesn't matter if the video is a recording of an actual
real time event. Real or not, if can be faked then it must be,
and it gets dumped into the circular file! The anti-UFO people
have everybody convinced that everybody is lying, that all video
or film is fake, and that you cannot trust your own eyes, or
your own memory.

"You know where to put the cork!" -- 'Tommy' - The Who

How "psychologically healthy" does that all that sound to you
Bunky?

Sorry more folks aren't paying attention. Chris's video _is_ a
valuable/excellent document. And yes, you'll probably still be
debating Chris's video 17 years from now.  ;)

Regards gents,

John Velez, Been dere, done dat!

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                  Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:46:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:41:53 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO sightings in August 1978 - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:53:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO sightings in August 1978
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:42:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: Toronto List <>
 >>Subject: UFO sightings in August 1978

 >Larry, List:

 >In my recent post about the WOW signal, I meant to refer to your
 >Hourly Sightings Histogram, showing a peak of UFO sightings
 >around the midnight hours, not your Sidereal Histogram.

 >But, now that I mentioned it, why do you think UFO reports
 >cluster around the 18 to 23 hours in Right Ascension. I believe
 >that it is due to the fact that this is in the summer months for
 >the midnight hours.

 >For evidence is this, I refer to your Days of the Year
 >Histogram, with its modest peak during the summer, which is also
 >probably related to the modest peak for the Sidereal Histogram.

 >Hey, man: hours of fun riffling through your stuff.


Hi Bob!

The hourly histogram for all data shows a definite buildup
during the night hours. The peak appears to be around 2100-2200
hrs ( 9:00 or 10:00 PM ) and no doubt it is a combination of
night, plus the fact lots of people haven't gone to bed yet.

Vallee and others have theorized the same peak would shift into
the wee hours if somehow normalized to account for potential
witnesses in bed asleep! I tend to agree, but have no reliable
way to test the theory. Here's the graph for all data online:

http://www.jps.net/larryhat/HOURLY.html

This peak of night sightings, superimposed on the somewhat
higher summer sightings counts, must indeed have a big effect on
the sidereal distribution.

To test this, I captured three "sidereal" screens and converted
them to .gif images. These are:

a) All data for all months ( AllMonths.gif)
b) June,July,Aug + Sept only (AllSummer.gif)
c) All months _except_ J+J+A+S ( NoSummer.gif)

These images are clear and reasonably short, roughly 12 to 17 KB
each. I will send all three to anybody who wants to look.

Please email me offlist <larryhat@jps.net> and ask for the three
Sidereal gif files.

Here's what they show:

a) For the hours 0 - 15 RA (right ascension or stellar
longitude) sightings counts are from 400 to 508, i.e. middling
and surprisingly steady. Then counts build up as follows

Hrs Sightings
RA  Count

17  507
18  595
19  683
20  694
21  758
22  624
23  568

The link below shows essentially the same screen:

http://www.jps.net/larryhat/SIDEREAL.html

b) For Summer Months only (all dates in June, July, August and
September) I get a much different picture. (AllSummer.gif ...
ask for attachment)

The curve swoops from a low level in the low hours (RA) smoothly
up to a rather grandiose peak at 19 hrs RA... no doubt (but not
entirely) due to the superimposition of Summer and late evening
sightings as Bob suggests. This curve trails right back down for
the "last" hours/RA 21, 22 and 23, but not so low as the "first"
hours.

c) For all months _except_ the four Summer months, (Jn Jy Ag Sp
excluded ) I get an entirely different picture. (NoSummer.gif
...ask for attachment)

This one surprises me in fact.

All "hours" of RA are pretty much at the same general levels ..
_except_ for a pronounced trough of sightings counts between 13
and 20 hrs/RA. This falls into a "pit" of inactivity between 18
and 18 hrs/RA that is about half the counts of the "general"
level.

I'm not prepared to speculate what this might imply, if indeed
anything. If at all interested, I invite list readers to email
for the three .gif files and take a squint at them.

One last note:

I show 6914 listings for the 4 months (JJAS) for 39% of my data,
about 1728 cases per month.

I show 10833 cases for the other 8 months, around 61% of data,
about 1354 cases per month.

This is no surprise at all. People are up later... outdoors...
in the woods, on the highway, out in the countryside more in the
Summer.

Seasons are reversed South of the Equator, but the majority of
my listings (88%) are in the Northern Hemisphere so these data
will predominate.


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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:57:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:45:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:56:28 -0500

 >>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:39:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:28:31 -0500

 >>>Actually, 18 is the correct number, but I keep forgetting about
 >>>the one sighting I had at my friend Denise's house.

 >>>A small dark grey oval-shaped object travelling across the sky,
 >>>which would _flare_up_ 6 or 7 times at intervals of 7 seconds
 >>>before eventually disappearing.

 >>>I apologize...

 >>Hello Michel:

 >>OK, 18 sightings, not an issue.

 >>The 18th one at Denise's house sounds an awful lot like the
 >>apparent space-junk re-entry I saw a few years back.

 >>Spectacular really, it would flare up and down, different colors
 >>in succession, as if different materials were flaming up in the
 >>atmosphere in sequence.

 >>As for the shape, its about impossible to say given it was
 >>hidden in its own surrounding plasma. Any oddly shaped object
 >>seen at great distance will seem to resolve into an oval
 >>shape... or more or less "round" if its far enough away...
 >>finally a pinpoint of light at greatest visible distance.

 >>I take it your object did no maneuvers, but simply kept going on
 >>a more or less ballistic curve. If you call this a UFO, then I
 >>have no problem with anyone having seen 10, 20 or more over the
 >>years.

 >>For me, the simplest assumption is that it was mundane, as in
 >>manmade or possibly natural. I wouldn't be putting it into a UFO
 >>catalog.

 >Larry,

 >Why is it that UFO sightings have to be exciting and fantastic?
 >Some of the sightings I've had were the most boring ones
 >compared to the others, but still fell out side of the
 >_man-made_ or _natural_phenomena_ bracket.

 >We humans have a tendency to complicate things all the time.
 >I'm betting that UFOs are a lot simpler to distinguish from
 >everyday things than we tend to believe.

 >At least, most of us UFO eyewitnesses know this for a fact.

 >Michel


Hello Michel:

I never implied that sightings need be exciting or fantastic. In
fact, some of the more fantastic ones raise high doubts in my
mind... contactee reports for example.

I merely asked if the flaring ovoid maneuvered or not.

Other than that, its probably better to drop the entire matter.


Good luck:


- 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 > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:48:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:44:58 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>>But remember, it would not have been a single saucer image that
 >>>the supposed hoaxers would have had to superimpose. It would
 >>>have required how many? 20 or 30 or 50 separate images, pasted
 >>>in one after the other in the proper combination, every frame or
 >>>two, to make the craft appear to be rotating about its vertical
 >>>axis while wobbling in a precessing manner at the same time as
 >>>it traversed.

 >>>I don't see the simplicity in that assumption of yours.

I replied:

 >>Here's the odd thing about your position. On the one hand, you
 >>give the proposed ETs an incredible benefit of the doubt, not
 >>only regarding their very existence, but in regard to how far
 >>advanced they are in their technology.

Jim now writes:

 >If they can get here from there with craft that can withstand
 >many hundreds of g's acceleration, and can suddenly vanish from
 >sight, they're very, very far advanced over us. Why forget that
 >simple fact?

Jim,

It's not a fact. You would _like_ it to be a fact. But the truth
is you are giving your proposed ETs more slack than you do the
human race. While you acknowledge the ETs super advanced
technology to justify any problems with the video you,
ironically, ignore human based technology that would logically
account for the very video you claim proves your point.

Regarding such, I had written:

 >>I speak of simple, off the shelf non-linear programs like
 >>Premier, made by Adobe, or Reel Time, made by Pennacle, or Speed
 >>Razor, or Avid, or Media 100, or DPS's Velocity system, just to
 >>name a few. ALL of these systems are available for less than
 >>$5,000 and will work on any PC based system with at a minimum of
 >>256 megs of RAM and a mere 350MZ processor. These systems ALL
 >>allow for sophisticated layering and programming moves of
 >>objects to be placed in pre-existing footage. They can layer up
 >>to 99 different tracks of video and produce mattes that defy
 >>detection, if used properly. And, unlike your assumption, this
 >>does NOT have to be done on a frame-by-frame basis. I use
 >>Premier all the time in my effects work and the kind of moves
 >>necessary in the Mexico footage are simple to program.

Jim replied:

 >But you didn't even mention how one would cause the UFO image to
 >precess and also rotate. And evidently you're not permitted to
 >use the "paste on lighter" command, since the brightness of the
 >panel doesn't seem to darken as the UFO goes behind the building
 >top.

Jim, the systems will do all of that and more. And by the way,
the "paste on lighter" command is not even a function one would
consider using when programming a layered move like the one seen
in the video footage. It is obvious that you have done zero
research in this matter. But then again, why would you? Bruce
has clearly illustrated the problems with the video. You use the
same argument that fundamental religious types do in their
argument that the earth is only 5000 years old. When presented
with the geological record or the fossils of dinosaurs that date
back millions of years, their answer is that God, with all His
powers, created the Earth with a false geological and fossil
record to test those that don't "believe". I have no doubt that
you have a bumper sticker that reads,

"The aliens did it. I believe it. And that settles it."

Continuing, Jim wrote:

 >If it's so simple, why don't you get hold of a similar city
 >scene and fake up a few minute's worth of UFO video with the
 >same level of complexity? No one else has yet done it. Show us!
 >If you could accomplish it with the same level of realism as in
 >the Mexico City video, you'd make quite a splash. Your UFO image
 >must precess as well as rotate quickly, and pass behind the top
 >of a building having a light-colored panel near the top.

The issue isn't about simplicity, Jim. It's about the
make-believe technology of the make-believe aliens that you
prefer over the real technology of real humans you give no
credit to because it would threaten your position on the issue.

Finally, Jim wrote:

 >In the meantime, some of us are still waiting for you to come up
 >with that truck mirror!

I've presented the truck mirror that does the trick for me. Does
it do the trick for you? Nothing would, I think, because the
aliens could just be faking us out.

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Nov > Nov 30

               Re: [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:08:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:07:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files -


 >From: Martin Jasek <mjjasek@yknet.yk.ca>
 >To: canufo <canufo@egroups.com>
 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:52:24 -0700
 >Subject: [canufo] Declassified Canadian UFO Files

 >Hello group

 >A few weeks ago I received in the mail a copy of 5 microfilm
 >reels showing declassified Canadian UFO sighting reports,
 >RG(Record Group)-24 and RG-77. I know there are a few on this
 >list that have gone through some (or all?)of these. Any ways, I
 >have them as long as I want since I bought them. $30 each after
 >shipping and GST. I could use some help. Anybody have the legend
 >what each piece of information designated by a letter stands for
 >on the sighting report forms?

 >A:
 >B:
 >C:...

 >They typically standing for such things as date, location,
 >color, etc. I believe this is the NRC report form. Is the
 >military one used in CIRVIS reports equivalent?

 >Has anybody come up with some sort of index for these microfilm
 >reels. I am planning to get a bunch of volunteers together and
 >pick out all the Yukon sightings. While we are at it, it may be
 >a good idea for us to jot down a basic index of what is on them.
 >By basic, I mean Date and location.

Hi Martin,

The A,B,C code designation is from the CFAO 71-6 reporting form.

A means Date and time of sighting [UCT Time]

B       Condition of sky [clear, cloudy, hazey etc.]

C       I dentification of observer

D       Location of observer at the time of sighting

E       Identification of other persons present and observing
         UFO

F       Description of sighting [shape, colour, altitude,
         movement]

G       Duration of observation of UFO[s]

H       Other relevent information

You will sometimes see two of the letters together which means
that information concerning both codes should be included there.

The CFAO 71-6 form is the military form. CFAO means Canadian
Forces Action Order.

The Canadian National Research Council never investigated UFOs
unless they were determined to be meteors etc. That all they
were interested in. After the Royal Canadian Air Force's Air
Desk was shut down in Ottawa, Canada [at least publicly it
seems] stopped investigating UFOs. NRC took over in January of
1968. Unification of the forces was one of the reasons.

CIRVIS reports were/are made in accordance [in Canada and the
United States] with their civil air regulations. FARs in the
States and now CARs in Canada.

I mentioned before that I have the CERVIS report and the
inherent form on disk and never got an answer from anybody. It's
76 pages long. BTW, a fellow by the name of 'UFO Joe' - Joe
Daniels - had a classification set-up for the Micro-Film
material, but he dropped out of sight a year or so agao due to
family problems. He also had a way of viewing the MFs privately.
If anybody knows his address maybe they could contact him. He's
in Canada, I think out West somewhere, perhaps Manitoba. Maybe
Chris Rutkowski knows him?

Don Ledger